I cannot understand it!:S

Tigershark you hit the nail on the head! If all trainers knew exactly how their horses were going to run we could retire in a few months. Even the best so called punting stables make mistakes and do their money.

tiger nobody is asking the trainers to tip us good things all we asking for is what you wrote in your second half of your post and that IS THE WELLBEING OF THE HORSE ...we can all read form by now but its nice to know that the horse you backing is in top shape and hasnt suffered setbacks in training just come out of ahs injections will need it etc.....if this is to much to ask then im very sorry...believe me iv come across many trainers and jocks in my life tipping me horses and i listen to very very few of them but i appreciate the wellbeing and readiness of a horse that i like on form...its apleasure having the likes of craig mr bass gavin van zyl etc giving this information out ...if only every trainer would buy into it and all of it could be dissenminated to everyone via all the types of media.....i fancied what a winter strong on sat and it gave me confidence when mr bass rubber stamped his well being and how well he had been working etc

Shams are top class with what they give out on the forum...(tu)

you right greg i forget the shams they are top class ...

Pirates, I totally agree with you however on this site there seems to be a pre-occupation with wanting "good things" from trainers but when one looks at the stats it tells a different story.

I think that the well being of horses should be transparrent & mandatory, not what the horses chances of winning are but just the wellbeing, i.e. weight, fitness & any niggles. I for one believe that someone like you should actually start/form a group to represent punters, jokes aside. Start it & i will sign up.

There are still basics that are not properly communicated, e.g. the false rail setting at Greyville is not printed in the ComputerForm which is now the official race card.

Tigershark Wrote:

---

> I dont understand all the transparency talk,
> (bitching & moaning), what does everyone
> expect???? The trainers to tell you which of their
> horses are going to win???
>
> Has anyone taken a look recently at the trainers
> winning stats???? The best is around 20% and that
> falls down to 5%-6% as an average.
>
> So logic would show that even if a trainer with a
> 12% strike rate gave you all the inside info you
> would still have a 88% chance of making a losing
> bet.......
>
> The one change that should be made is barrier
> trials for unraced horses and horses rested longer
> than 60 days & possibly trainers comments that are
> published.
>
> The only thing that gets up my nose at the moment
> is when trainers run horses at 65-75% without
> informing the public and have the cheek to admit
> to this when interviewed. "We only had the horse
> at 75% and were using the last run as a prep for
> the July/Derby etc" I thought horses raced to
> win.......
What you describe here is exactly my thoughts ...........but I don't think we should be relying on stables goodwill to get it ...........regulators should have rules which necessitate delivery.
I think that I used to upset the odd trainer as I used to say"you tell me how well they are and I would prefer to decide if they can beat the field" and that was after once being told that my horse would "win on Saturday".I responded that I thought that B%&(#@) would be hard to beat and the response was " I haven't had a chance to look at the field"............you figure............lol
The Shams are an exception to the norm............their knowledge of where there horses stand in the field is uncanny,and a great credit to them.

A lot of horses need racing to bring them on in their fitness. Syd Laird summed it up when explained: It takes 4 grass gallops to take out of a horse what 1 race does (the wording is different, but that summs up what he was trying to say). And so we say: "Will need the run". And heaven help us, if the horse feels fresh, and just happens to win. Then we are either told we're fools who don't know what we are talking about, or that we are trying to middle the punters. #cantwin

I think that RF has the right attitude towards stable info - listen to what the trainer says about the readiness of the horse to win, and then decide where the horse will finish once you have studied the form. I think a lot of racing people use the term "will win" far too often, when they should rather say : "can win" or "stakes earning chance". As a discerning punter, you should assess the info given and interpret it in your own way. As Tigershark and Craig so rightly say, if trainers knew who would win, they would all have retired wealthy, ages ago!

Barrier trials would be a superb innovation and a useful training tool - bring it on!

cant understand why craig eudey opened this post. what is he trying to achieve. respect him for his honesty about his runners, BUT WHY STIR THE POT

Bottom line is that no sane, not addicted to gambling, halfwit will realise after a while that perhaps there are no guarantees in racing. And he should rather try making money elsewhere.
No trainer or jock or owner can guarantee the win. There are so many variables in racing you may as well play roulette. At least you know what your disadvantage is to start with.
All respect to the Shams. They really come across as true honest horse men and women.

icon Wrote:

---

> cant understand why craig eudey opened this post.
> what is he trying to achieve. respect him for his
> honesty about his runners, BUT WHY STIR THE POT


I was a bit tongue and cheek response to another thread....

Hibs, you going to have to make these smileys bigger for some people to be able to see them.