Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
itsawar, fwiw, I rated the winner Englishman a 92+ type on time figures and Smoothtalkinrascal 87+, but with the ability to rate higher as was not a great pace on early (2nd and 3rd led early)
Admiral Rous WFA table 41lbs
Racing Post WFA table 24lbsEven the Racing Post’s figure of 24lbs is too high, mind you this is only my opinion
In my Raceform Interactive Booklet, they have the speed par allowances what a 2yo should be achieving against older horses during April/March as only -11lbs
blues brother, the point is you did not add any allowance at all onto Englishman’s race, but seemed to be suggesting it was just a class 5 race because you rated the winner a 69 horse through Mirza.
If you are only using older horse scales on which to compare 2yos against each other, that is fair enough.
But to say Englishman is only a 69 horse…. and those behind him are even worse? The 2nd, 4th , 5th and 7th all won next time out, two of them in good time and headed for Royal Ascot, as is probably Englishman.
Just on that basis alone, three of the horses in that maiden must be at least 95+ types, possibly 100+
Ruby at Evens or Odds On since 2002:
GB Hurdle: 104 winners from 173 rides (60.1%), £5.03 loss (2.9%)
GB Chase: 109 / 183 (59.6%), £13.67 loss (7.5%)
Ireland Hurdle: 178 / 289 (61.6%), £3.61 profit (1.2%)
Ireland Chase: 76 / 125 (60.8%), £3.47 profit (2.8%)Doesn’t seem much mileage in opposing Ruby at short odds, especially in Ireland
since 2002:
UK – 440 / 1103 (39.9%) for £77.13 loss (7%)
Ireland – 641 / 1706 (37.6%) for £116.54 loss (6.8%)
Other – 1 / 5 (20%) for £1.90 loss
All – 1082 / 2814 (38.5%) for £195.58 loss (7.0%)So Englishman form rating is 69 and looking at the BHA OR pars table, this makes the race time equal to a class 5 contest.
BHA OR Pars:
Group 1 – 120
Group 2 – 113
Group 3 – 109
Listed – 104
C2 – 92
C3 – 86
C4 – 77
C5 – 68
C6 – 58
C7 – 49bluessbrother, lots of supposition in that to generate a figure of 69 including assuming Mirza ran to a fig of 94….
I assume when you say that Englishman ran a "time equal to a class 5 contest"…. you mean to add "…. of a 4yo or older mature horse".
If you were to add official WFA for Englishman, you would add 41lbs to get 110… so clearly not a cl5 contest.
Even if you don’t accept the official scales, am sure you would not consider the Newbury event a cl5 grade??
if the VLV backers have a case on legal grounds, very unlikely that Betfair would go to court and presumably would offer an out of court settlement conditional on non-disclosure agreement.
So those not joining in looking for a "free ride" on expectation of a court decision would probably miss out…. if the group has a case
difficult to do a hand time on the Lincoln due to poor quality of the ATR video at the start, but would say 1m 37.36 of the RP is correct as the other time of the Sporting Life would be ridiculously quick imo
if disqualification were used in this case without severe bans, nobody would know if a jockey "stopped" a horse
as above gingertipster, I suspect that the number of cases where a horse is stopped by a jockey alone, not involving the trainer or owner, to be miniscule, and not worth giving any weight in deciding what penalty should be handed out for whip abuse.
Do you think that jockeys stopping horses of their own accord is more widespread than I believe?
In clear cases of outright abuse, where the jockey goes into a whip happy frenzy and is clearly "punishing" the horse, then yes, he should be rightfully banned.
But no-one has anything to gain by banning a jockey for a marginal infringement where he has forgotten one whip stroke "in the heat of battle" taking his total to nine, say eg McCoy and Walsh recently.
He didn’t abuse the horse, it was unintentional, he may not even have ended up winning the race. What is the point of banning a jockey for this? He has already been disqualified, lost any forthcoming prizemoney, so has nothing to gain by breaking the rules. If he keeps on breaking the rules and getting disqualified, he would have to be a dimwit of the highest order not to learn from his mistakes.
OK so what if it was just the jockey who was corrupt and the connections were not involved?
That is always possible, though I’m sure you would agree that most non-trier cases would appear to be under the instructions of the trainer and or owner.
Where connections are suspicious of a jockey’s ride, is it not normal practice for them never to employ the services of that jockey again? He/she loses his/her reputation and quickly becomes ostracised by the general racing community, so a jockey is hardly likely to do this of their own accord.
I’m personally only aware of one case where a jockey (prominent on the flat riding today) apparently took a £10k backhander to stop a horse, and he has never ridden for that trainer again. He is also generally not employed by leading stables now, or at least very rarely, surprising given the level of ability he has. So for him, was it worth it in the end?
the strong argument against disqualification is an integrity issue as it would give corrupt connections a very easy way to throw a race – certainly a hell of a lot easier than taking a pull or deliberately causing interference – it would be a cheats charter.
Paul, if connections are indeed corrupt, I’m sure there are a million simpler ways they can stop their horse from winning than asking their jockey to hit the horse 9 times.
Buckets of water.
Galloping a horse on the morning of a race.
Not letting the horse out its box for a weekThe list of methods that can be used out of the public eye (which 9 strikes of the whip is not) must be endless.
Hence the corruption argument for not implementing disqualification is invalid, imo.
DQ would create uproar and chaos on the betting front and, from that viewpoint, isn’t a go-er really.
But doesn’t that suggest the BHA do not have confidence in their changes, Cormack?
If they are right, why would punters have a problem? Why would jockeys transgress the rules knowing they are going to be disqualified anyway?
As we have seen with the ridiculous limit (for NH, not necessarly the Flat) in place at the moment, 99% of jockeys are riding within the rules. Does their compliance tell you that the rules are right or that they don’t want to be banned in order to feed their families?
The reason the rules are so easily broken is that they’re rubbish.
Absolutely correct, Sean. I wrote to the BHA complaining about the bans recently handed out to Ruby Walsh and AP McCoy.
I defy anyone to come even close to justifying those rides as barbaric, cruel, abusive or in any way harmful to the two horses concerned.
Yet isn’t that what the whip changes are all about? Abuse or harm of the thoroughbred racehorse?
If not, can someone please remind me what we are arguing about?
if the BHA truly believed in the whip restriction and in the stewards to judge that a ride had transgressed the whip rules, they wouldn’t have to bother with the fixed day penalty structure.
The only penalty required would be to disqualify the horse from the race. Simple.
The jockey would not break the rules, there would be no point as he is going to get thrown out anyway.
As it now stands, the BHA have permitted stewards "discretion". How long will it be before RUK or ATR highlight the case of two races from different racecourses where the stewards ban one jockey but excuse the other for an identical "offence"?
Well done BHA. Whilst you may have saved face (in your own eyes), the racing world continues to be bemused by your complete incompetence.
Reinstate the old rules and train and educate your stewards to rule on whip abuse consistently if you genuinely believe there is a problem.
The BHA should be investing in an exchange to rival, and hopefully surpass, Betfair from which they can fund racing including prizemoney.
As more and more individuals / private groups become willing to lay horses as well as back on the exchanges, racecourse (and even the high street as far as horseracing is concerned) bookmakers and the tote will be history in a few years time, and the exchanges will be the chief media by which to bet on horseracing.
So whilst going down the Tote route to fund horseracing in the future is the right principle, it is not the right vehicle.
kickback, disagree with the complex bit. Aidan a very loyal guy, to his family, his huge staff, his owners and not least his horses.
Very straightforward and simple, what you see is what you get. Don’t think he is much into politics (as much as the press / media surmise and probably want him to be) despite the regular attacks on him talking his horses up as stallion prospects. He obviously loves his horses and they are just like his children, so why wouldn’t he be effusive about them?
Aidan always has time for anyone who speaks to him, is very polite and accords them every respect using their first name in a reply. How many people can you say act with the same dignity that he does in both victory and defeat, especially when you consider the constant pressure he is under from all quarters?
