Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Saturday

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    It cuts both ways though Edgeware. I mean, from gumption alone I know when not to be backing the real blatant ones. I see too many 1/3 shots turned over.

    But it gets to a point where you looking to see " whose turn " it is.
    I can understand this happening on a chase or hurdle after 2 or 3 miles but over 6f or a mile on the flat it shouldnt be a case of an odds on finishing 10 lenghts behind.


  • Options
    #33
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    Edgware wrote: »
    I can understand this happening on a chase or hurdle after 2 or 3 miles but over 6f or a mile on the flat it shouldnt be a case of an odds on finishing 10 lenghts behind.

    You won't catch me balls deep backing sprints either. In fact it is far easier to pull one over 3 miles.

    " When questioned the jockey replied that he felt the horse was not finding his hurdlers fluently and after 3 hurdles eased off for a half mile before electing to pull the horse up "

    etc etc.

    A lot more easier than trying to stop a fully fit sprinter who is nailed on for a big handicap at the Curragh in two weeks, they don't call them " boat races " for nothing.


  • Options
    #34
    ComplyOrDie
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭ComplyOrDie


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    " Having considered the evidence the Stewards referred the matter to the Referrals Committee "

    What a gang of mincers.:rolleyes:

    I said it before, punters should set up there own public body and lean on HRI.

    If every punter in the country gave a € 1 donation it would be up and running. It would ensure:-

    1) Daily publication of enquiries inc names of stewards
    2) Daily publications of all photo finishes ( as required or if applicable)
    3) Mandatory declaration of trainers of mare in foal.
    4) Transparency of drug treatments, prior to a horse hitting the stalls
    5) Details of drug screening on track or at home stables.
    6) Proper ground declarations - as they happen.

    For starters.

    Punters are forking out 10000000's every year, we need support also. We are treated worse than your ugly cousin.


    Not really realistic, you're just about short of asking what the horses had for breakfast. The majority of the public couldn't care less about that info and if it was available wouldn't know how to use it. Most people who place wagers are recreational punters who don't have the time to do the grafting into form, and for those that do they already know what to be wary of or avoid.

    So if this info was captured and shared who exactly would use it and what benefits would it bring? What exactly would I do with drug screening results? And btw screening results are not processed immediately they have to be sent off for testing


  • Options
    #35
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    ComplyOrDie wrote: »
    Not really realistic, you're just about short of asking what the horses had for breakfast.

    Actually currently in operation, " not eating up" is a viable reason for pulling a horse without penalty after declarations.
    ComplyOrDie wrote: »
    The majority of the public couldn't care less about that info and if it was available wouldn't know how to use it. Most people who place wagers are recreational punters who don't have the time to do the grafting into form

    Not good enough, you are patronising their involvement and how can you be sure that they would not make better informed decisions? "In foal" information is very important to punting decisions, this would not take much space up beside D1 or CD1 etc. Don't underestimate the tenacity of the novice or leisure punter to want better info.
    ComplyOrDie wrote: »
    , and for those that do they already know what to be wary of or avoid.



    So if this info was captured and shared who exactly would use it and what benefits would it bring? What exactly would I do with drug screening results? And btw screening results are not processed immediately they have to be sent off for testing

    Stateside they are required to declare if lasix is being applied. What is wrong with publishing that the horse was tested prerace? I respect that any positive tests could undermine results, but lets be honest here, the real reason is that the owners and trainers do not want exposure of tests and implementation of them. A far to contentious issue. Sure knowing Ireland you can be guaranteed corruption anyway. I have been to the races with VETs before, talk about a free day out. They back some amount of winners anyway.


  • Options
    #36
    ComplyOrDie
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭ComplyOrDie


    Another case of the system being played, it's been happening for 100s years and will continue. The lad is obviously talented at getting them ready but is surely a marked man at this stage. You'd have to think he had the capability of landing a Barney curly type multi coup the way he's delivered some runner's to perform when cash was down. I can't knock his training talent but tbh if you were 2nd to him you'd be pretty annoyed that that could happen.

    I suppose one option to deter situations like this happening would be for the handicapper to take an eye for an eye approach. if you race with a clear 30lb up your sleeve he should give you 30lb and another 30lb as a penalty, you wouldn't be winning handicapps for a long time, so you'd be less likely to take steps to fool him. But it's unrealistic and would never be introduced


    At the same time some horses progress over time, was looking at make a challenge btn off a mark in the 60s and is now 110, that cotter horse was struggling in the 50s and has now won 5 in a row


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ComplyOrDie
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭ComplyOrDie


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Actually currently in operation, " not eating up" is a viable reason for pulling a horse without penalty after declarations.



    Not good enough, you are patronising their involvement and how can you be sure that they would not make better informed decisions? "In foal" information is very important to punting decisions, this would not take much space up beside D1 or CD1 etc. Don't underestimate the tenacity of the novice or leisure punter to want better info.



    Stateside they are required to declare if lasix is being applied. What is wrong with publishing that the horse was tested prerace? I respect that any positive tests could undermine results, but lets be honest here, the real reason is that the owners and trainers do not want exposure of tests and implementation of them. A far to contentious issue. Sure knowing Ireland you can be guaranteed corruption anyway. I have been to the races with VETs before, talk about a free day out. They back some amount of winners anyway.
    Actually currently in operation, " not eating up" is a viable reason for pulling a horse without penalty after declarations.
    Off Feed
    (a) Where a horse is reported to be “off feed” a fine of €200 shall be imposed on the trainer and the horse shall not be permitted to run in any other race for 4
    Not good enough, you are patronising their involvement and how can you be sure that they would not make better informed decisions? "In foal" information is very important to punting decisions, this would not take much space up beside D1 or CD1 etc. Don't underestimate the tenacity of the novice or leisure punter to want better info.
    I'm not patronising, I'm just saying its unrealistic to obtain this info and share it, its benefit wouldn't be worth it, yeah a few might find the info useful, the same way having a mechanic check your car everyday before you drive it would be useful, but also unrealistic. Who would pay for all this testing and the collection of information? Do yo realise every winner gets piss tested and it can take up to 30 minutes for the horse to decide to piss, that's a vet waiting a round for the sample.
    Stateside they are required to declare if lasix is being applied. What is wrong with publishing that the horse was tested prerace? I respect that any positive tests could undermine results, but lets be honest here, the real reason is that the owners and trainers do not want exposure of tests and implementation of them.

    Lasix is a performance enhancing drug that's stops horses bleeding and runners are not allowed to run on it in Ireland, they can't event use the nasal strips here. Its declared in America because it an enhancement drug that optional, we cant use enhancement drugs here so we'd have nothing to declare.

    two examples of screenings being published, you can find more easily on turfclub website
    12. Denis Gerard Hogan (Handler), Prohibited Substance Referral Killeagh (H) Point to Point - 14th January 2018
    (Referrals & Appeals)
    ... by Nicola O’Connor MVB and Declan Buckley, IHRB Head of Security. In his evidence Dr Thomas Barragry described phenylbutazone as an anti-inflammatory veterinary drug which had been in use for many years. ...
    Created on 09 March 2018
    13. Michael Winters (Trainer), Prohibited Substance Referral Cork - 19th November 2017
    (Referrals & Appeals)
    ... Winters’s Training Establishment. In his evidence, Dr Thomas Barragry said that meloxicam is an anti-inflammatory which is a more modern drug than phenylbutazone. He said it was very potent, with fewer ...
    Created on 09 March 2018

    Sure knowing Ireland you can be guaranteed corruption anyway. I have been to the races with VETs before, talk about a free day out. They back some amount of winners anyway
    were they vets on the payroll or just run of the mill vet having a day at the races? if the former you wouldn't have been in the stable yard with them without passing security and if the latter they were on a day out and dont really have any value to add


  • Options
    #38
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    I am not getting into a "too and fro" pedantic rule grabbing semantic exercise on this.

    If you are quoting the rule book at least indicate the rule folio also.

    Also don't take what I say personally, you are better than that. For starters "you" were not patronising anyone, but the concept that certain punters are not deemed worthy of full disclosure is enough evidence of the patronisation that exists.

    The fact remains that small yards are forced to scrap over shight handicaps to land gambles because it is the way the game is set up..... and I have no issue with that. But.... I do think that punters are not being treated correctly and not getting the full transparency of info. I don't see any harm in them getting better info. Especially around horse welfare.

    As I said this is a discussion ( for me anyways ).


  • Options
    #39
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    And yes, yes and yes. I know vets that know vets that know vets that know vets that aren't allowed tell vets what such a vet said about that vet visits to yer mans yard up the road from yer mans.

    Happy?

    There is nothing to see here.


  • Options
    #40
    Andrew00
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭Andrew00


    No better feeling than being on the winning side of gamble


  • Options
    #41
    ComplyOrDie
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭ComplyOrDie


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    I am not getting into a "too and fro" pedantic rule grabbing semantic exercise on this.

    If you are quoting the rule book at least indicate the rule folio also.

    Also don't take what I say personally, you are better than that. For starters "you" were not patronising anyone, but the concept that certain punters are not deemed worthy of full disclosure is enough evidence of the patronisation that exists.

    The fact remains that small yards are forced to scrap over shight handicaps to land gambles because it is the way the game is set up..... and I have no issue with that. But.... I do think that punters are not being treated correctly and not getting the full transparency of info. I don't see any harm in them getting better info. Especially around horse welfare.

    As I said this is a discussion ( for me anyways ).


    you lost me at folio. Regarding the rest, extra testing and collecting extra data costs money, who would pay for this, it'd end up being added as an extra for the owner (punters certainly don't contribute a lot to the horses keep). The current rule book is 314 pages long with enough to be enforced, you need to be real with your ask, full disclosure comes with a hefty price that would be unrealistic to provide. you're going down the "You're patronising punters" route and tbh I couldn't give a ****e if joe soap can or cant interpret info, but to get him the info is plain stupid when joes contribution is sweet feck all. Yeah if the info was easy to provide and hadn't such a cost associated they sharing it wouldn't be a problem and i'd have no issue with them sharing it, but in the real world the ROI here is awful and would only help a minority feel better when making decisions on their selections.

    I've a toe in the industry and am a punter at heart. I sometimes back non triers just like everyone else, racing is an industry that's unpredictable, jockeys riding the same horse give completely different feedback, trainers tell owners the horse will win and it comes last (it had a bad day). The problem is too may people think they are machines that run to x level every time when in fact those connected are often disappointed or elated as the horse didn't run to their expected level. It's an animal that cant be 100% all year round and having an expectation that all runners is foolish and would result in 3 runner races.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Peintre Celebre
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭Peintre Celebre


    The idea that every mare that's in foal suddenly takes a massive improvement isn't true tbh and having it as one of the main reasons for backing is just flawed I reckon. I think it garnered a lot of sudden interest when a few won in the space of a few weeks a few summers ago and suddenly every punter was an expert on breeding horses and the subsequent positive effect on a racing mare being in foal. Loads of lads coming out 'id have backed that if I knew she was in foal'. A lot more are losing in foal that you aren't aware of.

    Reminds me of the big push to make wind op surgeries having to be declared compulsory. This was going to be the saving grace for punters. Now that they are, you see just how many get them, and see just how many are beaten out of sight still.

    I don't think I've ever met a winning punter either who will refuse to bet on Irish racing like the legion of criers on Twitter or some forums. You'd be annoyed alright if you backed the second the other day but these are rare and few and you take it on the chin and move on as a punter.


  • Options
    #43
    naughto
    Registered Users Posts: 7,316 ✭✭✭naughto


    I'd love to no how many where in on the gamble
    One one side ya be annoyed about it but I think fair ****s1 to him for take the bookies money.
    Saying he only got in at 3/1 and 6/4 is laughable.
    Dud any of the bookies say how much they got caught for??


  • Options
    #44
    flos1964
    Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭flos1964


    Never really care much for the racing is corrupt spiel but that horse of obvious ability ran under rules 12 times and for 11 of those races looks like it was stuck to the ground...that guy is truly taking the piss...


  • Options
    #45
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    flos1964 wrote: »
    Never really care much for the racing is corrupt spiel but that horse of obvious ability ran under rules 12 times and for 11 of those races looks like it was stuck to the ground...that guy is truly taking the piss...

    Harsh enough.

    The dude has to make a living at the same time. You can be guaranteed he didn't see any 20/1, it might have been offered around 5/1. But whoever took his wedge had 15 points to play with and still made a profit, you can be sure.

    That is the game for a small yard, I have no gripe with it.

    It is the other end of the game that bugs me, when you have guttersnipe knackers, who can't even wash their own face, talking shight to journos whilst riding the quickest horsies on the planet. They piss me off the most. If you are going to ride the good ones at least be honest about their chances. It happens too much, you know who yous are.


  • Options
    #46
    BagheeraBlue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭BagheeraBlue


    haha love it g'wan ronan


  • Options
    #47
    Francie Barrett
    Registered Users Posts: 16,377 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    " Having considered the evidence the Stewards referred the matter to the Referrals Committee "

    What a gang of mincers.:rolleyes:

    I said it before, punters should set up there own public body and lean on HRI.

    If every punter in the country gave a € 1 donation it would be up and running. It would ensure:-

    1) Daily publication of enquiries inc names of stewards
    2) Daily publications of all photo finishes ( as required or if applicable)
    3) Mandatory declaration of trainers of mare in foal.
    4) Transparency of drug treatments, prior to a horse hitting the stalls
    5) Details of drug screening on track or at home stables.
    6) Proper ground declarations - as they happen.

    For starters.

    Punters are forking out 10000000's every year, we need support also. We are treated worse than your ugly cousin.
    I don't think we need all this, but the one thing we are crying out for is proper ground declarations. While not 100% accurate, the GoingStick has been in use in England for over ten years now and is widely regarded as being a positive for the sport. The current method of the clerk giving his best estimate on the ground is just completely ridiculous and flawed.


Advertisement