Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
OK lets take yesterdays example at Wincanton.
Market Overrounds are as follows :
The Minack 26.67
Gone To Lunch 14.29
Golan Way 11.11
The Rainbow Hunter 10.52
Benbane Head 10
Meanus Dandy 9.09
Richards Sundance 7.69
Madison Du Berlais 7.69
Alderluck 6.67
Checkerboard 6.67
Hello Bud 4.76
Quilinton 1.49
Dovers Hill 3.85
——
120.5So bookmaker would take £26,667 on The Minack at 11-4 and pay out £100,000 making overall profit on the race of
£20,500
if they all ran.
If Golan Way was a non runner then refund of bets from the turnover of £120,500 would be £11,111. Payout on The Minack would be reduced by the 10p in £1 Rule 4 to the profit element of the win bets (26,670 x 11-4 x 10%) £7,334,25 so becomes £92,665,75.
Therefore total payouts to punters are now £92,665.75 + £11,111 = £103,776.75 making new profit on the race by declaring Golan Way a non runner (£120,000 – £103,776.75)£16,223.55
Therefore reduction in bookmaker profit of
£3.776.45
and hence as levy based on bookmaker profit a fall in the levy.
Where am I wrong ?
As it is a Rule 4 deduction then it is one set of punters subsidising anbother set.
Whether you feel that is morally better or not may depend
on which of the two you backed but given that some would
not know and hence not collect refunded stakes on Golan
yet all who backed Minack would have the deduction then it
actually counts against the punter to refund.As levy is based on bookmaker profits not turnover then surely
levy neutral as refunds to Golasn Way backers come from those of
The Minack.A heartfelt well done to all involved in the competition.
To put yourself in that public arena off the back off the back of such a tight timescale and lack of PA practise requires a lot of nerve especially given the field sizes at Doncaster today.
Hopefully it will act as an encoursgement from anyone who is interested in calling male or female to get practising.
At least Rachel and Hayley now have a more realistic timescale to prepare for Ascot and with some experience under their belts as well.
My view on the whip is that it should be carried and used for corrective purposes only.
I think it would improve horsemanship and strength in the saddle which should be greater measures of ‘jockeyship’ than rhythmic striking/ or flailing.
I am not in favour of any rule that leaves itself too open to inconsistent stewarding decisions hence the reason for no minimum number of strikes etc as think these would just be ignored in big races and certainly not in favour of disqualifications based on number as to hard to implement. I think the time has come for this change reinforced by the fact that depsite the deaths etc more complaints re the National were received for whip to both BHA and C4 than any other single issue.My point about the insensitivity canvas and not a screen was to point out this was an error and whilst you may feel it is cosmetic in that it doesn’t change the outcome to me you answer the reason later on in the same paragraph in that in the eyes of the general public it lacks dignity and respect and enchances the races ‘callous’ approach.
As regards Dark Ivy my memory may well be failing me but similarly edits such as the infamous Mr Wilson’ dead horse’ quote in commentary have taken place before to both vision and audio so depends where the u-Tube version you refer to was sourced from. Pretty sure the papers also carried shots of horses jumping around the grey on the floor (perhaps stragglers from 1st circuit) though as I say can’t prove just a strong recollection of the impact the scene made.
Can’t have engaging with Animal Aid, sufficient involvement of constructive welfare groups has taken place and contiunes to do so.
Re the Scottish National deaths, does that mean the argument will widen to NH racing in general and make the National less of a specific target or will it attract no more than a passing mention showing how unique the coverage of the National in mainstream media compared to other events which Racing would take as seriously,
Hi Richard,
Did you consider a range of measures necessary for the National prior to last Saturdays race or just since?
Most seemed to think everything was fine and dandy about the race before last week.
Are they in response to the ill informed outcry from the media etc and/or a knee jerk response to what occurred in one year’s running of the race?
All this has happened despite the added "safety" measure of bypassing of fences, can’t recall any major incidents when fences were still jumped despite the "near misses", in fact as Choc Thornton pointed out, a major incident was narrowly avoided last Saturday as a loose horse still jumped Bechers narrowly missing a paramedic, what if it had become impaled on a dolling arrow or landed on someone? Some horses still to prefer to jump which they could still do with the fences partitioned.
The sight of two dead or dying horses being so publicly and openly displayed to TV audiences as the field ran round them was not good and was witnessed by millions of non-racegoers, many of them children, screens will not solve that now. A massive own goal and it’s hard to see how the race will recover from this.Hi Yeats,
No I can’t say that I did consider some of the measures necessary and to some extent still require convincing that they hold water.
However I think based on events at the weekend doing nothing is not really going to be a viable option and it was against that backdrop that on RUK I was trying to weigh up in my own mind the merit of some of the propoals that had been discussed.
Each will have their own views and opinions which is as it should be but the ones that for me don;t fundamentally destroy the essence of the race but also have some logic in being seen to reduce the potential for accidents seem the ones worthy of most consdieration.
We will have to agree to differ on bypassing, I still remain convinced it is far safer and defendable than an incident where someone is landed on by only dolling off part of the fence or the injured/dead horse is hauled off the track as under the old method.
The error in not having erected a screen around Ornais (which should have been done but was not) along with the lack of communication of the post race procedures that were to be implemented to combat dehydration were indeed both self inflicted wounds though not unprecedented (many will remember Dark Ivy prostrate in full view on the second circuit many years ago so.)
As has been pointed out all of this is risk management and given the position the race finds itself in, have to be coupled with those that can be logically sold to those uneasy after watching the race at the weekend.
Those who view the death of any animal in the name of sport will never be won over but others are more capable of weighing up the issues in a more balanced manner.
It seems as if the major change in the aftermath to this may actually turn out to be to the whip rules rather than cosmetic changes to the National as despite the deaths etc both the BHA’s and C4 postbag has had more outcry over this than the fatalities themselves, along with change to the fence design which I have to say I am less certain of depending on its impact on speeds.
Forums such as this are good for positive debate and helping formulate and arguing a view.
Whatever occurs the National will again have been fundamentally changed by the events of last Saturday, only time will tell in what way.( to those who have quoted the 1996 27 runner race did lead to a fatality (pulled up lame 13th) but not from falls/bd’s (though there were several of the former) over the early fences which is the more relevant fact IMO re any reduction)
In response to Yeats post I am not ‘bandwagon’ jumping, it just strikes me that in the range of measures which will now have to be considered regarding the race a reduction of field size is in my opinion one of the those that holds more water.(Along with watering first 6f or moving start forward)
Extra room at the early fences and the ability to more easily avoid an incident such as Dooneys Gate carrying no momentum into Bechers after effectively trying to refuse seem to me to have some logic.
As regards the bypassing of fences anyone who witnessed close hand the consternation caused by the injury to Mick Fitzgerald from L’Ami and the concern about moving him before the bypass procedures would I am sure have the same view. To have horses landing feet away from a prostrate rider and paramedic is unacceptable to my mind when a bypass procedure can be implemented. Similarly to prematurely move an injured rider is equally dangerous.
As also stated green screens should have been left around the prostrate Ornais as they were with Dooneys Gate.
Constructive debate and increased education on the welfare steps taken and their communication (such as why riders had been instructed to dismount on crossing the line) are all essential. Some will agree with some points and others not, that is what the process needs to be about.
They don’t know the exact off time.
Illegal gambling far more of an issue where Tote monopoly only legalised form of gambling and contributes such a high % of Government tax revenue.
To combat illegal betting.
Different price structure for those countries who operate their own pools on the race and those who won’t don’t.
Anyone who doesn’t operate pool has pictures delayed to try and stop unauthorised betting. If operating own pool or co mingling then no delay.
Unless they change the Rules no races can ever jump before the scheduled off time so can never be brought forward.
At Exeter the other day if they had abandoned the chases there would have been two long gaps of an hour.
Clearly sponsors weren’t prepared to move to last non televised race for X Country hence only alternative under current rules was to move others back or have an hour gap and only three races on C4.
Should have just delayed Wolves.The usual reasons are weighing out in a different set of kit to that you will ride in etc – paper boots, different protectors to deceive about overweight you will have to carry or having dehydrated so much that having a drink etc can add a surprising amount especially if weighed out really early.
One surprising thing that arose out of one enquiry is there was then (prob still) no camera recording the weigh out procedure, think in some cases may be ‘ticker tape’ evidence.
Remember Newbury when jockey (Michael Murphy ?) weighed in exactly a stone light and no one could prove what he had weighed out at.Oldjohn,
As it puts the time of coming out on the BHA website if any are on there when you leave home but not NR’s in shops when you get there you will have your answer.
If it is that crucial to you why not just place online just before first race after checking the aforementioned website.
I also agree with Alan that once racing starts any non runners announced during afternoon should not reduce the overall number of places for placepot purposes. Shouldn’t be able to move the goalposts once the bet has started.
Following link has the NR’s and the times they are withdrawn so you can check out whether you feel any are delayed or not.
Just to avoid any confusion whilst I post as ratpack on BF forum it is someone else on here.
Sorry for interrupting.
Apparently Harwell Lad had already something similar in points but at the time it wasn’t obvious whether he had pulled himself up or the jockey (who had an unusual style as well) had not realised they had to go round again.
P.S Nice to see your books getting such widespread recognition AP. Especially from such a tough bunch of critics !!
Brought back memories of a similar race that frighteningly was as long ago as 1995 on the first day I ever called at Wincanton
1 Harwell Lad (IRE) Evs 6 11-12 R H Alner — * * »
b g Over The River (FR) – Gayles Approach (Strong Gale) Mr R Nuttall
Prominent, led 3rd, left alone 11th, reluctant to race and ran wide on bend after next, headed approaching 14th, soon well behind, rapid headway to regain lead 3 out, soon clear« 2 15 Ottowa (IRE) 5/6F 5 10-12 P F Nicholls — * * »
b g Roselier (FR) – Queenie Kelly (The Parson) A P McCoy
Not fluent, led until headed 3rd, chased winner after until fell 11th, remounted, regained lead approaching 14th, soon clear, weakened and headed 3 out« UR Kingsley Singer 50/1 7 11-0 R J Baker — * * »
b g Chief Singer – Yelming (Thatch) B Powell
Mistakes, behind until blundered and unseated rider 5th3 ran TIME 7m 2.20s (slow by 45.20s) Total SP 106%
1st OWNER: H Wellstead BRED: N J Connors TRAINER: R H Alner
2nd OWNER: Paul K BarberBasically old Harwell Lad refused to race once left alone and had to wait for Ottawa to remount who then charged past the stationary Harwell Lad who then consented to race but was about 40 lengths down before regaining the lead just before three out. He won the Whitbread a bit after that.
‘It is a good idea yet isn’t in itself a remotely full-time role.’
This is where I fundamentally disagree. Clearly a coordinator would not be used every day but as no one can predict which days will turn out like last Sunday they need to be on duty every day. This is because the cost of clashes to the industry continues in my view to be massively underestimated.
To show how cost effective such a role would be consider the following :
Estimate of cost to provide full time coordinator cover £40k p.a.
Number of UK betting shops (not including net or exchanges) 8,000
Number of clashes on Sunday as per previous posts : 5That means to break even on turnover (not profit) the clashes would have had to cost each shop £5 or £1 per clash. This to me is clearly far less than would be the case and this is just for one day alone. Multiply this through by the number of days where clashes occur and the cost to the industry and hence the levy far exceeds 40k so a full time role is well justified by cost/benefit analysis.
Therefore there is a strong case for the Levy Board itself to fund the role with the BHA only having to give permission for direct liaison and control for the coordinator to override the stewards.
The current add on Monday to Friday approach makes no sense.. Firstly it treats the task as a firefighting one and as an add on to an existing role which does not allow the developemnt of expertise etc.
Secondly having admitted the stewards route is not the right one they are handed back control on two of the busiest days of the week and in terms of Saturday where the solutions are the most complex and the cost of clashes the greatest.It just makes no logical sense to me.
