Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I know it’s hard to tell ricky but Bittar & Roy were in different jobs and worked in tandem for 18 months. Steve Harman took over from Roy as chairman.
After a promising start when he sorted the whip fiasco out initiated by Jamie Stier he disappointed.
In the bookmakers pocket, still running races for 2 grand and doing absolutely nothing about the hundreds of non runners.
What has he done to "Look out for punters" that he promised?
I refer you to James Toller’s letter lower down, hopefully Bittar will take his fellow Aussie Stier with him.
stilvi,
Think Richard was being tongue in cheek about The Leger, hence the exclamation marks
Jonibake,
Weren’t Pawneese & Dahlia 3 year old fillies when they won the King George? Or Danedream & Treve in the Arc recently? Although I’m sure a bit of interesting minor turf trivia for some, not sure it’s much of a factor which country they were actually trained in compared to horses actually winning the races as Taghrooda proved.
How could it be discussed prior to the race, when hardly any reference to the "sporting" nature didn’t appear till after or near the end of the race?
It was purely media driven, I don’t recall connections of the horse making any claim at all that they were making a "sporting" decision.
Think the comments from connections best sums up their thinking.
Angus Gold stated the weight allowance helped tilt Sheikh Hamdan towards running at Ascot instead of the Curragh.
"I said to Richard Hills before we confirm for the Irish Oaks that we must look at the King George and see what was likely to run,"
Gold said "He came back and said with this amount of weight we must tell Sheikh Hamdan and give it serious consideration"
"The more we looked at it, the more I thought that if she was as good as I suspected they’d have to be good to give her that weight"
"Sheikh Hamdan made the call and spoke to Gosden & Weld"
"John made the point that if she was in training next year why don’t we go for the Irish Oaks, but if Sheikh Hamdan was going to retire her go for the big one. It’s Sheikh Hamdan’s policy to retire three year old fillies , hence this came about."
So there we have it, a practical and logical decision made by connections without a hint of all this romantic nonsense that was solely whipped up by the media (as usual).
Tomorrows Fish ‘n’ Chips paper!
Didn’t that land a massive gamble to win the Extel for Cumani?
Nearly right with the other one Ginger that won the Extel & Nassau – It was Free Guest
This is a total non thread IMO ……there is no bad news about Taghrooda running in the King George whatsoever…..an owner exercising their perfect right to run their horse where they like……good for them and good for the race.
Sheikh Hamdan of all people owes racing absolutely nothing.
You have clearly missed the point of the thread although I couldn’t agree more about owners running where they want and Hamdan owing racing nothing.
It was well worthy of mention because I was overwhelmed at the weekend by the media stating what a "sporting" decision it was to run Taghrooda in the King George when it was nothing of the sort.
Alastair Down – "Applauds her owners sporting decision"
Sean Boyce – The same
Jim McGrath – "Most extraordinary sporting decision in living memory in the game"
Big Mac – "Exactly, an owner putting racing first and running a horse for the good of the sport and The King George"
Richard Hoiles commentary climaxed with "The sporting nature of the connections are rewarded with a massive prize"
And there were others.
Some (not me) might say that it is unsporting not to run your top 3 year old fillies the following season but as has already been stated that is exactly the reason Taghrooda ran in the King George.
It was nothing to do with a "sporting" decision, the good of racing or to enhance the King George she ran purely for the benefit of her owner.
I’d probably have it on a par with Coolmore running Camelot in the Leger.
I didn’t consider it a sporting gesture at all but one borne solely out of self interest. Of course we and the King George benefitted considerably by the decision but that was purely a bi-product of the decision.
Sheikh Hamdan does what is best for Sheikh Hamdan, nothing more, nothing less.
Why will Taghrooda not be racing next year?Coolmore running Camelot in the Irish Derby, now that was a sporting gesture.
16.50 at Newcastle they put all the horses in the stalls at 16.45 and had to back them all out after they messed the times up.
Great thing to do on a hot afternoon lol they only just noticed at the last minute after someone looked at their watch.
If they had off jumped off what would the ramifications had been?
It would have made no difference to the race itself, the result and bets would have stood. That wasn’t the case some years ago when the race and bets would have been void until they sensibly changed the rules.
It will be interesting to see if anyone is penalised for the cock up or if the judge at Newmarket who called the wrong result is punished. I somehow doubt it but jockeys get penalised for any little offence they commit and I don’t see why the same shouldn’t apply to racecourse officials.
Excellent letter in the RP from James Toller about the BHA
"I am sorry to see BHA chief executive Paul Bittar and the bookies are worried about small fields. If ever there was a case of reap what you sow this is it, and they only have themselves to blame, along with racecourses, which have jumped on the bandwagon by putting on very low-class races and making a profit on picture rights.
The BHA, for all its fine talk, should realise the bookies are not racing’s friend and never have been. They have pushed for more racing to increase their turnover, but have never been prepared to pay anything approaching a fair price for the product, and owners have been getting a very bad deal for years.
You need only read the recent article about retiring William Hill chief Ralph Topping to get an idea of the bookmakers’ attitude. He sneers at racing in a particularly nasty way, but for all that is probably only echoing the views of those in the betting industry who are slightly more diplomatic.
If the bookies and Bittar want better fields they should put up decent prize money, organise the programme properly, revert to 24 hour declarations and get the racecourses to act less selfishly over when they stage their meetings.
Virtually all the changes we have seen in recent years have made the situation worse, not better, but I have yet to hear anyone say, "We got that wrong" – even though they obviously have.
The BHA are not producing the goods. Good racing without the ridiculous clashes we have had recently, produces more betting – and always will. You do not see many small fields at Royal Ascot or the Cheltenham Festival".
Stepper Point 2.05 S
Quiz Mistress 3.30 H
Velox 2.40 S
Raise Your Gaze 5.00 SRes
Bondi Beach Boy 3.40 B
Adore 2.30 B
Headlong 5.05 L
Scoreline 5.35 LAustralia C 5:30
Makhfar D 5:55
Stand Guard L 8:00
Golden Zephyr L 5:50Res
Dorraar L 6:55
Maarek C 3:45
Layline L 8:00
Elizabeth Coffee D 8:45Stewards already change results if a rider does something like swerve in front of his rival on the run in. They have to decide if the horse would have won without the interference.
This sort of decisions made in Stewards Enquiries fairly often, and in the main the positions remain unchanged.
The same logic should apply to whip misuse.
If the horse has won 10 lengths going away then the rider gets a ban, if the horse has only won because of whip abuse then reverse the result.
What an excellent point. It would in effect bring the overuse of the whip into the remit of a Stewards Enquiry.
I’ve not heard a better suggestion.
Mike
I’m sure stewards would be flattered by your confidence in them adjudicating over such an issue and getting it right. Unfortunately I fear this would not be shared by lots of punters and racing people.
Some stewards have trouble deciphering horses running in straight lines (Stratford ones) let alone deciding to what effect whip use has had on the result of a race.
Horse racing is about who gets to the winning post first, the less stewards decide the better.
As Ricky Lake says, It will never happen, so dream on. Even the BHA aren’t that stupid.
Ironically, the more responsive a horse is to the whip, the more sympathetic the view of the stewards on overuse.
Evidence? So Leading Light was totally unresponsive to the whip?
The Plan Man 3.20 G
Passionate Affair 8.05 L
Taqneen 8.50 H
Amber Isle 7.05 LRes
Illustrious Prince 4.30 R
Out Do 3.15 R
If Not For You 2.45 G
Resiliency 5.55 DMissunited to win (how much did the cannon effect affect her?)
Jockey received a whip ban on Missunited (fact)
The problem is that you have apparently confused your
opinion
with
fact
.
Not guilty m’laud unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Gladiateur,
Have you heard of judgement and view?
Eddie Case,
Have you heard of avoiding the issue? You still haven’t answered my original question. Even the collective brains trust on Channel 4 Racing would have put up a better defence by now.
There is no defence required, this is a racing forum for people to express their views or in your case not. I have expressed my views, you will have to like it or lump it but there will not be the evidence that you seem to need.
… your view…
Once again: it’s not my view.
Neither you nor Cunningham has evidence to support the argument that punters would desert racing if disqualifications were more common. It’s mere speculation and scaremongering by those too spineless to take firm action.
Gladiateur,
Have you heard of judgement and view? Even if you haven’t one yourself. There will be no evidence.
I would imagine if the BHA were going to consider disqualification they would have to have a view and make a judgement on what effect this would have on betting, who knows they might have already done so. I seem to recall them commenting on the issue in the past
I suspect that even the BHA would be far shrewder on the issue that you and some others appear to be.
What’s the best you can do to support your view? Ask a few mates?
Firstly, I don’t have a "view". I asked numerous punters in several betting shops what they would prefer and the vast majority said that anyone who broke the rules should be disqualified, or else there’s no point in having rules.
Secondly, you still haven’t provided any evidence to support your dogmatic assertion that punters would leave the sport in droves if disqualifications became more commonplace.
It is my view, don’t require evidence for that. I believe Graham Cunningham had exactly the same view on the Morning Line this morning, don’t believe he had any evidence either.
I would imagine it would be quite difficult amass evidence for such a view. Maybe you have evidence to support your view that it would have no effect on betting apart from those few punters in bookies?
