Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Phillip Mitchell’s Joe Bear – I was convinced he would have progressed into being a really good horse. Never really found out why he didn’t race again after he was sent to the US. Anyone know?
All is fine thanks Prufrock. The nipper is keeping me on my toes and off these forums a bit, but she is a star so no complaints….
I read your betfair article about the AGC – if it was you backing the Irish beast at all rates Ante Post then commiserations – ran a blinder…
I was on holiday ~ so not guilty (on this occasion). However, I did send a text saying "go 7-1 on Utmost Respect" but they obviously misinterpreted it ~ next time I will use 1.14 to avoid such confusion
.I laid Sakhee’s Secret quite substantially earlier in the week – I simply thought he was too short. So, from a selfish point of view, perhaps I should be celebrating the fact that Haydock messed around with the ground, even if I am not entirely convinced that was the reason for the horse having run below form.
.Why do you think he ran below form, prufrock?
Marb sounds like someone who doesn’t worry too much about the going. If the favourite has won a couple of races then everything must be ok.
Really, whichever way you look at this, bookmakers gain. They gain if people lose confidence in racing and move to betting on other sports .
I don’t agree with that at all. Making horse racing unattractive, unpredictable and frustrating for punters won’t help bookmakers in the long run and obviously won’t help racing either. Racing needs to stop shooting itself in the foot and bookmakers need to wise up to the fact that horse racing is a valuable product that needs nurturing….
BTW I agree with Grimes and Glenn on their points.
Racing’s income is linked directly to bookmakers and exchanges profits on the sport. However, anyone who thinks that deliberately misleading the betting public as to the conditions on the day of the race (hence making it harder for them to back winners) is going to improve the long term viability of the sport needs their head examined.
RH – Morrison is always negative about his horses’ chance when interviewed prior to big races and I wouldn’t read too much into that remark. I would be surprised if the horse wasn’t fit enough on Saturday, although we will never know for sure of course….
I definitely think some horses lose their confidence on ground with false patches – that would provide an explanation for a horse travelling well then not going through with it when the jockey asks for an effort…
As for SS – I don’t think he is at his best on dead ground, but perhaps he isn’t the most consistent horse either. He disappointed at Ascot last year (and I don’t think it was the trip alone that beat him that day) and the run at Newbury earlier in the season was relatively disappointing, although that was on dead ground as well.
I still think that on his day, he is the best 6f sprinter in Europe.
Well – I’ll admit that our prices weren’t done on the basis of the false, patchy ground that Haydock produced. I never really know which horses are going to act on such ground anyway – that is what makes it so annoying – but I think Marchand D’Or at the morning prices would have been the obvious bit of value under such conditions.
As it was, Red Clubs wasnt particularly popular – the horse we laid throughout the day was Asset – who was tipped by Pricewise, because – erm… he loved fast ground and had a "good" high draw
Had Sakhee’s Secret prevailed nothing would have been said.
There were no surprise results on the remainder of the card. The ‘good thing’ got beat because he wasn’t good enough on the day.
Can’t agree. It was clear on Friday that the course had been overwatered and I was fuming after the first sprint handicap on Saturday as it was obvious that we were set for yet another day of playing "guess which horses will act on the horrible false overwatered ground"….
Sounds interesting, you really should give me the url so that I can look at this bookmaker conspiracy site of mine that I allegedley run and I’ve allegedly asked you to contribute to
Maybe you should have a lie down
Maybe I dreamt it – quite possible – I haven’t been getting much sleep recently what with a 5 month old baby waking up at all hours of the night….
The one you posted a link to on the betfair forum the other day. Can’t remember the address – had some stuff about IBAS on there and about how bookmakers were the root of all evil…
How can I name you when I don’t know your name? I Pmed to ask you for it a few weeks back and you didn’t reply
I did reply but I think the PMs on here are a bit dodgy. I find it rather strange that you would PM someone asking for their middle name. I am more than happy to debate the issues on here with you ~ but do I want to contribute to your bookmaker conspiracy theory website?
No thanks.
Why do you assume that I am referring to you?
Why don’t you just say who are referring to then to avoid confusion? I guess putting names to your baseless accusations doesn’t really appeal….
Some might suggest that certain bookies might be associated with the decision making within BAGS and have profited from the watering policies. Some might even go further and suggest that some of the windfall profits they made as a result of this policy were invested in a horse with a certain trainer.
As you seem to be turning into Ian Davies – I couldn’t posssibly comment!
Well – I can categorically state that I have never had anything to do with any decision making within BAGS and I can also state categorically that I have never invested in any horse as a result of any "windfall profits"
Sorry – it’s back to the drawing board for you and your amateurish conspiracy theories.
.
