Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The trainer is culpable along with the owner if in "the know". Jockeys are not protected from this tawdry bunch of cheats. Most do as they are told because they want rides and some do it because they are paid extra.<br>I can remember one young jockey saying all he wanted was to be allowed to win (if possible) on every horse he rode. His rides diminished dramatically.
empty wallet<br>I do not understand your comparison with shops and homeowners because if the above left their goods on display, with little security, that would encourage the dishonest.<br>The handicap system is flawed by design and application
The handicap system encourages cheating yet very little is done to prevent this. So what should be altered to encourage honest trainers/owners who want to run their horses on their true merit consistently? <br>
KFallon did not ride out his claim as an apprentice. No-one recognised his talent then, and he almost stopped riding. <br>Unfortunately, apprentices are vulnerable as there are unscrupulous people prepared to prey on their dreams of becoming a successful jockey.
He was unstuffy and very approachable. I once wore wellington boots in the paddock area on a very wet day and was told to change my footwear. <br>He sorted out the matter. He was aware of the snobbish atmosphere and determined to change this.<br>It is a pity about the new stand but unfortunately the trend in racing seems to be not to worry much about watching the racing, merely to bet, drink, and eat.
dj <br>A very difficult question to answer as I’m not very keen on the handicap system but here are some perhaps foolish suggestions.
No handicap mark until 6 runs or 3 if placed. This would perhaps discourage the three "easy" introductions discussed by tdk.
No reduction if the horse is running over a new distance or ground. This would prevent a consistent 5f winner repeatedly ‘trying’ 6-7f until a suitable drop in ratings had been achieved. The same principle applies to say a firm ground specialist running on soft.
no reduction if ‘traffic problems’ occurred, or a very slow start, or a ‘quiet’ ride, or running on too late after being held up etc.
An overall assessment of not just the horse/s in front, but also those behind, and not just for the last race run.
more handicaps could be restricted eg. 50-60 should mean exactly that. A 48 would not be eligible. If too many eliminations then why not 40-45, 45-50 etc.
A few years back I had a long conversation with an official Handicapper asking him what the precise mathematical formula was, for the accurate assessment of horses.<br>There isn’t one. <br>Many examples were given (of inaccuracies) and could not be explained.<br>This is why I do not like the present system used for handicapping horses as it is illogical, unfair, and could encourage cheating.
Wallace is not living in fantasy land. He’s on the inside, within the real world of racing where information is privy to those who belong.
There are gambling stables where owners/trainers simply have horses "to land a touch" ( or so they hope).<br>An owner friend was advised to keep his money in his pocket as it was an "off" day. This is hardly info you could pass on to the punters, is it?<br>
If you limit your bets to 20k+ races and not the average handicap no need for "inside info".
Two tips.
Only bet what you can afford to lose.
It is difficult to make a decent annual profit unless you are an "insider".
It must be difficult to stop all fraud in the racing industry.<br>For example, if all bets are cash transactions and knowledge is limited to a few: owner, trainer, jockey, plus a further two/three jockeys just before the race, how can this be prevented?
A party of friends, family, and children went to Ascot.<br>Some had never been racing before and said it was a fantastic day out. <br>They were also very impressed with the place apart from the price of burger and chips for the children.
Does a jockey have a legitimate defence if he says he was merely following riding instructions?<br>Perhaps a few more trainers should be scrutinized.
Do you all factor into your ratings unusual slow starts; blocked tentative runs; held up when prefers to be up with the pace; leads when needs to come from behind; hates the whip but is whipped; needs a reminder but none is forthcoming; wrong distance; wrong ground; even wrong track(prefers left to right); etc.<br>Then lo and behold, pops up and wins at 12/1, having been favourite four runs ago and soundly beaten since.
The fact that Winston was not charged by the police (but will be by the HRA) and Fallon was seems to suggest the evidence against him is stronger.<br>Only time will tell whether he is found guilty or innocent. To allow someone charged with a criminal offence to continue working in the same position would not happen in other industries. They would be suspended.
