General discussion : Jockeys Playing It Cool On The Bridle

A place to discuss anything.
Anna List
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:49 am

Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:46 am

Derek27 wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:16 pm
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
So you have a horse which you know only just gets 7F and you decide to run him in a 12F race and you consider that it isn't fiddling? Hmmm, interesting. :o
One of the golden rules to betting is to understand the rules! People can complain about horses running over wrong distances until they're blue in the face, but if you're betting on a sport, you bet according to the rules as they are - not as you would like them to be. Form books are free these days so there is no excuse for anybody to back a sprinter running over two miles and say they didn't know it was a sprinter!

Trainers are sometimes called into the stewards room to explain a horses performance but I would not like to see the day where they are called in to explain every minor abnormality.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
Trainers generally know which ground their horses act on and which they don't. Yes, the going can change between declaration and the race. Sometimes, the going can change during the day. Trainers are able to withdraw their horses because of ground concerns. When a trainer deliberately runs his horse on unsuitable ground, you don't consider that is fiddling. Hmmm, interesting. :o
If we have a long wet spring/summer/winter, a trainer may have absolutely no choice but to run a horse on ground softer than ideal! Running a soft ground horse on fast ground is potentially dangerous for the horse, in which case the fiddling issue is irrelevant, the horses welfare is more important.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
When a horse isn't fit and the trainer runs him you don't considered this is fiddling. Hmmm, interesting. :o
Depends what you mean by fit?

Some horses are easy to get fit at home. Some horses are not good workers. Big horses or lazy horses are often harder to get fit and often need a race to get fully fit. If a horse is grossly unfit and not capable of running to anywhere near its best, the horse and its trainer can fall fowl of the 'schooling in public' rule, but other than that it's perfectly acceptable to run a horse that's not fully fit. In fact, it's impossible for anyone, man or animal, to be at peak fitness for months on end.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
Some horses suit certain tracks and some are more suited by others. You don't consider that when a trainer deliberately runs a horse at a track that is unsuitable that this isn't fiddling? Hmmm, interesting. :o
Are you seriously suggesting that a top notch two-miler (Dato Star, Direct Route, etc) shouldn't run at the Cheltenham festival because it's not suited to Cheltenham?

If that's not fiddling, what's wrong with a trainer sending a horse to an £10,000 handicap hurdle at Market Rasen instead of a £5,000 race at a more suitable course?

Just because a horse isn't suited to a course, it doesn't mean it can't win - it just means it's disadvantaged and sometimes the disadvantage is marginal.

When you used the word deliberately, if you mean with no other intention than to reduce the horses chances of winning, that would be fiddling but only the trainer would know that. If people deduce that that's why he's running the horse, all it really means is that they can't figure out what intentions the trainer has.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
I know of a horse that was 'cleaned out' on Monday morning and supposedly put on the 'easy list' for a couple of weeks before resuming light training. I know because the owner was there when the vet administered the drugs. The horse ran at Pontefract on the following Friday. The poor horse finished a distant last. Do you consider that fiddling ?
I'm afraid I can't comment on that without viewing the race, interviewing the owner and trainer concerned and carrying out a thorough investigation, and the BHA won't pay me to do that. ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting you, but one of the reasons so many people believe race-fixing is so widespread is that they believe anything they hear, or perhaps, anything they want to hear, that may justify why they're losing money.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
Oh, for the record: If I bet and the horse doesn't do as expected and I lose, I don't bitch and moan. It's the cost of doing business. I consider it no one else's fault but mine.
Same here. I feel sorry for the jockey who rode a 12 furlong race at Wolverhampton thinking the race is 4 furlongs, and the one that jumped the last at Fakenham 20 lengths clear but took the wrong course and jumped the fence just before the winning post. :lol:

They deserved the official punishment they got, but they didn't deserve the stick they received from people who made their own decision to back them!

Edit: If you back a horse that loses, it's nobody else's fault, but it's not your fault either - it's not actually a fault!

As you suggested, losses are what your accountant would call 'cost of sales'. Some people get excited when they win and despondent when they lose, but if they sold an item on ebay for a profit they wouldn't have been despondent about having to pay money for it in the first place, even though it's the same thing. :)

Anna List
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:49 am

Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:49 am

Derek27 wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:16 pm
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
So you have a horse which you know only just gets 7F and you decide to run him in a 12F race and you consider that it isn't fiddling? Hmmm, interesting. :o
One of the golden rules to betting is to understand the rules! People can complain about horses running over wrong distances until they're blue in the face, but if you're betting on a sport, you bet according to the rules as they are - not as you would like them to be. Form books are free these days so there is no excuse for anybody to back a sprinter running over two miles and say they didn't know it was a sprinter!

Trainers are sometimes called into the stewards room to explain a horses performance but I would not like to see the day where they are called in to explain every minor abnormality.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
Trainers generally know which ground their horses act on and which they don't. Yes, the going can change between declaration and the race. Sometimes, the going can change during the day. Trainers are able to withdraw their horses because of ground concerns. When a trainer deliberately runs his horse on unsuitable ground, you don't consider that is fiddling. Hmmm, interesting. :o
If we have a long wet spring/summer/winter, a trainer may have absolutely no choice but to run a horse on ground softer than ideal! Running a soft ground horse on fast ground is potentially dangerous for the horse, in which case the fiddling issue is irrelevant, the horses welfare is more important.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
When a horse isn't fit and the trainer runs him you don't considered this is fiddling. Hmmm, interesting. :o
Depends what you mean by fit?

Some horses are easy to get fit at home. Some horses are not good workers. Big horses or lazy horses are often harder to get fit and often need a race to get fully fit. If a horse is grossly unfit and not capable of running to anywhere near its best, the horse and its trainer can fall fowl of the 'schooling in public' rule, but other than that it's perfectly acceptable to run a horse that's not fully fit. In fact, it's impossible for anyone, man or animal, to be at peak fitness for months on end.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
Some horses suit certain tracks and some are more suited by others. You don't consider that when a trainer deliberately runs a horse at a track that is unsuitable that this isn't fiddling? Hmmm, interesting. :o
Are you seriously suggesting that a top notch two-miler (Dato Star, Direct Route, etc) shouldn't run at the Cheltenham festival because it's not suited to Cheltenham?

If that's not fiddling, what's wrong with a trainer sending a horse to an £10,000 handicap hurdle at Market Rasen instead of a £5,000 race at a more suitable course?

Just because a horse isn't suited to a course, it doesn't mean it can't win - it just means it's disadvantaged and sometimes the disadvantage is marginal.

When you used the word deliberately, if you mean with no other intention than to reduce the horses chances of winning, that would be fiddling but only the trainer would know that. If people deduce that that's why he's running the horse, all it really means is that they can't figure out what intentions the trainer has.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
I know of a horse that was 'cleaned out' on Monday morning and supposedly put on the 'easy list' for a couple of weeks before resuming light training. I know because the owner was there when the vet administered the drugs. The horse ran at Pontefract on the following Friday. The poor horse finished a distant last. Do you consider that fiddling ?
I'm afraid I can't comment on that without viewing the race, interviewing the owner and trainer concerned and carrying out a thorough investigation, and the BHA won't pay me to do that. ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting you, but one of the reasons so many people believe race-fixing is so widespread is that they believe anything they hear, or perhaps, anything they want to hear, that may justify why they're losing money.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
Oh, for the record: If I bet and the horse doesn't do as expected and I lose, I don't bitch and moan. It's the cost of doing business. I consider it no one else's fault but mine.
Same here. I feel sorry for the jockey who rode a 12 furlong race at Wolverhampton thinking the race is 4 furlongs, and the one that jumped the last at Fakenham 20 lengths clear but took the wrong course and jumped the fence just before the winning post. :lol:

They deserved the official punishment they got, but they didn't deserve the stick they received from people who made their own decision to back them!

Edit: If you back a horse that loses, it's nobody else's fault, but it's not your fault either - it's not actually a fault!

As you suggested, losses are what your accountant would call 'cost of sales'. Some people get excited when they win and despondent when they lose, but if they sold an item on ebay for a profit they wouldn't have been despondent about having to pay money for it in the first place, even though it's the same thing. :)
I could have chosen to address each specific point you raised but I think it better to address your post in a more general sense.

I know better than to listen to racing game rumour. I make my own decisions based on my own research. Actually, I was going to delete the previous sentence but I've decided to leave it. I do listen to rumour and quite a lot under certain circumstances and at certain times because I want to know what others would have me, and a host of other people, do so that they can profit from misdirection and misinformation. I listen because I need to know so that I can do the opposite so that I too can profit.

I also listen to those that I trust and have trusted over the years and who are closer to the action than I.

When I talked, in my previous post, about running horses on the wrong ground, over the wrong distances and on the wrong courses, I was talking about DELIBERATELY doing this so that profit can be made by the yards from a horse's failure and, at the same time, attempting to get the horse's OR reduced. I assumed that you would realise this, given my other posts on this subject. Obviously not.

As regards a horse's optimal ground, distance and course, I find your comments quite naive. Trainers run horses at all sorts of tracks, at all sorts of distances (within certain limits) and on all sorts of grounds. Just because it ran well at a particular track or on a particular ground or over a particular distance, it can't be assumed that those are the horse's optimum conditions. It could be that the trainer trained the horse at those times in order that the horse gave a good account of itself and to misdirect the betting public.

The reverse also happens. Just because a horse ran badly at a particular track on particular ground over a particular distance, it can't be assumed that those aren't the horse's optimum conditions. It could be that the horse was deliberately undertrained so that it gave a bad account of itself and to misdirect the betting public.

I'd say that, in too many cases, a horse's form isn't worth the paper it's printed on and any member of the betting public could be easily misdirected.

Only the trainer, and those close to him, really knows the horse's optimal distance, track and ground. I would suggest that, a member of the public, looking at the form, will probably be misdirected rather than become better informed about the horse. IMHO, to think otherwise is naive.

Why do people believe race fixing is so widespread? Because it probably is.

Why doesn't someone do something about it?

Knowing and being able to prove it in a court of law are two different things. Not too many years ago, one or two high-profile cases collapsed in court through lack of proof. Besides, where's the incentive to clean it up? Racing continues, regardless of what people think.

If fiddling is so widespread and it was cleaned up, there may not be too much of racing left.

There's too little money filtering down to the lower echelons of racing. I suspect that the only way those involved are able to survive is through fiddling.

However, it doesn't end there. At the very top, there's some huge rewards to be made and fiddling takes place there too. Remember Mahmood Al Zarooni of Godolphin and Encke fame?

BTW, I'm not bitching and moaning about fiddling. I'm a realist. Where there's money, there's usually corruption and where there's big money, there's usually big corruption. I don't condone it but it's a fact. Get used to it and allow for it. My systems are mostly based on fiddling and taking advantage. If the sport were clean, I wouldn't be able to make a Sou, probably.

Anyways, if you want to believe that the sport is largely clean or not as corrupt as some would have one believe, so be it.

Derek27
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:32 pm

Anna List wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:49 am
Only the trainer, and those close to him, really knows the horse's optimal distance, track and ground. I would suggest that, a member of the public, looking at the form, will probably be misdirected rather than become better informed about the horse. IMHO, to think otherwise is naive.
Speak for yourself! Your making the sweeping assumption that the majority of bettors are ignorant and clueless about form.

A horse's time can sometimes prove that it gets a particular trip, and you can judge from it's style of running whether it might get further or be better over shorter. People who are serious about betting or rely on Timeform comments won't get fooled that easily and people who are not serious don't need to be fooled, as their already misguided.
Anna List wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:49 am
As regards a horse's optimal ground, distance and course, I find your comments quite naive. Trainers run horses at all sorts of tracks, at all sorts of distances (within certain limits) and on all sorts of grounds. Just because it ran well at a particular track or on a particular ground or over a particular distance, it can't be assumed that those are the horse's optimum conditions. It could be that the trainer trained the horse at those times in order that the horse gave a good account of itself and to misdirect the betting public.

The reverse also happens. Just because a horse ran badly at a particular track on particular ground over a particular distance, it can't be assumed that those aren't the horse's optimum conditions. It could be that the horse was deliberately under trained so that it gave a bad account of itself and to misdirect the betting public.
Again, you're making the assumption that most bettors are stupid enough to put a bad run down to the track, going or distance. Has it not occurred to you that a bad run can be down to the fact that it's a horse, not a machine?

Are there any trainers that have horses so reliable they can decide when it runs well and when it doesn't?

Under training a horse for a series of runs may lead to a good pay day when the horse is ready, but regarding course/going will only fool the daftest of bettors who need the information you gave above. Even Timeform keep their ratings for a race fluid and revisit them in the light of future races, and likewise, I never drew hard and fast conclusions when assessing a horse's performance but would reserve judgement where necessary - so I could never be fooled. Bear in mind that all serious bettors use their eyes as well as going through the form book and are therefore harder to misguide.
Anna List wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 pm
I'd say that, in too many cases, a horse's form isn't worth the paper it's printed on and any member of the betting public could be easily misdirected.
Best speak for yourself as now you're making the assumption that we're all idiots!. One, that would be the case even if every horse was a trier because it only takes a false pace to make form worthless and two, serious punters use their eyes and don't rely purely on the form book.

A horses form is black and white, as printed in the form book, but what the form's worth is open to interpretation - most online form books allow you to keep your own notes about a race, so we're not all looking at the same thing!
Last edited by Derek27 on Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:48 pm

Nice try from Paddy Brennan in the 14:40 Taun. Yeeha, ride 'em cowboy!

Anna List
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:49 am

Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:03 pm

Derek27 wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:32 pm
Now you're making the assumption that we're all idiots!. One, that would be the case even if every horse was a trier because it only takes a false pace to make form worthless and two, serious punters use their eyes and don't rely purely on the form book.
It's pointless talking to you. You add nothing of value. You just criticise but in an unhelpful way.

You deliberately, or otherwise, misconstrue each statement I make.

I never said, or even intimated, that you are all idiots. To state that I did is incorrect - and that's me being pc - for the moment. What I did say was that trainers fiddle so much, only people close to the horse know whether a piece of form is genuine or not. Timeform and all manner of other aids are of no help unless one is in the know as to whether or not the horse had been trained adequately for races.

It is obvious that we aren't even on the same book, let alone on the same page. You have your view, I have mine.

To be honest, I'd rather you didn't comment on my posts in future and I will do likewise. In this way, the tranquility of this forum will be maintained.

Derek27
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:16 pm

I'm free to comment on any post on this forum, and so are you!

I don't really understand what the problem is. I've had a lot of disagreements with other members of this forum and that's what you can expect on a forum with mixed views.

I'm sorry if my post caused you any offence, but you did say you find my comments naive, the feeling is mutual, so it's only fair that I can say the same.

Derek27
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:22 pm

Fair enough Anna, I'll accept your agreement not to comment on each other's posts, no hard feelings. :)

Anna List
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:49 am

Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:49 pm

Derek27 wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:16 pm
I'm free to comment on any post on this forum, and so are you!

I don't really understand what the problem is. I've had a lot of disagreements with other members of this forum and that's what you can expect on a forum with mixed views.

I'm sorry if my post caused you any offence, but you did say you find my comments naive, the feeling is mutual, so it's only fair that I can say the same.
You are free to comment. However, as I stated earlier, I don't find your comments constructive nor helpful.

When I stated in a previous post that your comments were naive, I meant in the sense: (of a person) natural and unaffected; innocent.

In my previous email, I asked, politely, that you refrain from commenting on my posts, yet, you chose to ignore my request and posted two further comments. I consider that rude and inappropriate.

You state that you've had a number of disagreements with others on this forum. Why am I not surprised by this comment?

It is obvious that there is a personality clash.

As I previously requested, please refrain from commenting on my posts.
Last edited by Anna List on Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Derek27
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:09 pm

As I said I'm free to comment on your posts, I don't have to honour your request, but I've agreed to do so in future.

I don't understand why you feel it's okay for you to continue to comment on mine but I shouldn't comment on your posts.

I was simply trying to communicate to you that I've accepted your request and will not be commenting on your posts in future, but obviously you just assumed I will obediently comply and no agreement was necessary.

Anna List
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:49 am

Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:13 pm

Derek27 wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:09 pm
I was simply trying to communicate to you that I've accepted your request
Then quit posting. :roll:

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: sionascaig and 3 guests