Jack Dan in Kimberley

This debate will rage forever I guess,as there appear to be 2 very different camps...those that think that any hint of manipulation is just a conspiracy theory.....and those that believe that there is a lot of manipulation.
I think that in a country with a very high crime rate ,and racing transgressions not leading to criminal charges,it is hard to imagine that there are not those trying to get a few underhand rand,so I would think its a bit of both!
It is for this reason that I believe the regulators need to do(and to be seen to do) everything in their power to query and penalise inconsistent form,& so up the overall consistency of performance.Once upon a time someone must have agreed,or the the rule would not have been included... and who decided it need not be enforced?
Racing needs more punters to survive.(I assume everybody that can read financials knows that) and If anybody thinks that the old expression "thats racing" is an adequate response (eg. explaining well handicapped favourites beaten by badly handicapped stable companions), to prospective new punters,don't be surprised at a response of "if thats racing ,you can shove it,I'll spend my money elsewhere."
They are animals,and upsets are inevitable,but a lot more inevitable without regulation!

The blinkers were removed for yesterdays run,has nobody picked that up?Oh,I see Pirates has noted it.That would be my reasoning.As to why they were removed for this run though is anyones guess.

Bear in mind that those who have raced for years have developed their own views & what I am talking about is marketing to new punters,so lets set the scene.

A new fellow,armed with a computaform sitting and trying to figure out a bet for todays 4th race and sees that 3 months ago,at the same course no.11 got beat by no.5 by 34 lengths,only to watch that reversed by over 30 lengths.Now I am not alleging any skullduggery,but if the "newbie" asks for an explanation ,and he gets a sneering"thats racing" as a response, don't expect to see him at Turf. over the week-end.

Perceptions are important!

I agree, Rob, but very often "that's racing" is the only answer. It may not help, but that's the reality of it - and the lower the class of horse, the more unpredictable they are prone to be. I don't refer to Jack Dan here, but mediocre horses wouldn't be mediocre horses if they won regularly, would they?

Again, without going into specific instances, I would never suggest that any multi million rand industry could ever be squeaky clean. I had this discussion with a certain trainer who shall remain nameless just the other day, who has experience of the corporate world and who said that big business is so bent that racing actually shapes up pretty well by comparison. Be that as it may, you'd have to have been born after sunrise this morning to think that where money is involved everything is always going to be above board. It is merely that there are so many reasons why horses can and do perform inconsistently, and older horses especially can start to develop minds of their own when it comes to racing.

As to why the blinkers came off Jack Dan yesterday I have no idea - but he has won six races without blinkers and zero races with blinkers. So, I don't really see that he needs the blinkers when he has in fact failed to actually win a race in seven tries with the scoops on. Interestingly, the first time in his life he wore blinkers he refused to come out of the gates (although that was almost two years ago). That just seems to reinforce the view that you just never know what horses can get up to, and while it may not help a newbie's confidence to say things like that, it doesn't make it any less true,

Magic,I think we have both raced long enough to accept the knocks(some more acceptable than others for me) and what you say about poor horses is absolutely correct,but includes poor stables as well.Some stables' horses are far more likely to reproduce form than others.
The point I would make is that lowering MR for unfit horses(rest allowance) & races for maidens that cannot win at level weights etc. is keeping these poor horses(and poor stables) in racing which cannot be good for the industry overall.
The "game" needs an overhaul before we can expect to successfully market it IMO.

Different sand surface does not hold water Pirates since he debuted at Kimberley just 3 weeks ago 27 July being drawn terribly 12/12 and still managed to finish a 0.1 lenghts 2nd and that after being bumped. This was over a distance less fancied given that 5/6 wins came over the shorter 1000 trip.

This horse (hope it WAS in fact the same one LOL) was 1.8 lenghts behind champion EC sprinter Hear the Drums after yesterdays distance carrying just 1 kg less and being hampered at the 400... that was without blinkers.

I am sure it will make miracolous recovery soon

Clean up the sport and we will have a healthier industry.

in france, if two horses of one OWNER OR STABLE are running, you can only bet on BOTH horses in one... thats a solution, maybe

Do they call it coupled on the PM ()

So if a race has an owner with 3 horses with different stables and each of these stables has 2 different runners are the 6 horses coupled on the tote?

lol

There would be some very short price favourites in Kimberley if they were to do that saldani

thats true, if peter miller sends out 5 horses in one race.... it will be difficult...

The Blinkers was taken off but a more important piece of equipment was removed,the tongue tie was also removed.
Jack Dan has chocked up before!might that not explain the bad run!?

D'Boy I was waiting for someone to pick that up, well done!

I am not aware of Jack Dan choking before since I have only the Computaform analysis back to 26 Feb 2010, but that would explain the bad run if this was the case that he was known to choke before. My next question would then be why does the trainer take the t/t off if he knows the horse is prone to choking, especially in such an important event where he is favorite to win?