Forum Replies Created
- Posts
What the hell are you moaning about?
Its a great move our heroes should be not only remembered but also treated as the heroes they are.
I can’t believe you can have a go at the FA for this. Long overdue.
As for FIFA well it has Septic Bladder in charge that just about says it all.
Shut up you tart and answer my question?
Why haven’t the FA campaigned to have a poppy on the England shirts in each of the last eight year?
I’ve had two friends lose their life serving our country, and I’ve wore a poppy in the month of November for the last 25 years, not just at a football match, but walking around the street.
Yet only now, in 2011, do the FA want a poppy on our shirts. They didn’t care less last year when I wrote to them asking for something to be done, they didn’t even bother to reply.
You also say;
"What the hell are you moaning about? Its a great move our heroes should be not only remembered but also treated as the heroes they are."
Which is what I’ve basically said haven’t I? I said that FIFA’s decision not to allow it to happen is ridiculous.
The FA and David Cameron are simply jumping on something that will enable them to look good if successful. But they didn’t care last year did they?
Whilst I completely understand the importance and significance of wearing a poppy, I think the FA (and most of the people moaning) are just as bad as FIFA regarding the ruling that the England national team is not allowed to wear a poppy emblem on Saturday.
The England national team have played a football match within a few days of Remembrence Day for each of the last EIGHT years. Why weren’t the FA campaigning to have a poppy on the England shirts last year, or the year before, or the year before etc?
Is it because of the fact that remembering our fallen heroes, and supporting our troops, has become fashionable that the FA now want our footballers to wear a poppy emblem on their shirt?
For the record I think FIFA’s decision is ridiculous, but I find the FA’s stance on this ridiculous also. They weren’t bothered about wearing a poppy for the last eight years, so why now?
May I also add that I spend £10 or £20 a day, a few days a week, on placepots.
So effectively I’m not just looking for winners, I’m looking for horses that will be placed. If therefore my horse is in front, the jockey isn’t allowed to administer another use of the whip, and the horse fades into second, then I’m not going to be as angry as someone who backed the hrose to win. In fact I’m not going to be angry one bit if second is good enough to keep my placepot going.
I can see both sides of the coin for sure, but I’m happy with the new rules and most certainly not any less happy than I was two months ago.
I’ve enjoyed the racing far more, but probably only because I rarely bet on the sport, and when I do bet, it’s small stakes.
The new whip rules have added an extra dimension to winner finding. Trying to work out which horses will perform better for hands and heels riding, which jockeys are best without having to revert to the stick too often, which horses will stop if they don’t get a persuader etc.
I haven’t worked any of the above out, but it’s all good fun trying.
Of course, there’s the ‘punishment’ side of the new rules that people don’t enjoy but I don’t give two hoots to be honest. Rules are rules, breaking rules will result in the correct (or should that read correct in the eyes of the BHA?) punishment. If jockeys don’t like the new rules and/or the punishment for breaking the rules then they have two choices; adapt to the new rules and don’t break them, or throw in your licence like Mr Hughes did.
And for punters, if you don’t like the new rules, don’t bet.
Well I did say – right from the very start – that Chelsea wouldn’t win the league last year and that I would be laying them all day long whilst they were odds on.
In theory then I should have had a good season, but it wasn’t the greatest in all honesty. Any winnings from Chelsea kept getting lost elsewhere.
Haven’t any strong feelings – as of yet – for this year’s Premier League. I personally think Manchester United are stronger this season but it will be interesting to see if the Blues get Modric and one other before the window shuts. So for now, the Premier League Winner market is a no bet one for me. Have to agree that Blackburn look poor though.
My best bet, and my best bet for a long long time, is West Ham to win the Championship. I think they have an outstanding squad for this level and I really can’t see them not winning that division. I’ve backed them at 5.8 and I won’t be laying them for a long time yet.
They have players in and around the England set-up within their squad, Fredric Piquionne and Carlton Cole in attack, and they go out and sign another Premier League class striker in John Carew.
Their signings this season – Kevin Nolan, Matt Taylor, Abdoulaye Faye etc – are all Premier League class, they’ve still got the Football Writers Player of the Year Scott Parker at the club, they’ve got quality with the likes of Rob Green, Mark Noble, Jack Collison, Junior Stanislas etc.
In my opinion they’ve got one of the strongest squads the Championship has ever seen, and to top it all they have an excellent, vastly experienced manager at the helm.
The key to winning this division is retaining your best players when you get relegated, just like Newcastle did a few seasons ago. They might lose Parker this month, but even so their squad will break the 100 points barrier in the table. Nailed on, and as I say, my best bet for a long long time.
All the best mate.
Isn’t ‘dangerous’ riding when you deliberately steer your horse across another horse’s path, or something similar?
Wasn’t this simply a case of the horse drifting in, a reaction perhaps to being whipped down its left quarters?
Therefore, the offence of careless riding, rather than dangerous riding, was completely the right call in my – and the stewards of course – opinion.
Not defending the ride one bit may I add, I’m merely pointing out that under the rules the rider was charged with the correct offence. So as the OP says, maybe the rules need changing.
All this talk about folk only being there for the concert afterwards and yet not one of you could mention who the concert existed of.
In actual fact the crowds dwindled dramatically after the final race suggesting that folk were there for the racing and not the concert.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good whinge
The Shergar Cup always has been, and in my opinion, always will be, very successful. Ascot don’t need to market it any different, they don’t need to change a thing. They regularly get close to 30,000 race-goers, by far the biggest attendance on this given Saturday.
Whether you like the quality of racing or not get over it, it’s a once a year event, that’s all.
Pinza
I offer facts and evidence, you come back wih spin and innuendoGet away Reet! Pinza, spin and innuendo, never?
Spin, twist, are the two the same?
Back to Mike and Emma, well Mike really. Thoroughly enjoyed it when Sir Hencry dressed him down when talking about Frankel.
Mike asked about where Frankel would run next, Henry told him and explained in detail how many more runs the horse will have this season. Mike then asked Sir Henry how many more runs the horse will have this season to which Henry replied, "I’ve already told you that, weren’t you listening?"
Stunning performance by Frankel… another exercise canter today.
If every horse was at the best of their abilities, Frankel would beat any animal from 6-10 furlongs in my opinion, and that includes that Australian thing… I doubt it would get within a few lengths of the best horse Sir Henry Cecil has ever seen (take not of what Sir Henry says by the way).
Sometimes you just have to ignore ratings, times, even your own opinions to some extent, and instead take note of what people who have been in the game for decades say about Frankel.
On visual evidience most of them are saying that Frankel is the best horse ever. That’s good enough for me, and it’s backed up by my own thoughts. I’ve certainly never seen a better horse in the last 25 years or so.
As crazy as it might sound, tomorrow’s cards appeal far more to me than today’s.
True, I’m a NH love at heart so I might be classed as bias but in defence of today, how can anyone argue with the planning? Newmarket’s gates are up 10%, York, Ascot and Chester are unaffected by the scheduling etc… and all this in poor weather for this time of the year.
Stop whinging for crying out loud. You can only ever attend one meeting at a time in any day and age, and you can Sky plus the others so what’s the fuss?
And if you’re not happy about the quality of cards tomorrow then take a day off… it’s not rocket science.
Pinza, considering the amount of times you agree with Ginger… and the amount of times you use the worde ‘value’… and not forgetting the fact that you are both Trotters Independent Traders, are you sure you’re not both the same person?
Steering job, to be fair. Had to rely on a bit of luck too, to boot. Can’t see how it was a great ride really. Sorry lad.
Congrats to her, though. Been a long time since Alex Greaves deadheated on Ya Malak.
Steering job in hindsight, but far from a steering job pre and during race.
How many times have you seen a jockey travelling as well as she was push the button at the wrong time, try to create a gap that wasn’t there, get the horse off the bridle etc?
Where did the luck part come in? Skill and judgement to wait for the gaps surely?
This is why I’m saying it was a fantastic ride, she didn’t panick, she just sat there knowing she was on the best horse and waited for the gaps to arrive. She was coolness personified as I’ve already said… it was a truly brilliant ride.
Cheers Colin, that’s exactly how I believed they had come to their decision not to disqualify the winner, and quite frankly, it’s hard to disagree.
If anyone, hand on their heart, can say that either of the hampered horses would have beaten the winner without the interference then they watched a different race to me.
Once again, I’ll stress that I don’t agree with the rules, I’m just saying that the Haydock stewards made exactly the right call according to the current rules (in my opiniobn of course).
Hi 1i Why have the race at all? Let the stewards just decide which is the better,or best horse and award him he race? All races should be decided in the stewards room.Forget jockeys using whips or bumping other horses, causing interference,or going off a straight line.Races will be more fun to watch!Let the stewards decide the winner and that settles it.
Don’t lose your rag with me mate
I didn’t say the horse shouldn’t have been thrown out, I didn’t say Spencer didn’t deserve a ban, I merely pointed out that, by today’s rules, the stewards made the correct call.
The two main questions the stewards ask are, 1) was there any interference, and 2) did the interference affect the result?
Only if both answers are yes will they amend a result. Yesterday they will have deemed yes to be the answer to the first question and no to the second. By that I mean yes there was interference but no the interference didn’t affect the result. And in my opinion, that was the correct call.
The best horse won on the day, the further it went the further it was going clear. The horse won DESPITE the interference caused to other horses, no BECAUSE OF the interference caused.
I’m not for one minute saying I agree with the rules, I’m simply saying that the Haydock stewards interpreted the rules correctly.
Come on guys, you know how the stewarding works in this country, the horse was never going to be thrown out, purely and simply because the margin of victory was too great (not saying I agree before you all shoot me down).
Did interference take place? Yes. Did the interference affect the result. No.
Unfortunately, that’s all the stewards look at when deciding whether to throw a horse out, and you have to say, they got it right.
The winner was well on top at the line, in fact, the further they went, the further Spencer’s mount was going to win by. The jockey on the second horse had to stop riding for a split second at most and would never have won if no interference had taken place.
The most interference was caused between the winner and the third, but Spencer’s mount was well on top and beat the third placed horse too comprehensively for the stewards to say that the interference affected the result. And plus, am I right in saying that the stewards only reverse placings between the first and second these days? They no longer throw horses out and place them last do they (apologies if I’m wrong)?
So all in all, yes interference took place, it looked bad, but the winner was easily the best horse on the day and would have won regardless of any interference. Result stands and the correct call.
A drop in trip to the same distance, and on the same ground, it was beaten by 50l over on his first outing of the season?
Just how easy is it to pull the wool over racecourse stewarding, and is there any wonder that trainers do it with such gay abandon?I absolutely agree Reet.
I read this post a few hours ago, but I’m still shaking my head in disbelief at 1) the reasons given for the Cumani horse’s improvement, and 2) that the stewards accepted it.
As I’m writing this message whilst currently watching the Tennis action at Wimbledon, I’ll say just one thing on the ‘excellent’ stewarding demonstrated in this case. You can not be serious!
He’d been off 11 months prior to that reappearance One Eye, with an injury.
Timeform Racehorses Of 2010 quote "reported in late-july to have suffered an injury".
The length of time off suggests it was a serious one.
If the jockey felt there was any possibility of a recurrence of the injury, then surely he
was quite right
to let the horse come home in his own time after his chance was gone?
Quite right indeed Ginge.
So why didn’t the connections say to the stewards – when questioned – that they’ve always felt thses conditions were ideal and that the reason it was beaten 50L over the same conditions in said race was because the jockey was, "quite right to let the horse come home in his own time after his chance was was gone"?
Or why didn’t they say that they expected the horse to show improved form after a few runs following an 11 month break through injury?
I’m not questioning (or even remotely bothered about) the horse winning after it’s previous poor form, I’m just amazed – like Reet is – that the stewards accepted the reasons for the improvement in form.
