- This topic has 144 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I, too, want the evidence from Rory of lameness and injury as a result of Saturday’s racing at Ascot.
Thanks in advance, Rory, for providing this data, look forward to discussing it.
Big Buck’s & Jose1993 – do you (both) find it really so difficult to understand my posts? I never claimed that firm ground was dangerous and have made the point of reiterating that, and yet you still come back demanding evidence for me about the unsafeness of Saturday’s surface. Perhaps to deflect from the misguided notion that Ascot’s decision to water borderline firm ground (with hot sunny weather forecast)was "utter nonsense totally unnecessary, and pathetic". I’d argue, as would most sane people on this forum, that Ascot’s watering policy was none of those things and nor was it an attempt to "prevent any more fast times" or materially alter the going. Don’t you see that the fast ground on Saturday actually militates against your rant(s), rather than supports it?
Well as you put yourself before the watering took place (Wednesday, I think) where the ground should be easier than it was on Saturday, 2 horses finished lame and many others were struggling to handle it. So, as the going-stick readings are now higher, tell me how many horses finished lame and then I can draw some conclusions on whether Stickels was right to water and if it’s safe to race on FIRM ground.
It was practically Firm for the last couple of days if you go by times, but the jockeys were happy with it.
I see nothing wrong with Firm ground, and for those who do from the supposed "welfare" point of view, go and get NH Racing banned first.
Sometimes racecourses get the watering or ground discription wrong. Sometimes (only sometimes) official good-firm is actually firm, firm is actually hard and so on. In most cases it’s not their fault, everyone makes mistakes. Watering is an inexact science.
Yes Jose, it was practically firm wasn’t it? If not unofficially firm the last couple of days. And the jockeys were happy with it. So it was FIRM AFTER watering. So what would it have been had they not watered? Might I guess officially Firm, UNOFFICIALLY HARD.
You’ve just proved my point. If racecourses water to produce FIRM going, they run a significant risk of actually getting HARD ground. If that hard going is unofficial (called officially firm) there is widespread non-runners / very small field sizes. If it’s official it’s Royal Ascot abandonned due to unsafe ground.
It was always going to be on the firm side with watering.
Value Is EverythingRory I don’t understand your posts and with respect, they don’t say very much and are rather vague.
Ginger, where does hard ground come from? It was officially good to firm, good round the bend. So far as I know they were applying very little water compared to the 10mm+ drenching of last year (which no-one refers to, can’t think why). So where does the notion of hard ground come from?
Good to firm, firm in places was never even officially reached.
THe loose and arbitrary association of any going description as "perfect" and with any watering as "necessary" has pervaded the outlook of the sport.
I’ve never heard the hard ground angle though, that’s a new one I’ll admit.
BB,
May be it was officially good-firm good in places, but anyone looking at times on the first day would see there were very few if any actual good spots.
It ended up officially good-firm. But as JOSE says, the times suggested it was "practically firm", which I agree with. So if it was bordering on firm with watering, it might have been bordering on (if not truly (unofficially) HARD going on the final day WITHOUT watering.Value Is EverythingFully understand Drone and Jeremy’s arguements, they have good points to make. But BB and Jose seem to be ignoring or twisting what myself and Rory say to suit their own point of view.
Value Is EverythingI don’t think that has happened. But agree clarity is a major problem for us all and, as pointed out by someone else, it would be nice if things were stated fully and clearly by racecourses and the BHA as a matter of course, with clearly defined measurements, protocol and evidence.
FWIW I think slow progress is being made, but it has taken some very loud drums being beaten for anything at all to happen. A lot more needs to be done.
I’ll sign off the debate there.
Big Buck’s & Jose1993 – do you (both) find it really so difficult to understand my posts? I never claimed that firm ground was dangerous and have made the point of reiterating that, and yet you still come back demanding evidence for me about the unsafeness of Saturday’s surface. Perhaps to deflect from the misguided notion that Ascot’s decision to water borderline firm ground (with hot sunny weather forecast)was "utter nonsense totally unnecessary, and pathetic". I’d argue, as would most sane people on this forum, that Ascot’s watering policy was none of those things and nor was it an attempt to "prevent any more fast times" or materially alter the going. Don’t you see that the fast ground on Saturday actually militates against your rant(s), rather than supports it?
The problem is there’s not a whole lot worth trying to understand. You suggested the ground on Wednesday needed watering as two horses finished lame and many were ill at ease. That was a direct suggestion imo that the Good To Firm, which is what it was at that point in time, was unsafe, and as such it needed watering. What other explanation is there? In other words, why mention two horses finishing lame and then not discuss Saturday’s carnage and casualty figures? They surely must be related.
And I don’t see how any of my rants are hurt by Saturday. In fact, I feel they were supported. I feel Stickels did a relatively good job. In fact, better than any clerk of the course has done in the last couple of years. He never excessively watered, like I feared he would, and he allowed Firm ground to be Firm on the final day. He probably can’t actually call it Firm for other reasons. One of which might be the animal rights protesters or the BHA’s mandatory policy. Was he right to water on Wednesday? Yes, if he’s watering to, at the time, maintain Good To Firm for Thursday and allowing the ground to progress to Firm on Friday or Saturday, yes he was right.
Gingertipster, if you can water to maintain Good To Firm ground, why can’t Firm ground be maintained by watering?
The first call on ATR’s On The Line programme was about this very topic – watering. It is a big issue, and I’m convinced some have fallen for the safety, welfare nonsense. Certain courses do water to alter the ground, some in fact water Good To Firm ground to make it Good. The names Kirkland Tellwright and Seamus Buckley are the first anyone who follows this issue would think of. And of course it all relates back to one thing – Gross Profits Tax and racing’s broken business model, as Matt Chapman mentioned.
‘Certain courses do water to alter the ground, some in fact water Good To Firm ground to make it Good. The names Kirkland Tellwright and Seamus Buckley are the first anyone who follows this issue would think of. And of course it all relates back to one thing – Gross Profits Tax ‘
Except that GPT is what bookies pay to the Govt not to racing. I assume you mean that the levy is now profit based rather than turnover based. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theory there is no way that a clerk or a racecourse can materially benefit from that link by their own watering tactics.
The only way that individual racecourses benefit directly from generating increased off course bettingturnover
is by qualifying for incentive payments to stage meetings on days which are not popular with racegoers but which are important to drive off course turnover. How watering to thwart punters is supposed to increase interest and turnover is not clear? Such days would be moderate midweeks in general, but are particularly focussed towards the early days and the fag end of the turf season on the flat. The total amount of such incentive payments equates to only about 5% of the levy.
There are some people it seems who demand accountability from clerks and demand evidence to support the actions of a sporting authority but don’t feel any need to be either accountable or in possession of facts to make their own demands.
Had the first 6 home in the Golden Jubilee or the Britannia come from the stands side you can just imagine the ‘X files’ bs we’d have been treated to. Again, with no accountability and no evidence. We nearly had an outbreak after just 2 races on the Wednesday which doesn’t bear thinking about it terms of the damage that might have needlessly been done to the sport.To Clarify:
2003: Fayr Jag & Ratio dead-heated as winners
2004: Lafi won it
2005: Iffraaj won it at york.Called the Wokingham, in each above case, the race was won on
FIRM GROUND
Not Good to Firm
Not Good to Firm (watered)
Not Good to Firm (good in places) (watering to maintain)
Not Good to Firm (Firm in places) (watering).It was officially
Firm Ground
.
Those horses showed no ill-effects whatsoever from winning an ultra-competitive handicap on lightning quick ground. They all went on to win several races each after their Wokingham wins, bar Lafi who went as close as is possible on 2 occasions after.
Firm ground is no barrier to excellent sport.
I started the thread
The above is the reason why watering to maintain ground that is Good to Firm, Good in places, is pathetic. If some people can’t see the myriad problems to have been unleashed by the watering scam, they are blinding themselves on purpose. I will always laugh at people who cite welfare. Utter nonsense.And at Ascot this year, where the ground was always, in reality, verging on firm ground, what happened?
The very best horses won the best races, in fast times and many were thoroughly predictable. But we can’t have those conditions as a rule can we?
The heavens would open were that to be allowed.
You obviously missed this Sean.
There is, as you are aware, a quite extraordinary amount of evidence gathered on the Clerkwatch thread(s) on Betfair. The evidence is crystal clear, the ‘defence’ for it is as muddy as hell and plenty of people don’t buy it for a second.I was referring specifically BB to the (quite often repeated) claim that some clerks are deliberately altering the racing surface in order to disadvantage punters. The poster I quoted actually names some clerks and explicitly makes the link between their actions and a profit related levy income stream for racing. This makes no sense.
The directive regarding going conditions applies to all courses. Even if there were some ‘rogue’ clerks who were deliberately following a secret ante punter watering agenda there is no way in which such a tactic could benefit their own racecourse financially.
I appreciate that many disagree with the current going guidelines that the BHA has in place. I’m not certain that I personally would have the same guidelines as the BHA if I were in charge of the sport and I’m open to persuasion on the merits of other policies. But I’m not in charge of the sport and I have no objection to the BHA issuing guidelines on this topic as it sees fit. That for me is the bottom line on this topic. Is the BHA entitled to have the policy in place? For me, the answer is yes.
I know that many disagree with that. That’s fine. What’s not fine is to make anonymous unsubstantiated attacks on individuals’ honesty with no evidence to support such attacks.
There is a very simple answer to the question that your original post posed. Why are Ascot watering? Because that action is necessary in order to run racing at the track in accordance with the sports governing body’s guidelines.
That you disagree with those guidelines is clear. That the guidelines are wrong is a subjective view to which you and everyone else is fully entitled. Others are equally entitled to consider the guidelines reasonable. The debate between the various views has been well illustrated by the various arguments made on this thread. Those who oppose the current guidelines will need to persuade the sport of the need for change.
- Total Posts 17716
Sean
Are you suggesting that course managements haven’t deliberately altered field size limits specifically to disadvantage punters? If not, I’d like to see a sane and justifiable reason for Kempton’s elastic safety limits, for instance.
Therefore, if they’re capable of doing one to suit their paymasters, it’s surely a bold shout to say they’re not capable of doing the other.Reet Hard
It is for you to decided whether it is ‘sane or justifiable’ but when I asked Jockey Club racecourses as to why they had a flexible safety limit for some heritage days, they said it was because they get a higher standard of both horse and jockey on that day.
- Total Posts 17716
And of course, DJ, being of higher standard, both jockeys and horses are naturally thinner?
No Reet I didn’t say that, we’ve been talking about Ascot. Nor am I an apologist or an advocate for bookmakers. I’m just giving a personal view as an individual. On the subject of field sizes at Kempton though, since you raise it, explain to me how a reduction in field size would be of disadvantage to punters and benefit to the racecourse?
Here’s a few stats (or facts) to help.
% of winning favourites in handicaps at Kempton aw when max field size is 16 26.82%
max field sixe is 14 27%
max field size is 12 27.76%
max field size is 10 30.05%
max field size is 8 30.52%
I know there is the place part to factor in but of course the prices will do that depending on how many places are available to be paid.
So, even if Kempton’s safety limit were decided by a factor other than safety what evidence is there of it being used to specifically disadvantage punters and how would the racecourse itself benefit from that?- Total Posts 17716
Sean
As I’m sure you are well aware, safety limits at Lingfield and Southwell were formerly 16 runners, and it still is at Kempton, erm,…….when it suits them. None of the courses are any less wide that they were then, yet they all see fit to reduce fields to where the bookmakers no longer have to pay 4 places. I’m equally sure you’re aware of the tepid excuses used to justify this. i.e; stabling limitations (which are no different from before, and rarely exceeded at any of the meetings anyway) and stalls being made in blocks of 7 instead of 8 (though God knows who else has the kind of clout to demand custom sizes – bar the racecourses).
As the vast majority of on-course bookmakers don’t bet eachway anyway, it’s hardly a quantum leap to surmise whom actually benefits from these field size reductions, or indeed, to properly justify them for any other reason. Equally, as anyone with more than a passing interest in the sport is aware, any move that reduces off-course payouts has a direct effect on levy income, which in turn has a direct effect on payments to the courses and prize money.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.