Forum Replies Created
- Posts
With respect, MDeering, statistically you have that the wrong way round, I think. Female horses are more unlikely to win consecutive races than their male counterparts. Please correct me with figures if you know otherwise.
The original suggestion surrounded mares who have already posted consecutive victories – I think.
It’s an interesting point and there are examples that do seem to support the idea, tempered, perhaps, by the judicious placing of horses in suitable races. I remember a filly trained by Barry Hills, Duboff, who was a multiple winner, although she was always defeated when upped to races at the highest level.
On a similar tack is the topic of mares in-foal, who suddenly seem to hit a rich vein of form.
Having contacted the BHA, suggesting such a move, in January and then again this month, not having had the courtesy of ackowledgement or reply, I’m pleased to see that some progress has been made.
However, any alteration to race distances should be dealt with in a specific manner. A statement to the effect that the running rail on the entrance to the home straight has been moved out by ‘x’ yards is unacceptable, for flat racing at least. The revised distance should be stated – this is not an arduous task and one that the oft-maligned Kirkland Tellwright manages to perform at Haydock.
Given the ground conditions, I wouldn’t be surprised to see upsets in at least 2 out of the 3 races – kicking off with Bensalem in the first.
Don’t think that I’ve had a bet in the race this century but had previously ‘invested’ on an annual basis since the mid-70s. None of my losing bets stick in the memory but highlights were Last Suspect at (I think) 50/1 and Lucius, who I backed in an ante-post double with Captains Wings for the Lincoln, both at 25’s. If memory serves right. Captains Wings was trained by Ron Boss and the Lincoln was run on the round course that year.
Haven’t had any problems with the site running slow or crashing my PC but notice that the betting forecast seems to absent from today’s cards – pathetic.
Racing has almost always had a rough deal – although Red Rum’s appearance with Tommy Stack many moons ago was a joy. However, the BBC does have rather a brass neck to perpetuate this programme, given their lack of commitment to televising sport. Perhaps they should jettison it in favour of ‘The Waste of All TV (licence-payers) award – the TWATS. Stand up Mr. Woss!
From the Sporting Life Website (note: penned by a PA journalist):
Changes to the way starting prices are calculated have been hailed a success in the Starting Price Regulatory Commission’s annual report.
A review in 2006 concluded the calculation of the SP "was not always as robust as it could have been, nor did it reflect the overall on-course market".
It was decided as part of that review that in future "a minimum of 12 SP qualified bookmakers accepting bets on an each-way basis, chosen by the SP validator, who is employed PA Sport, would normally be used to return the SP".
The latest report concludes the alterations over the last 18 months have resulted in "a more robust and transparent SP" which "is well placed to continue to serve the industry as a trusted and respected service".
Following some criticism in the media over the SP changes, chairman Lord Donoughue has reaffirmed the SPRC’s main concern of ensuring an accurate SP and hailed what he views as a successful year despite some difficulties.[/color:nq19p0k3]
That’s alright then….
Unlike Artemis, I do calculate my own time ratings and have some comments that I hope will be useful.
Firstly, whatever opinions are expressed elsewhere about Haydock’s Clerk, Kirkland Tellwright, he is extremely helpful in not only stating when ‘dolling off’ occurs but also in advising of the resultant change in race distance – on this occasion an increase of 21yds. This should be an industry standard but holding your breath whilst waiting for this to happen will probably be an ill-advised option.
Judging by the race times over the afternoon as a whole, the rain that fell early in the afternoon doesn’t seem to have had a noticeable impact upon ground conditions. The wind did nudge towards a south-easterly during the afternoon, making a partial tail wind in the straight but not to such a degree that times should have been affected significantly. Based, then, on my own set of standard times for Haydock, with which I’m perfectly happy, I’d normally classify the going on the day in question as good on the round course, good to firm in the straight. However, I do wonder if the desire to attach pre-defined labels to the ground conditions can in itself be misleading?
We often hear comments to the effect that "it’s soft but they’re going through it" or "it’s tacky". In the case of the former, is it possible that quicker times than might normally be associated with, say, soft ground can be recorded? As a non-expert in turf maintenance, horse physiology and the impact such factors might have upon race times, I don’t have the answer to that.
Finally, I assume that overall responsibility for announcing a change to the going description lies with the Clerk but how is that decision made? Is it purely subjective, is a going stick whipped out and is the opinion of the jockeys taken into account?
Scallywag – TG industrial? Good God yes! Always a corruscating yet rewarding listen.
What we need is a little bit of ‘Discipline’.
I don’t dispute his talent as a jockey but the other aspects of his demeanour, being discussed here, are far from professional. When displayed so obviously within his ‘operational theatre’, they lend nothing positive to the image of the sport.
I haven’t witnessed the more recent incidents first-hand but his behaviour at last year’s Peter O’Sullevan event – for charity remember – was cringe-worthy. The only thing remotely ‘mysterious’ about his persona is why someone in such a priveleged postion finds it necessary to be so obnoxious. Lessons in humility and anger management wouldn’t go amiss.
