Forum Replies Created
- Posts
As Corm has stated that it won’t affect you so why are you bothered?
So as a gentile in Nazi Germany you obviously wouldn’t have been bothered about watching watching millions of Jews be carted off to gas chambers.
The above comment has to be the stupidest statement that I have ever read on this forum. It is unbelievably insensitive and ridiculous to compare the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis to a Racing Forum not allowing new members with certain e-mail accounts to join.
Pete
And to think, if you weren’t already a member and only had a Yahoo or Hotmail account, you wouldn’t have been allowed to tell me so.
Jeremy, who the fk is Nick? the welshman with a sore head this morning
Well just to keep you happy I have referred to Jeremy in my latest post in another place as "graysons".
It felt incredibly rude.I disagree graysons. A grizzled two-mile handicapper would take a lot less out of himself by running twice closely together than would a baby running over three miles – particularly with one of those being a championship event.
In any case I think that the Saddle of Gold final was run during the end-of-March meeting at Newbury, but I am sure you will correct me if i am wrong.
As Corm has stated that it won’t affect you so why are you bothered?
So as a gentile in Nazi Germany you obviously wouldn’t have been bothered about watching watching millions of Jews be carted off to gas chambers.
Just like any statesman, Corm has to do what he thinks is best for the majority not the minority
A true statesman uses his position to protect minorities
What a stupid decision to block people with google and yahoo accounts. That means you are blocking most who are unemployed or an old age pensioner from registering, as they don’t have work e-mail addresses. I have never heard of censorship applied BEFORE the fact in my life. Surely it is simple enough to ban anyone posting undesirable content within at least 24 hours of them doing so. No wonder this forum comes in for such negative feedback amongst certain of the media where i have heard it described variously as "The Racist Forum" and "The Racing Fascists" amongst others. you would do well to bear this in mind, Cormack 15.
so why bother? why not give the meeting up to say Huntingdon or Towcester and add the prize money to the late March fixture?
I’m afraid that you couldn’t be more wrong on this one Mikky. English language words such as organize, specialize, theorize etc. are correctly and historically spelt with a z. Using an s instead is a relatively recent phenomena. The Americans, in this case, are innocent.
As any lover of Colin Dexter’s Inspector Morse would know
"Morse is a well-educated, inwardly tortured, complex, but basically decent bloke, and I have to admit to having been mildly addicted to his acerbically bumbling attempts to police a fictional city that has Oxford’s architecture and Chicago’s murder rate. He’s presented as a man who is concerned and knowledgeable about the English language, and who is frequently pained by its misuse by those around him. He even puts his hobby horse to practical use in one television episode, when he deduces the semi- literacy of the writer of a suicide-note by the spelling of the suffix "-ize" as "-ise". (The Limits of Creation)
Not that I am accusing you of semi-literacy, Mikky, you understand.
Of course it is true that the last furlong of a race is often the slowest. However, I have heard jockeys say that so-and-so quickened not once but twice during a race. I have heard it quoted about some of the all-time greats that they had the ability to quicken three times.
Time trail-blazer Nick Mordin once defined class as the ability to resist more than one challenge – I’m sure this is a similar point.
A vital fact that time-merchants appear to miss is surely that the sectionals produced are those of the leader throughout the race.
No they are not, not on TurfTrax anyway, and clearly (I would have thought) not in the examples quoted above either.
So do TurfTrax publish individual sectional times for each runner?
I disagree with Hugh Taylor for the following reason. When he says "a recent example of a horse quickening up" what I think he means to say is " a recent example of a horse running their fastest furlong at the end of a race"
I could turn this on its head and say that it is rare for the FIRST furlong of a race to be the fastest.The title of this thread, which so annoyed me, is "Horses don’t quicken" – well if that was true, then the FIRST sectional would always be the fastest. This clearly is not the case. Horses DO quicken – it is just rare that a horse is able to be played late enough to quicken inside the final furlong of a race.
A vital fact that time-merchants appear to miss is surely that the sectionals produced are those of the leader throughout the race. I would like to see the winner’s individual sectionals given (and all the other runners come to that), to give a more accurate impression of where the horses actually quickened/slowed.
Just been reading this thread from the start in absolute amazement only to find Fists beating me to what I was going to say, namely, Has anyone contributing to this thread ever ridden a racehorse? And felt the turbo thrust of acceleration when it goes from half-speed galloping to full?
Of course horses quicken. It seems that some of the more ignorant of you read one bit of some ghosted autobiography, in this case, "Horses AREN’T ALWAYS quickening when they appear to be, SOMETIMES it’s just those around them slowing down" – which is perfectly true of course – however, then in true party bore style they start babbling it out as some kind of truism to anyone within earshot
"Oh, you know, horses CAN’T quicken, it’s impossible, it’s just that those around them slow down faster"Give me a break. I like this forum. I don’t want to have to read through piles of ignorant tripe to get to the good stuff every time I log on.
