Forum Replies Created
- Posts
And in those 800 days there would have been well over 20,000 individual horses run, totalling over 200,000 runners.
Rory – thanks for popping up that statement. I’ve been off for just over a couple of weeks due to our first baby, hence my absence from here.
We’ll have to await the reports and Richard Linley’s visit, but I’m sure there’ll be lots for us to have to consider. If the figure of 600-800 gallons for one horse is right, it’s a phenomenal amount required – if a standard bucket is about two gallons (approx 9 to 10 litres) that’s 400 buckets of water when the norm would be a fraction of that.
As for the last time something like this has happened, I really can’t recall it happening before but could be wrong.
I know this had dropped down the list so apologies for bringing this back up but was just watching the Coronation Cup again in order to answer a complaint we’ve had and , as I’d seen this thread on Friday evening, I have watched several reruns of the finish using the head on camera.
Without going into too much detail, Seb applies the whip a couple of times using his right hand inside the final 2 furlongs (I think, furlong markers not in shot to the rail being dolled out) and Look Here hangs down the camber as a result. He swtiches his whip to his left hand and after applying the whip again she then hangs away from the whip back up the camber.
He swtiches his whip again and applies it nine times inside the final furlong or so and she hangs back down the camber. Approaching the end of the race his last use the whip causes her to hang quite sharply left, causing minor interference to Duncan. Given the above, and at what stage in the race it occured (ie a few strides before the finish), if he’d have applied the whip again I’m fairly certain Look Here would have drifted further down the camber. Had this happened then yes, she might have got up on the line, but would have almost certainly cause interference to Youmzain, who in turn may have interfered with Ask, and given the closeness of the finish could/would have lost the race in the Stewards room.
Lots of ifs and maybes I know but it’s quite a compelling case from the head on as to why he put his whip down IMHO.
My throwaway line was not especially helpful but the point I was trying to make was that most courses would wish to race on a Saturday as, more often than not (depending on factors like terrestrial television coverage, other local events etc) it would be more attractive.
Venusian – suspect what the RCA mean by ‘gaps’ are the slots that the Levy Board will fund based on what is regarded as the optimum. Eg 3 midweek afternoon fixtures on certain days, four on others etc.
Neil
However, I do have one question for silvoir and that is why do Perth get turned down when they attempt to secure a two-day weekend fixture? Sam Morshead has said that the BHA approach him to bid for Bank Holiday fixtures, but the Holidays up here vary from area to area, so what’s a holiday in the sotuh isn’t a holiday up here. Ironically my company is Manchester based so we work to English bank Holidays anyway. I’d welcome a Bank Holiday fixture in Scotland!
RobSam has indeed asked for a Saturday fixture but if we granted Saturday fixtures to everyone who asked we’d have no racing midweek and 20 fixtures on a Saturday! Scottish racecourses have been invited to apply for fixtures on their respective Bank Holidays so hopefully 2010 will see something in place.
Rob, Paul and Alan are all spot on and have put on here some of the info I would have done.
Fixtures that go up for auction (BHB fixtures available on 1, 2 or 3 year leases) go to the highest bidder, and in the case of today’s fixture at Lingfield, they were the highest bidder.
The OFT findings effectively ended the old ’50’ mile rule so there is precious little that us Dicks can do about it, as has been widely reported over the last few years.
On the issue of Bank Holidays it is one we are trying to address by encouraging courses in areas with no current fixture to race.
I have that problem all the time David, don’t worry! Am in the process of replying to your email.
Many thanks to all for posting their ideas and thoughts. As I hoped I’d made clear but maybe didn’t, this wasn’t done on behalf of anyone other than myself. As AP very kindly pointed out, this is a Racing Enterprises project, not a BHA one, so I don’t answer to some of the questions that have come up, such as why aren’t Betfair on one of the groups.
So many great ideas and we’re still waiting for a meaningful response from the BHA.
Your tab is growing by the second chaps.
The reason I’d asked for the views of TRF is that I’m on one of the groups (for better or worse) entitled Raceday Experience and had my own views about what the main issues are on a raceday. Rather than be arrogant enough to think that my personal view must be right, I wanted to see if my thoughts were similar to the general consensus on here, which they were.
Perhaps ‘Silvoir’ would care to comment?
Glenn / Rob
I don’t know why this decision was taken but will try and find out and get back to you.
Paul
This is a joke, surely? The BHA see fit to hand over £250,000 to a company who proceed only to pigeon-hole racegoers and state the blindingly obvious, and then send one of their men here seeking free consultation?
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so painfully depressing.
Equitrack – it would be if I’d been told "Go on TRF and see what they say" but no one sent me on here, it was a personal decision. I’m on one of the groups and was interested in what members of TRF thought. That wasn’t clear from my original post I know.
Jumps – 25 Feb 07, Exeter, Ballyfoy (3 dec, 2 NRs)
Flat – 10 Jan 08, Southwell, Rebellious Spirit (false start, only horse to pull up)Paul,
Are you not aware of this board paper where the implementation of 14 runner maximum fields is discussed?
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/image … Racing.pdf
It was officially canned after media uproar, principally from John McCririck. However, those at the BHA/BHB seem to have implemented these limits on the courses over which they have influence, such as Ian Renton at Southwell and Peter Savill at Plumpton. Moreover, when saftey limits are reviewed I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the man sent to oversee the review was the report’s author’s retained jockey! Needless to say said retained jockey seems to invariably come to the conclusion that sixteen is at least one too many.
Since the report was published four place handicaps have dropped from circa 20% of races to circa 5% of races. This is a remarkable coincidence in a period where mean field sizes have remained steady wouldn’t you say?
The reasons forwarded vary from course to course (can’t fit the new stalls across the course at Chester, stabling limits at other courses, ground saving at Plumpton, no reasons forwarded at Kempton for implementing the report’s recommendations to the letter etc) but they all seem to have one effect: to unofficially implement a policy that was officially canned.
Glenn
I remember this – I was in a very different job at the time – but was aware, as you say, that it was canned.
I can’t speculate on Plumpton, Kempton etc nor on whatever the terms of picture rights deals are between racecourses and bookmakers – we aren’t involved in that at all so to get a racecourse perspective on this issue you’d need to speak to them – I can’t talk for anyone other than BHA, or as I did in the past HRA and Jockey Club.
Field Size Limits (stabling limits) were introduced by the HRA strictly based on welfare and integrity reasons, and the belief that a horse should be assured of a stable on days racing. I was actually at the meeting and no other factor played a part and I’m pretty sure that BHB even cautioned HRA against it. The limits are based on the overall stabling capacity at a given racecourse and are there to decide on field sizes if the number of runners excede stabling capacity. They are different to Safety Factors – take for example the 7f handicap at Newbury on Saturday – has a Field Size Limit of 17 (if stables are full) but a safety factor of 20.
If you want some more info on safety factors at various courses and I will try and find out for you.
Paul
Hi Paul,
How’s it going old friend? My pathetic snipe was more to do with your general refusal to accept conspiracy theories we all know be true rather than your position on this issue in particular. You do still claim that there hasn’t been a conscious effort to decrease the number of four place handicaps, don’t you?
On the subject of Chester sprints I noted the jockey of today’s winner reminisce on his winning comeback ride on Elliwan in an interview today. I have asked you before about this win and whether I was searching correctly on your website for the inquiry into it’s dramatic improvement following umpteen runs where it dwelt. Surely there was one.
Whenever I type in Elliwan into your stewards room search I get ‘no results to display’. Where am I going wrong?
Hi Glenn
Sorry for the delay in replying – nothing personal but wasn’t around at the weekend and didn’t have time yesterday. And if anyone thought my response was uppity I apologise – it wasn’t intended that way at all. Brickbats do come with the job as should plenty of criticism that’s justified and/or reasoned, but I’ll draw the line at personal. I have no illusions of grandeur at all and don’t ever view my rare postings on here as ‘treats’ for those that read the forum – it’s common courtesy that the regulator should try and respond and I would love to post on this forum with more, not less, but having the time is a huge factor and posting personal opinions would be unprofessional (and irrelevant really) so is a no-no.
Regarding your point about my general refusal to accept ‘conspiracy theories we all know to be true’. If my memory serves me right – and if it doesn’t I’m sure you can correct me – you alleged that we (BHA) wanted fewer 16 runner handicaps and were actively trying to achieve this through policy. As far as I’m aware, and from all the Board papers etc that I’ve seen, this simply isn’t the case, so how can I accept that it’s true? As a punter myself and with a fair amount of exprience on both sides of the betting shop counter, it’s a no-brainer that 8 runner races and 16 runner handicaps are what punters want, and you'[d assume by default what bookies don’t want. But I have not seen any evidence whatsoever of BHA attempting to reduce their number through policy.
As for Elliwan, I’m sorry if you asked me before about it and I haven’t seen it or have forgotten. If you’ve searched the website you’ll know there wasn’t a Stewards enquiry, and the horse wouldn’t have been referred under Instruction H19 because of it’s previous run. Happilly get those previous runs looked at if you like, as we would with any complaint.
Paul
How honest is self-certification of non-runners?
Is it merely a coincidence that stalls 12 13 14 and 16 are among the five withdrawals from the sprint handicap at Chester today?Of course it was coinicidence or maybe you think it was a conspiricy and everyone involved backed the winning fav?.
Or maybe you are telling us this happens everyday?
If they weren’t going torun because of thedraw they got why on earth would anyone go to the expense of sending them?
Sweetie wife post if ever there was one
Are you serious Fist?
The evidence pointing to badly drawn horses being more likely to be non-runners in Chester and Beverley sprints is
absolutely overwhelming
.
This is one conspiracy theory nobody could seriously dispute….except maybe Paul Struthers.
Thanks for that Glenn (HH?), and for highlighting why I rarely even visit this forum anymore. I don’t mind criticism of me but when it’s clearly vindictive and without foundation, it’s not on. Tell me I’m/we are rubbish, tell me I’m/we are wrong, but I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that this is done with at least some courtesy.
Greg Wood The Guardian, Wednesday 19 July 2006 Article historyPaul Struthers, the Horseracing Regulatory Authority’s PR manager, yesterday described the process by which non-runners are issued with vet’s certificates as "wholly unsatisfactory," after three horses due to race from stalls one, two and three were scratched from a 20-runner, five-furlong handicap at Beverley.
The draw bias in favour of high numbers on the sprint course at Beverley is one of the most significant in British racing, and the surprising frequency with which horses with very low draws succumb to minor, vet-certified injuries that force their withdrawal has often been commented upon. A similar process seems to take place at Chester, where high numbers are at a big disadvantage on the tight track.
The Jockey Club – the HRA’s predecessor – amended the rules on the issuing of vet’s certificates last year in an attempt to bring the situation under control. However, Struthers conceded yesterday that the changes have not had the desired effect. "Things seemed to improve a year ago," Struthers said, "but we’re not stupid, and everyone can see that horses drawn low at Beverley, or high at Chester, seem to have a ridiculously high rate of this sort of occurrence. At times it seems that you can almost guarantee something will go wrong with those horses.
"There will always be horses that do get injured, and one of those withdrawn at Beverley had actually raced the night before at Ayr, but this is clearly something that needs looking at again."
Guys – I’ve addressed the two issues on today’s blog:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/gorac … tem=004087
Comments on Jered below:
11.47 – No complaints with Jered
Okay, let’s start with Jered. The horse is slightly awkward at the start, looks to race a touch keenly early on and screws over the first. He’s at the rear of the field but in touch and never appears to jump well at his hurdles. He’s niggled along towards the end of the far side and starting out downhill. Clearly outpaced from that point and is ridden along, given a vigorous ride, after the third last. David Casey continues to ride the horse all the way up the straight and uses his whip 7 times after the last when clearly out of contention, hence the three day suspension. Stewards entirely satyisfied the horse was ridden to obtain it’s best possible position and asolutely no question of it being a non-trier as some have suggested.
