Forum Replies Created
- Posts
anyway and someone told me Matt Chapman was getting up tight about it the other day so thats another good reason for sticking with it.
Must almost certainly mean you are correct too, RIchard.
Pat rules the exchanges with an iron fist, from what I have heard. Is he Fist Of Fury 2k8?
Unbelievers!
(Alderbrook would have had no chance on the prevailing ground, without even considering how good Istabraq was)
Even though there are those who thought he was a ‘big mouth’ at least he had a big brain to go with it. It would be a travesty if he reappears on our screens fronting the likes of the shopping channel or quiz call.
Matt will be back. I can already hear him shouting "Bring On The Wall"…
Hi Guys
I am new to this forum and this is my first post!!
I just feel I have to stick up for Matt, I think the guy knows his stuff and I find him really entertaining. I never realised he was so unpopular with the viewersLooks like the CEO of Permatan is bricking himself over the news.
OK calm down AP!!!! I am merely asking a question so as to seek clarity as I do not see a whole lot of difference between what happens on a regular basis and goes unpunished, and what has happened in the case of Dean McKeown.
I am off on hols for two weeks now, so cannot go into any great detail now but will happily review my betting records going back to 2002 when I first kept exhaustive records and start pinpointing horses for you that have led me to form my theory.
In the meantime, Conduit was clearly not ridden to obtain the best possible position on seasonal debut, unless you agree with the typical excuses I am sure were trotted out at the time which were stable slow to get going with its three years olds, horses from their yard need their first runs, etc etc. Given his subsequent achievements (a Breeders Cup Turf in particular) it strikes me as difficult to argue he was ridden to win that race, especially when one considers when he was 11/8 favourite next time up he duly found the start of the remarkable improvement that led to Santa Anita. Strange that?
Also, I wasn’t just referring to Stoute. One case in point is Capucci of John Gosden’s. In fact this is probably the one that most springs to my mind when sympathising with the plight of McvKeown. There is no way in a million years yon can tell me this very well bred horse was ridden with any modicum of urgency on his 3 runs in maidens. The he goes form being a 12/1, 66/1 and 25/1 shot, to being a well backed 15/8 favourite off 75 and duly hacks up. Admittedly he struggled thereafter to win, but for me that horse was not allowed to perform to the best of his ability on three previous starts. Some people clearly knew this as they punted him off the boards in a competitive looking handicap with only 4lbs covering the field, and he hosed up. Where is the difference between what happened here and what happened with McKeown on Tuesday, in terms of the betting public being deceived? Or am I missing something?
firefox – take heed of what AP is saying. Even if it is your view and even if you think you can back up what you say are you happy to go to court to defend it?
There are more serious racing folk read this forum than other (imo!) and whilst it probably would not be worth their while, I think you would struggle to actually prove your case – bear in mind the recent race fixing trials and inability to prove in court certain rides were ‘cheating’.
I assume you think this is ‘just’ a place to express opinions, but please bear in mind the internet places permanent records of things said and libel laws still apply.
I’m not that naive to pretend it never happened before exchanges, but NOT on the scale of recent years,
leave the sweet shop open all night unattended and honest people become shoplifters.
A number of ex jockeys books have suggested that unscrupulous activities happened with some regularity, Barry.
Regarding the sweet shop analogy, the difference is that now the shoplifters leave an audit trail. Would you be in a position to open up your records to confirm every bet and who made it? Whilst additional accounts can clearly be set up on the exchanges, significant values of laying or backing will still be spotted on betfair. A traditional bookie – as far as I am aware – does not make such patterns clear to the BHB (or similar) on such a regular basis.
Betfair could be and possibly is a licence for cheats, but it also has more regulation than the rest of the industry.
Any Horse (GB)… (Any Trainer) …Simon Whitworth s.i.s: in rr: nt clr run: late hdwy: kpt on ins fnl f
You missed ‘bltnt arsht’.
Blockley has been banned before and come back – I assume the same will happen again.
Failing that, perhaps he can get Russ Wilman to resurrect his training career.
Exeter did it for Best Mate so dont see why Monmouth cannot do it for Big Brown.
How will he cope with the tight bends and the distraction of the hare?
Actually, you can get them framed by the Post can’t you!
£24.99 for the photo (24×20) or £79.99 for the framed print. Actually seems pricey to me. Perhaps just the t-shirt at £14.99
You could order from the Racing Post site, albeit you would need to mount and frame the photograph yourself.
http://www.racingpostpix.co.uk/dmcs_search.html?find=george+washington
I think most of racings problems with corruption come down to the difference between opinion of racing folk and "proof".
I’ve never ridden a horse and unless they start to be bred with stabilisers and the ability to carry an unfit Gary Wiltshire impersonator then I never will.
How do you ‘prove’ a jockey hasn’t tried? It’s all arbitrary. We might ‘know’ (sorry for the apostrophes, but I have to show it is not known) when a horse is trying on the basis of where it runs, the price, the trainer, the jockey etc but it is not a legal burden of proof.
However, turning the argument around, I would be intruiged to hear a jockeys legal argument in proving a horse had run on its merits. I would imagine a similar inability to prove would be found.
A particular difficulty with such reviews is, of course, that the experts that are called upon are ex-jockeys.
Is Firefox Baldrick in disguise?
His cunning plan for the man in the street to protect himself appears to be for said man to steer clear of anything that seems value.
Or maybe it is to only plough in after the price has shortened and it’s clear the horse is fancied.
Can anyone see any flaws in this strategy?
An increase in the price of turnips?
