Long Run

Alec Swan said:
Bonkers2, do you honestly believe that were there no gambling, we'd still have racing? With respect, if you do, you're living in a dream.

Alec.
Click to expand...

We wouldn't have racing without horses, owners, viewing public, betting and rules ! It takes all of them together.
 
Alec Swan said:
But without the funding from gambling, do you honestly believe that we'd still have racing?

Alec.
Click to expand...

Keep up Alec, I' ve already answered this question, in the VP post, its totally irrelevant anyway.
There already is racing not "funded" by the bookies in this country.
 
Last edited:
bonny said:
No, like I say it takes everything working together.
Click to expand...

So, are those who supply the funds upon which the sport which we follow, not to be considered when a horse, in the opinion of the panel concerned 'could' have retained third place, to be ignored? Those who judged S W-C were considering those who supply the life blood of racing, and no, I don't care for it either, but they are entitled to be considered.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
So, are those who supply the funds upon which the sport which we follow, not to be considered when a horse, in the opinion of the panel concerned 'could' have retained third place, to be ignored? Those who judged S W-C were considering those who supply the life blood of racing, and no, I don't care for it either, but they are entitled to be considered.

Alec.
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true, they are not just looking after the interests of the betting public, they do consider the horses welfare, but the main reason we have rules is to try and keep racing as straight as possible. All horses in a race, regardless of where they finish have to get the best placing that they can, you can't just hack round at the back and claim the horse was having an educational run, for example. Otherwise horses are impossible to handicap properly and the sport would be even more open to accusations of being fixed than it already is. Long Run's race clearly broke the rules and the stewards had no option other than to ban the jockey !
 
bonny said:
…….. . Otherwise horses are impossible to handicap properly and the sport would be even more open to accusations of being fixed than it already is. Long Run's race clearly broke the rules and the stewards had no option other than to ban the jockey !
Click to expand...

In fewer words than mine perhaps, but my points exactly! Thank you.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
My apologies, I failed to see your answer. Could you head me towards it?

Alec.
Click to expand...

See VP thread, [the one where you lost £20 on VP], the fact that already there is racing NOT under rules, and that bookies don't pay out on 3rd on a 7 horse race, and only a fool tries to buy money on a 2 to 1 on horse that is no longer trained by a top trainer and has been off for a year.
 
bonny said:
Just seen that they have changed the dates of the suspension so that Sam can ride in the National, the whole think is a PR joke really.
Click to expand...
I dont think Sam has a ride in the National , Nina Carberry casn also now ride on National day as they have taken advantage of the ambiguous wording in the ruling that covers amateur riders bans. The only word that is missing is an OR can you spot were it should be.

Waley-Cohen said: "After I was given the days I asked why I would be banned on Grand National day, given the wording of the rule is quite specific and says bans apply on days when there is an amateur riders' chase, an amateur riders' hurdle or a conditional and amateur riders' bumper.

"On the day in question there is only a conditional and amateur riders' hurdle. The BHA said they would have another look at the rule and I've been told I can now ride on National day.

I bet somebody earnt good money finding that one the BHA have said the wording will be rectified after the event.
 
Last edited:
popsdosh said:
I dont think Sam has a ride in the National , I think it is all about the Foxhunters as Nina can now ride as well as her suspension has been lifted as well . The official word is there is a technicality in the rules.
Click to expand...

They are good at finding a technicality in the rules ! Don't be surprised to see Sam lining up at the National. I think Nina is still ruled out of the Foxhunters but it's good for racing if she rides at the National. Cynic that I am !
 
bonny said:
That's not strictly true, they are not just looking after the interests of the betting public, they do consider the horses welfare, …….. !
Click to expand...

Accepted because of course there are also the thoughts of those who seem to plough vast amounts of money in via sponsorship, and often from businesses, many of whom I've never heard of, but who may very well not wish to have their names sullied by welfare issues. There's a tricky balance to be maintained, I'm sure that you'll agree.

When it appears that jockeys can just about decide for themselves when their bans should be activated, it only serves to add further confusion. I wonder what would happen were I to appear in Court for speeding offences and where a ban would be inevitable, and were I to advise the magistrate that I was about to go on a touring holiday for a fortnight and could the ban start when I return home! :D

Alec.
 
Bonkers2 said:
He had an injury due to a cut not related to racing, and it took a long while to get him back, its perfectly normal to try again with an older horse, its often difficult to know when they need/want to retire.
Click to expand...

Look at Sprinter Sacre - I thought he should have retired, shows what I know!
 
Dobiegirl said:
…….. . Apart from Alec Ive not seen another post and that includes the RP fb site agreeing with the stewards decision. …….. .
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but for broadly the reasons that I gave, the Ch4 pundits feel the same way, and also with a measure of regret.

Having just watched a re-run, and from the head-on camera, it seems that S W-C looked over his right shoulder, didn't see horses closing on his left, and again picked up the reins when he realised that they were closing, but by then it was too late. He made a rather amateurish mistake, I'd say.

Alec.
 
If in doubt whether to push on or pull up, for the horses sake pull up. I hate to see horses being pushed to their absolute limits when theyve given of their best. Well done Sam for thinking of the horse (who has already given him so much) and not the prize money.
 
Clodagh said:
Look at Sprinter Sacre - I thought he should have retired, shows what I know!
Click to expand...

I really hope they retire Sprinter now. End on a great note, at the very top of his game. I'm a massive fan of the horse, I think all at Seven Barrows have been amazing getting him back, but my heart couldn't handle watching him run again!
 
Mariposa said:
I really hope they retire Sprinter now. End on a great note, at the very top of his game. I'm a massive fan of the horse, I think all at Seven Barrows have been amazing getting him back, but my heart couldn't handle watching him run again!
Click to expand...

I think they are considering running him again this season at Sandown.
 
Alec Swan said:
Perhaps not, but for broadly the reasons that I gave, the Ch4 pundits feel the same way, and also with a measure of regret.

Having just watched a re-run, and from the head-on camera, it seems that S W-C looked over his right shoulder, didn't see horses closing on his left, and again picked up the reins when he realised that they were closing, but by then it was too late. He made a rather amateurish mistake, I'd say.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Yes Alec, of course, you do realise he is a true amateur, [he is a young business man], all self funded and now home trained
Shock revelation: even professionals look the wrong way sometimes. I would never worry if he was carrying my £2.00, but obviously I rarely bet with my heart, so the odds would have to represent value, which must be the core of profitable betting.
I m sorry if you had an E/w bet at 2 to 1 on on, lol......... and that you put £20 on VP to win the day she fell off, but at least you have a better understanding of how the bookies earn a living.
No one died, no one lost any significant money, and another rider can say their horse beat Long Run , so lots of good things.
 
Last edited:
EKW said:
No but that's the band of brothers gifting each other money that they get back in another race a week later.
Click to expand...

yerp, but the argument was that there would be no racing without bookmakers, which is rubbish, and that the bookies should run racing, believe me, I know what a bad idea that is.
One of our fillies was all set to win [as if that was guaranteed lol], not our money btw.
The bookies managed to get the race started 5 mins early, not only did we miss the start, but the race was finished before the race was due to start!
Our little lady was still being tacked up out of the hurly burly, she was a bit hyper, so we used to arrive last in the parade ring and leave first.
 
Last edited:
Bonkers2 said:
…….., but the argument was that there would be no racing without bookmakers, which is rubbish, and that the bookies should run racing, believe me, I know what a bad idea that is.
…….. .
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that such thoughts have been voiced on this thread? Assuming that you are, who in their right mind's would believe that bookmakers should 'run racing'? Gambling pays for racing, it's that simple and without such funding we wouldn't have a racing industry. Though I'd doubt that many on here are serious punters, most of us (certainly I) watch racing avidly and for the sheer delight of watching and as spectators.

I've been known to stick a few quid on, perhaps once or twice a year, though I never seem to win. Like most I suppose, I can pick winners on the telly all day long, but putting my money where my mouth is, never seems to work!

Alec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top