Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Unfortunately, Mullins’ behaviour is now becoming more and more unpleasant and very little surprises you.
However, what does surprise me is the Racing Post paying the same trainer to ‘write’ (ho ho ho) a column about his horses every week.
Hey Willie, see that pile of money over there? Yep, that’s it, next to the old rope…
I think Willie knows a fair bit about a horse’s appearance, demeanour and constitution but he’s just a very poor broadcaster.
As for Bartlett, I find his condescending tone to be very irritating. That aside, he’s miles better than Jim as a commentator.
I’m not a subscriber to Timeform but I do enjoy reading articles/columns published by their employees.
I do have a question, based on the following quote from David Johnson:
By looking at the sectional times of the individual performers in the Derby, it is possible to conclude that Pour Moi could be rated as value for as much as 4 or 5 lb over the bare result.
My question is simple: why?
Ginger
I think you’re right about too many winning rides being commended, but I’d argue this was a very good ride.
I don’t believe he was too far behind coming into the straight. It’s my view that the jockey didn’t realise how unbalanced the horse would be when mounting his challenge.
In my view, if the race were run again at the Curragh then I’d back the winner to win more decisively. Irrespective of how much ‘rubbish’ is in the race.
Just managed to watch some of the BBC coverage of the Derby. Have to say that the aftermath was very poor.
The amount of time Carlton House was in shot after the field had passed the post was totally unnecessary.
I saw the interview on RUK after the Brigadier Gerard and Moore came across (as usual) as awkward, nervous and then finally fairly rude.
It really isn’t that hard to show a bit of courtesy is it?
It was hardly Paxman and Howard.
I stumbled across the blog today and found it amusing.
Would be very interested to read the exchange of emails between the BHA and D’Arcy.
Aren’t there quite a few who qualify for that epithet ROF?
You’re right Cormack. Certainly true that a number could be identified as being ‘handicap experts’, but I’m not aware of (m)any who have been described as despicable by the sport’s ruling body.
Tough one.
In any sport it is the cheats who besmirch the game. For that reason I would ban for life the trainer described in 2009 by the BHA as ‘despicable.’
As well as removing him from the sport we then wouldn’t have to hear the horrible euphemism, ‘ …. knows how to get one ready for handicaps.’
Yep, I’m happy with that.
Really don’t know how people manage to go through ‘hard’ versions of form books, I moved to electronic forms a few years ago.
I used to be a subscriber to Raceform Interactive but as others have mentioned, being charged £70 a month for something that looks as though it was designed for an old BBC computer is just not acceptable. Then of course you have the bizarre situation where RI subscribers had to make an additional payment if they wanted to subscribe to the RP website. So, I subscribed to the RP website and gave up the RI database. I don’t get to query things on their database but in terms of value for money, I don’t rate it at all. I can keep notes on horses on the RP website which automatically appear when looking at cards – that does for me.
Having said all that, I did buy Timeform’s 50 to follow the other month and enjoyed reading it. I know this sounds strange, but I didn’t buy it for the ratings, tips, predictions for classics etc. I just wanted to familiarise myself with the flat again after being immersed in the other code. Really enjoyed the style of writing and would consider buying something similar.
Hadn’t noticed the race, so I watched it just now.
I also watched the filly’s previous three runs.
I think the ride at Goodwood was disgusting.
He obviously made a mistake and has been punished, whether the severity of the punishment is fair I’m not so sure – especially when you watch Amy Ryan’s ride in the first at Catterick yesterday. She did something very similar to Fallon and as far as I know she’s not been punished at all.
The footage of Pitman going over the National fences with the likes of Harvey Smith and Mark Phillips was good, I enjoyed that.
Some of the ‘betting’ pieces were okay. I suspect that the public quite enjoyed seeing betting slips with £20,000 on a horse and gave them something to consider when watching a race. Parrot and GW are probably decent fellas but that ‘act’ of theirs doesn’t really do it for me and that’s a shame as GW obviously knows his stuff and could offer a lot more.
I found the camera angles unhelpful and JMcGrath, as ever, thoroughly unsuited to the demands of live commentary.
My primary concern in the sport is punting – I must be honest about that. If I couldn’t bet then the sport would not receive anything like the attention I give it.
That aside, I was very uncomfortable about that yesterday. Seeing Maguire and McCoy dismount seconds after passing the line and obviously very concerned about their horses wasn’t good viewing. Seeing Donald McCain shouting for buckets of water as he feared the winner would collapse was extremely unpleasant. Surely there must be a more efficient system of giving horses water than people carrying buckets over to a horse a few hundred yards away.
Yesterday there was a very real danger that while Clare Balding interviewed winning connections millions of viewers around the world would have witnessed a horse collapse and die had the horse returned to the enclosure.
As for what ‘we’ do… I just don’t know. I agree with Ginger, I think it’s speed that kills, but I don’t know how you stop that.
Sometimes we need people from outside the sport to offer a fresh perspective on the event. I know that makes some of us uncomfortable and there’s a tendency to take up a Daily (hate) Mail attitude of ‘it’s PC gone mad, liberals are to blame, it was much tougher in my day’ – but as a spectacle, yesterday’s race was nearly unpalatable.
While watching yesterday’s racing at Newbury I noticed that the times indicated the ground was far slower than the official reading suggested.
Today I heard that the straight had been watered and that rails had been moved as well.
Judging by the times of today’s races it appears the ground was a little quicker than yesterday (perhaps) but the description of it is very difficult.
This isn’t the first time that there have been questions over the ground at Newbury in the last 12 months and I fear there’s more conflict to come.
But hey, I’m a punter! I expect nothing more than to be treated like dog-muck by too many in the racing game.
