Forum Replies Created
- Posts
It was heartwarming to hear the Cheltenham racegoers break into spontaneous applause when Kauto Star pulled up, I don’t think I’ve ever heard that happen to any other horse other than when they applauded Frankel when he was 10 lengths ahead, two furlongs from home, in the 2000 Guineas last year.
It happened a few years ago when Istabraq was pulled up in The Champion Hurdle. Agree it was very heartwarming.
Much preferred it when it was three days, so five isn’t me. If they do move it to Wednesday to Saturday I doubt if they will have The Gold Cup on the Saturday. It will probably be like Ascot and they will put a weaker day on Saturday. There is no financial incentive for them to have the Gold Cup on Saturday as it is sold out anyway and putting one of the other days on Saturday will probably increase the crowd for that day.
Himself – you’re an old grump, mate! Long Run definitely ran his race and surely it’s now clear he is a very good horse but not a brilliant one. He’ll always be beatable. Maybe he’s a future Grand National winner?
That is a pretty lame argument. Of course any horse is beatable.
This year’s Gold Cup was a poor renewal, and even although Long Run was probably not performing to the standards he set last season – and given that Kauto Star was very unlikely to produce anything close to the briliance of old, then I remain adamant that the race was Long Run’s to lose.
I think the overall time of the race was 5 secs ( or thereabouts ) slower than last year.
The fact that Long Run didn’t win was due to his jockey. He is more of a hindrance than an aid. He is tactically poor and at least a stone below the better pros in terms of ability.
It’s all right bleating on about how it’s his family’s horse and they can do what they like blah, blah, blah… but when the most prestigious Steeplechase race in National Hunt is up for grabs and millions are bet on the favourite in that race, then the trainer must insist on obtaining the best jockey available. Of course I realise that Mr. Henderson would never admit as such – for the sole reason that he does not want one of his rich patrons picking up his ball and walking away.
I’m sorry but the owner has every right to say who rides the horse and you are ignoring the fact that the horse was bought specifically for Sam Waley-Cohen to ride. The fact that millions are bet on him has no bearing whatsoever on the owners decision as to who should ride. The jockey is one of the factors to take into consideration when placing bets. Everyone knows who rides Long Run and should factor that into their decision on whether to bet or not. You also say that this was a weak renewal ( even though a lot of the competitors were the same as last year) but ignore the fact that in a supposedly stronger race last year Waley-Cohen won on the horse as well as winning a pretty strong King George on him.
The reason for placing the boards together is that it makes it less likely that a loose horse will jump that part of the fence than if they were spaced out. This is infact BHA instructions and the officials at the fence did nothing wrong. The flagman was clearly on the course waving his flag and the jockeys know the rules, there is even a notice posted in the jockeys room to tell them you can’t jump a fence that has been part dolled off.
Of course there could be a case for having more boards at the fences but that is now easy to say in hindsight. How many of those lambasting the officials have raised that issue before yesterday ? Not many I suspect.
Chequered flag man is supposed to be 70 yards away from the fence – I doubt he was 70ft away.
If he was 70 yards away he would probably have been nearly in the second last. The fences are very close together.
Abysmal commentator, you could hear I think it was Mark Johnson in the background telling him all the fallers he was missing today.
Commentators will often have spotters to assist them, particularly in races like this and The Grand National.
The reason for placing the boards together is that it makes it less likely that a loose horse will jump that part of the fence than if they were spaced out. This is infact BHA instructions and the officials at the fence did nothing wrong. The flagman was clearly on the course waving his flag and the jockeys know the rules, there is even a notice posted in the jockeys room to tell them you can’t jump a fence that has been part dolled off.
Of course there could be a case for having more boards at the fences but that is now easy to say in hindsight. How many of those lambasting the officials have raised that issue before yesterday ? Not many I suspect.
Second series has been cancelled. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … d089ee9840
Haven’t seen it so can’t comment on how good it is.
Forgive me for not knowing the names of the people involved in this incident but I’m amazed that everyone has avoided the obvious question.
The incident happened and ‘boards’ were put across the final fence to signal that the last fence wasn’t to be jumped. The ‘boards’ were then moved to the inside of the fence. The obvious question is, WHY?
Now I’m no brain surgeon, but if the boards were left where they were supposed to be, and in the place that signalled clearly that the jockeys/horses were to omit the final fence, then all horses would have went around the final fence no problem.
By moving the boards to the inside, the jockeys/horses still went around the final fence, but with confusion.
So what the hell did moving the boards achieve? The stricken jockey and photographer were on the inside of the course. Moving the three boards to the inside of the fence meant that a horse could have jumped the last fence to the right of the boards and then fell left-handed into the injured party. Leaving the boards where they were initially would have meant all horses went around the fence (just like they eventually did thankfully).
So the question is, why were the boards moved?
Baffled!
As I said the boards were moved to give added protection in the case of a loose horse.
Nothing went right for SE today, and everything fell right for Barry. SE by far the better jumper and I feel he would have been hard to pass having pinged the last.
BHA handled it disgracefully and contradicted themselves. Lynche should have jumped the last anyway (the half that wasnt blocked) . Barry would have followed, as would the remainder. What then??They would have been disqualified and race voided and the jockeys would have been to blame.
I’ve now had time to look at this in cold light of day and watched the reply a few times. First of all those who backed Sizing Europe will have difficulty bemoaning their luck. Whilst the result may have been different had they jumped the last fence the facts are they had to bypass it, this happens on a regular basis. Both horses were affected and there is no way of knowing that the result would have been different. Finnians Rainbow was holding his position and was just as hampered as the second. A stewards enquiry wouldn’t have changed the result.
As to what happened I think the officials on course did what they could under the circumstances. They followed procedures that have been in place for 16 years. The clerk of the course made the correct call that the fence needed to be bypassed as there was an injured jockey and member of the public on the other side. The officials by the fence put out the boards and a man was stationed with the bypass flag and a whistle to warn the jockeys. The boards were moved towards the inside more, on a call by an official to give added protection to the injured parties in the case of a loose horse. The problem was the jockeys were in two minds as to whether they should jump the fence or not, unfortunately that was their problem. It is up to them to make sure they know the rules. They are both experienced jockeys and should have known. Infact they clearly did know the rules because they both went round the fence. The main problem was that the last two fences are very close together this made things difficult as their was little time to react. Perhaps it may have been better to omit the last two fences.
Of course there needs to be an enquiry and procedures may need to be altered, that is the nature of things. I do though think that there is a lot of unjustified criticism of the on course officials. It’s all well and good people blaming officials and BHA but how many of these people were voicing their concern about bypass procedures, that have generally worked well for a long time, before today ?
BHA press release
The T&C’s were clearly displayed on their site and I posted them on the Arkle thread. In fairness to PP it does clearly say your horse has to run.
Here are the conditions from their site.
Max refund: e100/£100 per customer.
Applies to bets placed on the Arkle Chase from 8am 28th February.
Applies to win (and win part of each way) single bets only placed before the start of the race.
The customer’s selection must run for the refund to apply
.
Does not apply to extra markets.
Does not apply to Tote bets
As I said Ken, I don’t use their "site", I heard about a "Money Back if Sprinter Sacre wins" offer and rang their Telephone line. I said "I believe you’re doing a money back if Sprinter Sacre Wins"? The person on the end of the line did not make me aware of ALL the catches.
Yes, I suppose it was up to me to think of all the possibilities and ask. But I was just going by what they told me. For any telephone customer I’d call it misleading.
Even had I seen your well intended message Ken, it would’ve been too late for me.
I’ll learn.
In that case you would have a good case to have the bet voided or for them to still let you have the offer. They should be under an obligation to tell you the full terms when placing the bet. Have you asked them ? What did they say ?
I’m in the same situation. Theres a post on the Peddlers Cross Swerves Arkle thread in Cheltenham section where a member has said he’s heard PP will still refund all Peddlers Cross bets placed when he was short during the money back offer if Sprinter Sacre wins?
Not PP’S fault there playing in the rules, I blame faint hearted trainers not giving out the facts and playing with ante post punters. I’m not backing ante post on any Festival again either flat of jumps. First time mug looking for value..never again.
Whats the crack with Grand Crus too? RSA ot Gold Cup!? Theres so many ways his decision can ruin another ante post…mine.
Grand Crus goes in the Gold Cup, Champion Court then steps up to the RSA as Keighley then thinks he can win that without GC Now he has Peddlers Cross in the Jewson because McCain doesnt fancy "Plan A" anymore.
Its a joke
Not a joke at all. The trainer has every right to hold off on any decision he makes regarding what race his horse runs in. When you place your bets you know the facts that McCain and Pipe had horses entered in more than one race and you take that into consideration when placing your bet.
The T&C’s were clearly displayed on their site and I posted them on the Arkle thread. In fairness to PP it does clearly say your horse has to run.
Here are the conditions from their site.
Max refund: e100/£100 per customer.
Applies to bets placed on the Arkle Chase from 8am 28th February.
Applies to win (and win part of each way) single bets only placed before the start of the race.
The customer’s selection must run for the refund to apply
.
Does not apply to extra markets.
Does not apply to Tote bets
These trainers who hang back to the last minute really annoy me, why can’t Dave Pipe come clean and say where Grands Crus will run, or at least say what events will determine which race he runs in. They do these stable tours on RP but never ask the question. Presumably he is going for the RSA but if Kauto or Long Run fail to get there he will switch.
The connections are perfectly entitled to wait. The simple reason they haven’t said is they haven’t made their mind up yet. The trainers job is to do his best for the horse and owner and sometimes that means a wait and see game.
I’ve been notified that The Racing Post are changing their pricing structure for their online site, simplifying in their words (otherwise known as increasing prices). They are now only having two options. Up till now I have had the basic membership at just over £8 per month. They are now doing away with this and adding 50 RUK replays to it and charging just over £12 per month. Great value they say. Not really as I can watch them free as a subscriber to RUK online and anyone can watch unlimited replays free on sportinglife.com. In otherwords I now will have to pay an extra 50% per month without anything added.
