Forums

Horse Antepost

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 2131 comments are related to the topic:
Clerkwatch 2010

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 4 of 54  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 54 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 2,131
By:
zilzal1
When: 29 Jan 10 10:51
Forest, im just putting the facts up here, read my 12-44 post regarding question one and you can see that i provided some proof for that.

I applaud the BHA for addressing these questions but that doesnt mean im just going to swallow all the information given out as gospel.

Read my 12-44 post and see which side of the debate you think gives a more accurate answer
By:
empty
When: 29 Jan 10 10:53
So Forest you believe more 11-15 races are not bookmaker friendly, but punter friendly, the" do as you please with the watering" does not turn races into lottery type events and sticking horses up excessively does not mean a horse will not repeat a past performance.
By:
empty
When: 29 Jan 10 10:57
Oh and one more thing Forest , penalising horses exessively does not encourage **ing.(Henry Cecil Interview on ATR)
By:
empty
When: 29 Jan 10 11:08
zilzal1 29 Jan 12:51




I applaud the BHA for addressing these questions but that doesnt mean im just going to swallow all the information given out as gospel.


Well sayed that man.
By:
zilzal1
When: 29 Jan 10 11:10
Forest to simplify it, say in Aug 08 , your Boss said, can you get these figures for me please and you say "Well i need two years data guv, i'll get them for early next year"

18 months on and because its a busy firm he hasnt noticed until he comes back and asks for them, so you change the start date and say you now have two years of data and they will be in next week

You hope he wont notice, but you wrote the original down, is he then wrong to question you???
By:
ForestBump
When: 29 Jan 10 11:26
It wasn't in relation to Zils or Jonjo's points, but this:

Bookmaker friendly size fields, watering and handicapping policies to try and produce lottery type results.


And Paul states they don't want people to lose more.


OK Paul, we believe you.


Field sizes (such as Kempton email Zil highlights) is down to racecourses - all BHB can do is whether it's for safety or not. OFT scuppered any hope of them getting involved.

Watering - there clearly appears to be some overwatering going on judging by the divots flying on GF ground last year. But he very specifically denies that racecourses are under any pressure

He spcifically denies that handicapping policy is designed to make results for unpredictable.

And you call him a liar. That was my point.
By:
zilzal1
When: 29 Jan 10 11:32
OK Forest, what would one make of the comment given by Kempton in relation to "Protecting LBO money"

If anyone would rather be punting in a 14 runner handicap that a 16 runner one them im Genghis Khan!!

I would like to know what that phrase refers to then????
By:
empty
When: 29 Jan 10 11:33
I've not called anyone a liar

All i stated is "OK, we believe you" in reference to the "we don't want people to lose more" statement.
By:
empty
When: 29 Jan 10 11:53
Here is bottom line Forest

!) 16+ handicap races are more punter friendly
") Current Watering policy can make formbook as about as much use as a chocolate fireguard
3) Current handicapping methodology encourages **ing as Mr H Cecil correctly stated.



add 1+2+3 and you can see this combination is not designed to help you win, but in fact designed to help you lose more.

Now, if you lose quickingly you will i think lose interest quickly, add in the perception"it's all** and you customers will lose interst even more quickly

Racing is on the road to ruin thanks to those who run this sport unless it can find funding from another source like they have in USA via slot money.
By:
millhouse
When: 29 Jan 10 11:55
It's been my opinion all along that dealing with the BHA directly was never going to be successful - for the very simple reason, already covered in this thread, that the BHA's financial future now depends entirely on punters having as little influence as possible over what is now an institutional and industry wide agenda to remove our money.

It would be very naive to think that there have never been any meetings between the racing industry and the bookmakers to develop strategies to make this happen more efficiently imo.

As for the responses that have been received, I hope everyone won't take offence at me saying that in my experience, it is seldom the intention of a PR person to steer people asking difficult questions towards the truth...
By:
zilzal1
When: 29 Jan 10 12:17
Re the question on taking lite stick readings before racing, one of the BHA'S answers were as follows

[b]Doing a quick,
By:
ForestBump
When: 29 Jan 10 12:22
He says they don't want punters to lose more. You say 'we believe you'. To suggest you're not calling him a liar is disingenuos, which is somewhat ironic given Millhouse's comments about PRs not steering people to the truth.

there are clearly some issues with watering but haven't they invited you to a day with them as well? Actually on the course with some of their inspectorate and clerks?

I'm not saying for one second take thier answers and swallow them whole, and don't challenge them, but you couldn't blame them if they read some of these responses and think is it worth it.

Everyone on here knows that under GPT punters losses + money for racing. So if or when they move back to another model - say turnover based - what then? The bookies will still be looking to squeeze us as they always have.
By:
empty
When: 29 Jan 10 12:25
I have implied and tried to explain that i do not believe the Paul Struthers statement.


If you want to say i'm calling him a liar then so be it, but at no time have i called him a liar.
By:
zilzal1
When: 29 Jan 10 12:29
Forest

Thing being that we dont have access to what goes on in levy negotiations, field sizes being one thing.
The OFT thing regarding safety limits is a red herring, the OFT only say that Racecourses have a unilateral right(as i understand it) on which days to race, NOT safety limits, which as subject to BHA criteria as Legal Racing in the UK is subject to rules under the governing body.

As Kempton say, there is a safety limit of 16, but "In order to protect LBO money" we set it at 14, ive yet to see comments from you on what this means, or the charts set out since GPT to show how the "Bookmaker friendly cards" have increased over the years.
By:
millhouse
When: 29 Jan 10 12:34
The bookies will still be looking to squeeze us as they always have.


Forest bump, given that the BHA clearly see punters as nothing more than a cash cow, what makes you think that punters should give a flying one how much income racing receives...??
By:
empty
When: 29 Jan 10 12:44
Forset

Knowing what you know of racing and the issues discussed on this thread, do you believe racing is punter friendly or bookmaker friendly???
By:
jonjo
When: 29 Jan 10 18:01
With regard to Paul Struthers, I would just add that I would trust him implicitly to give us answers that are the genuine, BHA view for publication on here & he will (I am sure) welcome thoughts on why we disagree with some of the points......

I will however, NEVER swallow GPT being for the benefit of any sector other than the big bookmakers.
I firmly believe that the BHA is inadequate at the very top level & actually lacks the faith in it's own product (as the incessant dumbing down would indicate) to enable them to negotiate robustly on racings behalf in these meetings...
The proliferation of bookmaker 'faces' such as Simon Clare (not singling him out, it's just he's the one that's sprung to mind) on these racing for change panels tells you that they are completely 'in thrall' to the glossy, corporate image that people like Clare et al spin.
Racing itself is being sold short in every department, there is the 'chair' of the ROA, Paul Dixon, also sitting on The Horsemens Group AND the Levy committee, now can anyone tell me why he hasn't resigned any of these positions in disgust at the way the people HE IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT (owners) are being asked to accept LOWER levels of prizemoney & ACTUALLY contribute (via entry fees) a BIGGER slice of the prizemoney than previously???
By:
zilzal1
When: 29 Jan 10 18:20
I doubt very much that we will be dining on Fezzant when our racecourse visit occurs mate.

To Echo Jonjo about PS being genuine, which i believe he is. As i said before though i cannot have that the BHA are impartial observers.

Let me put it this way, the fixture list and race planning has become far more Bookmaker friendly in the years since GPT. Given that racings share of the gaming pound is heading south and its off course partners are aiding this, i cannot envisage a favourable scenario for racing if the current state of affairs persists for the next ten years.
By:
JB Smoove
When: 29 Jan 10 19:23
for gods sake, are you lot going to whinge about absolutely everything for another 12 months?

Head in hands man please.
By:
turnip turns
When: 29 Jan 10 19:28
This lot,are trying to do something about the current watering policies by the Coc's,you dig ?
By:
zilzal1
When: 29 Jan 10 20:16
TT, we expect a few Fifths on here from time to time. Its not compulsory to read it and there are plenty of other threads along the lines of

1.01 stuffed
Kautos better than Sea bird
What order would you do Girls Aloud in

To keep all forumites happy, so if you have nothing to add-do one
By:
turnip turns
When: 29 Jan 10 21:09
Agreed Zil ;)
By:
jonjo
When: 30 Jan 10 10:00
York best Flat course in groundstaff awards

By Howard Wright 10:01AM 24 JAN 2010

YORK'S investment in improvements to its racing surface has been rewarded with the accolade of best Flat course in the 2009 Neil Wyatt Groundstaff of the Year awards, sponsored for the first time by magazine and website publisher Pitchcare.

The awards, organised by the Racecourse Association and named in honour of the former Jockey Club senior course inspector, recognised Newcastle as the best dual-purpose course and Plumpton as top jumps track.

York, which has also been named 2009 Racecourse of the Year by the Racehorse Owners Association and leading Flat course by Racegoers Club members, was winning the groundstaff award for the first time, but head groundsman Adrian Kay is no stranger to the honour.

Kay was part of the Aintree team that took the jumps course title in 2005, before he was recruited by York, and becomes the first to win in both categories.

York clerk of the course and chief executive William Derby said:"I'm truly delighted for our hard-working team.

"Led by Adrian, they have not only completed one of the largest track projects seen on a British racecourse, they have learnt new skills, mastered new pieces of equipment and put in that extra effort to deliver a racing surface that witnessed some extraordinary performances from horse and jockey last year.

"They deserve great credit and we are very proud. The award is also a tribute to a large number of people who have invested their time, expertise and effort in developing the racing surface at York."

The course's submission included an endorsement from Sir Michael Stoute, who said: "I was delighted with the surface that was produced for us and the options for rail movement and fresh ground."

Newcastle clerk James Armstrong said of the team led by Guy Woodward: "The award is a testament to the unfailing dedication of the groundstaff and all their hard work, which has seen them battling against the elements time and again to ensurewe have the best possible conditions for racing."

Plumpton counterpart Mark Cornford said: "We are thrilled that our efforts have been recognised in these prestigious awards. Neil Wyatt was a great supporter of racecourses such as ours, and gave us tremendous encouragement during his tenure as senior inspector of courses."

Richard Linley, Wyatt's most recent successor in the role, supported a judging panel that included representatives of the trainers' and jockeys' trade associations.

Linley said: "It's encouraging that it gets more difficult to select winners each year. There were some really pro-active displays of groundsmanship in 2009, which was a particularly difficult year for many racecourses, due to the high rainfall.

"It's a shame we can only recognise three courses, as there are many other deserving teams."

Each winning course earns wins £2,200, part of which goes towards new equipment.
************************
Dunno what that was that Koo, myself & Brian walked on on Ebor day, but it didn't look like an 'award winning surface'........
By:
zilzal1
When: 30 Jan 10 10:14
s this the Newcastle that provide

"Good to firm, good in places with soft patches" ???

See Clerkwatch 2008
By:
jonjo
When: 30 Jan 10 11:08
Must be a coincidence that we're going to York to meet the inspectorate eh....

"This surface was awful at the Ebor meeting last year"

"What on earth are you two on about, it won an award ffs, p!ss off out of it"

Simon addressed this point on clerkwatch/facebook, saying anything like these awards is akin to letting students mark their own exam papers
Has been pointed out earlier that the RCA 'technical team' is made up almost entirely of clerks who 'splosh it on a bit'
& utterly hilarious that Linley points to the 'high rainfall' as being a problem for the clerks last year, when they still managed to water the hell out of the tracks for most of the summer........
By:
empty
When: 30 Jan 10 11:17
over use of natures resources creates the problems for COC i reckon.
By:
cherry
When: 03 Feb 10 03:57
freebooter 02 Feb 23:13
TRANSLATIONS FROM BABELFISH

"We are raceable at the moment but there are a couple of areas that are causing us a little concern," said Johnson.

"THE BACK STRAIGHT IS SO BAD WE MIGHT AS WELL HOLD BUMPERS AS ALL THE OBSTACLES WILL HAVE TO BE DOLLED OFF"

"We were forecast rain overnight and this morning but we didn't have any and it has only just started raining here now.

"IT HAS BEEN HOSING IT DOWN FOR 20 MINUTES AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF IT STOPPING"

"We're going to have an inspection at 8am and see where we are.

"AND ANOTHER ONE AT HOURLY INTERVALS UNTIL WE HAVE THE CROWD IN"

"If we only get four or five millimetres we should be fine but if we get 10 millimetres, we could be in trouble."

"WE HAVE HAD TEN MILLS WHILE I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS INTERVIEW"

For reference, over the coming months :)
By:
ForestBump
When: 04 Feb 10 08:55
zilzal1
The OFT thing regarding safety limits is a red herring, the OFT only say that Racecourses have a unilateral right(as i understand it) on which days to race, NOT safety limits, which as subject to BHA criteria as Legal Racing in the UK is subject to rules under the governing body.

As Kempton say, there is a safety limit of 16, but "In order to protect LBO money" we set it at 14, ive yet to see comments from you on what this means, or the charts set out since GPT to show how the "Bookmaker friendly cards" have increased over the years.


Correct - however the OFT ruling meant that the BHB at the time could not prevent a course from introducing lower limits than the Safety Factor. Likewise, his response stated the courses weren't under pressure from BHA regarding watering for unpredictible results or Field Size Limits. If they choose to do it themselves, there's naff all BHA can do about it.


millhouse 29 Jan 14:34
Forest bump, given that the BHA clearly see punters as nothing more than a cash cow, what makes you think that punters should give a flying one how much income racing receives...??


My view is that punters should care but they should also care that it's not them being taken for a ride, whether through bookies margins, SPs or corruption. It cannot be a coincidence that there hasn't been a corruption story emanating from French racing, and why do you think that is? Prizemoney that disincentivises being corrupt, a tote monopoly and no exchanges that disincentivises the corrupt, and fewer handicappers, that disincentivises sharp practice.

As punters we have an enviable choice on these shores, but the net result is less money is put back into racing. Totally agree with Jonjo regarding GPT and the sooners its a turnover based model the better.


empty 29 Jan 14:44
Knowing what you know of racing and the issues discussed on this thread, do you believe racing is punter friendly or bookmaker friendly???


In my experience racing has never been punter friendly, which I suppose means it's more bookmaker friendly. The authorities don't provide us with enough information (jockey changes, overweights, in foal, breathing opps etc) and with a handicap heavy programme the odds are stacked against punters. That said, I get the distinct impression from this thread, Magician's thread and TRF, their approach is every so slowly changing. It might be at the speed of a tanker turning but it's happenning - they've answered questions on here and have offered Jonjo and Zilzal a meeting with their team. If that's not progress I don't know what is and Jonjo and Zilzal deserve a lot of credit.

There are very valid points raised on this thread and now that we've got their attention, if we behave properly (ie don't accuse their guy of lying, however disquised the comment may be) we'll be in a much stronger position to be heard should we get another Ascot, Folkestone in 2010.
By:
zilzal1
When: 04 Feb 10 09:33
Some good points there forest, i wonder if course executives come under "Gentle pressure" from Bookmakers who sponsor races at the tracks as several clerks seem to be quite touchy about bias's

i remember Beverley's clerk on telly "Hoping that a low draw would win the Hilary Needler"

We will see how in depth these reports about details of selective watering will be, including amounts and where they were put and having been assured by the BHA that it WILL be adhered to, i will be monitoring it closely.
By:
empty
When: 04 Feb 10 09:55
If racing is bookmaker friendly and the authority does not provide us with the correct information then they are contributing to punters losing so the statement Paul Struthers made is incorrect as i i think i implied.
By:
ForestBump
When: 04 Feb 10 10:08
If racing is bookmaker friendly and the authority does not provide us with the correct information then they are contributing to punters losing so the statement Paul Struthers made is incorrect as i i think i implied.

They do provide correct information, just not enough of it imo. the alwasy say cost is an issue but they should do more.
By:
zilzal1
When: 04 Feb 10 10:16
They do provide correct information, just not enough of it imo. the alwasy say cost is an issue but they should do more.


That's not totally true Forest, a going stick reading taken at 10(or even earlier) enters the form book as gospel, until they do a reading as near as possible to the 1st race, and at the very least, after racing has finished, we do not have a true picture of how the ground has ridden throughout the day.

imo in its current status, the going stick is no good to either Man nor beast.
By:
empty
When: 04 Feb 10 10:17
Yes, your right FB, i didn't write what i meant correctly and it came across the wrong way.
By:
empty
When: 04 Feb 10 10:19
The info provided is correct Zil. it is just outdated due to things like ET.
By:
empty
When: 04 Feb 10 10:50
THE GS was not brought in to help punters, it was brought in to stop the Enviroment Agency rolling on floor laighing at the Official going descriptions when racecourses apply for irrigation.
By:
empty
When: 04 Feb 10 10:50
*punters, trainers or owners
By:
empty
When: 04 Feb 10 11:08
Ask Simon Rowlands to ignore the electronic time recording and guess the time of races for his time and form handicapping and he would laugh and think you a total idiot.


I think the above just shows how dumb the current situation is with the Official going descrition and subsequent watering policies.
By:
zilzal1
When: 04 Feb 10 11:12
Empty, it enters the form book as gospel, until , at the very least, there is a reading taken after racing then the stick in its current guise, is of little use to man or beast in assisting Owners, punter or trainers assessing from the formbook, what the ACTUAL stick reading was at the time racing took place.
By:
empty
When: 04 Feb 10 11:27
It does not enter formbook Zil and therein lies one of the problems imho


I understand where your coming from mate though mate.
By:
empty
When: 04 Feb 10 11:29
any information, even that what may be a few hours out of date is better than NO information imho.
Page 4 of 54  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 54 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com