gman50:laugh:]

i think you want to get out a little bit more sonny....try standing next to a set of lights and see how many cars jump them witking 5 minutes...i think you could learn something...then try understanding why muppet hughes cant abide by the rules like everyone else

Pedro how about some names then? I have first hand experience of the Hannon yard and know RH is not a gambler and nor are the vast majority of his owners. A large number of horses improve for one reason or another and you seem to be thinking it is only because of skullduggery. And you think I am naive.

A Clive Brittain horse won at Kempton yesterday after being well beaten first time its price contracted and it won. I suppose you think it was a gamble ffs. Had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the other runners were priced up shorter than they should be and were not backed accordingly. The market forces will generally sort things out. And the reason a lot of things happen nearer the off is because the prices bookies put up are not taken so they push things out. By doing this they have to shorten the longer priced runners. It's called bookmaking ffs.

six gun 14 Oct 11 11:31
The decision is to appease "public opinion" but it seems the opinion came from survey(s) carried out by companies that do this. I don't know who they asked or quite what the questions were.

Once they went down this 'public' route the end result was inevitable.

Presumably the question was 'Do you like seeing horses hit with a whip' to which anyone would say 'no'

Then a follow up question along the lines of 'would you be more inclined to go racing if there was a strict limit on the number of times a jockey can use his whip' to which the answer will be 'yes'.

Result - the BHA bring in the new whip rule which will ultimately have no positive benefit to horse welfare and which won't in reality bring any extra people through the turnstiles. A total waste of time and money.

It seems that all the governing bodies of british sports are incompetent. The FA, RFU, LTA etc couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery. I remember Will Carling saying the RFU was run by 57 old farts, quite what that makes racings leaders I'm not sure.

brigust, whilst can accept a once raced animal showing considerable improvement, to take a recent example, last night Hannon won with Regal Gold - beaten 14+, 11+ and 19+ lengths - wins on nursery debut joint fav having gone off 20/1, 14/1 and 14/1 previous starts.

Given a much stronger ride last night compared to any of it's recent maidens. Clearly the stable money was down yesterday on a trier whereas those who backed it on previous occasions were effectively defrauded of any run for their money.

Not singling out Richard Hannon at all, virtually every trainer plays this handicap game. But to suggest that the Hannon yard do not line up their targets and that the stable money is not directed accordingly is incorrect. It is well known that Hughsie frequents a certain golf club where plenty are privy to inside information.

I am not suggesting this is skulduggery, nor that Richard senior is a gambler, nor the majority of his owners. But to think that others are not taking advantage of knowledge about when the stable runners are expected to "perform" would be considered naive by many, your word (and that of another poster), not mine

To the earlier post about traffic lights. There are thousands of traffic light installations in this country that need digging up - absolutely no need for them at all. Their existence does not suggest the law is correct, but merely that the law/rules may, or may not, be an ass.

You are doing it again Pedro. You think that a price is only dictated by the stables. It isn't.

Yesterday's race was a classic example. The winner ran in three better races and was well beaten by better horses. It was weighed accordingly and just beat a similarly weighted rival. The race was terrible last night. The reason it started the price it did was because no-one with any sense would put their hard earned cash on any of the other runners.

You are suggesting RH knew it was a 56 rated animal. Ran it in 3 races it couldn't win. The handicapper alloted it 56 and RH rubbed his hands thinking this is something he could go to war with. He has over a hundred horses ffs and has far more important things to think about than winning a Class 6 nursery on the AW. Get a grip.

I'm not saying some stables 'prepare' horses to gamble on, they do. But RH just hasn't either the inclination or the time to even think about it. And I put Hughsie in the same bracket.

Roger keeps bleating on about Available. I have watched the race and looked at the form. If you backed that then I feel sorry for you. The race it was 3rd in is unknown and the only form from it is terrible. It forced or assisted the pace but is just not very good.
Plus it was the only filly against colts.
Plus it wears a cross noseband and is a very free running sort.
RH is not about to start knocking about a filly with tearway tendencies.
If that is how you read races Roger I wouldn't be swapping Bf accounts with you any time soon.

You cannot write it!

If "legend" Hughes can't count to five or seven, it wouldn't take much to invent a whip with a sensor on connected to a wireless earpiece that could count for him.

Whatever sport,'arm round the shoulder' or 'kick up the arse',without the ability to do that is like taking your legs away.

A horseman will always need a tool of his trade.Period.

"tearaway tendencies" heard it all now...
as you have connections with the Hannon stable brigust, you are biased in your opinions of Richard Hughes. I have no connections with any stables and no inside information. I treat all rides as if they were ridden by the same jockey. I know when a jockey has not taken all possible measures to achieve the best possible placing.

If you are right and the horse had no chance at Kempton and simply ran the same race as it did at Leicester, and that's as good as it is, explain the Racing Post Rating drop of 25lbs, from 72 to 47. In the Kempton race it was actually beaten by a horse rated 47.

The facts are the horse ran a perfectly acceptable race at Leicester and had ZERO "tearaway tendencies" as you call them, and ran all the way to the line.

Defending Richard Hughes and saying that he was right not to use his stick, merely makes Dane O'Neill out to not having a clue what he was doing at Leicester....

Available was a lot more keen at Kempton, and was actually a length and a half down on the 2nd & 3rd heading into the final furlong, and responded to hands and heels pressure to finish 1/2 length behind these two.

Your argument that Richard Hughes doesn't hit horses, that race keen in the early part of their races, approaching the finish, is quite frankly b********.

^^^this is right.  They are arranging things.  some just can't admit such an awful idea. (Too much faith in human nature?)

Roger. The Available race. The 47 rated horse beat a 66 rated horse in its previous race plus this time it was wearing cheekpieces for the first time. Plus in its previous race it led 3 out and weakened one out over 7 furlongs. This was 6 furlongs.
Plus the Hannon horse, a filly, was running only 8 days after the Leicester run.
The clues are there Roger. If you back horses like that you need help. And if you think RH should beat it up to possibly, and I say again possibly, achieve 3rd place, you need certifyng.

Roger we will have to agree to disagree OK. I don't know anything about Available except what I have seen and read. I never back these kind of horses. I seldom back fillies against colts especially at short prices. I like to see known form on the surface, definately more than one run and seldom by information alone. Just too many questions to answer for me.

Interesting that Richard Hughes has lost the races in which he has got the bans and in last night's case the winner adhered to the new whip rules and still won the race.

Maybe the floodlights shone on the righteous

.