|
By:
Market Rasen Archive
27-Sep-08 Good 7.8 30-Aug-08 Good (Good to Firm in places) C: 8.5 H: 8.0 16-Aug-08 Good C: 7.7 H: 7.3 03-Aug-08 Good C: 8.3 H: 8.4 19-Jul-08 Soft (Good to Soft in places) C: 7.7 H: 7.9 06-Jul-08 Good to Soft(Good in places) C: 7.7 H: 7.5 27-Jun-08 Good C: 8.4 H: 8.2 On two prior occasions the COC called 7.7 reading Soft and Good to Soft, but calls yesterdays lower reading of 7. 2 Good I get impression they are ignoring what the going stick is telling them |
|
By:
Just to clarify, I backed Hammonds horse on the basis that the ground would be good if not quicker as my understanding is that the horse prefers it that way. I was dissapointed he struggled to win as i had expected him to rowt that lot but now I know why ;)
|
|
By:
EMPTY - Zil wants you to contact him @ zilzal89@**.com
|
|
By:
H o t ma il
|
|
By:
Contact email sent
Cheers TCM |
|
By:
The Going Stick- " an objective assessment "
They why oh why do the descriptions like we see above in this thread and on the archive vary so wildly "The Going Stick gets it's reading from the penetration and shear"" If penetration and sheer is different then obviously this results in a different reading, if penetration and sheer are the same then the result should be the same reading, therefore a 9.6 at Sandown should be comparable to a 9.6 at Ascot, Catterick, York, etc, but we are told each course is unique. Mark Maher of Turftrax " 9.6 would be on the quicker side of good" Barney Clifford of Kempton " 8.0 would be on the quicker side of Good and 7.4 would be perfect jumping Ground Now, who is right regarding what ground the measurement equates to , the manufacturer and tester or the COC, who as we see above and in the archives gives wildly varying going descriptions for the same or near same readings Those using the device seem to be attaching their own subjective assessment to the objective measuring device |
|
By:
BTW, It was Mr Linley the BHA course inspector who stated each course is unique
The penetration and sheer can only varies if there is more or less resistance at one course to another which results in a different reading A 9.6 at one track, is totally different to a 8.0 at another track and there is no way on earth these be described as the same |
|
By:
*these can
|
|
By:
Kempton
26-Jan-09 C: Soft (Good to Softt in places) H: Soft C: 5.8 H:5.4 30-Mar-08 C: Good to Soft (Soft in places) H: Soft C: 5.5 H: 4.2 Higher the number on the 1-15 Scale the quicker the ground, so there is no way on earth a higher reading can be given as slower ground as in above |
|
By:
All these subjective going description are give as official going and entered into form book . The industry paper prints these official going descriptions in it's form pages and in it's db's
Nothing has changed since the Going stick was introduced. The punter is still being given false information |
|
By:
Barney Clifford "7.4 would be perfect jumping ground"
What does clerk do at MR, he waters ground that is giving him a reading of 7.2, turning perfect jumping ground into testing jumping ground aand puts every punter betting at MR away in the process The idiots are in charge of the asylum |
|
By:
If Mr Maher is correct and 9.6 is on fast side of Good, then 7.4 would be Slowish ground with plenty of give and Mr Clifford's description of "perfect jumping ground" would be about bang on.
Someone should tell the COC at Market Rasen or maybe he already knows and prefers ramdom results so it boosts the levy fund |
|
By:
The BHA speak of integrity, but yet their own house has none as these subjective, no false, going descriptions show
|
|
By:
BTW, you do realize the Going stick was not brought in to benefit us, it was brought in to give an objective assessment of the state of the ground so the COC could then apply to th Water Authority for permission to irrigate his patch of turf
You see the Water Authority need an objective assessment and not a comical subjective one, but comical subjective one is ok for punters, trainers and owners |
|
By:
Zilzal, Jonjo
I think people should maybe contact about this is Water Authority, as it seems Courses are obtaining irrigation by misleading WA and wasting a valuable resource They tell em it's 8.5 and Fast, ground needs irrigating, when it's not probably not fast at all and it don't need no irrigation |
|
By:
Oh and while your at it contact Gambling Commission as i think they might be interested too
"The Gambling Commission regulates gambling in the public interest. It does so by keeping crime out of gambling, by ensuring that gambling is conducted fairly and openly, and by protecting children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling. The Commission also provides independent advice to government on gambling in Britain" |
|
By:
Catherines wheel of 4tune has been spun at ayr b4 todays racing. God knows what we are going to get up there .
|
|
By:
The going stick readings should be done by a totally independent body and taken away from the clerks hands altogether and any watering recommended by the independent body monitored closely, so when they take a stick reading for the following morning they will know if the clerk has over watered, and fine the tracks heavily and any continued abused of the system the threat of ficture loss should hang over them.
Do Pigs fly??????? |
|
By:
Oh dear ! The wheel has defo been spun :(
|
|
By:
RP comment, first race: "afterwards the jockeys reported the going was soft"
M Hills when interviewed by Nick Luck stated "genuine soft ground" It looks soft to my eye, but like the above that is subjective opinion NEWBURY - Flat (Updated:17/04/2009 at 12:13) Going Good to Soft Soft in places back straight (GoingStick: 5.4 on Friday at 12:00 From Archive 29-Mar-08 Soft 5.8 31-May-08 Soft (Good to Soft in places) 5.7 11-Jul-08 Soft 6.2 A lower reading today than on other occasions, but the clerk describes the going as Good to Soft, Soft in places Look at the evidence and ask yourself, Should the description the clerk has given go into the form book |
|
By:
Stick says soft ground.
Jockeys say soft ground Time boffins say soft ground. Clerk can't be @rsed to change it & says 'good to soft' What goes in the formbook for the punters? 'good to soft' Doesn't matter, gross profits are where it's at........Remember 2 weeks ago, that bloke from the RCA was jumping for joy with a 100/1 National winner & a likely 20million 'windfall' for racing....... |
|
By:
Judging by the times I think the description was about right for the first 3 races but by the 4th race the ground had definitely become soft and was probably even softer for the final race.
|
|
By:
Sorry to spoil a good moan but going descriptions in form books will not have the slightest effect on gross profits. They will just make sure that lazy punters lose their money quicker to those who can be ars*d to keep their own going records.
|
|
By:
Blaxkheath are you connected to the BHA or a racecourse because that seems their attitude too
The quicker Joe loses the quicker he is lost to another betting medium |
|
By:
Here's what we have in racing
**jocks **trainers False info Not very attractive to the bettor is it Blackheath and maybe thats why sports betting and poker have become popular |
|
By:
Blackheath 17 Apr 20:26
Sorry to spoil a good moan but going descriptions in form books will not have the slightest effect on gross profits. They will just make sure that lazy punters lose their money quicker to those who can be ars*d to keep their own going records ********************************** Any figures on what percentage of people CAN be @rsed to keep their own records? Any figures showing the overall impact this percentage of people have on gross profits? Any figures to show how many of these diligent people can actually get their money on with the firms who are paying most towards gross profits tax? Any reason why you think punters who simply dont have the time to keep their own records dont deserve a fair crack of the whip when they open a form book, or click for the form online Blackheath? |
|
By:
According to Channel4 they are "watering to produce good ground" at Ayr today (10mm ffs!)
So this once again blows a hole in the BHA assertion that clerks can produce good/firm (watered) ground for jump racing & that this is perfectly acceptable from a safety angle..... I would also wonder what measures are being taken to ensure that the 10mm they are putting on isn't having more impact than they predict? The timescales involved will make this 'mass, last-minute, watering very difficult to monitor (at least I think it would?) |
|
By:
Apr 17th - GOOD, GoingStick 9.0; watered
Why do they need to put 10mm on?? faster than described yesterday??? |
|
By:
An evenly distributed (?) 10mm is a fair lot of water imo...
|
|
By:
BHB website
AYR - Jump (Updated:18/04/2009 at 07:31) Going Good (GoingStick: 8.9 on Saturday at 07:00) Rails Track at full width on both Chase and Hurdle courses for Scottish National Meeting. Chase fences at full width. Weather Dry overnight. Overcast this morning, sunny spells, very light breeze. 7C overnight, forecast 11C today. Watering Watering overnight: 6mm round top bend to second fence in back straight, then 4mm remainder of track. Watering due to complete at 10am. Take offs and landings double watered |
|
By:
Going Stick, watering etc
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/racing/going/default.asp |
|
By:
10mm seems a lot to me too.
Don't like the sound of double watering of take off and landings either particularly if they are not stopping until 10am. Let's hope there are no horses slipping on landing. |
|
By:
More likely to disappear without trace, rather than slip Flyingbolt ;-)
|
|
By:
After seeing the amount of water coming out of that sprinkler they showed on CH4 you could be right,Jonjo.
|
|
By:
Roll up for the Ayr going lottery. I hope they all come home safely, I fear 10mm could make things slippy.
|
|
By:
empty/jonjo
Not sure why you are taking exception to my opinion. I am on your side, but you will not get the attention of the media or anyone else if this thread goes in the direction of exaggerated or false claims. The problems of overwatering, selective watering to change established draw biases and misleading going descriptions are bad enough for the sport whatever. They are unfair and a major turn-off for punters and unfair to owners and trainers particularly those with fast ground horses. Also if overwatering produces loose ground, as it does, it will increase injuries to horses. The way I see it no particular group wins from this, unless you happen to have a horse that goes well on loose or soft ground. Going descriptions (based on the Going Stick) should be in the hands of independent course inspectors and there should be rules controlling watering, especially in the 48 hours before the meeting. |
|
By:
empty and jonjo
Not sure why you are taking exception to my opinion. I am on your side, but you will not get the attention of the media or anyone else if this thread goes in the direction of exaggerated or false claims. The problems of overwatering, selective watering to change established draw biases and misleading going descriptions are bad enough for the sport whatever. They are unfair and a major turn-off for punters and unfair to owners and trainers particularly those with fast ground horses. Also if overwatering produces loose ground, as it does, it will increase injuries to horses. The way I see it no particular group wins from this, unless you happen to have a horse that goes well on loose or soft ground. Going descriptions (based on the Going Stick) should be in the hands of independent course inspectors and there should be rules controlling watering, especially in the 48 hours before the meeting. |
|
By:
empty and jonjo
Not sure why you are taking exception to my opinion. I am on your side, but you will not get the attention of the media or anyone else if this thread goes in the direction of exaggerated or false claims. The problems of overwatering, selective watering to change established draw biases and misleading going descriptions are bad enough for the sport whatever. They are unfair and a major turnoff for punters and unfair to owners and trainers particularly those with fast ground horses. Also if overwatering produces loose ground, as it does, it will increase injuries to horses. The way I see it no particular group wins from this, unless you happen to have a horse that goes well on loose or soft ground. Going descriptions (based on the Going Stick) should be in the hands of independent course inspectors and there should be rules controlling watering, especially in the 48 hours before the meeting. |
|
By:
Blackheath
I'm not sure either. Maybe i misunderstood , maybe, the heat of the moment got the better of me again :( |
|
By:
Thanks for clarifying your position on this Blackheath.
I do feel that gross profits tax has led to the apparent inertia on the part of the BHA to sort this situation out. In addition to them paying their regular lip-service to the animal rights lobby, who clearly haven't done their own research (otherwise they would be playing hell about over watered ground) The guidelines & 'extensive' watering programme means the BHA will always have plenty of 'data' to show the RSPCA/Animal-aid when they come a knocking...Add in a few recorded instances of horses being loaded into the horse ambulance & making a full recovery thanks to this facility being on every sight & it gives the BHA plenty to show them about horse welfare.... And punters who didn't see meetings or do their own timefigures remain in the dark about the ground & contunue to guess & increase the gross profits of the high street chains.... That current position (where I think we are?) would seem a much more comfortable one for the BHA/Clerks than actually grasping this nettle & cutting back significantly on watering & ensuring going reports are accurate & clerks who continually appear to mislead are asked for some sort of explanation? |