Forum Replies Created
- Posts
It was all down to incompetent officialdom.
1 The Starter – It should not have been called a false start, there are races every day of the week were stalls open before others. Why aren’t they all called false starts? What was so special about this one?
As the stall must have opened after the starter pressed the button what was the problem? Nothing wrong with a horse getting a fast start.2 The Flagman – Was stood in totally the wrong position and only waved his flag while wandering off.
Something I’ve not heard mentioned was if some of the runners had decided not to run on the stands side but to go further across the course, the flagman would have been in their way. It’s not up to a flagman to presume where riders are going to go.He should have been stood 4 or 5 stalls out from the stands rail directly in front of the runners, waved his flag and then gone under the rail.
3 The Director of raceday operations and regulations – For not making sure the above 2 were sufficiently trained to do their jobs properly.
But this has always been the case. Profit margins on horse-racing nowadays are generally regarded to be around 15% to the bookmaker, this being backed up by William Hills’ 2013 results.
When I was working for Stanley Racing in the early/mid-80’s, over-the-counter horse racing returns were 83%, so 17% to the bookmaker. Telephone business (which accounted for very little) was a couple of points lower.
Give or take a natural variance of a percentage point here or there, bookmakers are making the exact same margins – or maybe slightly less – as they were thirty years’ ago (and presumably were in the intervening years).
What is ‘putting people off’ is not your imagined endless litany of bent races (it’s virtually certain that far more shenanigans went on years ago due to the lack of any modern testing, filming and security) but the sheer choice now available to the punter, particularly in football which is a vastly more popular sport than racing.
Furthermore, betting on sport is easy. Any football fan walking down the road probably has an opinion on Chelsea v Man Utd, whilst having a view on The St Leger will require more time and effort.
It’s interesting that you use the pejorative term ‘anorak’ to anyone who actually applies themselves to the sport. There’s a lot of that type of sneering nowadays – scientists are referred to as ‘geeks’ or ‘boffins’ whilst a footballer is a ‘genius’. Racing’s real challenge is to attract new punters to a complex sport in these dumbed-down times.
Mike
As long as those new punters don’t show too much intelligence or even have the temerity to win.
I can speak from personal experience, last year 3 losing £50 bets in highly competive handicaps on C4 with Bet 365, account closed.
I would suggest they’re not alone.Different times now than when you worked in the industry in the mid 80’s, you could get a decent bet on in those days, lucky to get 30 or 40 if that on some horses these days.
Bookies aren’t too fussed with taking a chance with horses these days, why bother when you’ve got FOBT’s in your shops?
Just a pity racing has to rely on the scum for an income.
RUK Pollute the screen again with sectional times at York
Whether you want them or not these figures cluttered up the screen and obscured the action. That should not be acceptable under any circumstances.
On a previous thread on the subject Richard Hoiles stated that he could not make reference to the sectional times during a commentary as they were delayed and only available on the RUK feed. So what use are they for RUK viewers during a live race?
The analysis from the myriad of RUK presenters and pundits at York on these sectionals times was next to nothing, even after the race.
Why is that if they are apparently so important?I’ve no problem with people using sectional times after the race if they so wish but no way should they be displayed during the "live" race which is delayed by several seconds and the actual sectional times themselves by several seconds more.
Plenty of punters are already doing it Ricky, albeit involuntary.
Backing the hundreds of non runners every week, how much levy is lost from that?
When have Bittar and his cronies ever expressed concern or disappointment at all the non runners, nevermind doing anything about it?
Nothing will change, they will just continue to walk hand in hand with the bookies, even the two racing channels and the sports daily paper are in the pockets of the bookies, it’s hopeless, you’re better off not bothering and finding another hobby.
8 meetings on Saturday but only 2 on Sunday. Barmy.
Hundreds of non runners every week, just how badly is the sport being run?
I’m frankly astonished how many non runners there are now every day yet no-one in the industry seems to care. As for 6 afternoon race meetings crazy. I’ve been told my argument is flawed but say Doncaster & Chester didn’t race today, they could save on prize money, add it to subsequent fixtures and have more valuable races
Absolutely shocking all the non runners are Phil but maybe we’re imagining it or it doesn’t really matter.
What concern have the BHA ever shown over the issue?
Even all presenters and pundits on the racing channels show absolutely no interest in the subject.
Have they ever questioned Bittar over the issue in one of their lovey dovey interviews with him?
They tell us what a good job he’s done, has he ****.Maybe all these people are just happy to trundle along as long as they can keep their snouts in the trough.
But on other hand Phil, maybe it’s just us, even on this forum there is very little interest with regards all the non runners.
8 meetings on Saturday but only 2 on Sunday. Barmy.
Hundreds of non runners every week, just how badly is the sport being run?
So you don’t want the generations to clash at all Eddie?
Dream Ahead did not clash with his elders until the July Cup, that would happen under these rules too. So it won’t encourage 3 year olds to remain in training.
That seems a bit simplistic Gingertipster, not sure what happened with Dream Ahead should be the basis of all thinking on the subject.
It could lead to a more patient approach as a 3 year old if the option is there.You don’t want generations to clash Gingertipster, as you support the BHA’s illogical approach in giving preference to older horses of lower quality than 3 year olds in races like The Ebor.
Seems a sensible move, apart from the horses sold abroad, even when a 3 year old has been successful having been forced to run against their elders in the top sprints like Dream Ahead & Oasis Dream, they have been retired at the end of their 3 year old career.
Could encourage horses like that to continue as 4 year olds having been aimed at the G1 3 yo race at Royal Ascot, that would be good for racing.
It was on More 4 last year, think it was mentioned on last years annual Shergar Cup thread.
Not tips for the individual races but your positives and negatives of the competition as a whole?
And what would you do to improve it?
Am sure the animal rights brigade don’t physically need to be pointed in the right direction Eddie.
It’s newcomers to our sport that might buy a Racing Post for their first foray in to horse racing… and see "abuse of the whip" against the name of umpteen jockeys "suspended"… and form totally the wrong idea of racing. ie Naive newcomers might conclude racing must be barbaric. Novice enthusiasts are unlikely to visit the BHA website anyway.
Once the public get in to the nuts and bolts of racing they can form a realistic opinion of what "abuse of the whip" actually means…
…Therefore, unless newcomers are subjected to direct animal rights propaganda very early – they do not become part of the animal rights brigade themselves. Which is what I meant by the above comment Eddie.
Gingertipster,
I’m not bothered if you read my posts but at least read them if you are quoting me. If you had done, it would have saved you making the same false claim again.
"Abuse of the whip" never appeared next to jockeys names in the Jockeys on the Sidelines column so that kind of scuppers your far fetched theory.
apracing,
It’s not correct to say only owners & trainers with access to the Racing Admin website can make claims. Anyone with a BHA security code can make a claim, you need to apply to Weatherbys for one.
I’ve got one myself but have no access to the Racing Admin website.What’s wrong with a bit of openness and honesty, if the BHA don’t want to release certain information anymore why don’t they just say so, give their reasons and we can all move on instead of leaving people in the dark? These people should be promoting the game not doing the opposite.
I would still like disqualification in the worst cases if stewards believe the result affected by the offence. That would help to stop deliberate rule breaking in valuable races…
And… in all stewards enquiries benefit of the doubt should go to the
wronged
party. eg If stewards believe the probabilities of winning before interferance took place was 60% winner to 40% runner-up, then the runner-up should get the race. If below 40% no change.
Also, in cases where the winner’s interference has cost a wronged horse a place… That wronged horse’s connections and punters should get paid out their just deserts from the winner’s connections prize money and winning punter’s profits (like a rule 4)… without demotion of the actual placed horses.
Professional stewards panels to be brought in.
48 hour decs should be done away with, impossible in a British climate.
Very "interesting" to some I suppose Gingertipster but not sure how much of it has to do with Bittar’s tenure but then again that is common with you isn’t it?
How would the stewards enquiry go?
Lord Faultenroy -"Well m’lud I considered it a 37% chance of affecting the result"
Lord Ponsonby – "No m’lud I would definitely have it as a 43% chance"
Faultenroy – "What do we do now m’lud?"
Ponsonby – "Well we could ask the stipe but he doesn’t know what we’re talking about, best to either toss a coin or ask Gingertipster".
Faultenroy – "Toss a coin".
May be the BHA are
"promoting the game"
through
"withholding racing information"
Eddie? Or at least that might be their reasoning (whether right or wrong).
ie By not giving the animal rights brigade a list every day of jockeys banned (so many days) for so called "
abuse
of the
whip
".
May be they feel newcomers will be put off our sport by such a list in racing’s daily?
Do wish they’d use different language, in the vast majority of cases hardly "abuse" and hardly a "whip" any more.
I wonder if they will come back at a later date with some other description to the same offences. Any new description will be easier to get away with if not
immediately
replacing a more forceful vocabulary.
May be instead of "abuse of the whip" call it "over-use of the encourager".
Quite an imagination you have there Gingertipster or have you been drinking? But hey ho don’t let the facts get in the way of a little bit of fantasy.
If someone, eg the Animal Rights brigade required information about whip abuse etc surely they’d be disappointed if you pointed them in the direction of the Jockeys on the Sidelines column when it appeared in the Racing Post.
This merely confined itself to the length of time and dates when a jockey would be absent accompanied by a (s) for suspended or (i) for injured with no details at all of the offences committed or otherwise.
Meanwhile if the Animal Rights brigade etc needed detail about your whip abuse etc, doubt they’d be as naive as you appear to be and would just go on the BHA website where all whip offences are covered in great detail.
Don’t think people would pay £2.10/£2.40 a day to look at column that told you nothing about the offences when they can look online for free and get great detail of the offences.
Keep dreaming son.
You tell me?
It states in every days Racing Post "We cannot carry Claiming prices or Jockeys on the Sidelines because the BHA will no longer make it available to us. We apologise for the inconvenience".
The conditions for the claimer at Catterick on Tuesday stated "For horses reassessed since the publication of the qualifying list entry, the excess in any rating above the rating band shall be added to the horses’ price".
While I’m sure that is meat and drink to the likes of you and rob I would imagine it’s better to get the information on actual claiming prices from the official source to eliminate error.
Much simpler when the BHA supplied the info and all the claiming prices appeared at the bottom of the race.
Should the Racing Post also know the Jockeys on the Sidelines without the information being supplied by the BHA?
The BHA should be promoting the game and trying to create interest, not withholding racing information from people without good reason.
I assume the Claiming Prices referred are those that determine the race weights. Surely anyone with a spare couple of minutes can do what I used to do and work out the Claiming prices from the race weights? Or am I missing something?
Rob
Yes, the point
Just think Rob, if only the BHA & Racing Post had only known what you know.
The BHA could have stopped providing such information for publication years ago and Racing Post could have stopped printing it, thus saving themselves considerable newsprint.
Makes you wonder why the Racing Post have issued a statement saying the BHA will no longer provide such information and why the BHA have stopped providing it.
Have you any thoughts?
The Racing Post has stated "We cannot carry Claiming prices or Jockeys on the Sidelines because the BHA will no longer make the information available to us".
Both useful bits of information to see at a glance.
Anyone sat at home wanting to claim a horse had the price and claiming phone number at their fingertips, will some of them bother now with the incovenience involved?
It is also useful to see which jockeys are out of action and for how long.
Which numpty has thought this up and what can possibly be the reason?
