Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The gurgling is an interesting one, Glenn, we don’t put it in because – as you say – it isn’t possible to verify it by watching a replay.
I would never put anything in the official comment that I didn’t think I was able to verify beyond reasonable doubt. I was alerted to that in my early days as a race-reader when a jockey told me his horse had fallen when quite clearly he had stepped off!
In Zaarmit’s case, to my eyes the incident appeared to occur about 38 seconds into the race and is best viewed frame-by-frame on a high quality monitor, though you can see it in less detail on any TV. The camera is behind the runners, a lump of mud is thrown up, seems to hit Zaarmit and spiral off the left. At that point he goes from travelling enthusiastically to hanging his head to the left, and from then on he’s a goner.
I must admit I wouldn’t have noticed it but for Ryan Moore’s report on the incident. However I was waiting for him to say something because – as I said to my press colleagues in mid-race – something had clearly happened to him around that point. I was expecting Ryan just to reveal that the horse had lost its action, but when the clod explanation came to light I watched it again several times and then several thousand more when I got home!
I can assure all of you that I need to be pretty certain that something has happened before I include it but, as in this case, sometimes you have to work backwards. And, while I concede that my conclusion may be incorrect, I am happy with it.
As for the general feeling on this board that Zaarmit’s poor run may have been due to something other that the clod of earth, that may well be the case. But as Glenn correctly points out, that isn’t the job of the race-reader.
As far as I’m concerned, the job of a race-reader is to report the race how he or she sees it.
Point taken HJ, but having reviewed the race numerous times, that is the way I see it
Glad to hear you’re in favour Jeremy – your observations match several others I’ve heard, though I think it’s important not to clutter up the comments with irrelevant minor detail
To return to Zaarmit, and the most-discussed clod of earth in history, in the old days his comment would have been:
"always behind"!
Hi Prufrock, something definitely happened to the horse nearing halfway – you can see Zaarmit’s head suddenly go to one side, from which point he is floundering all over the place, whereas beforehand he had been racing enthusiastically.
Just before that point, he had been racing close behind a group of three rivals, any one of whom could have thrown up a clod of earth from the loose surface following the rain. Afterwards, he is wide, losing touch, hanging all over the track and apparently hating it. But I am always open to suggestions, so perhaps someone else on the forum has a better explanation – it was obvious at the time that there was something wrong.
Personally, I would not like to suggest that Ryan Moore deliberately misled the stewards – his explanation has been recorded and will be there for future scrutiny. And on this occasion it makes sense of an otherwise strange piece of behaviour from the horse.
Thanks Colin, those of you who don’t know may be interested to find out that a copy of any post-race explanation given to the stewards is sent to the press room asap after it comes to light.
This is how we received the information on this occasion:
"Ryan Moore, the rider of ZAARMIT (IRE), reported that the colt got hit by a clod of earth and was never travelling thereafter."You can find them all here:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/insid … latory.asp
Some of them relate to specific incidents where the stewards have approached the trainer/jockey, others come under the category of reasons volunteered by trainer/jockey without prompting.
Race-readers do include some of the explanations in the close-up comments, others are left for the bit in brackets or wherever that Glenn and HJ referred to. It’s simply a judgement call in each specific case.
But if a jockey reports that a horse was "lame" or "saddle slipped", for example, it always makes it into the comments, and so do several other plausible reasons. In the case of Zaarmit, though it was unique in my experience, I felt it was worth including the clod of earth because in some places the official explanations don’t always accompany the race comments.
If Zaarmit bolts up next time and you hadn’t been told about it, you might have felt you hadn’t been fully informed. In any case, it’s up to you whether you include it in your calculations – you don’t have to blame the clod if you don’t want to!
I started very young Rory, still in short trousers that day… of course!
By the way, at Southwell one day I did say "Salt N Vinegar has had his chips" (groan)
but Richard’s much more prolific at these than I am!
Fair point HJ, but believe me, for confirmation purposes I always make every effort to scrutinise replays for any incident that has been reported, sometimes watching the video (slow motion or even frame-by-frame as well as full speed) a dozen times or more, but not everything is visible.
I think anything that is relevant to punters next time the horse runs is worth including if it is reliable, and this was after all an official explanation not a piece of post-race chit-chat. Therefore, if I had taken the view that there was no offending clod of earth, it would be like accusing Ryan Moore of lying to the stewards, and I doubt that very much.
Incidentally, the replay shows Zaarmit travelling keenly in last place until just before the Wilson Avenue crossing (6f out), when his head goes to one side, and from that moment on he just isn’t going.
However, whether a clod of earth was totally responsible for the horse’s poor run is a matter of conjecture, which is why I phrased the comment thus:
"hit by clod of earth and looked uncomfortable from halfway"
rather than "hit by clod of earth, not recover"
It is still possible that he simply didn’t act on the track, particularly on the rain-affected fast ground, but only time will tell if he ever returns there in similar conditions.
Neil.. many years ago there was a horse called Manchesterskytrain, named after Freddie Laker’s fleet of cheap-flight aircraft.
One day the horse fell at one of the fences in the back straight at Taunton, stumbling on landing and crumpling up after clearing the fence okay.
I swear I didn’t mean to say it but I did (and didn’t realise until someone told me afterwards):
"Manchesterskytrain jumped the fence alright but didn’t get his undercarriage down in time"
It sounds rehearsed but I promise it wasn’t!
Hi guys
Yes, was me!I admit I changed the comment after Ryan Moore’s explanation to the stewards. During the race, the horse seemed happy enough held up in last place until around halfway, from which point he was all over the place – looking terribly unbalanced and not that keen either. At first, I put it down to the track, which many horses don’t act on, so my first attempt at the comment was:
"…looked ill-at-ease on track and uncomfortable from halfway…"However, when Ryan Moore reported the clod of earth hitting the horse, it seemed unreasonable to accuse his mount of failing to handle the undulations, so I modified the comment in the database. The ground, though fast underneath, was loose on top after quite a bit of rain early in the afternoon.
Normally I would prefer to actually see an incident myself before including it in the form book, but on this occasion Ryan’s observation made sense because something clearly caused the horse to lose its momentum so badly.
We are encouraged to put more information into the Racing Post/Raceform comments these days, and to be more descriptive. Maybe you can all let me know if you prefer the briefer old-style comments like "prominent, led over 1f out, ridden out", or do you find more detail helpful in visualising how a horse ran?
Cheers guys, as ever will pass your comments on
By a complete coincidence I’m back on Thursday evening (which I understand is not now floodlit). Then I’ll let the other guys have a go!
Most commentary boxes have their little quirks, like trying to work out the finishing angle if you aren’t on the winning line, but this one is right on the line so if the commentator calls the winner in a close finish he’s likely to be right – that info could be useful if you’re betting on photo finishes.
That said, I was convinced that Pocket Too had beaten Buster Hyvonen in the 2-miler yesterday, but then had to endure an anxious few seconds when Dave Smith in the box next door called a photo, with the former winning by a nose!
From the box, which is on the outside of the track, the temporary grandstand in the middle obscures the view between 5f and 4f, but the back straight pictures were excellent so I used the monitor along there. The only other problem was the bright sun, which is nobody’s fault, and we can overcome that to some extent in future by installing some blinds or wearing a baseball cap (trade secret, not for those who believe racing commentators should always wear a trilby!)
Overall though, I’ve no doubt that Great Leighs is an exciting addition to the racing scene. There is still a lot of work to do, but when you first arrive and catch sight of the track, bordered by its multitude of floodlights, and flanked by the longest temporary stand you’ve ever seen, stretching all the way from the furlong pole to just past the winning line, it’s hard not to be impressed by John Holmes’ vision of the future.
In fact, for the time being at least, Lee would be uniquely qualified to tell us how easy or hard a track Great Leighs is to commentate at. How was it for you, sir – a bit easier than Salisbury or Redcar, I hope?
gc
Happy to do so Jeremy – am at Plumpton at the mo doing comments this afternoon for Raceform/Racing Post, but will post on here tonight
Leemac, are you sure about the hand timing?
My understanding is the Omega photofinish computer/camera is used for all timing. On the flat the start is activated by radio link and for jumps the Judge starts the timer on the computer.
Correct up to a point, Wallace…. in both Flat racing and jumping, the photo finish equipment generates the time separating each horse at the finish, which is then mathematically converted into lengths (an approximation). However, the time it takes for the winning horse to complete the course is only electronically recorded on the Flat.
That’s why, when you are at a Flat race meeting, you will hear the judge announcing the "official" time after naming the fourth horse home. However, there is no official winning time in jump racing.
For NH events, after every race, race-readers from Raceform/Racing Post and the PA will cross-reference the times they have clocked on their stopwatches to make sure they more or less agree, which is usually the case to within 0.1 sec. But it’s all done by hand – an attempt to introduce electronic times in jumps racing was tried for All-Weather jumping, but – like the product itself – it did not last.
Indeed, if you need confirmation that all jumps races are timed by hand, I can reveal that I was in action at Chepstow today doing just that very thing!
Some of you may not know that there are no electronically-recorded times in jump racing; they’re all clocked by a race-reader with a stopwatch. And although they’re often published to a one-hundredth of a second, in reality they are actually only clocked to one-tenth of a second.
So while you may read 4 mins 51.20 secs, it’s actually 4 mins 51.2 secs, and never, for example, 4 mins 51.23 secs.
That said, there are problems interpreting jumps times too literally for the reasons several other posters have already pointed out. At Exeter, for example, this winter the chasers have frequently used the hurdles course on the home turn, which is a completely different track – sharper and several metres higher. Information like that is invariably issued by the courses (and Exeter is very good in that respect), but it is possible you may not get to hear about it.
There is also a problem when the runners stand for ages before jumping off – in a recent Kempton bumper it was 15 seconds before the race actually began. I think there is a case for starting the stopwatch when the runners cross the starting line rather than when the tape is released, but doing that would produce its own difficulties.
Any other observations or ideas will be gratefully received!
When this subject came up on TRF a while ago, I asked around to find out if the media could be automatically informed about the death of a horse during a race. I know from experience that this happens as a matter of course at the major three-day events.
However, one course of opinion turned out to be that a regular list of fatalities might provoke a backlash that would be bad for racing. Therefore the media are left to find out for themselves.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with Paul, that racehorse fatalities should not be "swept under the carpet". It’s only by allowing the numbers to be subject to possible scrutiny that the industry can claim to be completely open about it.
However, at the same time, I do recognize that statistics can be very dangerous, and therefore understand why there is some reluctance to issue daily lists. But I must stress that if the media asks about the fate of a horse, officials are very helpful and we are always told the truth – there is no cover-up.
I do know from a spectator’s point of view it is frustrating to see a bad incident and not hear the outcome. This year, I have seen two falls in which a horse appeared to have suffered serious injury, only for both to get up and walk away afterwards.
With that in mind, I’ll continue to see what I can do to make sure that this sorry but inevitable occasional detail makes it into print as often as possible.
If Leemac is reading this thread perhaps he could tell us if there is a Raceform policy on mentioning fatalities.
From what I have seen, some race readers mention if a horse has died whilst others do not.
A Jeremy pointed out different courses seem to have different policies – personally I think the truth, no matter painful, should be told. Sweeping such events under the carpet and maintaining an ostrich mentality does nothing constructive and merely undermines credibility in the sport.
Sorry it´s taken me a while to respond – have been away a few days. As far as I know, the Raceform/Racing Post policy is to mention a fatality in the close up comments if they are aware of it. However, sometimes the horse is taken away for treatment after a fall and then, sadly, put down later.
The clerk of the scales will pass on information of a death to the media if asked, but the news does not always filter through automatically. In those cases it may not be reported.
As a race-reader, I tend to keep an eye on the screens to see if the horse emerges from behind them. I know that sounds gruesome, but the evidence of your own eyes is best. Even then, you have to be sure it hasn´t been loaded into an equine ambulance. I can recall one case many years ago when a horse was reported as "dead" only for it to reappear a few weeks later.
Hope that helps regarding the form comments; I´ll check out the position regarding commentaries, and report back.
I now have the answer to Aragorn’s question about the "big" bets recorded in the Racing Post after the horse’s close-up comment
The information is compiled by the SP reporters – the on-course bookmakers volunteer details of any big bets taken, and the reporter then passes them on to the PA. From there it finds its way into the Racing Post
However, there are two specific points to note:
First, bookmakers are not obliged to pass the info on, so some big bets will not be recorded in print. I am told that "most" bookies do give the info to the reporter, but some tend not to
Secondly, if a bookmaker lays off a big bet, it is likely that his money will also be recorded as a "big bet". In fact, it is possible for just one bet to trigger off a chain reaction of money being laid off down a series of bookies. So it may look as if several big bets have been laid, whereas it was in fact only one
Therefore, it’s probably best to treat the info as an entertaining feature rather than a definitive record of everything that happens in the ring
Hope that helps
