Wednesday, August 07, 2019

Testing time

A busy and stressful period coming up.  Five runners in five days.  Today (Wednesday) we have Sussex Girl at Brighton in the afternoon and Konigin at Yarmouth in the evening.  On Friday we have Hidden Pearl at Brighton in the afternoon and Sacred Sprite at Chelmsford in the evening.  And then on Sunday we have Roy at Windsor.  We've been quiet (as regards winners rather than runners, although fortunately we haven't been having too many of those) so we really could do with one or two good results.  Let's hope that we have something to show for it.  By Sunday night, I'll either be relieved or disappointed.  (Possibly both, but the odd disappointment, such as we had at Chelmsford with Loving Pearl, pictured, last Saturday, would be easy enough to take if there are some good results mixed in there too).

Thank you for the feedback after the last chapter, Neil.  Stalls - yes, a constant source of irritation to everyone, trainers and jockeys included.  Just to touch on one point: requesting to be loaded last is not something which one does lightly because once one has done it thrice, the horse has to take a stalls test, which is an inconvenience and a disruption to the horse's preparation, and also comes with the risk of failing it.  (Which obviously is a risk, as you would only be requesting a late load with a horse who is difficult in the stalls).

As regards regular stalls tests, that's not really necessary.  Every time you run, you are being assessed, so effectively you are having a stalls test every time you run.  If you run and play up significantly, you have to go for a stalls test: it is not just that horses are sent for a stalls test if they refuse to go in because I would say that the majority of horses sent for a stalls test have run in the race, but have played up badly before doing so.  So what you are suggesting does effectively already happen.  As regards the length of time given to some horses who are reluctant to load, I suppose the answer is the chorus of indignation which would inevitably ensue (and not just from the connections of the horses involved; from pretty much everyone, including bookmakers, punters and racecourses) if we started to have a significant increase in the amount of late non-runners.

1 comment:

neil kearns said...

Agree its a potential cause of major consternation if you have a ruck of non runners but certain questions need to be answered
Firstly stalls were originally put in place to create a level playing field at the start of a race how can that be the case if one horse spends considerably more time in the claustrophobic confines than another (in some cases several minutes)?
Secondly why does it appear (and I am going here from watching far too much racing from around the world on tv) that UK stalls behaviour appears far worse than those in other countries and the process is far slower ? Is stall design a major factor ? and if so then do the stalls need to be altered , visually it appears USA and French stalls appear slightly wider and French and Irish stalls seem to have less overhead gantry
Thirdly if a horse is known to be a disruptive influence at the stalls rather than it be allowed to go in last why not put it in first and allow it to ruin its own chance of winning rather than that of the majority of well behaved animals ?
Finally why not run a series of races for the unruly with flag starts so the connections still have the opportunity to race but don't ruin the chances of others ?