Problemwalrus' recent responses have been as welcome as ever, not only for giving us a couple of good literary steers, but also for his observations about the fulfillment of my prophecy about an imminent non-runner debate, if one can call the propagation of a conspiracy theory a debate. What is interesting about the Racing Post article to which the Walrus referred is that Pippa Cuckson, the Great Leighs spokesperson whose opinions it purports to represent, tells us that her views as given to the Post were not nearly as definite, one-sided or simplistic as the article would have us believe. But it appears that anything with any small potential at all to be used as evidence to support the conspiracy theory will be used - so no doubt Polychrome's withdrawal on a self-certificate when drawn 15 of 16 will crop up at some stage with the implication that there was a reason other than her bad blood report (which was only taken because I had already begun to harbour doubts about her fitness to race) for her non-participation. And we'll have to overlook the fact that Run From Nun was drawn even worse that day (16 of 16) but still participated.
I've actually got a more pertinent bee in my bonnet just now, but I'll come on to that after I've aired a musing. I know that this flies in the face of all accepted wisdom, but I've never understood why one isn't allowed to scratch a horse because of being badly drawn. As I see it, scratching because of a poor draw is exactly the same as scratching because of changed ground, which we all accept to be an acceptable reason for withdrawal: you've found that you don't really after all have much chance, so you don't run. Withdrawing on account of changed ground isn't really a welfare issue, or at least you hope it shouldn't be: if the track wasn't safe to race on, you'd hope that racing would be abandoned, or if a horse was so unsound that he was at risk unless the ground was just so, you'd hope he wouldn't be running. Running a horse is an extremely expensive undertaking - you don't have to embark on a particularly long journey for the cost of the day to get above 500 pounds - and if you get close to the time of the race and find that you now have little chance because of circumstances beyond your control, it's a bit stiff that you still have to go to all that expense - particularly when nowadays for a lowly-rated horse one bad run can hugely reduce your chances of being allowed to run in the future, as handicappers don't appear to take the draw into account when revising handicap marks. It would be another matter if the transport, jockey's fee etc. were subsidised as in other countries, but they are not - so it's just tough on the connections of horses who have been given little chance by the draw. I know that there is the theory that the handicapping system gives every horse a chance once in a while and you just have to keep running often to get your occasional win, but that really is a rather defeatist attitude on which to expect people to plan their campaigns: it really shouldn't be frowned upon to be professional enough (and honest enough) not to want to run in races in which you don't think your horse has a chance. Anyway, I know that there will be 1,000,001 people keen to tell me that I'm woefully out of touch and idiotic even for suggesting the idea of it being permissable to scratch because of a bad draw, but suggest it I have. So there!
Now, to move on to the subject which has most bothered me this week, I will draw your attention to an untrue article which appeared in Monday's Racing Post (no, not the Great Leighs/self-certification one). This was given the particularly untrue headline 'Loss of stables will not affect field sizes, says Lingfield' - particularly untrue because that very day had seen the course's field sizes affected by the loss of stables. In this stable we can't manage a runner at the moment, never mind a winner, and none of the three entries I made for this week yielded a runner. Admittedly only two of these (Run From Nun both times) were eliminated because the third was Brief Goodbye, whom I did not declare after 29mm of rain fell on Warwick the night before declaration time, but why this article stuck in my throat was because Run From Nun had been one of the 22 horses eliminated from her race at Lingfield, a race which permitted only 11 horses in its field because of the lack of stabling which meant that the field size limits were less than the safety factors - and yet Lingfield's spokesperson is able simultaneously to tell the lie that they have enough stabling to accomodate a full field in every race. And the paper is gullible enough to reproduce this lie unquestioningly. And I'm sure that many readers were gullible enough to read it. Because of putting most of my rants on the blog nowadays I do not write to the paper as often as I used to; but I find that when I do my offering usually nowadays seems to end up on the cutting room floor. But I'm so annoyed about this that I have written to the paper on the subject and, just in case it doesn't see the light of day there, my missive might as well be reproduced here:-
Dear Sir
The article (Racing Post, 1 September) entitled 'Loss of stables will not affect field sizes, says Lingfield' could not have been worse timed, bearing in mind that the same day's Lingfield fixture had had its field sizes affected by the loss of stables.
The article correctly states that the stable capacity at Lingfield is currently 86; what is incorrect, however, is the statement that this figure is "exactly the number of horses declared to run at the track this afternoon". This is very far from the truth: considerably more than 86 horses were declared to run at the track that day, but the figure was reduced to 86 by eliminations.
For example, there were 33 horses declared for the 6-furlong handicap, but only 11 of these appeared in the race card as declarations. Last year's race had a field of 17, but this was not going to be possible this year because - for reasons which are not clear to me on such a wide, straight track - the safety limit had been reduced in the interim to 14. However, the shortage of stabling meant that the actual field size was 11 rather than 14, meaning that an extra 3 horses had to be eliminated over and above the 19 who would have been eliminated anyway because of the number of declarations having exceeded the safety factor.
Elimations are a fact of life, but misinformation such as contained in that article is neither helpful or satisfactory: the problem is not going to go away simply because of published denials of its existence.
Yours faithfully
John Berry
Beverley House Stables
Exeter Road
NEWMARKET
Suffolk
CB8 8LR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi John
I did not agree with the dumbing down of racing with too many meetings with moderate horses.The racing authorities having gone down this route have a duty to support these lower grade horses.A rule should be brought in that if a horse is eliminated for three consecutive races it is guaranteed to run in its next entered race.If this is at the expense of a slightly higher rated horse,this may be a price that has to be paid in the interest of fairness and equity to all owners.
I feel your comments about not running because of a bad draw may be a case of you being mischieveous and playing devils advocate.I think you are probably expecting a resultant furore and if your letter is published ,no doubt another rain forest will have to be demolished to supply the paper for all your antagonists missives on the subject to the Racing Post.I think the bad draw situation makes it easy for trainers to have "non triers."How often do we see horses slow out of the "gate" and taken around the outside with no chance of winning?
In dog racing when dogs are handicapped the traps are placed one in front of the other so as to give the outside dogs a start.Surely it is not beyond the guile of tracks to work out a formula for the effect of the draw and the starting stall makers to produce stalls which can be put individually at various distances in front off each other.the logic of this can be seen in athletics were in events over one or two laps the outside lanes starts are positioned in front of the inside lanes.If their were no lanes (i.e.stalls.)everybody would crowd on to the inside with an "argee bargee" and resultant interference. Although the outside lanes are given an apparent start the distance run is the same.In racing as the horses do not stay in lanes the distance beween the inside stall and the outside stall would only be possibly be three to five lengths.
Post a Comment