Forum Replies Created
- Posts
A late withdrawal from the Breeders’Cup Distaff was the beautifully named "Ivanavinalot".
Useful stuff, Marko. Of course you need to be aware that lots of these non-completions are Pulled Up and a lot of jockeys at the lower end of the scale, by definition ride a lot of no hopers, and hence the number of PU’s is liable to be higher.
BenMore,
I’m not sure about the hot day, but he beat a top class field that day, made up of the likes of Sadlers Wells (Irish 2000 Guineas, Eclipse), Sun Princess (Oaks), Time Charter (Oaks, Champion Stakes, Coronation Cup, King George), Tolomeo (Arlington Million), Darshaan (Criterium de St Cloud, Prix du Jockey Club)  and Jupiter Island (Hardwicke Stakes, Japan Cup). ÂÂÂ
Sun Princess had a pacemaker but Piggott, realising that his horse’s strong suit was stamina, bounced Teenoso out of the stalls and straight into the lead; he then continued to harry the pacemaker until he cracked and then kicked again off the home turn to get his pursuers in trouble, outstaying Sadlers Wells in the last furlong to win by a couple of lengths – it was a truly magnificent feat and I can’t think of another jockey who could have won on Geoff Wragg’s colt that day.
Although he won the Derby, I doubt that Teenoso would have finished in the first four in that King George in ordinary circumstances, and I wonder how much Lester added to his stud value.
My favourite Piggott ride (aside from that night) was when he won the King George on Teenoso, beating Sadlers Wells. I’ve never seen it since, and although I was only 13, I remember being confident that it was the ride of a genius at the time.
Oh yes Peng, an absolute shocker, he finished full of running but still in a pocket if memory serves. He could have switched to the outside, stopped and had a cuppa, and still picked them up!
It’s been suggested that the European horses with American jockeys all broke well, with Van Nistelrooy as an example. I was obviously watching a different race, because the Van Nistelrooy I watched was detached from the field after 100 yards.
I agree at least in part Benmore (but not about the spelling of Mr Fallon’s name!).  Fair play on Clare Balding for being critical of Mick Kinane’s ride on Rock Of Gibraltar, while Willie Carson condoned the decision to enter the home turn in last place off a slow pace, because "you don’t want to come wide".  Better five horses wide than thirteen horses long, Willie!
In defence of our "European Pinheads" as they’ve been described, the problem lies as much with the acclimatisation of our horses with US starting procedures.  In the US, horses are taught to recognise the bell, and when the stalls clang open, they’re out and racing.
In every race with European horses, the vast majority of them not only didn’t jump off in rhythm, but seemed unnerved by the process and found themselves detached from their fields; from there, almost any jockey is going to look like a lemon, and the inexperience of all our top jocks round the Arlington circuit proved to be a further handicap.  Only the ill-fated Landseer under Edgar Prado was given a good sighter (High Chaparral met relative handicappers in the turf), and ironically might even have won the mile but for his fatal injury.
Had John Velasquez, who is an exceptional jockey been replaced by Mick Kinane on Van Nistelrooy, he’d have come in for flak as well, but the fact is that the European horses were forced to give away an average of 3-4 lengths at the start of their races on a night when virtually nothing could make up ground, especially on the dirt. ÂÂÂ
No marks for Mick on "The Rock" nor for Kieren on Islington however, but Golan had been working worse than usual in practice and simply had an off day in the Turf.
Terrific post Alsoran –  in terms of perception, you’ve picked an inappropriate monicker, methinks.
The advantage to be gained is as PR suggests to monitor draw bias on a regular basis – there is only an advantage when the book suggests that eg High is an advantage, but if your research suggests that Low is in fact best, then there is a potential killing to be made – I did really well at Folkestone a few years ago at a time when all public opinion was that a low draw was essential on the straight track; in reality the far side had a massive advantage in big fields, especially over 7 furlongs and I got some huge prices about a few easy winners. Today everyone knows that the far side is the place to be and they all make a bee line there, almost to the extent that a clever jockey racing alone on the stands rail can steal a race, turning the advantage on its head.
Madam Stella, LOL – I was going to ask, but I thought it was rude.
The laws of probability if applied to racing markets would produce random shock results as well JW, it’s the way things work.  Here’s a little exercise for you; Virtual Racing is computer generated but with a higher probability of certain "horses" winning according to the odds (I’m not advocating betting on it mind!).  The bookie has a guaranteed margin, so all events are random (no inside coups) ie "straight". Go into a betting shop and look at the results – there will probably be one, two or three virtual favourites plus a smattering of outsiders, some at huge prices.
Compare this with the results at today’s meeting at York – I’ll wager there are less shocks at York, which should represent a barometer of randomness – a 20/1 shot should win one in twenty-one races (on a 100% book), and if there are three or four twenty to one shots in a competitive race, and all races on a card are competitive, then you will probably get a 20/1 winner every day if the racing is run straight. Unfortunately, every time a 20/1 shot wins, people will always cry foul.
(Edited by rory at 10:31 am on Oct. 11, 2002)
Don’t forget the effect of centrifugal force!!
Beverley has a draw bias, not simply based on the state of the going and the way water drains across the course (although this is a factor), or the fact that the distance covered is shorter, but largely because the ground falls away from the rails on the inside and horses racing wide of the rail are expending too much energy by fighting against their sideways momentum on the bends. ÂÂÂ
If a bend is cambered towards the rail, then horses racing wide are actually propelled through the bend and have greater momentum than those on the inside, which is why going up the inside is often a tactical error on the part of many jockeys.
Start looking at a race in running, and ask which horse will have to expend least energy in completing the course (also applies to hurdling and fencing technique), and you start getting a different viewpoint – try it sometime!
On that point, someone made the point that front runners tend to tie up in softer ground as the early pace tends not to vary.  Conventional wisdom suggests this is true, but a horses style of running needs to be taken into consideration – horses often fail to pick up from the back on soft ground, while some speedsters manage to build up such a healthy lead that they can’t be hauled back, when they sometimes cannot last home on firm ground.  Of course "soft" is a word with a hundred interpretations, and there’s the rub. ÂÂÂ
JW,
you accuse anyone who hasn’t expressed an opinion to be romantics – surely the notion that everything should be run for the punter is the most romantic notion of all. I’ve been a punter of some scale since I was 10 and the fundamental truth is that small time punters are parasitic to racing in that we feed of the product produced by others (the host); the fact that punters "pay" for racing’s welfare is often misunderstood as that money is not donated but simply misinvested.
Those employed in the business of racing have a right to expect to make a living from it. An owner and trainer have the job of maximising the chances of their charges winning races, which means having their horses at peak form and fitness at the right time.  Not bullying the horses or blowing their minds by overworking them is an art form and the expectation that they will be at the same mental and physical peak for an entire season is ridiculous and presumptious on the part of the punter.
Let’s be straight, having a horse which is in the form to win and has the right conditions, and then stopping that horse from winning is criminal, but simply ensuring that a horse is most able to capitalise on its best opportunities by mapping out a proper campaign is the trainer’s prerogative.
It is paramount that we stamp out cheating in racing, but we must be sure of what cheating means, and the scenarios you present do not constitute cheating.  In my experience there are very few cases when races are genuinely bent, and Panorama could only produce one example from the last ten years to feature in their programme.  If a race is believed to be bent, then betting patterns will back this up and the bookies will squeal about it – that hasn’t happen more than a handful of times in recent memory, although the advent of exchanges make it a lot easier to make a killing laying a "jolly" who is unfancied by connections.  I use the term unfancied advisedly.
On another point, if every horse was guaranteed to be fit, trying and correctly handicapped, do you really think you’d have more chance as a punter?  The bookies (or the exchange layers) will always operate a margin for profit and the naive punter will always lose.
Hope that helps you sir.
John,
your figures suggest not that there is no draw bias at Lingfield as you suppose, but that in races up to a mile there is currently a distinct high draw bias, which is very interesting and potentially lucrative to genuine draw bias aficionados.
Phunter,
thanks for that, it’s certainly opening the issue up; in saying that it’s clear our friend "Jamie" is talking absolute nonsense, and his claim that he’s sick of seeing punters mugged reeks of hypocrisy.
What Jimmy Fitzgerald admitted to was slightly different to the alleged "no lose account" in that he had an arrangement that if he wanted a £250 bet on a horse of his, Chandler would match that amount, up to a maximum of 3 bets per year; Jimmy’s 3 all lost, and he wasn’t reimbursed!
