JOCKEYS CONTROL RACING

Orange,things do go wrong,and that is exactly why the sport needs the regulators to explain those "things" otherwise the "racing is crooked" brigade have a field day .
Is that what racing needs?
Racing needs to be regulated,but more importantly to be SEEN to be regulated,otherwise what are you going to market when trying to market an industry with a traditionally bad image!
Racing needs some things done differently to survive,so unfortunately it needs a bit more than focussing on the positive......it also needs a bit of help with the negative.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Titch,you were doing well on this thread until you
> suggested she did not have the form to win that
> race......perhaps you should be a stipe!
> I will also bet ,that unless she has got some
> permanent injury,she will shortly confirm a rating
> ,on sand,of very close to 90!


I never at any stage said she did not have the form to win the race at all..however what I did say was with the exception of Keen Smartly nothing else in that race has done anything..13 runners have come out of the race (besides KS) for two 2nd placing one 5th and 10 have run unplaced..Keen Smartly won a MR62 at the Vaal then was beaten twice at Kim before winning a MR 68 there at 14/1...I do however agree with you that if she gets over her obvious problems she will attain a MR 90 on the sand considering she is already close at a MR 84

Titch ,a rating of 90 is reasonable on 3 fronts:
a) Line horses should be the most exposed and most consistent.....Keen Smartly qualifies and is officially rated 91 on sand.....that makes MG at least 93.
b) on a line through Rules Of Engagement in race2 and Bownor/Drawbridge in race5 on same day and distance(don't forget the WFA factor)
How many parallels would you expect it to take to regard the assessment as reasonable?

The most important issue is ,after all this,we agree that her run was way below expectation.....what would be good for racing,would be some sign that the regulators noticed,and tried to get an explanation, if there is one ...........too much to ask ???

Has anybody read the book by top south african trainer Fred Rickaby called Are your horses really trying

Veto opened 10/1 and started 25/1 ?

The filly in question had all the form to win that race Titch ! She was very firm in the betting at race time . How do you explain the strength of support at race time?

Mexican glory's "bad" run was on turf .She was back on sand next time .

I hope purely for the owners sake that she is sound and bounces back to her real ability . I wonder in amazement how owners remain in this game .

@Solo
I watch Veto for obvious reasons and also thought that she was grossly overpriced the fact that she only paid R10 a win on the tote vindicates our thinking,some horses seem to run well for certain Jocks and Muzi is now 2 for 2 on her and was my first confirmed ride for the meeting, as far as Mexican Glory goes she is IMO in the best possible hands and her problem will no doubt be sorted out and she will win her races and surpass the MR90 on the sand but lets not forget she beat Keen Smartly 6-0 when they met on the Turf so I wouldn't be in a hurry to suggest that she wont perform on both surfaces.

@ Rob
As is well documented I am pro "the powers that be" and on numerous occasions I have been shot down in flames for my so called bias but the point of not making public important facts as is the case with MG is inexcusable and needs some serious looking into,trainers comments in cases like these are of paramount importance to all facets of the industry and the lack of communication in this regard is completely out of order and highlights what appears to be a total lack of concern for the punter.

@Titch
One of the punters at the tote, age 70+ also know by Oom Wally as the handicapped Italian stallion because he can't afford viagra, would like to know how many SA jockeys are sponsored by bookies?

Tero does this "oom wally" have any proof of wrong doings?

No Jockeys are sponsored by bookmakers - in terms of a proper sponsorship agreement - its not allowed.

@ Tero
It is pleasing to to see that you are still spending a lot of time at the tote despite your ongoing insistence that the industry is riddled with corruption... keep the faith and eventually the penny will drop.

The old men at tote have many years of experience of watching horse races....they can quickly decipher if a jockey is not trying to win the race....what we like to see is the NHRA getting the Hawks police force to investigate jockeys when they crook races....so that they can ascertain who are the people that are giving the jockeys instructions not to win the race...drastic action is require to get rid of the corrupt people in this game.
The image of horse racing will improve a hundred folds.

Titch Wrote:

---

> @SOLO
>

MEXICAN GLORY opened 3/1 that day and drifted out
> to 9/2 and even 6/1 was available which is usually
> indicative of all not being well with the horse a
> point that was emphasize again in her next start
> when she ran last over 17 lengths behind the
> winner[/b][/b],In the race where she ran 2nd she did beat
> SMALL MIRACLE (MR 87) by 3L at levels but was
> beaten a shrt/hd by Goddess Athena (MR 83) also at
> levels which does not equate to running to a MR90
> also apart from KEEN SMARTLY who has won 3 since
> (1 in Kim) the form line behind Goddess Athena has
> not worked out at all...I do however have the
> benefit of hindsight which makes it a LOT easier
> but I dont believe that anything untoward was done
> in her run after the GA race as her run last
> Thursday will attest to, she clearly has a problem
> that Im sure Paul M will sort out.


Glad you mention that the horse drifted in the betting. My question to you is why....why did the horse drift in the betting?

A couple of things come to mind.
1. Who prices up the betting,....the Bookies, and on what do they base that pricing, Beside a horses form, they must have some "inside" info on the chance of a horse.
2. Form is what the punter studies, without having any inside information.
3. When a horses form points to it been a good thing, the probability of most punters putting money on a good thing is strong. Should this horse win, the bookies, will will in most cases, after covering themselves, not lose, but rather, not take as much would like to, rather take as much as they can from the punters.


Looking at the horses form, 50/1 under soft going, and finishing 4th, ridden by T. Appie....who has not, been on the horse thereafter........who need's an ambitious youngster, new to the game, upsetting the applecart.

Replacement jock M. Mienie, 1
1st ride) 11/2, finished, 5th, 12 LBH,
2nd ride) 8/1, finished 6LBH, (the gap behind narrowed)
3rd ride) then betting coup, wins by 4L at 6/1, backed from 7/1.

Too much of inconsistency, a good athlete/team seldom runs or plays a bad race/game, unless there is reason to do so, or benifits to be derived.


After this to "prove' that something is amiss with the horse, it runs 10 LBH, and then to re-confirm the "previous bad" run , it runs 17LBH.

Was something not amiss, when the horse started improving and won?

As I stated "TRANSPARENCY MY A#@^