Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Personally I don’t see what the spectacle is with water jumps. Watching a race from trackside or stands you don’t really know it is different to any other jump, unless of course a horse jumps it badly and you see a splash or worse. So I would prefer they are got rid of IF they are more dangerours than other jumps. That comes down to statistics around percentage of fallers, of fatalities etc. which I don’t think anyone has, certainly no-one has posted.
I don’t know why some posters feel the need to be flippant about a subject like this. Fine, disagree, put up facts, counter arguments etc. but smart-ass comments about road safety and every obstacle being dangerous just betray a deep-seated low self-esteem.
It would be an interesting race. However I think Ascot is right in the middle of his holidays; maybe the Ces later in the year?
Would he fit in the stalls? I remember Spencer commenting that Detroit City only just fit.
Good call davidbrady. It is silly for an offence in a class 6 to trigger a ban on a group day, and devalues the punishment for an offence in a group 1 to prevent the jockey riding at Wolverhampton, Cheltenham or whatever.
I think I remember reading a bit ago that there may be a chance of it being moved from Santa Anita this year because of those track problems. Anyone know anything about this? It would be annoying to have plane tickets and hotel booked then find it is moved elsewhere.
That was a "great" performance; surely the horse qualifies for "greatness" if he keeps reproducing it in the future? I hope he does.
Reminds me of Denmans performance in the 2006 Challow Novices’ Hurdle at Cheltenham. Different type of race and opposition I know but both performances look special. Similar superlatives used after both performances also.
Oops, I seem to have started a bit of an argument.
The odd winner seems to be coming through now. Crocodiles Rock ran well yesterday at Hereford; I know he didn’t win but I don’t think that was due to fitness or health.
Maybe the bug or whatever has gone.I do wish Jonjo would be a bit more open in interviews. I have seen a couple on TV when he brushes aside any questions about stable form and comes out with he usual "he’s in grand form, we’re hoping for a good run" etc. A few other trainers seem more helpful when there is a problem in the yard.
Oh come on it’s not that bad. It’s friendly, reasonable bars, decent screen. Go up to the top of the stand and you can see 80% of the track, just the bit behind the hill hidden.
It is really cold ‘though, especially at the top of the stand, but you don’t expect Royal Ascot weather at jump meetings anyway, do you?
Look at http://www.tripadvisor.com for some hotel reviews; I live near Warwick so obviously have no experience of local hotels. If you have a car consider Stratford-Upon-Avon; quite close and a few places to go out at night.
Best meeting is Saturday 12th January. Second best 9th February but that does clash with Newbury.
Oh and obviously weather is a threat this time of year. I don’t think they have extensive frost covers, and although the track itself takes rain well it can soffer from water running off the road and waterlogging a part of the course.
yeats Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject:
——————————————————————————–
Would it be fair to include a similar ride from Ireland or America where the jockey would receive no ban?
It would be fair, because in that case the jockey would not have broken the rules and cheated. In my opinion not worthy of a candidate for ride of the week, but still a valid choice.
I think there are two aspects to this issue.
First is animal welfare. Many people do not believe it is right to hit a horse excessively, and hope that the whip rules prevent this. Further people are somewhat put-off racing by seeing behaviour similar to Thornton’s, which I think is unfortunate for the sport. It doesn’t matter what the trainers circumstances or whatever happen to be, it is wrong. I support this point of view, but do see that some people do not care much about the animals involved and the cruelty argument is irrelevent to them.
Second is the cheating aspect. There are quite clear rules about use of the whip, and ignoring the rules to try make the horse go better is cheating, plain and simple. If Christian Williams on Halcon had whipped his horse with the same vigour as Thornton maybe Halcon would have won, it was very close. Who knows? No-one, because Williams played within the rules and Thornton cheated, and may have profited from his cheating. How does Williams feel? How do the punters who backed Halcon feel?
This aspect has nothing to do with animal welfare, and I do not understand how people with any interest in the sport can condone breaking the rules to affect the outcome of the race.My solution?
I do think the whip should be retained; in skillful hands it is a useful tool and if used within the rules is acceptable. The only way to stop people using it to cheat is to stop it being worth their while.
So bans when the rules are broken, jockey loses their share of the prize money for first few offences, owners and trainers lose their share of the prize money with persistent offenders. Make jockeys stick by the rules or else they can’t play the game.
I think the placing of the horses should stand from betting point of view; the stewards should be judging whether the rules have been broken not who might have won the race if they had not been.