Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Apologies for bringing this back to the top but I saw a note in the declarations section of the Racing Post that stated –
‘Nurseries from Friday onwards will no longer be "estimated". Official two year old ratings were released on Tuesday (28th).’
This sort of does(n’t) answer my original question at all. Can anyone shed any light on when and why nurseries began to be run before August?
Equally, what does the note in the Racing Post mean? Who ‘estimates’ these races and on what basis?
Shows young Luck to be very much a Racing journalist rather than a sports fan. Nothing wrong with that of course, butit is another example of living in the racing ‘bubble’.
You’re right that it’s difficult to compare footie viewing and racing but it struck me at Bath that my £18 entry bought less than 10 minutes of actual racing. The racing experience is obviously more than just the action but on this occasion there was little other than the races. As I say, I did enjoy my visit but overall it was rotten value for money.
As I speak, I see RUK are showing the queues to enter York 20 minutes after the first race, but it’s interesting that they are going into the centre (cheap) enclosure, and do not seem exercised by the fact that they have already missed one and maybe two races.
Clearly the racing is an attraction but only a part of the overall appeal. Much as it goes against the grain to say it, there needs to be more than just the horses if ‘bums on seats’ is the criterion for success.
Well the jockey I saw yesterday was definitely outside the weighing room, albeit wandering around the entrance. Later in the day another was using a phone within the indoor entrance area. Hard to see how they could both be classed as in the ‘phone zone’.
Another point – if I happened to know the rules reasonably well, and saw something that I thought was outside them, what is my course of action?
Thanks for the clarification – seems like it could have been perfectly ok then. I wasn’t implying any impropriety but I had the impression when the rules were introduced that the jockeys felt they were quite draconian and unreasonably restrictive. It would appear simply that their use is regulated.
And no, it wasn’t Paul Doe, but a very distinctive claimer.
I used to be a regular racegoer but haven’t been for some years, until today when I treated my Dad to a trip to Bath.
Entrance, racecard and a bite to eat and drink left us £60 down before we started. Apart from The Tatling, no stars or reasons to go through the gates other than the racing, which consisted of four sprints and two ten furlong contests, including a seller and claimer. This felt like rotten value for money. After all, that would buy 3 months of RUK.
I can’t say that I’m hopping up and down with the injustice of it all, cos I did enjoy myself, but it’ll take something to make me feel it’s worth going again.
Lower admission may or may not attract first time racegoers, but I am now convinced that it is essential to win back and retain the lapsed like myself.
I realise that this is not directly related to the competence of the Ayr executive or the winner of the Lingfield 4.20, but does no-one think that this post is not even worthy of comment in the light of our ‘local’/international issues???
Freedom of the press is something it’s easy to take for granted. At least we get the chance to ignore media stories for ourselves rather than have the decision made for us. However, I’m still not clear on whether these were allegations or proven cases that were covered up.
I notice that the second article states that the original item referred to doping of horses for international races. Does this mean domestic races open to overseas contenders, or races run outside the emirates? Would this be significant, and if so why?
What about the (eventual) post race interview with the Ayr officials on RUK!
They didn’t realise, or accept, that there were two separate incidents; it was argued that the fall(s) happened on the straight and not the bend; and that it was caused by a slowing horse falling back.
As the studio guy said, the pictures told us more than the interviews, and the interviews seemed to demonstrate denial…..
They’re on Youtube but I’m too technically incompetent to be able to provide the links. How do you do that?
1) Find your song on Youtube,
2) Highlight the address in the address box, right-click on the box and choose Copy from the list of options that appears,
3) Navigate back to this thread, and in a new posting right-click to bring up the same options list again. Click on paste.
4) Assuming the web address is now in the posting, click the URL* button once at the front of the address, and once more at the back of it, in each case leaving no gap either side of the address.
5) Submit the posting. The line above should now appear without the "url"s either side of it, but should change the cursor to a hand in the familiar way when you hover over it. One left click should load the link.HTH,
gc
Thanks for that. Just to pick your brain one more time (and to show my ignorance), what does HTH mean?
I’ve got two.
One that relates directly to racing – Show of Hands "Galway Farmer", and one that sums up why we all get involved – The Saw Doctors "To Win Just Once"
They’re on Youtube but I’m too technically incompetent to be able to provide the links. How do you do that?
I think we all know the answer to your last question.
Interestingly, as a racing fan I would not be counted as a BBC viewer cos I watched it all on satellite. What point does that make?
I bought the Setanta package specifically for RUK, with the footie and golf as nice to have add-ons. However…..there’s no way I would have bought it for £20/month on its own then, and I sure as hell can’t afford it now. It’s a big indulgence in the overall scale of things I need to pay for.
I’ll revert to ATR and terrestrial for free. I did it before and I think many more will be able to do the same.
I should come clean here and say that I treat my betting rather like racehorse ownership – a journey of hope rather than expectation. It’s likely to cost me more than I get back, but it allows me to back my judgement (such as it is) and be more involved.
At one level my betting strategy is undisciplined, emotional and subjective – Horse/Jockey/Trainer has ‘done me a favour in the past’, backed the creature last (dozen!) times, back the only C&D winner just to have an interest in the race, or I even remember someone mentioning the beast on this forum in the past! On its own an approach that would wipe out any more carefully accumulated profit!
Having said that I do try to minimise my losses,
I like to analyse a race, where I have time, but I do find myself applying my Dads axiom of not backing a horse to do something it’s never done before. I use it particularly in relation to combinations of Distance, Class of Race, Going, type of track and Handicap Mark. It’s not a binding rule and you have to apply some judgement (especially in the case of fast improving animals), but it’s handy for older horses in specialist circumstances like 7 furlong or 9furlong races on the flat or 2m 6f and 3m 2f over fences.
Another principle handed down to me is ‘better a 3/1 winner than a 20/1 loser’. Now I know the more serious punters will tell me it’s all about value, but what about the punter like me who likes to back winners (don’t we all)?
It frustrates me when I hear a telly pundit say that they think a horse will win but they’re too short a price, or ‘I fancied him at 10s this morning but I’m not so sure now he’s down to 9/2. Surely a winner’s a winner, especially to some one like me.
In a sense Alan Delmonte is right because at the moment its the only party in town, but to justify it on the grounds of the work that’s gone in so far, is ludicrous. So, as more and more effort goes in, the courses of action identified are, by definition, justified? No matter how wrong they may be? Here comes that iceberg.
