Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The
2000 Guineas
was run on going I had at
-0.25s/f
(good) which was bordering on good to soft.
The
1000 Guineas
was run on going I had at
-0.10s/f
(good).
For anybody who just doesn’t understand the importance of watering when the ground is riding on the fast side, you only have to look at the carnage that happened at
Clonmel
yesterday, where they had 5 horses die due to the extreme going and 22 deg temp.
Prior to the first race, the official going was given out as good, when I worked out the going allowance it nearly went of my going scale, I had it a
+0.62s/f
(firm) which is just a nat’s cock away from being
hard
going, no wonder they lost 5 horses.
Clonmel was a jumps meeting, no relevance to flat racing. Most people don’t object to plenty of watering for jumps racing.
Glad you confirmed Newmarket Guineas meeting was not on the good to firm side, maybe Gingertipster will take note now.
Streets of Promise H 5.40
Lily Moreton M 1.00
Nosey Box H 4.30
Missed Call C 4.50Res
Khawaater L 7.35
Teak L 8.35
Grazed Knees C 3.05
Between Wickets L 6.05Mark Johnston on the subject –
"Unfortunately, while Richard Hughes managed to spark a short-lived debate on watering, nothing has changed and we are no closer to solving what he and I see as a major problem.
Neither of us agree with the current instructions, that the clerks of the course should aim to produce Good-Firm ground (we both believe that the old system whereby they were instructed only to water to grow grass and leave the state of the ground to nature, was far preferable) but things wouldn’t be half as bad if clerks of the course did actually aim for Good-Firm ground.
Chris Stickels stated earlier this week that he may be "forced" to water Ascot because, he says, "we want to start as near good ground as possible" That, to me, says he’s aiming to produce Good ground not Good-Firm.
This is typical, clerks’ fear of Firm ground (sparked, no doubt, by trainers attitudes) causes them to aim for softer than the prescribed Good-Firm. They would much rather risk ground softening than drying out. There have been many cases in recent years where clerks have openly said they were watering to maintain the ground while at the same time describing it as Good or even, in at least one case that I remember, Good-Soft.
First and foremost, we should try to introduce a more objective system for assessing what the ground was, after the meeting. Going corrections are already published by Timeform and the Racing Post but I believe that there should be official going corrections (based on times, wind, etc) published which would, at least, provide some measures of individual clerks’ accuracy".
Johnston is spot on, Bittar & Stier should take note and get something done about it.
Ground at Ascot now good to soft after 15mm of rain overnight following 14mm of watering.
I’ve no time for them sort of programmes, think the missus watches it sometimes and when she’s mentioned one or two the questions I’ve never understood what you’re meant to do and I don’t want to.
Did the person answering the Cecil question get it right and win?
I also wonder about the honesty of programmes like that.
Give me Criss Cross Quiz anyday.
I’ve never mentioned Taghrooda.
Will Kingman run at Royal Ascot if the going is firm?If
genuinely
good-firm yes, if
genuinely
firm no.
Although don’t blame connections for being a bit non-committal Nathan. Top racecourses seldom admit to getting their watering policy wrong. When the ground is "genuinely firm" it is imo usually called "good-firm". So connections need to be able to pull a horse out if they
disagree
with the official going report…
If Gosden said "we’ll pull Kingman out if it is firm but run if good-firm" then…
A) You’d be moaning about Gosden giving an ultimatum to Ascot to water.
B) The track has a vested interest to get the dual on, so do not want to believe it is (or call it) "firm", even if genuinely it is firm.
Why would it genuinely be "firm"? Not a hope in hell it will be firm for the St James Palace. It doesn’t happen and if Kingman doesn’t run it wont be because of firm ground.
Cirrus Des Aigles 2.40 E
Bordoni 4.20 H
Mange All 8.45 N
Mighty Whitey 1.40 HRes
Perfect Muse 6.25 L
One Pursuit 3.10 D
Wannabe Yours 4.45 D
No Likey 3.00 WBlurred Vision Y 4.35
Maxi Chop S 6.55
Gold Necklace T 3.55
Lightning Moon H 4.25Res
Hernando Torres N 6.10
Carn Rock S 5.55
Asknotwhat T 2.15Have only watched the head on of last nights race once and I’m not saying he definitely did but thought there could be a case of STD causing deliberate interference, need to see it a few more times.
However the Stratford stewards have exonerated him of that and done him for keeping a straight line, exactly the same reasoning used for disqualifying Sheehan’s horse last time.
Twiston Davies got a 2 day ban but Sheehan a 4 day one from the Stratford stewards, what was the difference?
Either way how long are the BHA going to tolerate such incompetence from stewards, punters have a lot of money riding on these decisions and they should get them right.
[quote="stevecaution")
If you can find a horse who won a maiden and ran in the Derby 8 days later I will buy you a pint.
Will 9 do?
Terimon 2nd to Nashwan in 1989 at 500/1
Should have been a bit braver with this thread Steve and put it up before the race, although I’ve no doubt you picked the winner elsewhere it smells of aftertiming.
On form Saab Almanal was best in at weights, rated 103, hence he started a short priced fav. Of course lightly raced or even unraced horses can knock that all on the head and/or the form horse may not run to form.
Steve,
I would have appreciated your post more if you’d posted before the race in question, ie Would you have posted if Hydrogen had hosed up
It’s quite possible he could have been 2nd fav for The Derby if he’d won hard held by 15 lengths today. Anyone can tell you the horse is no good now he’s run.
It’s simple stilvi,
You put your horse in the sale and rather than put a reserve on it you bid it up to a sum you’re prepared to accept, if it doesn’t reach that sum then you will have the last bid on your own horse and thus retain the horse. There will be commission to pay on the buy back.
On the other hand I recall Tom Segal doesn’t take much notice of ground conditions so maybe it’s not a very significant factor.
What relevance is that? Is he a good judge? Does he make a good profit betting? Ground conditions are a very significant factor in my view.
Am I a good judge? No.
Do I make a good profit betting? No.Hope that helps.
Are you really under the impression that the BHA do not have control of the off times of races, to avoid clashes in the event of delays?
There was a fall at Chepstow that caused a delay.
Thanks TB. Clearly the BHA’s fault then!!
Honestly.
Mike
Good to know you’ve got your finger on the pulse betlarge
Gingertipster,
You seem to be obsessed with connecting firm ground to death and injury.
Fields would be produced to 4 or 5 runners you say because trainers would be unwilling to risk injuring their horses, a bit like the Brigadier Gerard tomorrow? Has it a small field because trainers are worried about injuring their horses?
Some horses prefer soft and some firm but fast ground horses just don’t get a fair crack of the whip unlike soft ground horses.
Nothing wrong with firm ground if the ground is level and has good grass cover.
As for those BHA stats I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, look how they manipulated the truth and peddled deceit when they tried to force through them farcical whip rules 2 or 3 years ago.
Incompetent BHA allow races to clash at Hamilton & Chepstow
Only 3 meetings to manage and they can’t do it. They couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery <!– s:roll: –>
<!– s:roll: –>
