Kenilworth May1st

rob faux Wrote:

---

> If there was seen to be sound regulation and
> proper questions and responses to the big form
> reversals,the speculation would be kept to a
> minimum(ie.somebody would be answering the
> questions some would like to ask.$
> Barrier trials for first timers and rested
> horses(for whatever reason)would help take the
> guessing out selections.
> Proper regulation should operate like inoculations
> and would reduce the necessity to speculate about
> the malady!

Where do we get that info?

Surely it cant be a coup or all the jockeys need to be involved or something... And I'm sure some of the lesser jocks would like to win so will push...
then again some ride like cowboys at a rodeo...

Personally think for a coup to be pulled off these days would be a whole lot more difficult than in the years gone by... However suppose some people can not turn out a fancied horse 100% where his stable companion in the same race was cherry ripe... But then again, you have xx amount of other horses in the race... So I think a trainer can only pull a coup in a race should he have a coupling...

Then again I haven't studied these sort of things so that I could have omitted some key elements that can also factor into this

Mr H - point taken
Bob - point taken

In this particular instance surely the trainer must have known the horse has some ability but, please correct me if I'm wrong, the stable is one that gives no information to the public. So there is absolutely no way we can know it has ability. 2TM backed it on breeding alone, fair enough, great spot (tu) but not every well-bred horse has ability. No-one has mentioned either that the 2 previous races were both on soft.

Again, those who have far more interest in it than me can correct me if I'm wrong, but any instance in the UK where something looks suspicious, is "investigated". On face value, this does not seem to be the case in SA and that imho is the biggest problem. While anyone dishonest wants to be dishonest there seems little to prevent them doing so. We are frequently told trainers, jocks don't want to come on ABC for fear of potential "abuse", I think a degree of abuse is inevitable but most times the perpetrators are jumped on when it is seen as unjust.

Most of us, beneath the ranting etc are probably reasonable people. The Shams may not like it when a clanner criticises the run of one their horses but they come on, say "injured in running", "badly baulked" or whatever and that is the end of it, now we know and we are grateful to them for the info. I would hope that is the way they see it too. If more of those in racing were like the Shams it would greatly reduce all the speculation concerning "strange" results. If Mr Hodgson did as the Shams do and for Winning Post written a comment on ABC to the effect of... "much better than seen to date, could surprise"... then I think everyone would be happier with the result. But a stable that gives no information simply leaves the door open for speculation. And yes, of course that would not put an end to speculation, the authorities need to do more investigation in tandem with stable transparency and then it will start declining in a meaningful way.

In the UK I hear a lot about poor rides but I rarely hear talk of a soft ride or not riding for the best position. I believe if a jockey is seen to be doing this in the UK he is hit hard. In this not the case in SA? I also believe that if a horse in the UK shows sudden improvement the trainer is questioned as to where that improvement suddenly came from. The horse is then monitored to ensure that improvement is consistent. And I assume, the stable is also monitored for similar instances. Again, is this not the case in SA?

We can talk, observe, rant and moan all we like (and I like to join in on occasion ) but until there is transparency in SA racing and until there are authorities who undertake the necessary investigations and then take meaningful action where appropriate, there will be no end to it. And the real question is, is there anything we can do to make this happen?

Just looked over recent posts before posting... Rob F (tu)

And lol... what's a barrier trial?

thats a very analytical post englander

Englander ,not sure if you mentioned the "LACK OF ABILITY" factor? some of these horses couldnt win a walk over...

lol I can be a very analytical person CnC, if you hadn't noticed (problem is, analytical is often boring!) -

hibernia Wrote:

---

> Englander ,not sure if you mentioned the "LACK OF
> ABILITY" factor? some of these horses couldnt win
> a walk over...

I didn't Bob, because I don't accept it () because some of those that I think could not do so then go and beat a 1/33 fav! I would accept it if the trainer came on ABC and said... for example... "Liverpool - couldn't win a walk over and will always walk alone"

But if they did, that horse had better not win lol

Maybe there is a stipes report out for the running of the last?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can recall Hibs (i think) posted the stipes report of a certain race, where jockey XYZ said switched feet and never showed interest or something to that effect... Surely there are official reports written up on many races, that we do not have access to?

I say again, a 'protected' sport. With millions invested from 'newspaper guides punters at the totes) and NO info from trainers because the owners are protected........faaaaark them. It's a disgrace <

@Englander:

well noted.

Have started a new thread on this topic!

Please migrate thereto!

tnx

Thank you SIR, Umlilo(tu)

the report is actually Injured R/H - pelvis or Slow-injured r/hind - I support the idea for more info and hope the Nhra takes note