Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Perhaps reet hard, but if Glenn is right and Cattermole really is spouting that sort of guff, what little credibility (or integrity) he had as a racing pundit has just evaporated.
Flogging awful tips or risible ‘insider information’ on a premium rate telephone line is reprehensible but plugging cartoon racing with a straight face is on another level entirely.
On the other hand, this was the man who claimed that Korelo had been laid out by the Pipe stable for last year’s William Hill Chase despite the horse having been given the unconventional ‘prep’ of a 4 mile slog around a swamp 3 weeks before.
Something like that, Lingfield.
"Slight heat" in a leg though is a bit like being a "bit pregnant".
It was never completely clear what the original injury was (or how serious it was believed to be). ÂÂÂ
When first diagnosed, it was said to be a ‘slight abnormality’ and connections were said to be erring on the side of caution in leaving him alone for the rest of the season.  Then there was the ‘will he, won’t he’ saga about his QM entry last season.
The fact that he’s not been seen since though suggests that it was a bit more serious than a slight abnormality and I can’t think of a single horse off the top of my head who has come back the same horse after a long-term tendon injury.
Overrated:
1. Jockey form (as opposed to talent)
2. Market trends in respect of a particular race (as in the sort of garbage McCririck takes great pleasure in spouting regarding ‘this being a dreadful race for favourites’).
3. Pricewise.
<br>Underrated:
1. Stable form (particularly at the highest level).
2. Left-hand / right-hand bias in certain horses (eg Sir Rembrandt over jumps or High Chapperal on the flat).
3. Trainers’ habits
Clivex
Tolerance is a sliding scale: at one end of the spectrum, there’s a blindingly obvious need for laws prohibiting criminal behaviour – no-one’s going to argue that society should tolerate the minority pursuits of burglary or fraud:biggrin:.  In those cases, only an anarchist (or maybe the occasional student) would contend that there’s not a pressing social need for such regulation.
At the other end of the scale, I can’t say I’m that mad about Newcastle United fans, but I’m not going to campaign for a law demanding that anyone caught wearing a football shirt with ‘Shearer’ plastered on the back should be subject to immediate detention at Belmarsh (although there again…).
Somewhere in the middle though there are a whole lot of issues or pastimes that some people consider integral to the way they choose to live, which others (although they’re not directly affected by their existence) castigate as immoral or evil.  At what point should the state intervene and define what constitutes ‘civilised’ behaviour?
If you’re going to ban fox hunting on that basis, fair enough, but it’s a dangerous precedent – similar arguments could (and regularly are made) in respect of horseracing or, for that matter, boxing.
Quote: from Ian Davies on 9:50 pm on Sep. 15, 2004[br]
I slightly resent your assumption that I’m ”smiling smuigly” or ”lecturing anyone.” :biggrin:
(Edited by Ian Davies at 9:54 pm on Sep. 15, 2004)<br>
I was being metaphorical, Ian – I would, of course, accept that you have never demonstrated either character trait in real life…:biggrin:
I’d accept the validity of your wider point (what goes around, comes around etc) and maybe I’m guilty of being a bit idealistic – nevertheless, the logic behind the bill is capable of far wider application than just fox hunting and, now that’s out of the way, I would have thought racing can expect far greater attention from the animal rights brigade than has previously been the case.
Give it a generation or so and I might be the one getting acquainted with the modern policing methods.
Quote: from Ian Davies on 9:03 pm on Sep. 15, 2004[br]
Quote: from blobby on 8:53 pm on Sep. 15, 2004[br]but at the end of the day we live in a democracy and have to live with the results.
Exactly.<br>
Isn’t tolerance an equally essential component of living in a democracy, Ian?
It’s all very easy for us on the outside to smile smugly and lecture the hunting lot on accepting the outcome of the democratic process but, on any view, the manner in which this legislation has been guaranteed is pretty unedifying.  Whilst a majority of MPs might get very excited about this, the fact is that the vast majority of the country really don’t care too much either way. ÂÂÂ
The only reason the bill is going through (under the laughable pretext of national necessity demanded by the Parliament Act) is to allow Blair to placate the awkward squad in his Party and buy himself some breathing room after the Iraq debacle.  As Steve says, this is democracy of a pretty unappealing nature – political expediency and prejudice.
Returning to my previous point, put the boot on the other foot and envisage a vote on the future of horseracing under similar circumstances – I can’t speak for anyone else but I’m pretty certain I wouldn’t be content simply to accept the will of Parliament and move on.
Personally I wouldn’t ever want to go on a hunt but I’m still very uncomfortable with the idea of banning it.
In particular, exactly the same fundamental logic (and many of the same arguments) used to by those seeking to justify this piece of legislation could equally be used to argue that horseracing (and especially NH racing) should also be banned.
And as for that idiotic Tony Banks, don’t get me started…
The position of L’ancresse is frankly staggering and unfortunately symptomatic of the way the panel seem to have approached the whole classification.
Her narrow second to Islington in the F+M turf was so far superior to anything else that she achieved all year you would have thought that the handicappers would have approached the task of assessing her run with a healthy degree of scepticism.  Instead, rather than arguing that Islington (at the end of a hard year and on a track that clearly didn’t suit) won despite not running to her best, the panel seem to have blithely accepted the form as read.
Surely handicapping involves a more sophisticated analysis of a race than this?  An unexceptional filly among a generation of largely rotten 3yo staying fillies is rated higher than two genuine stars in the most competitive 3yo filly mile division for years – the connections of Six Perfections and Russian Rythym must be astonished.  <br>
Flat:
1. Marling (!)<br>2. Zafonic<br>3. Peintre Celebre
NH:
1. Istabraq<br>2. Run For Free<br>3. Suny Bay
(Edited by marling at 5:32 pm on Jan. 6, 2004)
Looks a great race on paper. Also fantastic to see the Eclipse attract a field worthy of its status (there have been some pretty moderate renewals recently).
On the ‘downside’, I made a mental note to back Nayef, Islington, Norse Dancer and Falbrav the next time they ran – not sure betting 4 against the field is a very profitable idea so it may have to be a small investment on Norse Dancer (got a feeling he may turn out to be the best 3yo in Europe).
Ian
On a general level I completely sympathise with your obvious irratibility :biggrin: at the modern tendency in racing (and, indeed, in most other sports) to jump on a promising performance and build a horse up to be the ‘second coming’.
Similarly, I accept that if you had to attempt the (ultimately fatuous) task of listing the ‘Top 50’ racehourses of all time, those who had consistently proved their excellence time after time would have to come above those whose brilliance was more ephemeral (everything else being equal!)
Nevertheless, I still think there is a case to be made for treating each horse differently and assessing their true worth accordingly.  While it’s true that most ‘one-off’ performances are often false guides to a horse’s worth (King’s Best in the 2000 Guineas is one that springs immediately to mind in recent years or, even Arazi for that matter) and should, therefore, be treated with a large dose of scepticism, others occassionally have more substance to them (Storm Bird’s Dewhurst victory or Zafonic’s 2000 Guineas to use my earlier example).
To use an (admittedly) crude example from another sport, does Bob Beamon not deserve to be considered a ‘great’ long jumper just because he never repeated his world record performance ever again?
Ian, surely it depends on what criteria you demand be met before a horse can be labelled ‘great’?
Perhaps for a horse to be considered a true champion it should have proved itself consistently on all types of going, distance, courses and race conditions (eg Mill Reef, Brigadier Gerard). To be fair though, I don’t think anyone has claimed that Hawk Wing is so durable a horse – even his trainer has continually stressed that he needs certain conditions to really be able to show his obvious physical capability to its best effect (most notably fast ground).
Looked at from a different perspective, why can a horse not be lauded as great on the back of specific brilliant performances? Surely to decry the achievements of a horse on the basis of its bad days is to miss the point.  For instance, did Zafonic lose his right to be considered a truly senstaional miler when he sunk into the mud in the Sussex Stakes, notwithstanding a performance in the 2000 Guineas that was comparable (on any scale) with the very best?
Ultimately all horses are different – some have stronger constitutions, can take consecutive races better and withstand the rigours of training for a longer period of time. Similarly, some horses need fast ground, while others can only truly show their worth when the ground has enough give to allow them to stretch out properly.
At his best, Hawk Wing has surely demonstrated (and not just at Newbury) that he deserves to be rated among the greatest horses of recent times. In saying that, I don’t see how it demeans the achievements of the likes of Mill Reef or Brigadier Gerard. If anything it just indicates how astonishing those horses were in the ability to maintain such a level over such a prolonged period of time.
Fair enough Ian but the O’Brien horses are running like dogs at the moment (those rumours about another virus at Ballydolye look spot on).
IMO it would be unfair to judge the horse on today’s performance (in the same way as it was somewhat premature to hype the horse to the extent he was after Newbury). ÂÂÂ
Personally, I’d give him another chance when the stable are in better form – the question is whether John Magnier will…
Coming from a slightly different angle, on both occassions Nimello has been at the centre of a controversy like this (yesterday and at Musselburgh on 27 March) the horse has been reported as moving poorly and subsequently found to be lame.
Notoriously, Royal Insult had to be destroyed after breaking his shoulder when an equally staggering drifter on Betfair.
Apart from the implications for the punter of this farce, is there not a worrying trend developing here which concerns the broader issue of the welfare of the horses themselves?
Just received this email from the JC:
"Dear Sir,
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. I understand that the matter has been spotted on course and the stewards are holding an enquiry down there.
I have furthermore forwarded your email to our Security Department for their immediate attention.
Yours sincerely,
Owen Byrne<br>Assistant Public Relations Officer"
Have to say I’m pretty impressed at the speed of the response and, indeed, by the fact that they actually bothered to reply at all – doubt that would have happened 5 years ago.
What comes of the enquiry though is another matter…
