Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This was an Ascot fixture which happened to be run at Newmarket. Financial decisions would have been made by Ascot, not the Newmarket management.
richard<br>
Just a view, but I do feel sorry for people who cannot accept that someone else can hold a different opinion to their own strongly held views. <br>For what ’tis worth, think it is a great shame that debating points are made in the form of personal attacks on other people, rather than about the actual issue.<br>richard
You should be ashamed EC for saying that Dilysb should be ashamed just because she holds a differnt view from you.<br>richard
Also think Zorro’s idea is pretty good. It could help to target specifically the most seriously crooked jocks and trainers, who after all are known to the authorities.<br>As to court cases, not sure about that. Would serial perpretators want go into the withess box and face a question along the lines of,
Have you ever been involved in fixing a race Mr/Ms….?
Whichever answer was given, they’d be in a fix. Courts take a dim view of perjury.
Zorro, if I may say so, thought the way you drew attention in today’s RP to Turn Around’s latest run was superbly done. Please keep it up.<br>richard
Also think Zorro’s idea is pretty good. It could help to target specifically the most seriously crooked jocks and trainers, who after all are known to the authorities.<br>As to court cases, not sure about that. Would serial perpretators want go into the withess box and face a question along the lines of,
Have you ever been involved in fixing a race Mr/Ms….?
Whichever answer was given, they’d be in a fix. Courts take a dim view of perjury.
Zorro, if I may say so, thought the way you drew attention in today’s RP to Turn Around’s latest run was superbly done. Please keep it up.<br>richard
I don’t know anything about Jim’s circumstances, except to say that I’ve spent many a night in the chatroom with him and other forumites and very much enjoyed his company, so I wouldn’t wish to comment on Jim’s reasons for his views.<br>But in every other respect, I’d like to endorse Ian’s points wholeheartedly. Individuals can make a difference. After all the people that pay to keep racing on the road are racegoers/ punters and owners. The powers that be are well aware of this. Whilst they can choose to ignore the likes of the NTF and even the ROA, what they cannot ignore is a ground swell of opinion from those who in the end are racing’s real customers.<br>So yes, do phone or write to the JC or BHB and make your views known. And it doesn’t have to be only because you think you’ve spotted a bent race. For example a letter encouraging the JC to get on with clearing the crooks, money launders and drug dealers out of racing , or to the the JC if say you are concerned about the limitation of field sizes is worth sending because if they get enough of them they will get the message.<br>In the far off days when I used to be involved seriously in politics it was reckoned that one sensibly argued letter represented the views of 500 constituents. Authorities do take notice of "customer" opinion and given the number of informed and concerned racing fans on this forum, no doubt quite an impression would be created.<br>Well said Ian<br>richard
Reet Hard, if I may say so, you seem to be making the assumption that in order for a horse to be stopped, all the connections are involved. In practice, with organised corruption , it is most probable that the jock has been paid to stop a horse without the trainer/owner knowing about scam.<br>Paul Haig’s article in today’s RP is worth a read imho.<br>richard
Ricky, think the last comment in your latest post is spot on. Me, I avoid betting in certain types of races at certain tracks because of trainer/ jock combinations, but mostly jock combinations, no matter what the form tells me.<br>Barry, <br>don’t think the suggestion is that on-course bookies are the instigators of crookery. Perhaps the more relevant point is that when organised fixing takes place, like reportedly this guy in Brighton or through Triad gangs or whomever, only the favoured few know what is happening. In that respect we all suffer, though if the target is to stop a short price, track backed favourite: by definition track bookies benefit, through no fault or action of their own.<br>richard
In 2004, 8500 races will be run in the UK. 350 fixed races is just 0.4% of that number. Imho not only is the 350 a very believable figure, but it is undoubtedly an under-estimation. And I’m not talking through my pocket, rather fom talking to racing professionals and journalists<br>richard
From the 2004 flat season racing is being classified into "Premier", "National" and "Regional", for higher, middling and lowly rated horses respectively. The objective as far as I understand it is to create a more defined image for racing with "Premier" races being heavilly marketed to the general public. The analogy given by the Racing Review Committee is that these grades would equate – in marketing image terms- to soccer’s Premier, National and Conference League divisions. <br> I’d just be guessing, but perhaps the "regional" description is a marketing euphemism. It’s quite a friendly sounding description without actually saying it’s for low capability horses and at the same denotes a lower class of racing than "national"<br>richard
FYI, the whole exercise did not cost Towcester a fortune. Under the headline "track recoups cash as free entry policy sees thousands flock in", racecourse manager Paul Robinson is quoted as:<br>"….it’s still cost effective for us. We make money on the retail outlets, betting turnover and we hope our gesture will encourage people to come racing and stay loyal to Towcester" (RP 27/12/03)<br>Racing’s income is not "tied to the gross profits of betting operators minus the costs of staging the meeting". For example in the year to October 2003 racecourses contributed – from their profits- 39% of total prize money compared to 47% from the Levy. Certainly Levy income is very important to racing’s funding, but it is not the only source.<br>The more people there are who attend race meetings, the more profit racecourses will make. In theory at least ,some of that increased profit should find it’s way into prize money and all of racing benefits.<br>Seems to me racecourses should be applauded for promotional initiatives that increase profits through increased attendance. If they find that discounting admission prices in particular circumstances does the job, then good for them. It surely is not a "pathetic" or "boneheaded idea". <br>And what’s all this stuff about winning betters deluding themselves they are contributing to the industry by making a profit from betting about?<br>Never even occurred to me that I should place bets to loose to make a contribution to the industry, and I’d guess it wouldn’t occur to the great majority of punters who on average loose 20% of their stakes to betting operators. I confess, that line of arguement has passed way over my head.<br>richard
Ian<br>You are constantly villifying contributors to this forum for for being stuck in a rut, for not wanting change.<br>I would suggest that it is you who stuck in a rut through your obsession that the one and only purpose of horseracing is to maximise profits for betting operators such as yourself.<br>Racing is changing, faster perhaps than you realise, and one of the ways it is beginning to change is the way racecourses are improving their facilities and marketing themselves (in a way they have not done before) to people who have not been racing before or go infrequently.<br>You call people" pathetic" for holding the view that a reduction in admission prices is a "no brain idea"<br>Really?, ever heard of wet and windy Towcester which can attract a crowd of 11, 000 by providing free admission? <br>I’m sure with your superior knowledge of racing that it may have momentarilly escaped your memory that on average the admission cost is only about 20% of what visitors to racetracks spend, the rest being food, drink, betting etc, So it is perfectly possible for a racetrack to increase turnover and profit by offering free admission because the loss of gate income can be more than made up through increased turnover and profit on other expenditure. It wouldn’t do at big meetings which attract large crowds anyway, but it is a very sensible marketing tactic in the appropriate circumstances.<br>Yorkshire racetracks for example have seen a big increase in attendance since introducing the equivalent of a discounted "season ticket", and tracks like Newmarket have been clever in offering discount admission packages for minimum numbers, through Greene King pubs for example.<br>The basic economics are this. To cover the cost of a meeting, a certain number of people need to attend. Once that number is exceeded, every person walking through the gate represents pure profit.<br> Your airy and arrogant dismissal of racecourse attendances – "so what’s this obsession with crowds anyway" – does show a mis-understanding of basic racing economics.<br>Yes, there are racetracks who have not yet woken up to the profit opportunities open to them, but many are beginning to realise the opportunity. Attendances at tracks is on the increase and with better marketing than has been the case traditionally, attendances can be increased even more, which means more profit for racing.<br>So get out of your rut Ian, think outside the box a bit , it may help you to take rather a broader view of the world of racing than you do at the moment.<br>Oh and by the way, as someone who makes money out of betting on racing through spending hours studying form (though puts a decent amount back through ownership interests) I would have been a touch insulted by your description of people such as me ( and probably many other members of this forum) as parasites for having the temerity to take money from bookmakers. As you have taken the same appellation upon yourself, I confess to being in a quandary, am I – and others like me- being doubly insulted?<br>richard
Nashwan, first horse to win the Guineas, Derby, Eclipse and King George.<br>Dancing Brave, winner of the Guineas, Eclipse, King George and the Arc and deprived of his Derby win because of his jockey’s misjudgement<br>Desrt Orchid, ’nuff said.<br>Persian Punch, for sheer guts and for bring so much pleasure to racing fans.<br>richard
