Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Anyone found guilty of mistreating horses should, at the very least, have his or her licence suspended pending sentence/appeal – the benefit of the doubt should go to the animal, not the accused.
Leaving aside the fact that The Law and "natural justice" do not habitually place the rights of animals above those of humans, in this case the animal was already dead, so had no benefit to glean from the doubt.
Unless you’re accusing Johnson of more general, ongoing crimes against welfare, which weren’t on the charge sheet as far as I know, I can’t see that a hiatus of a very few days is anything to get too exercised about.
I suspect that in cases of animal cruelty the Law does indeed place the rights of the animal above the abuser.
My point was not about the dead horse, it was about animals still in the care of anyone found guilty of animal cruelty. I’m not getting ‘exercised’ about it from a personal viewpoint. My frustrations arise from an issue which I believe will reflect badly on racing, offer ammunition to anti-racing campaigners and, annoyingly, a matter that could easily be dealt with given some foresight, a little planning and an appropriate set of priorities.
Paul, thanks for responding in such detail. I assumed there was no precedent for the delay because your response to my question about it on twitter did not, for some reason, reach my Tweetdeck timeline (I found it by going back through all your tweets)- so I owe you an apology there.
I’m surprised that not a single journalist shared my concern that (again we are moving into a hypothetical situation here but pending an announcement, there is no other light in which it can be debated) a licensed trainer who might face a ban for effectively abusing animals in his care, is allowed to retain charge of those animals a minute longer than is necessary.
That neither you nor any of the journalists you spoke to – assuming there were a few – consider that this will reflect badly on racing is astounding, in my view.
Returning to the delay itself, is it not the case that for the panel to make the ‘accused’ aware of their findings, they must have gone through the evidence in detail and taken all aspects into account?
Had they not done so, there would be no findings. If this is the way it works, why then does it take up to 10 days to write down what they must already know?
Joe
1. They didn’t, but that’s not to say they won’t in future. My point is the entire delay (from charge to possible sentence, assuming there is one) would be the issue, not just a couple of days at the end. Complaining about 7/8 days would be utterly churlish in my opinion
I had no comment to make on the delay between charge and hearing because no findings had been reached and the ‘accused’ is entitled to at least get to ‘court’ and present a defence. In this case that defence has been presented and a decision reached on guilt/innocence.
The delay between the findings and the announcement (and imposition of the ‘sentence’) is what I believe is the crux of this matter.
2. They would have gone through all the evidence but were still hearing some of it on Tuesday. As I’ve said elsewhere, whilst whether or not he is in breach is known by the parties, what neither party is aware of is any penalty if there is to be a penalty.
There must be a tariff of penalties – how long can it take to choose from that?
3. If you’ve read any of the Panel’s previous reasons in other hearings you wil know they are almost thesis-like – 5,000 to 10,000 words – which is why it might take 7/8 days to write down, especially when the Panel aren’t employees and hold down other jobs.
I’ve read none, nor would I be so inclined if they run to as much as 10,000 words – how can such length be justified outside of a hugely complicated trial involving something like fraud in the city?
From what you say, the panel must also do their own donkey work in actually compiling their findings – this can only add to the Colonel Blimp image of racing administration. Is there no stenographer/secretary/pro writer employed to assist in compiling the findings?
4. Had they given and authorised the publication of a few small paras on breach and penalty I can say with certainty the reasons, when the came, would gain virtually zero coverage. That is not good to or for racing.Isn’t it the other way round? If the findings run at between 5,000 and 10,000 words, why would an editor/journo plough through them?
You mention in your other response I referred to a ‘disaster for racing’ – I did not. I believe I said it would reflect badly and I stand by that.
Anyone found guilty of mistreating horses should, at the very least, have his or her licence suspended pending sentence/appeal – the benefit of the doubt should go to the animal, not the accused.
Paul, thank you again for the detail. I have annotated your response – mine in italics.
Joe
Paul, thanks for responding in such detail. I assumed there was no precedent for the delay because your response to my question about it on twitter did not, for some reason, reach my Tweetdeck timeline (I found it by going back through all your tweets)- so I owe you an apology there.
I’m surprised that not a single journalist shared my concern that (again we are moving into a hypothetical situation here but pending an announcement, there is no other light in which it can be debated) a licensed trainer who might face a ban for effectively abusing animals in his care, is allowed to retain charge of those animals a minute longer than is necessary.
That neither you nor any of the journalists you spoke to – assuming there were a few – consider that this will reflect badly on racing is astounding, in my view.
Returning to the delay itself, is it not the case that for the panel to make the ‘accused’ aware of their findings, they must have gone through the evidence in detail and taken all aspects into account?
Had they not done so, there would be no findings. If this is the way it works, why then does it take up to 10 days to write down what they must already know?
Joe
At the moment everything is just supposition – is it not best to wait until the result is announced.
Then the Exocets can be fired if needed
I’d normally agree with you Paul but if pressure can be brought to bear to speed this announcement, I can’t see a downside.
Paul Struthers just tweeted that HJ was made aware of the findings of the panel but sentence, if any, is yet to be decided/passed.
If Johnson’s been banned on welfare grounds, the delay in formally announcing that will reflect badly on racing. A warning off/licence suspension normally comes into force 48 hours after the decision.
There seems to be no precedent here – HJ will have up to 15 days to decide on whether to appeal rather than the normal 7. During this time horses will remain in his care when – he might (innocent until proved guilty, I know) have been told yesterday he’s no longer a fit and proper person to be caring for horses.
Welfare is already under intense scrutiny by those opposed to racing – if HJ has been banned, this delay will only provide ammunition for Animal Aid and their ilk.
In fact one could set up a business whose sole activity was an online tote terminal that shared commission with punters.
To my knowledge, all the big syndicates have a comm sharing agreement with a small bookmaker.
At one point Blue Square offered 15% cashback – I believe the Tote outlawed that.
Purwell, the bet makes money for the Tote as they automatically deduct from every pool before declaring a divi. The original takeout (deduction) on scoop6 was 30% – it might have dropped to 29% by now, I can’t recall.
Their problem is that via Tote Direct – an agency system which allows the bet to be taken in Ladbrokes, Hills etc, means a huge % of that deduction goes back out to the agent – that used to be 20%.
The Australian Tote – TAB – paid its agents around 2% on all transactions back in the 90s (when I was working for the Tote) and I don’t think that’s changed much.
It’s an awful business structure for the Tote/Tote Direct – the deduction is far too big and the agency commission a killer.
Thanks Venusian and Racing Daily. Some at the top of the Tote couldn’t accept it for what it was and wanted their own ‘stamp’ on it – they had a basic misunderstanding of where the biggest market lay despite years of Placepot evidence.
Very frustrating for me over the years as you can imagine!
Joe
RedRum77, I believed the bet, as originally devised could not only stand a £2 stake (you were getting three chances of winning for that) but that it would act as another deterrent to syndicates.
In the original format – placepot-based – I think this would have held good.
They key for me is that in making it effectively a win bet with a fairly paltry place consolation, at a £2 stake, 75% or more of the potential market was wiped out. That’s the % of punters I estimate who would simply discount the risk-reward ratio at £2 in trying to pick 6 winners.
A long way of saying I agree with you, but believe £2 was realistic in my original structure.
I devised the original concept for scoop6 when I was marketing manager for Tote Direct; that concept was altered by the ‘top brass’ and the addition of a bonus race was the suggestion of CH4’s Andrew Franklin who believed it would add drama (and bigger viewing figures)
(I note that Mr Franklin said in a recent RP article that his proudest achievement was ‘devising the scoop6’: Tote chairman Peter Jones also claimed the same ‘proudest moment’ in an RP interview a couple of years back: I still have the original flip chart presentation I drew up but it proves the old saying "Success has many fathers – failure is a b@stard")
My original three-part concept was to concentrate on the Placepot aspect of it with the majority of the pool going to those with 6 places: the Placepot market at that time was far and away the most popular of all Tote ‘Exotic’ bets with pools at the Cheltenham Festival regularly reaching £500k.
I did not believe too many people would fancy their chances of picking 6 winners of tough races each Saturday but believed that a hell of a lot would have a crack at getting 6 placed.
My recommendation was that 65% of the pool should go to the placepot side – 25% to the win part and 10% towards building a rollover which would go to whoever won it on their own (a single punter picking all 6 winners in a week where nobody else did), with a guarantee of a minimum £100,000 bonus to that winner.
I remain convinced that this structure would have earned the Tote an awful lot more money than the current one has, and still produced a few headline winners while deterring the syndicates who have so seriously diluted the bet’s popularity with their frequent raids on rollovers.
Edinburgh Knight was well thought of as a youngster (had a Derby entry) and finally seems to be realising potential.
Trainer says York run should be ignored – he was forced to run to try and get him into The Wokingham and the race came too soon.
Two SC winners have come from the Newcastle Race EK won last time and he’s my choice.
A very interesting subject. I don’t know if comparisons with cyclists are at all valid (see article extract below). They might not be as a good bicycle is designed to minimise drag whereas a horse is a horse.
Streamlining in general would make a fascinating study. I read recently that 80% of a cyclist’s energy output is expended on displacing air.
If the same applies to horse and rider then the lower a jock can get in the saddle without losing his drive effect, the better. What of horses who race with outsretched neck? Not only are they probably reducing drag but are also breathing more effectively
Drafting
Drafting is an important technique in road racing. Exploratorium Senior Scientist Paul Doherty explained, "The bicyclist, as he moves through the air, produces a turbulent wake behind himself. It makes vortices. The vortices actually make a low pressure area behind the bicyclist and an area of wind that moves along with the bicyclist. If you’re a following a bicyclist and can move into the wind behind the front bicyclist, you can gain an advantage. The low pressure moves you forward and the eddies push you forward."
The Exploratorium’s Paul Doherty talks about drafting.
Suprisingly drafting not only helps the bicyclist following the leader, but the lead cyclist gains an advantage as well. Paul explained, "The interesting thing is by filling in her eddy you improve the front person’s performance as well. So two people who are drafting can put out less energy than two individuals (who are not drafting) would covering the same distance in the same time." While the lead cyclist gains some advantage in this situation she still needs to expend much more energy than the cyclist who is following.
In road racing, bicyclists group together in a pack known as the "peloton" or a pace line called an "echelon." Cyclists who are part of the group can save up to 40 percent in energy expeditures over a cyclist who is not drafting with the group. To be effective drafting, a cyclist needs to be as close as possible to the bicycle in front of him. Many professional cyclists get within inches of the the bicycle in front of them. The shorter the distance the larger the decrease in wind resistance.
Full article here http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics2.html
Thanks Robert99 – I can certainly see now that once hooked on ST analysis it becomes fascinating.
Do you think simply betting – non-selectively – on the mounts of the 3 jockeys you rate (who are they?!)might pay off?
Or even betting selectively on their mounts on the basis I mentioned – the uncomplicated horses?
Thanks again
Joe
reet hard, Robert99 and tbracing, firstly many thanks for the responses, especially the detailed ones which must have taken some time to put together – I’m grateful.
I’m beginning to grasp the theory I think, thanks to the detail. I had assumed that ST fans used them in isolation – the point about building a pace profile for individual horses makes much more sense.
It must take quite some time to build these profiles, assuming you must allow not only for pace, but also for ground, track, trip, jockeyship, trouble in running, the wellbeing on the day of the horse and, not least, its preferred racing style.
You then must try to estimate if the race you intend betting on will meet the pace characteristics that will suit the horse. For example, in the King George last week, it was not unreasonable to expect a sound pace from the outset but the stable pacemaker confounded expectations by dawdling.
Although I can see the attraction of it from a value viewpoint, it strikes me that the work needed and the element of luck necessary in correctly predicting the pace of your ‘target’ race, make it a system where the return on investment (of time & work) holds little appeal, for me at least. Those who pursue it successfully have my full admiration for doggedness and tenacity.
Given that the pace needs of a horse in any given race can best be utilised effectively by a very good jockey, I wonder if simply backing uncomplicated horses (those who don’t need a raft of conditions to do their best) ridden by top jocks might not be a more efficient system than ST study? Prices would be shorter and bets probably fewer but the work would be substantially less.
Further thoughts on ST most welcome.
Thanks
Joe
SC
They are an adjunct to pace – which is a useful tool in itself (even in many NH races), moreso when one can judge just where that pace is applied.Thanks. In what way does that give them value in form analysis? Let’s suppose a race is run at a muddling pace for the first third of a race – at maximum pace for the middle third – then at whatever pace the horses can muster for the final third?
If we assume only half the field could go with the pack in the middle third but the winner came from those who could not go that hot middle-section pace, what have we learned from sectional timing?
Cheers
JoeThanks Tuffers, but a quick web trawl suggests Beyer awarded speed ratings based on a race’s final time. I can understand that this would have some value in the US where tracks are much more uniform and surfaces mostly consistent.
My ‘problem’ is that I believe the majority of UK races of say 1m+ are not truly run – (not to mention layout and surface differences) what therefore is the value of knowing at what exact speed any horse covered a certain section of that race?
Joe
Hammy, that’s a fantastic pic of Frankel – congratulations. Do you mind if I copy it and use it on my blog – I will credit you, of course?
On Frankel, I’ve seen them all in the past 44 years and my generation’s rose-coloured default tends to be ‘fings ain’t what they used to be’. But I’m pretty sure Frankel is the best I’ve ever seen on the Flat. I never thought I’d see another Mill Reef or Brigadier Gerard – I feel privileged in the extreme to still be above ground to see Frankel cover his ground with that turbo-charged balletic action.
Much cold analysis about ratings and the wellbeing of opponents has been written, and that has its place. But the true measure of a great horse doesn’t always need a reference point. Frankel’s style, power, conformation (he looked a different horse today from his seasonal debut – lengthened and strengthened)beautiful straight action, and absurd acceleration tells the eye and the brain much more than bare form figures.
He’s being talked about across the globe now – kudos to QIPCO for taking a sponsorship punt and landing it in breathtaking fashion. Credit too to Khalid Abdulla for proposing keeping him in training next year – a-la Brigadier Gerard
I’ve been lobbying for an Arc run for him – maybe next year. What a farewell that would be!
