Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The greatest ever
Show More
Moody said he had been contacted in relation to a story on peptide use in racing that appeared in Fairfax Media on Sunday, but said he had not been spoken to or contacted by authorities.
Fairfax named Victorian trainer Dean Binaisse as a trainer under investigation over the suspected use of synthetic peptides in horses, including the anti-obesity drug given to some Essendon AFL players.
Fairfax named Victorian trainer Dean Binaisse as a trainer under investigation over the suspected use of synthetic peptides in horses, including the anti-obesity drug given to some Essendon AFL players.
The report said the activities of a "very prominent trainer" have been examined by the Australian Crime Commission, police or racing authorities in connection with the use of controversial supplements.
It went on to say that racing authorities have "strong suspicions about the trainer's practices", but drug tests have so far failed to reveal any use of synthetic peptides.
It went on to say that racing authorities have "strong suspicions about the trainer's practices", but drug tests have so far failed to reveal any use of synthetic peptides.
Not to mention this doozy.
peptides - a form of anabolic steroid used in bodybuilding and hard to detect when testing
Do you read any of the siht you quote? How did this one slip past you? Since when have peptides been anabolic steroids?
peptides - a form of anabolic steroid used in bodybuilding and hard to detect when testing
Do you read any of the siht you quote? How did this one slip past you? Since when have peptides been anabolic steroids?
Please try not to be an idiot BJT. You are clearly not but you defence of Moody far exceeds the remit. What Henderson was found guilty of is actually administering something to protect the horse not improve it's physique and most jurisdictions permit them without testing. He failed to record that's why he was fined. If you think that is the same as administering steroids then I am on the wrong thread.
Nine trainers will not face any disciplinary action after a product containing a banned anabolic steroid was given to 43 horses.
The announcement follows a British Horseracing Authority (BHA) investigation into the use of Sungate, a treatment used on a horse's joints.
Nine trainers were found to have acted on the advice of vets, says the BHA.
But charges have been brought against Gerard Butler, who has admitted injecting horses with the product.
After a visit by inspectors in February, nine horses trained by Butler at his Newmarket stable tested positive for the prohibited steroid stanozolol, contained in the Sungate treatment.
Gerard Butler
Butler was charged 'under a different set of facts and circumstances', says the BHA
The 47-year-old has already been charged with seven breaches of BHA rules, including three relating to "administering intra-articular injections himself" although a date for his hearing has yet to be announced.
A wider investigation, separate to another inquiry which saw Godolphin trainer Mahmood Al Zarooni given an eight-year ban for doping horses, began after Butler suggested more than 100 horses in Newmarket were treated with Sungate.
Investigators met with 38 trainers who were known to use the same veterinary practice, which legally imported Sungate under licence into the UK and recommended its use, despite anabolic steroids being banned in British racing.
The BHA says 43 horses from nine trainers were identified as having been treated with Sungate by veterinary surgeons since early 2010, but there were no grounds for charges to be brought.
“
It remains a matter of serious concern that a veterinary practice recommended and administered a product containing anabolic steroids
”
Jenny Hall, interim chief veterinary officer for the British Horseracing Authority
"Under the current rules of racing, in the absence of any positive samples, charges could only be brought in cases such as this if there is evidence that the trainer concerned has acted in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct, or good reputation of the sport," said Adam Brickell, the BHA's director of integrity, legal and risk.
"In these cases there was no such evidence. This is because the nine trainers in question only allowed their horses to be administered with the product on the advice of - and by - veterinary surgeons to treat orthopaedic conditions."
As no charges have been brought, it is BHA policy not to reveal the names of any of the trainers or horses involved in the investigation.
The authority has stressed that although Sungate contains stanozolol, it is used to treat joints which makes it different to an intramuscular anabolic steroid product. which would have a much higher concentration of anabolic agent.
Brickell, acknowledging that vets are "not currently accountable to the BHA" said it will try to reduce the chances of something similar happening in the future.
The organisation's chief veterinary officer Jenny Hall said: "It remains a matter of serious concern that a veterinary practice recommended and administered a product containing anabolic steroids."
"Under the current rules of racing, in the absence of any positive samples, charges could only be brought in cases such as this if there is evidence that the trainer concerned has acted in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct, or good reputation of the sport," said Adam Brickell, the BHA's director of integrity, legal and risk.
They have admitted administering it, it is recorded by the vets as providing it, in the trainers books as administering it, but there will be no charges, no names of trainers, no names of horses.
Crock of siht.
Point being, "Holy siht, everybody is using this siht. Maybe we should have started our testing earlier so this wouldn't have happened. How embarrassing..."...
lol
The announcement follows a British Horseracing Authority (BHA) investigation into the use of Sungate, a treatment used on a horse's joints.
Nine trainers were found to have acted on the advice of vets, says the BHA.
But charges have been brought against Gerard Butler, who has admitted injecting horses with the product.
After a visit by inspectors in February, nine horses trained by Butler at his Newmarket stable tested positive for the prohibited steroid stanozolol, contained in the Sungate treatment.
Gerard Butler
Butler was charged 'under a different set of facts and circumstances', says the BHA
The 47-year-old has already been charged with seven breaches of BHA rules, including three relating to "administering intra-articular injections himself" although a date for his hearing has yet to be announced.
A wider investigation, separate to another inquiry which saw Godolphin trainer Mahmood Al Zarooni given an eight-year ban for doping horses, began after Butler suggested more than 100 horses in Newmarket were treated with Sungate.
Investigators met with 38 trainers who were known to use the same veterinary practice, which legally imported Sungate under licence into the UK and recommended its use, despite anabolic steroids being banned in British racing.
The BHA says 43 horses from nine trainers were identified as having been treated with Sungate by veterinary surgeons since early 2010, but there were no grounds for charges to be brought.
“
It remains a matter of serious concern that a veterinary practice recommended and administered a product containing anabolic steroids
”
Jenny Hall, interim chief veterinary officer for the British Horseracing Authority
"Under the current rules of racing, in the absence of any positive samples, charges could only be brought in cases such as this if there is evidence that the trainer concerned has acted in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct, or good reputation of the sport," said Adam Brickell, the BHA's director of integrity, legal and risk.
"In these cases there was no such evidence. This is because the nine trainers in question only allowed their horses to be administered with the product on the advice of - and by - veterinary surgeons to treat orthopaedic conditions."
As no charges have been brought, it is BHA policy not to reveal the names of any of the trainers or horses involved in the investigation.
The authority has stressed that although Sungate contains stanozolol, it is used to treat joints which makes it different to an intramuscular anabolic steroid product. which would have a much higher concentration of anabolic agent.
Brickell, acknowledging that vets are "not currently accountable to the BHA" said it will try to reduce the chances of something similar happening in the future.
The organisation's chief veterinary officer Jenny Hall said: "It remains a matter of serious concern that a veterinary practice recommended and administered a product containing anabolic steroids."
"Under the current rules of racing, in the absence of any positive samples, charges could only be brought in cases such as this if there is evidence that the trainer concerned has acted in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct, or good reputation of the sport," said Adam Brickell, the BHA's director of integrity, legal and risk.
They have admitted administering it, it is recorded by the vets as providing it, in the trainers books as administering it, but there will be no charges, no names of trainers, no names of horses.
Crock of siht.
Point being, "Holy siht, everybody is using this siht. Maybe we should have started our testing earlier so this wouldn't have happened. How embarrassing..."...
lol
Please try not to be an idiot BJT.
That's asking a lot tbf
That's asking a lot tbf
Oct 21, 2013 -- 10:35AM, brigust1 wrote:
Please try not to be an idiot BJT. You are clearly not but you defence of Moody far exceeds the remit. What Henderson was found guilty of is actually administering something to protect the horse not improve it's physique and most jurisdictions permit them without testing. He failed to record that's why he was fined. If you think that is the same as administering steroids then I am on the wrong thread.
The BHA summary continued: "Henderson did not of course know in Feburary 2009 the detail of how tranexamic acid worked but he did know and understand that it could affect racing performance because he knew the drug was intended to operate once a bleed occurred."
There is no defence of Moody. There is no need. The report you posted, was in May, over 5 months ago, and was about a "high profile trainer". There was no evidence of anything, and the person named, maybe had 1 letter in his name similar to Peter Moody.
He was simply asked if it was him being investigated. To which he replied no. So what exactly is your point?
Where is your report saying that BC tested positive to something? You have proven that Brigadier Gerard did not use any performance enhancing drug, or anything, at any time he was alive, based on the results of his swabs on race day.
Right?
Why do other horses need to provide more than that? If that is enough proof, then you have it in spades, in the form of near 30 tests. Right? Show me any high profile Australian horse put out for testing positive? I can show you plenty of English horses.
Oct 20, 2013 -- 2:54PM, brigust1 wrote:
What I heard about the scandal was that he was supposed to have been got at and had to be withdrawn down at the start and Ragusa who he beat in the Epsom Derby went on to win. Can you imagine the inquest when BG got beaten at York? Ffs. My theory is that Roberto had what was similar to a milkshake. Very weird goings on for some time I can tell you and a few carrying ons that were never checked or tested imo. But in actual fact he was a very sick horse just afterwards and it was a race too far.
Hmmmm
Please don't prove my point BJT.
This is horse racing and we all have thoughts and innuendo that is what makes racing tick but you take it to a completely different level where you try to make explicit accusations. And no-one is treated with the respect they deserve. There is a huge difference between the two. I hope you understand that.
I have my suspicions about what happened at York that day in 1972 and I could substantiate them with actions on the ground but they would only be light hearted and discussion points. They would not be accusations. You accuse. Don't.
This is horse racing and we all have thoughts and innuendo that is what makes racing tick but you take it to a completely different level where you try to make explicit accusations. And no-one is treated with the respect they deserve. There is a huge difference between the two. I hope you understand that.
I have my suspicions about what happened at York that day in 1972 and I could substantiate them with actions on the ground but they would only be light hearted and discussion points. They would not be accusations. You accuse. Don't.
There was 600 horses in England tested for banned substances in a 12 month period.
Not in 1970. In 2012.
That equates to about 50 per month. This year, there has been about 80 horses, that we know of, test positive and 11 trainers proven to have used steroids on their horses. BHA tried to sweep 10/11 under the carpet.
If this is the testing policy in 2012, how in hell, can you make a claim, that a horse back then never used any performance enhancing drug?
What exactly were the Bicarb limits back in the 70s by the way?
Either way, you seem to be dodging. The question is.
How does BG being tested on race day, prove he wasn't using drugs NOT on race day? I am not claiming he did, or didn't. I am suggesting it is ridiculous to suggest that no horse outside England can possibly be considered great because they are all on drugs. For a start, you have no evidence that they are. And you have no evidence that English horses aren't.
But dodge away, and make it personal.
Not in 1970. In 2012.
That equates to about 50 per month. This year, there has been about 80 horses, that we know of, test positive and 11 trainers proven to have used steroids on their horses. BHA tried to sweep 10/11 under the carpet.
If this is the testing policy in 2012, how in hell, can you make a claim, that a horse back then never used any performance enhancing drug?
What exactly were the Bicarb limits back in the 70s by the way?
Either way, you seem to be dodging. The question is.
How does BG being tested on race day, prove he wasn't using drugs NOT on race day? I am not claiming he did, or didn't. I am suggesting it is ridiculous to suggest that no horse outside England can possibly be considered great because they are all on drugs. For a start, you have no evidence that they are. And you have no evidence that English horses aren't.
But dodge away, and make it personal.
Minor Steroid abuse to make a horse run quicker does not bother me too much provided it does not lead to any suffering by the Animal concerned , what bothers me and a lot of other punters is the often inexplicable tours round the back of the field taken by some seemingly good favourites .Horses that run in this way should be given weight penalties if the Trainer can not come up with a satisfactory reason for having never been put properly into the race , that would alleviate the problem in weeks imo
Gee, surprised everybody has gone quiet since the question of world wide drug use has sprung up. Maybe they realise that all this time where they have concluded they have the best horses ever to run because they could eliminate every other country from the mix through some drug excuse was all full of siht since drugs are absolutely rife in England and probably has been right throughout history.
Hmmm. Keep it quiet BHA. That damn Butler opening his mouth has got you in a lot of trouble. Best ban him and hide everybody else.....
Is interesting though, how the hearing is set for April. He is expected to get 10 years, and was caught on February 20 I believe. Zarooni was caught in April and banned inside a week for 8 years. The others, well, none of their names were released, and judging by the way they initially dismissed Butler from wrongdoing after a quarter of his yard (all either coming back from a long spell yet to commence work, or unraced 2yos) tested positive, have to wonder just how many they have turned a blind eye too. They really only wanted 1 name after all.
And all this has happened because they have just started to test for drugs out of competition.
Run away Brig and hide. How dare anybody question if Brigadier Gerard was a doped horse. Problem is there is ZERO proof that he wasn't because there is no way in hell he would have been tested outside of race day, as none of them would have been.
How many times was Frankel tested outside of the track for interest sake? Harbingers superstar performance that was out of whack with his other runs? Rewilding, obviously, yet nobody would agree to that one obviously, no matter which trainer was in charge but won't be again ever for doping his horses.
Think back of all the superstars of the past. Nobody in here, looking at the facts, could be in any way confident that their most memorable horses and races, didn't have drugs involved.
Hmmm. Keep it quiet BHA. That damn Butler opening his mouth has got you in a lot of trouble. Best ban him and hide everybody else.....
Is interesting though, how the hearing is set for April. He is expected to get 10 years, and was caught on February 20 I believe. Zarooni was caught in April and banned inside a week for 8 years. The others, well, none of their names were released, and judging by the way they initially dismissed Butler from wrongdoing after a quarter of his yard (all either coming back from a long spell yet to commence work, or unraced 2yos) tested positive, have to wonder just how many they have turned a blind eye too. They really only wanted 1 name after all.
And all this has happened because they have just started to test for drugs out of competition.
Run away Brig and hide. How dare anybody question if Brigadier Gerard was a doped horse. Problem is there is ZERO proof that he wasn't because there is no way in hell he would have been tested outside of race day, as none of them would have been.
How many times was Frankel tested outside of the track for interest sake? Harbingers superstar performance that was out of whack with his other runs? Rewilding, obviously, yet nobody would agree to that one obviously, no matter which trainer was in charge but won't be again ever for doping his horses.
Think back of all the superstars of the past. Nobody in here, looking at the facts, could be in any way confident that their most memorable horses and races, didn't have drugs involved.
in the 1970,s they just counted they had 4 feet and checked for a pulse 
as opposed to the rigorous procedure they now operate
as opposed to the rigorous procedure they now operate
Hard to imagine how a 31 length win in track record time that still stands after nearly 40 years, doesn't beat out any of the horses listed on here.
Such a little island, such little minds.
Such a little island, such little minds.
I have much sympathy, for the view by the many, on the drug scandals of the past several years,the subject probably not covered as it should be by the racing press?.(well it would be because the ex owner of the racing press is involved and the biggest owner in the world?),the facts are significant and those with eyes understand.
Oct 22, 2013 -- 11:05PM, BJT wrote:
Hard to imagine how a 31 length win in track record time that still stands after nearly 40 years, doesn't beat out any of the horses listed on here.Such a little island, such little minds.
I find your comments here insulting to the silent majority,who may well agree with many of your views,please do not insult the peoples of this nation,but feel free to express your view on drugs.
The racing press and handicappers do indeed,bend over backwards to protect their own interests,the slave culture is very present.(Master and servant)
Such a little island, such little minds.
I thought Australia was a large island
I thought Australia was a large island
Mind you andrewis comment on minds is interesting,some thought Farhh improved in his latest victory???
(another gift for the master)
(another gift for the master)
I bet Farhh on the basis that CDA was along way below best(but not so?)
Now a better horse than CDA ever was at his best???
Now that said,i do belive Farhh did have plenty of ability,I believe he caught his trainer out,rapid improvement,in the hcp system and then rushed in my view(not such a great training performance). What do you believe???
Take Secretariat.
Won the triple crown. Broke the track record in all 3 legs. Belmont record still stands today. In the results since 1926, to 2013, no horse would have gotten within 14 lengths of that run.
In 87 years, no horse running in one of the biggest 3yo races in America, would have gotten within 14 lengths of Secretariat that day.
Frankel? Beat Excelebration 11 lengths after he went early, in a time that was about average.
You guys are out of your fcuking heads.....
Won the triple crown. Broke the track record in all 3 legs. Belmont record still stands today. In the results since 1926, to 2013, no horse would have gotten within 14 lengths of that run.
In 87 years, no horse running in one of the biggest 3yo races in America, would have gotten within 14 lengths of Secretariat that day.
Frankel? Beat Excelebration 11 lengths after he went early, in a time that was about average.
You guys are out of your fcuking heads.....
Agree, but conditons that day,and horse running below form.
The handicappers corner point of view on Farrh - http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/timeform-debate/handicappers-corner/...
"historical standards take into account the ratings of the first five horses of a result" yes the 5th horse was used
The third horse Ruler of the world,ran a stormer,having been put in his place in the ARC beaten 7/17 some 11+Lengths behind Treve,race comment = "Midfield on outer, shuffled back and lost place as pace quickened 3f out, towards rear and ridden 2f out, rallied under pressure and stayed on well for 7th" for the Arc. so in my view the Arc is one of the most underated races in history this year, comparing too the mile ratings that is.
A very exciting prospect for ratings fans 2014 will be,the racing post trophy could had even more to that developemnt.
. lots of horses rated just below group1 class.
. lots of horses rated just below group1 class.
How predictable it was MJ that Timeform raised Ruler of the World instead of dropping Farhh and CDA. Now ROTW is rated far higher than Camelot and I'm sure AOB would disagree with that. Camelot won the RP Trophy, Guineas, Derby and Irish Derby was given a poor ride in the St Leger then due to poor trainer selection the horse never recovered his form. Conversely ROTW won the Derby where the next 10 home have won nothing and that is all. He was well beaten in the Irish Derby and only narrowly beat Okovango in France who he beat in the Epsom Derby. Typical Timeform trying to justify their inflated figures.
The Official Handicapper has ROTW 5lb behind Camelot and at this moment in time that looks about right.
http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/racinghub/archive/2013/09/23/marlboro-cup-of-...
Oct 23, 2013 -- 3:50AM, brigust1 wrote:
How predictable it was MJ that Timeform raised Ruler of the World instead of dropping Farhh and CDA. Now ROTW is rated far higher than Camelot and I'm sure AOB would disagree with that. Camelot won the RP Trophy, Guineas, Derby and Irish Derby was given a poor ride in the St Leger then due to poor trainer selection the horse never recovered his form. Conversely ROTW won the Derby where the next 10 home have won nothing and that is all. He was well beaten in the Irish Derby and only narrowly beat Okovango in France who he beat in the Epsom Derby. Typical Timeform trying to justify their inflated figures.
I do not wish to mock Timeform on this issue,but the rating given ROTW,does seem to fit in with their hcp.they believe he would have finished 3rd with a clear run in the Arc(this is imagination at work)
I do believe Ruler Of The World possibly better than Camelot,but you make a good point brigust.lets face it,CDA not the same horse this year,and I have doubt the same horse when even meeting Frankel last year(I believe 2011 was his peak). Rating Farrh besides(so close anyway) to CDA is a handicapping injustice.
The whole point, is that "at his best" CDA was still only a thereabouts horse.
I think CDA was at his best. In Meydan CDA beat St Nicholas Abbey narrowly luckily and because he should have won. In the Juddmonte Farhh beat St Nicholas Abbey narrowly and JOB never used his whip. There is nothing between St Nic, Fathh and CDA imo yet St Nic is rated 128 and Farhh and CDA rated 133.
In the Champion Stakes Farhh and CDA should have finished upsides and they did.
In the Champion Stakes Farhh and CDA should have finished upsides and they did.
From my view possibly one or two 3yrld late developers this year?,I do believe Treve a brilliant horse(a stand out amongst the rest of the 3yrld crowd),but with them rating ROTW so high and him running so very well behind CDA(ground and trip fine) it does point to a weakness in last years high figures(they may say the oposite).the 3yrld uk form ratings just made a leap, after all year we all believed them an average bunch,reversing form with each other and having excuses? The milers do seem rated on the high side to me Toranado compared too Treve? come on Treve form much more substance? but that is not the way the machine works.
Most handicaps have CDA 6-8lb below best going into Saturdays race,they have used the fifth horse I think?( Mukhadram beaten 7L+) to justify? and Mukhadram himself beaten 3L+ by AL Kazeem at sandown(Al kazeem beaten 11L+ behind Treve in Arc with trouble in running) but whatever they have done,2012 ratings on the high side!
As I said on credible lines through St Nicholas Abbey they both ran to form. In fact Timeform have them both on the same rating as well and that is what happened. I just think their rating is grossly inflated.
We will have to wait for Treve. If you watch the Arc again every runner in the field was on the bridle coming into the straight whereas in Danedream's Arc they were all off the bridle. That's how false the pace was. Treve had the run of the race given the pace and a clear passage and had first run. Not including a beneficial wfa scale.
We will have to wait for Treve. If you watch the Arc again every runner in the field was on the bridle coming into the straight whereas in Danedream's Arc they were all off the bridle. That's how false the pace was. Treve had the run of the race given the pace and a clear passage and had first run. Not including a beneficial wfa scale.
The 3yrld had a beneficial wfa scale last year brigust?,they do every year if good enough? they did look shocking last year those 3yrlds,a more so now.Remember Pastorius got to within 7L of Frankel and CDA last year,beaten 11L in this years Arc.It makes interesting reading,but Frankel not as good over 10f for my money(but not bad).
^ an error ,Pastorias 11L behind Al Kazeem at sandown?(sorry) getting excited again)
One more point about Treve,if it had been a 10f race the Arc this year?(who would have lived with her?)
I've already dealt with the opposition in the Arc. It wasn't great by any means and she looked outstanding but if you look at Danedream's demolition with the allowance she wasn't able to show that again as a 4 year old.
We have had a couple of seasons dominated by a German 2000 Gns winner, a Thirsk Hunt Cup winner, a 6 year old gelding who took 40+ runs to win a Group 1 and with a German filly being the best middle distance horse having taken 9 runs to win first Group 1 in Italy. The reason being the opposition was rubbish throughout. I suggest we will never, ever experience another couple years like that.
We have had a couple of seasons dominated by a German 2000 Gns winner, a Thirsk Hunt Cup winner, a 6 year old gelding who took 40+ runs to win a Group 1 and with a German filly being the best middle distance horse having taken 9 runs to win first Group 1 in Italy. The reason being the opposition was rubbish throughout. I suggest we will never, ever experience another couple years like that.
And all the time we were dominated by an unexceptional ex Australian horse who was beaten every time he left the UK.
Oct 23, 2013 -- 5:54AM, brigust1 wrote:
And all the time we were dominated by an unexceptional ex Australian horse who was beaten every time he left the UK.
On every type of surface going with 60,000 km travel under his belt with a shocking trainer, and a jockey with shocking tactics.
For the record, how did Brigadier Gerard go when he was asked to travel further than 400 kilometres? How many wins there?
Surely he didn't just race against the same horses of the same area on the same tracks and same surfaces?
Was often said how siht SYT was because he only beat Carlton House by a couple of lengths who was only thereabouts in group racing in the UK, and Carlton House was siht because he came to Australia and got flogged in a G2 handicap race.
All well and good, but people forget to mention that SYT was winning G1 races in Aus by 3-4 lengths, not losing G2 races by 5L. SYT lost minimum 5 lengths through Obriens moronic production line training regime. The only thing unexceptional about him was the trainer that took over at half way who has no idea how to train, and no idea how to target a race.
All well and good, but people forget to mention that SYT was winning G1 races in Aus by 3-4 lengths, not losing G2 races by 5L. SYT lost minimum 5 lengths through Obriens moronic production line training regime. The only thing unexceptional about him was the trainer that took over at half way who has no idea how to train, and no idea how to target a race.
I would have to agree with brigust about the austrailian horse,past his best when reaching these shores,but did win his gift races.
BJT
I have some sympathy for your view on the trainer.
I have some sympathy for your view on the trainer.
Not read the post today,someone tells me a good letter on page 4,would love to read it?
Not got that one yet,but this a good read - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/racing/article-2191614/Frankel-good-Brigadi...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horseracing/9475902/As-Frankel-heads-to-Yor...
for you brigust(you will like this) - http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/truenicks/archive/2012/06/27/pedigree-time-ma...
http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/truenicks/archive/2012/06/27/pedigree-time-ma... thats better.
Interesting that a fit and well Brigadier Gerard beat Gold Road a length in the Eclipse whilst a "sick" Brigadier Gerard beat him 10 lengths in the Benson and Hedges.
In fact Brigadier Gerard came up against Gold Rod 5 times (some people say Frankel just beat the same horses over and over) and the biggest distance he ever beat him by was 10 and a half lengths.
Miraculous performance by a sick horse.
Miraculous performance by a sick horse.
Did he beat anybody of note in that time beating that horse 5 times, or was that the only horse he beat?
Good to know you can still get a laugh out of some of the ridiculous Aussie comments on here......Aidan O'Brien doesn't know how to train is a classic.
He knew well enough not to clash SYT with Cape Blanco or else that would have been a bubble burst there from within his own yard. No jockey ever did anything wrong on SYT when riding in Europe and the horse was essentially given the same rides in victory as in defeat, but most of the victories were either against inferior opponents, decent ones but running over their wrong trip or inexperienced horses that had SYT stayed in training will have improved passed him. The funny thing is when given those same rides and winning it was fine with the Aussies but when beaten it was everyone's fault except the horse just as with like Black Caviar not being the global superstar they all made out. Superstar within Aussie Mickey Mouse racing maybe but that's about all.
SYT was a decent but far from exceptional horse and everything O'Brien said after the horse continuously flopped was to try to kid us that it wasn't merely because the horse just wasn't good enough to win those races. Football managers do it all the time here to deflect the criticism away from their players, it's nothing new and no great mind games and it's only the gullible or those in denial and not wanting to accept the truth who swallow that bullsh1t.
Oh and Carlton House is another to never win a Gr1 here either, just like Jet Away and Sea Moon and now all 3 have found their way to Australia, rather then be retained by their original owners to race here instead.
He knew well enough not to clash SYT with Cape Blanco or else that would have been a bubble burst there from within his own yard. No jockey ever did anything wrong on SYT when riding in Europe and the horse was essentially given the same rides in victory as in defeat, but most of the victories were either against inferior opponents, decent ones but running over their wrong trip or inexperienced horses that had SYT stayed in training will have improved passed him. The funny thing is when given those same rides and winning it was fine with the Aussies but when beaten it was everyone's fault except the horse just as with like Black Caviar not being the global superstar they all made out. Superstar within Aussie Mickey Mouse racing maybe but that's about all.
SYT was a decent but far from exceptional horse and everything O'Brien said after the horse continuously flopped was to try to kid us that it wasn't merely because the horse just wasn't good enough to win those races. Football managers do it all the time here to deflect the criticism away from their players, it's nothing new and no great mind games and it's only the gullible or those in denial and not wanting to accept the truth who swallow that bullsh1t.
Oh and Carlton House is another to never win a Gr1 here either, just like Jet Away and Sea Moon and now all 3 have found their way to Australia, rather then be retained by their original owners to race here instead.
Problem is there is ZERO proof that he wasn't because there is no way in hell he would have been tested outside of race day, as none of them would have been.
Obv BJT'c comments apply to all Aussie horses from the past as well - there is zero proof that none of them were drug free, this obv applies to ALL aussie horses that have won a race without being tested throughout history - both in Aussie and UK Races. Therefore by BJT's simple logic there is zero proof that Black Caviar et all weren't on drugs whne they won their races over here. Thanks for clearing that up Mr Angry.
Found this old article from a while back - I guess it shows drugs have been a worry for some involved in Aussie racing for some time.....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Horse-Racing/Hayes-crack-down-on-drug-cheats/2005/06/01/1117568258921.html
Hayes: crack down on drug cheats
By Patrick Bartley
June 2, 2005
David Hayes, Australia's leading international trainer, last night launched a scathing attack on "cheating" rival trainers in Australian racing and said he would not stand by while they continued to flout the system.
Hayes was yesterday uncovered as one of three leading trainers represented at a secret meeting with chief steward Des Gleeson in March - details of which were revealed exclusively in The Age yesterday - at which they expressed concerns over alleged drug use in the industry.
Hayes yesterday confirmed to The Age that he sent his Australian racing manager Mark Pilkington to the high-level meeting with Gleeson, together with Lee Freedman and Sydney-based trainer John Hawkes.
"I couldn't make the meeting but it was of such great importance I sent my Australian manager," said the Hong Kong-based Hayes. "We were pleased with the outcome but I won't stand by and see cheating trainers gain an advantage.
"Sure, we can make mistakes with treatments but this is more than that. We must have a level playing field and we can't have blokes taking short-cuts. It's cheating. If it's whatever substance they are using, well, they must be outlawed."
Hayes will arrive back in Australia next month and said he would arrange another meeting with Gleeson on his return. The push from Hayes, Freedman and Hawkes represents one of the most dramatic developments in racing in recent years.
Already, Gleeson has announced that the non-raceday testing of horses has been stepped up.
Hayes said last night it was imperative that the issue of drugs in Australian racing was looked at closely. "I train here in Hong Kong and nothing ever happens with drugs. But it's a touch easier here - we have a horse population of just 1200 so it's that much easier to police," he said.
"But I'm coming home to Australia and I don't want to be starting 10 yards behind a trainer who is getting a short-cut through the system. I will be establishing a huge organisation when I start again in Australia and I want it to be fair."
'I won't stand by and see cheating trainers gain an advantage.' DAVID HAYES
Fellow trainer Freedman said yesterday he would join Hayes and Hawkes in arranging a second meeting with Gleeson once Hayes arrived back in Australia to recommence his career.
"We will hook up with everyone again and meet (Des); it's vital that we make it fair for everybody. You can always make the system better," Freedman said.
The delegation wants to eradicate drugs in racing and ensure every horse is competing without an unfair advantage.
Freedman said the purpose of the original meeting was to discuss what measures the stewards were taking with regard to detecting drug use.
David Hayes sent a representative to meet Racing Victoria chiefsteward Des Gleeson.
David Hayes sent a representative to meet Racing Victoria chief
steward Des Gleeson.
Racing Victoria stewards have implemented significant changes in the fight against the use of illegal substances and recently modified their raceday drug testing, with more horses being swabbed closer to race time. Gleeson also said a team of experts would be established to investigate drug use in Victorian racing.
Freedman yesterday restated his wish to have Victorian Racing conducted on a "level playing field" and that most concern surrounded the possible use of erythropoietin and bi-carb.
A leading racing veterinary surgeon said yesterday that he was disappointed with the public view that prohibitive drugs were a part of racing and believed that racegoers should have more faith in the Victorian system.
The surgeon, who wished not to be named, claimed that Victoria was the leader in drug-testing and maintained that it should not be the job for leading trainers to seek meetings with stewards.
"We have a state-of-the-art testing procedures in Victoria," he said. "They have a streamlined system that works well. They (stewards) catch, apprehend and penalise those who breach drug rules."
Obv BJT'c comments apply to all Aussie horses from the past as well - there is zero proof that none of them were drug free, this obv applies to ALL aussie horses that have won a race without being tested throughout history - both in Aussie and UK Races. Therefore by BJT's simple logic there is zero proof that Black Caviar et all weren't on drugs whne they won their races over here. Thanks for clearing that up Mr Angry.
Found this old article from a while back - I guess it shows drugs have been a worry for some involved in Aussie racing for some time.....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Horse-Racing/Hayes-crack-down-on-drug-cheats/2005/06/01/1117568258921.html
Hayes: crack down on drug cheats
By Patrick Bartley
June 2, 2005
David Hayes, Australia's leading international trainer, last night launched a scathing attack on "cheating" rival trainers in Australian racing and said he would not stand by while they continued to flout the system.
Hayes was yesterday uncovered as one of three leading trainers represented at a secret meeting with chief steward Des Gleeson in March - details of which were revealed exclusively in The Age yesterday - at which they expressed concerns over alleged drug use in the industry.
Hayes yesterday confirmed to The Age that he sent his Australian racing manager Mark Pilkington to the high-level meeting with Gleeson, together with Lee Freedman and Sydney-based trainer John Hawkes.
"I couldn't make the meeting but it was of such great importance I sent my Australian manager," said the Hong Kong-based Hayes. "We were pleased with the outcome but I won't stand by and see cheating trainers gain an advantage.
"Sure, we can make mistakes with treatments but this is more than that. We must have a level playing field and we can't have blokes taking short-cuts. It's cheating. If it's whatever substance they are using, well, they must be outlawed."
Hayes will arrive back in Australia next month and said he would arrange another meeting with Gleeson on his return. The push from Hayes, Freedman and Hawkes represents one of the most dramatic developments in racing in recent years.
Already, Gleeson has announced that the non-raceday testing of horses has been stepped up.
Hayes said last night it was imperative that the issue of drugs in Australian racing was looked at closely. "I train here in Hong Kong and nothing ever happens with drugs. But it's a touch easier here - we have a horse population of just 1200 so it's that much easier to police," he said.
"But I'm coming home to Australia and I don't want to be starting 10 yards behind a trainer who is getting a short-cut through the system. I will be establishing a huge organisation when I start again in Australia and I want it to be fair."
'I won't stand by and see cheating trainers gain an advantage.' DAVID HAYES
Fellow trainer Freedman said yesterday he would join Hayes and Hawkes in arranging a second meeting with Gleeson once Hayes arrived back in Australia to recommence his career.
"We will hook up with everyone again and meet (Des); it's vital that we make it fair for everybody. You can always make the system better," Freedman said.
The delegation wants to eradicate drugs in racing and ensure every horse is competing without an unfair advantage.
Freedman said the purpose of the original meeting was to discuss what measures the stewards were taking with regard to detecting drug use.
David Hayes sent a representative to meet Racing Victoria chiefsteward Des Gleeson.
David Hayes sent a representative to meet Racing Victoria chief
steward Des Gleeson.
Racing Victoria stewards have implemented significant changes in the fight against the use of illegal substances and recently modified their raceday drug testing, with more horses being swabbed closer to race time. Gleeson also said a team of experts would be established to investigate drug use in Victorian racing.
Freedman yesterday restated his wish to have Victorian Racing conducted on a "level playing field" and that most concern surrounded the possible use of erythropoietin and bi-carb.
A leading racing veterinary surgeon said yesterday that he was disappointed with the public view that prohibitive drugs were a part of racing and believed that racegoers should have more faith in the Victorian system.
The surgeon, who wished not to be named, claimed that Victoria was the leader in drug-testing and maintained that it should not be the job for leading trainers to seek meetings with stewards.
"We have a state-of-the-art testing procedures in Victoria," he said. "They have a streamlined system that works well. They (stewards) catch, apprehend and penalise those who breach drug rules."
* weren't on drugs before or after their spell in UK - BC was tested over here i believe and the ones that came over here very recently may have been but obv the historical aussie 'greats' (according to BJT's logic) can't be proved not to have been on drugs.
spyker • October 23, 2013 4:22 PM BST
Problem is there is ZERO proof that he wasn't because there is no way in hell he would have been tested outside of race day, as none of them would have been.
Obv BJT'c comments apply to all Aussie horses from the past as well - there is zero proof that none of them were drug free, this obv applies to ALL aussie horses that have won a race without being tested throughout history - both in Aussie and UK Races. Therefore by BJT's simple logic there is zero proof that Black Caviar et all weren't on drugs whne they won their races over here. Thanks for clearing that up Mr Angry.
Of course. Except we have a very thorough race day testing procedure so that really isn't the same. BHA is on record saying they can't be expected to be able to swab the winner of every race, they just do random testing and the winners of the main races.
Not entirely sure of your point. Drugs have been an issue here? Of course they have. But we know about it through testing. UK have only just started testing out of competition. Previously, they just relied on the rule preventing it to assure everybody that it wasn't happening.
No idea how you think the English are any better than anywhere in the world. Money is greed, and seduces a lot of people, everywhere.
In regards to that article, you are referring to a Hong Kong based trainer, accusing trainers in Australia of cheating. That is the article. No idea what else I was supposed to read in there.
You can't really be that naive right?
Problem is there is ZERO proof that he wasn't because there is no way in hell he would have been tested outside of race day, as none of them would have been.
Obv BJT'c comments apply to all Aussie horses from the past as well - there is zero proof that none of them were drug free, this obv applies to ALL aussie horses that have won a race without being tested throughout history - both in Aussie and UK Races. Therefore by BJT's simple logic there is zero proof that Black Caviar et all weren't on drugs whne they won their races over here. Thanks for clearing that up Mr Angry.
Of course. Except we have a very thorough race day testing procedure so that really isn't the same. BHA is on record saying they can't be expected to be able to swab the winner of every race, they just do random testing and the winners of the main races.
Not entirely sure of your point. Drugs have been an issue here? Of course they have. But we know about it through testing. UK have only just started testing out of competition. Previously, they just relied on the rule preventing it to assure everybody that it wasn't happening.
No idea how you think the English are any better than anywhere in the world. Money is greed, and seduces a lot of people, everywhere.
In regards to that article, you are referring to a Hong Kong based trainer, accusing trainers in Australia of cheating. That is the article. No idea what else I was supposed to read in there.
You can't really be that naive right?
The point being that it is a pointless point to make! It's like saying all sports people prior to drug testing can't be proved not to have taken drugs - yes it's true but yes it's bullox and a pointless thing to say. Except of course when it applies to Aussie rules as they sound like they have being juicing for ever!
All drivers prior to breath testing can't be proved not to have been drunk.....
All deaths prior to autopsies can't be p[roved not to have been the work of the fairies.......
Give me a bit of time and I'm sure i can come up with lots more pointless things to say.......
Give me a bit of time and I'm sure i can come up with lots more pointless things to say.......
The difference with the horses that have gone over there, is this.
In Australia, we have a relaxed out of training ruleset. We police heavily race day, yet still do testing out of competition, and have done. UK rules are much stricter but they only ever tested on race day until the last couple of years.
The reality is, there is more chance of an Australian horse being caught through out of competition testing, when the rules allow a lot more, than a UK horse being caught. Therefore, there is a greater chance that Australian horses were going to compete against unpoliced drug cheats.
spyker • October 23, 2013 4:33 PM BST
The point being that it is a pointless point to make! It's like saying all sports people prior to drug testing can't be proved not to have taken drugs - yes it's true but yes it's bullox and a pointless thing to say. Except of course when it applies to Aussie rules as they sound like they have being juicing for ever!
Not at all the same. Financial gain drives a lot of people to do whatever it takes.
You can't even guarantee that with strict drug testing that they aren't on drugs ffs. And you want to argue that nobody ever tried to cheat the system before? Are you 12?
Lance Armstrong. Fcuk. Cyclists in general.
Drink drivers? Well, I am sure the breathalyzer won't show up that they were drunk and driving 3 weeks ago. What is your point here? Do you even understand how analogies work?
In Australia, we have a relaxed out of training ruleset. We police heavily race day, yet still do testing out of competition, and have done. UK rules are much stricter but they only ever tested on race day until the last couple of years.
The reality is, there is more chance of an Australian horse being caught through out of competition testing, when the rules allow a lot more, than a UK horse being caught. Therefore, there is a greater chance that Australian horses were going to compete against unpoliced drug cheats.
spyker • October 23, 2013 4:33 PM BST
The point being that it is a pointless point to make! It's like saying all sports people prior to drug testing can't be proved not to have taken drugs - yes it's true but yes it's bullox and a pointless thing to say. Except of course when it applies to Aussie rules as they sound like they have being juicing for ever!
Not at all the same. Financial gain drives a lot of people to do whatever it takes.
You can't even guarantee that with strict drug testing that they aren't on drugs ffs. And you want to argue that nobody ever tried to cheat the system before? Are you 12?
Lance Armstrong. Fcuk. Cyclists in general.
Drink drivers? Well, I am sure the breathalyzer won't show up that they were drunk and driving 3 weeks ago. What is your point here? Do you even understand how analogies work?
Marcce being disingenuous as usual. And you are right it was a miraculous performance by a sick horse.
Brigadier Gerard met Gold Rod on 5 occasions beating him a total of 38 lengths. Including the 1 length beating in the Eclipse where the ground was bottomless and Joe only needed to win. They had the King George in mind for 2 weeks later so winning was the only plan.
Similarly Frankel met Excelebration on 5 occasions beating him a total of 26.25 lengths.
Brigadier Gerard met Gold Rod on 5 occasions beating him a total of 38 lengths. Including the 1 length beating in the Eclipse where the ground was bottomless and Joe only needed to win. They had the King George in mind for 2 weeks later so winning was the only plan.
Similarly Frankel met Excelebration on 5 occasions beating him a total of 26.25 lengths.
Yes I understand how analogies work - would care to point out to me how your 'can't prove not to have' is an analogy please - I'll be back in a few hours......
just to give you a bit of help:
a·nal·o·gy (-nl-j)
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies
1.
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
2. Biology Correspondence in function or position between organs of dissimilar evolutionary origin or structure.
3. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
4. Linguistics The process by which words or morphemes are re-formed or created on the model of existing grammatical patterns in a language, often leading to greater regularity in paradigms, as evidenced by helped replacing holp and holpen as the past tense and past participle of help on the model of verbs such as yelp, yelped, yelped.
just to give you a bit of help:
a·nal·o·gy (-nl-j)
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies
1.
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
2. Biology Correspondence in function or position between organs of dissimilar evolutionary origin or structure.
3. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
4. Linguistics The process by which words or morphemes are re-formed or created on the model of existing grammatical patterns in a language, often leading to greater regularity in paradigms, as evidenced by helped replacing holp and holpen as the past tense and past participle of help on the model of verbs such as yelp, yelped, yelped.
Mine aren't analogies they are pointless things to say you that can't be 'not proved' muppet! tarraaaaa
They are ridiculous things to say and they have no relevance. If you are suggesting that if a horse doesn't test positive on race day they are clean because there are rules in place, then you are even stupider than your posts.
Where the fcuk do you think the rules even come from? You think 300 years ago, they made a rule that no horse was to be entered in a race with a TCO2 levels greater than 36mml/l as statistically, only 1 in 600,000 horses could possibly achieve that naturally?
No, these rules are in place because people load their horses up with bicarb, or "milkshakes", because it soaks up the lactic acid and allows them to run harder for longer.
Doubt any of this is sinking in, so have a good day.
Where the fcuk do you think the rules even come from? You think 300 years ago, they made a rule that no horse was to be entered in a race with a TCO2 levels greater than 36mml/l as statistically, only 1 in 600,000 horses could possibly achieve that naturally?
No, these rules are in place because people load their horses up with bicarb, or "milkshakes", because it soaks up the lactic acid and allows them to run harder for longer.
Doubt any of this is sinking in, so have a good day.
Nobody would ever cheat in an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars. No, not in England. The queen dopes her horses ffs....
They are ridiculous things to say and they have no relevance.
Finally we've got somewhere - i will type this very quickly so there may be a few spellos - you said 'you can't not prove' UK top horse weren't on drugs historically yes? My point is that applies to every horse/horserace run anywhere in the known universe prior to drug testing (including aussie greats) and therefore brings nothing to any argument and is a completely pointless thing to say. I then followed it up with other pointless things to say. Here's another couple 'You can't prove god doesn't exist' or you can't prove Churchill wasn't an Alien - comprende? Pointless.
i have no idea what point you are trying to prove with that post above.
Finally we've got somewhere - i will type this very quickly so there may be a few spellos - you said 'you can't not prove' UK top horse weren't on drugs historically yes? My point is that applies to every horse/horserace run anywhere in the known universe prior to drug testing (including aussie greats) and therefore brings nothing to any argument and is a completely pointless thing to say. I then followed it up with other pointless things to say. Here's another couple 'You can't prove god doesn't exist' or you can't prove Churchill wasn't an Alien - comprende? Pointless.
i have no idea what point you are trying to prove with that post above.
I have said nothing about what i think of the level of drug taking in the uk - you have made assumptions based on what you thought i was going to say and can't comprehend that i didn't say it - funnyly enough a mistake many aussies seem to make.
BJT Nicky Henderson ran 2 horses that failed drugs tests. One had been administered an anti inflammatory that was out it's system, he withdrew another horse the same day and should have withdrawn this one and the other an anti blood clotting drug that NH failed to record.
These are not performance enhancing drugs and the only error was basically clerical. If you believe NH fills in his medicine book you know nothing about the office responsibilities in a top stable. The fact that NH took the blame was admirable at the very least.
To link this to 'drug taking' and steroid abuse is staggeringly naive.
I will not ask you to show a little respect but I will say nothing more on this matter.
These are not performance enhancing drugs and the only error was basically clerical. If you believe NH fills in his medicine book you know nothing about the office responsibilities in a top stable. The fact that NH took the blame was admirable at the very least.
To link this to 'drug taking' and steroid abuse is staggeringly naive.
I will not ask you to show a little respect but I will say nothing more on this matter.
Oct 23, 2013 -- 11:05AM, spyker wrote:
They are ridiculous things to say and they have no relevance. Finally we've got somewhere - i will type this very quickly so there may be a few spellos - you said 'you can't not prove' UK top horse weren't on drugs historically yes? My point is that applies to every horse/horserace run anywhere in the known universe prior to drug testing (including aussie greats) and therefore brings nothing to any argument and is a completely pointless thing to say. I then followed it up with other pointless things to say. Here's another couple 'You can't prove god doesn't exist' or you can't prove Churchill wasn't an Alien - comprende? Pointless.i have no idea what point you are trying to prove with that post above.
The point being, as I have stated, that American horses have been dismissed due to potential drug use, and only horses from a 500km radius of London are discussed here as the greatest horses ever to race on a race track.
My point, if you care to read the thread and not just pick a sentence in a post, is that there is as much chance the horses listed here were on drugs as any international horse, therefore they should all be included together.
Oct 23, 2013 -- 11:12AM, brigust1 wrote:
BJT Nicky Henderson ran 2 horses that failed drugs tests. One had been administered an anti inflammatory that was out it's system, he withdrew another horse the same day and should have withdrawn this one and the other an anti blood clotting drug that NH failed to record. These are not performance enhancing drugs and the only error was basically clerical. If you believe NH fills in his medicine book you know nothing about the office responsibilities in a top stable. The fact that NH took the blame was admirable at the very least.To link this to 'drug taking' and steroid abuse is staggeringly naive. I will not ask you to show a little respect but I will say nothing more on this matter.
Say nothing more. I would expect it. You have a tendency to talk at people and not converse.
The BHA summary continued: "Henderson did not of course know in Feburary 2009 the detail of how tranexamic acid worked but he did know and understand that it could affect racing performance because he knew the drug was intended to operate once a bleed occurred."
For some reason, the BHA disagrees with you in regards to performance.
A fcuking clerical error. Genius. rotflmfao
Steroid abuse? When did I say it was steroid abuse? Putting words in my mouth again?
Steroid abuse? When did I say it was steroid abuse? Putting words in my mouth again?
You therefore suggested that Roberto was getting steroid injections?
The 11 trainers that the BHA have come forward about so far this year, were certainly for steroid abuse though. Not sure about the ones they swept under the carpet. Could be for a variety of things.
Hardly think bicarbonate of soda is an anabolic steroid. Bought it at the supermarket the other day.
Hardly think bicarbonate of soda is an anabolic steroid. Bought it at the supermarket the other day.
Try to calm down BJT and add a little common sense. To be injected with steroids you need a period of time for them to work and another period of time to get out of the system. Had Roberto not run for 6 months before winning and had there been rumours in the press and had it been legal to use steroids out of training then you may have a case but none of these facts apply.
I'm not suggest Black Caviar was treated with steroids but there were rules in place that would have permitted it and rumours about the trainer. That doesn't make it 100% sure but it doesn't make it 100% the other way either.
I too am p iss ed off about the 11 Newmarket trainers and cannot see one reason why the BHA hasn't released their names. The vets know and I'm sure some members of staff know so that cannot be right. On a positive note these trainers never administered the drugs a qualified vet did and it was recorded in the medicine book.
I'm not suggest Black Caviar was treated with steroids but there were rules in place that would have permitted it and rumours about the trainer. That doesn't make it 100% sure but it doesn't make it 100% the other way either.
I too am p iss ed off about the 11 Newmarket trainers and cannot see one reason why the BHA hasn't released their names. The vets know and I'm sure some members of staff know so that cannot be right. On a positive note these trainers never administered the drugs a qualified vet did and it was recorded in the medicine book.
Oct 23, 2013 -- 11:32AM, brigust1 wrote:
Try to calm down BJT and add a little common sense. To be injected with steroids you need a period of time for them to work and another period of time to get out of the system. Had Roberto not run for 6 months before winning and had there been rumours in the press and had it been legal to use steroids out of training then you may have a case but none of these facts apply. I'm not suggest Black Caviar was treated with steroids but there were rules in place that would have permitted it and rumours about the trainer. That doesn't make it 100% sure but it doesn't make it 100% the other way either.I too am p iss ed off about the 11 Newmarket trainers and cannot see one reason why the BHA hasn't released their names. The vets know and I'm sure some members of staff know so that cannot be right. On a positive note these trainers never administered the drugs a qualified vet did and it was recorded in the medicine book.
Yes, it was recorded. That is how unlucky they are, trainers have probably been recording it for years knowing there was SFA chance they got caught due to lack of policing of the rules, and even when they are caught, the BHA turn a blind eye anyway.
And Roberto. I mentioned that, because when I say doping, you think of steroids. Trainers dope horses to go better, and to go worse.
You actually mentioned the term "milkshake" in regards to Roberto. Why so? If your whole argument is that if it is against the rules it didn't happen, then why do you think the trainer tried to increase his TCO2 levels?
In regards to the "rumours" of Black Caviar, they came about BECAUSE of the rules. Was mere speculation. You think you need to be off for 6 months for steroids? Where did you come up with that figure?
Black Caviar was racing for 8 months when she got to Ascot. By your rules, you can 100% rule it out. Right?
The ONLY reason we even know about the 9 trainers is because Butler came forward. He came forward, because his horses were tested for the exact same thing that Zaroonis horses were. Zarooni was banned for 8 years within 2 weeks of being caught. Butler had 25% of his yard test positive for the same thing 2 months previous, and the BHA were fine about it. If he didn't come forward, not only would he be in the clear, but the other 9 wouldn't have even been known about. And this was all in Newmarket. This wasn't in England, this was in 1 part of it. One can only imagine how many have been caught.
The point is, you have ruled out Secretariat as being a top horse, because of drugs. This means one of 2 things. You know Secretariat had the benefit of performance enhancing drugs. Or, you know for a fact that the names of horses being thrown about here, ie Frankel, BG, STS, etc etc etc didn't have that benefit and ran clean.
So I ask you, how can you possibly know they weren't drugged up horses? Don't need to hear that the rules state they aren't allowed to. I want to hear, because they were tested in their yards. I want to hear how often they were. You have no idea.
I also asked how often Frankel was tested when not at the races. I have received no answer for that.
How do you explain Harbinger? All I hear is that a one off performance, while being ridiculously good, does not allow him to be regarded so highly. So why a 1 off freak performance? How did that occur?
I already know the answers.
Simple fact is, Secretariat, as a 3yo, has track records still standing today. No horse in the history of Belmont Park has ever got within 14 lengths of the time recorded in that triple crown run. The other 2 legs, the records also still stand. 40 years later.
None of the names mentioned here can possibly hold a candle to that. And you want to simply dismiss it because you assume it was drugs that did it? Can you prove it?
Did all that at 3. Frankel? Seriously, what the fcuk did he do? His claim to fame is Timeform. Timeform made him what he is, nothing more. He won a few races in England in times that really weren't that impressive.
You have a tendency to talk at people and not converse.
Surely this is the most hypocritcal pot calling kettle black post EVER MADE in the history of.... well intertent forums not just this 1? You really don't know how you come across do you bjt? Like all threads you seem to get involved in (please go back and check for yourself) this is how they all end up!
I've said it before but some of the things you say make sense and some on here would generally agree with you but the constant anti uk, belittling, condescending and abusuve language just puts people off supporting what you say. I presume you are used it though and must be like this in 'real life' so are used to being argumentative, rude and getting nowhere.
Surely this is the most hypocritcal pot calling kettle black post EVER MADE in the history of.... well intertent forums not just this 1? You really don't know how you come across do you bjt? Like all threads you seem to get involved in (please go back and check for yourself) this is how they all end up!
I've said it before but some of the things you say make sense and some on here would generally agree with you but the constant anti uk, belittling, condescending and abusuve language just puts people off supporting what you say. I presume you are used it though and must be like this in 'real life' so are used to being argumentative, rude and getting nowhere.
*Already know the answers not including Harbinger. Not suggesting I know anything there. Just find it baffling how nobody over there would question anything untoward about it.
Was Encke clean? He didn't test positive at the races. Such a comprehensive drug procedure in the stable, yet none have tested positive on the day. Suggests to me that they know exactly what they were doing. Turning up at the races clean, doing whatever they wanted outside of that.
So You Think comes over, gets beaten by Rewilding. Instant failure. Next start beats Workforce, who Rewilding lost by near 8 lengths to in the Derby. Won an Arc.
No, Rewilding wasn't doped up either, because the rules prevent it, and he tested fine on the day.. Did he?
If Encke can ruin the chances in one of your biggest races of the first triple crown winner in 40 years, and show up clean, why can't Harbinger win a G1 by 11 lengths? Why can't Rewilding win a G1 against a horse he was inferior to by many lengths.
This is 3 examples including one of your biggest races, affected by performance enhancing drugs, or at least potentially. 2 of them are almost certain. And this is in the last couple of years. All I assume tested clean on the day.
Yet, the rules are in place so it doesn't happen?
Umm, no. They only just started policing the rules, and now they are finding out exactly how dirty it is over there.
Does that make Australia clean? America? Fcuk no. People are people. The same percentage will try and cheat the system here there and everywhere. But when nobody is policing it, more people are tempted.
Was Encke clean? He didn't test positive at the races. Such a comprehensive drug procedure in the stable, yet none have tested positive on the day. Suggests to me that they know exactly what they were doing. Turning up at the races clean, doing whatever they wanted outside of that.
So You Think comes over, gets beaten by Rewilding. Instant failure. Next start beats Workforce, who Rewilding lost by near 8 lengths to in the Derby. Won an Arc.
No, Rewilding wasn't doped up either, because the rules prevent it, and he tested fine on the day.. Did he?
If Encke can ruin the chances in one of your biggest races of the first triple crown winner in 40 years, and show up clean, why can't Harbinger win a G1 by 11 lengths? Why can't Rewilding win a G1 against a horse he was inferior to by many lengths.
This is 3 examples including one of your biggest races, affected by performance enhancing drugs, or at least potentially. 2 of them are almost certain. And this is in the last couple of years. All I assume tested clean on the day.
Yet, the rules are in place so it doesn't happen?
Umm, no. They only just started policing the rules, and now they are finding out exactly how dirty it is over there.
Does that make Australia clean? America? Fcuk no. People are people. The same percentage will try and cheat the system here there and everywhere. But when nobody is policing it, more people are tempted.
Disingenuous Brig? Just stating the facts. Brigadier Gerard beat Gold Rod by just about as far as he ever beat him at York.
I'm also just thinking to myself what rating a 3 year old would get today if it had finished tailed off in the Greenham, won the Britannia, won a handicap at Brighton, finished 5th in the Hungerford, won a Sandown handicap and finished 3rd of 4 in the QE11 getting a stone from the winner and beaten 11 lengths.
Because in Timeform's ratings of 1972 that was worthy of a 120 mark.
What about a 4 year old winning the Queen Anne by 3 quarters of a length, last of 3 in the Sussex Stakes, 4th in the Hungerford, winning decent but not top class races in France and Germany, finishing runner up in another decent race in France and beaten 6 lengths into 2nd out of 4 getting 7 pounds in the QE11?
That was worthy of 129 in Timeform's 1972 ratings.
No wonder there were so many horses rated over 130 back then. Golden age indeed. Based on those ratings we'd have been looking at a 140 rated horse with Side Glance!
I'm also just thinking to myself what rating a 3 year old would get today if it had finished tailed off in the Greenham, won the Britannia, won a handicap at Brighton, finished 5th in the Hungerford, won a Sandown handicap and finished 3rd of 4 in the QE11 getting a stone from the winner and beaten 11 lengths.
Because in Timeform's ratings of 1972 that was worthy of a 120 mark.
What about a 4 year old winning the Queen Anne by 3 quarters of a length, last of 3 in the Sussex Stakes, 4th in the Hungerford, winning decent but not top class races in France and Germany, finishing runner up in another decent race in France and beaten 6 lengths into 2nd out of 4 getting 7 pounds in the QE11?
That was worthy of 129 in Timeform's 1972 ratings.
No wonder there were so many horses rated over 130 back then. Golden age indeed. Based on those ratings we'd have been looking at a 140 rated horse with Side Glance!
Frankel? Seriously, what the fcuk did he do? His claim to fame is Timeform. Timeform made him what he is, nothing more. He won a few races in England in times that really weren't that impressive
Preposterous comment, even allowing for your destain of Timeform and the fact they didn't rate your beloved sprinter above him.
Preposterous comment, even allowing for your destain of Timeform and the fact they didn't rate your beloved sprinter above him.
Marcce 23 Oct 13 18:23
Disingenuous Brig? Just stating the facts. Brigadier Gerard beat Gold Rod by just about as far as he ever beat him at York.
I'm also just thinking to myself what rating a 3 year old would get today if it had finished tailed off in the Greenham, won the Britannia, won a handicap at Brighton, finished 5th in the Hungerford, won a Sandown handicap and finished 3rd of 4 in the QE11 getting a stone from the winner and beaten 11 lengths.
Because in Timeform's ratings of 1972 that was worthy of a 120 mark.
What about a 4 year old winning the Queen Anne by 3 quarters of a length, last of 3 in the Sussex Stakes, 4th in the Hungerford, winning decent but not top class races in France and Germany, finishing runner up in another decent race in France and beaten 6 lengths into 2nd out of 4 getting 7 pounds in the QE11?
That was worthy of 129 in Timeform's 1972 ratings.
No wonder there were so many horses rated over 130 back then. Golden age indeed. Based on those ratings we'd have been looking at a 140 rated horse with Side Glance!
Timeform have Excelebration rated 2lb higher than a horse called Royal Palace who won 9 out of 11 races. Those races include the 2000gns, Derby,Eclipse and King George in 1968. Explain that one please Marcee.
Disingenuous Brig? Just stating the facts. Brigadier Gerard beat Gold Rod by just about as far as he ever beat him at York.
I'm also just thinking to myself what rating a 3 year old would get today if it had finished tailed off in the Greenham, won the Britannia, won a handicap at Brighton, finished 5th in the Hungerford, won a Sandown handicap and finished 3rd of 4 in the QE11 getting a stone from the winner and beaten 11 lengths.
Because in Timeform's ratings of 1972 that was worthy of a 120 mark.
What about a 4 year old winning the Queen Anne by 3 quarters of a length, last of 3 in the Sussex Stakes, 4th in the Hungerford, winning decent but not top class races in France and Germany, finishing runner up in another decent race in France and beaten 6 lengths into 2nd out of 4 getting 7 pounds in the QE11?
That was worthy of 129 in Timeform's 1972 ratings.
No wonder there were so many horses rated over 130 back then. Golden age indeed. Based on those ratings we'd have been looking at a 140 rated horse with Side Glance!
Timeform have Excelebration rated 2lb higher than a horse called Royal Palace who won 9 out of 11 races. Those races include the 2000gns, Derby,Eclipse and King George in 1968. Explain that one please Marcee.
Marcce if you are not happy why don't you take it up with Timeform. They haven't changed their ratings since Day 1. I could get into a slagging match with you about beaten horses or stand back and watch you slag off decent horses because frankly that's the totality of existence. I know where you are coming from and I couldn't care less. I have absolutely no intention of getting down to your level.
Apologies brigust, only just realised that marcee's post was directed at you.
I could get into a slagging match with you about beaten horses or stand back and watch you slag off decent horses because frankly that's the totality of your existence.
Yes folks that really was Brigust who wrote that
Guess what Brig? Far from you getting down to my level I decided to look at a few things the same way you do.
I'm not at all surprised you'd like to leave it at that.
Oh and whilst Timeform may not have changed their methodology since then there are now a vast number of additional races where different strands of form can be compared. Something which I believe Timeform explained to you in their reply to your email.
Yes folks that really was Brigust who wrote that
Guess what Brig? Far from you getting down to my level I decided to look at a few things the same way you do.
I'm not at all surprised you'd like to leave it at that.
Oh and whilst Timeform may not have changed their methodology since then there are now a vast number of additional races where different strands of form can be compared. Something which I believe Timeform explained to you in their reply to your email.
Marcce you are confusing a large quantity of poor races now permitted for bookies fodder and proper races.
The horse Sparkler you are talking about has run the same number of times as Side Glance in 29. The difference is that Sparkler won 13 races to Side Glances 7. Sparkler on 3 Group 1's compared to Side Glance's none. Sparkler was placed in eight Group 1's compared to Side Glance's two.
as a 3 year old Sparkler had seven runs with his form was as follows.
Won Thirsk Classic Trial
2nd in Irish 2000 Gns beaten sh hd. Objection to winner failed. Run in course record time beaten only three times in last 40 odd years.
Won G3 Diomed Stakes brating Spoiled Lad. Spoiled Lad next won th Extel H'cap at Goodwood. The Extel was the top 3 year old handicap and he carried top weight 9st 3lb the 2nd carried 7st 7lbs. They ran to their Timeform ratings. Spoiled Lad then ran 3td in the Great Voltigeur beaten by the St Leger winner with the Arc 3rd and Hardwicke winners behing.
2nd to Brigadier Gerard in St James Palace Stakes
2nd to Dictus in the Prix Jacques le Marois with the Queen Anne winner in 3rd and the Prix Jean Prat winner in 4th.
Won the Prix Quincey Group 3
Won the Prix Perth Group 3.
In the 70's trainers didn't have all weather gallops etc they only had the grass gallops sio getting horses fit and keep them injury free was more difficult. Also the number of races meant the competition was tight or you ran in handicaps. At least in handicaps the horses ratings were tested unlike today.
Side Glance last won a handicap off 96 and was beaten in his last handicap off 102. He was getting 4lb from the winner and the winner hasn't won a race since. Side Glance is now rated 115 so couldn't win off his current rating.
Side Glance has won two Group 3's beating Dance and Dance by half a length. Dance and Dance hasn't won since and cannot win handicaps off his current mark of 95. In reality, in the real world, Side Glance is at best a 100 rated horse.
The horse Sparkler you are talking about has run the same number of times as Side Glance in 29. The difference is that Sparkler won 13 races to Side Glances 7. Sparkler on 3 Group 1's compared to Side Glance's none. Sparkler was placed in eight Group 1's compared to Side Glance's two.
as a 3 year old Sparkler had seven runs with his form was as follows.
Won Thirsk Classic Trial
2nd in Irish 2000 Gns beaten sh hd. Objection to winner failed. Run in course record time beaten only three times in last 40 odd years.
Won G3 Diomed Stakes brating Spoiled Lad. Spoiled Lad next won th Extel H'cap at Goodwood. The Extel was the top 3 year old handicap and he carried top weight 9st 3lb the 2nd carried 7st 7lbs. They ran to their Timeform ratings. Spoiled Lad then ran 3td in the Great Voltigeur beaten by the St Leger winner with the Arc 3rd and Hardwicke winners behing.
2nd to Brigadier Gerard in St James Palace Stakes
2nd to Dictus in the Prix Jacques le Marois with the Queen Anne winner in 3rd and the Prix Jean Prat winner in 4th.
Won the Prix Quincey Group 3
Won the Prix Perth Group 3.
In the 70's trainers didn't have all weather gallops etc they only had the grass gallops sio getting horses fit and keep them injury free was more difficult. Also the number of races meant the competition was tight or you ran in handicaps. At least in handicaps the horses ratings were tested unlike today.
Side Glance last won a handicap off 96 and was beaten in his last handicap off 102. He was getting 4lb from the winner and the winner hasn't won a race since. Side Glance is now rated 115 so couldn't win off his current rating.
Side Glance has won two Group 3's beating Dance and Dance by half a length. Dance and Dance hasn't won since and cannot win handicaps off his current mark of 95. In reality, in the real world, Side Glance is at best a 100 rated horse.
Frankel? Seriously, what the fcuk did he do? His claim to fame is Timeform. Timeform made him what he is, nothing more.
What an absolute f*cking simpleton
Have you been at the Fosters early today YDC
What an absolute f*cking simpleton
Have you been at the Fosters early today YDC
In 2 years time, the comments we will see next to Frankel, will be excuses, as we get now. Excuses as to why he never ran decent time. Excuses as to why he never beat horses of note. Excuses why he chose to race in the same races, in the same way, against the same horses. Excuses as to how he ran with a pacemaker but didn't really need one.
Excuse after excuse as to why we need a commercial rating system to tell us he was the best ever.
With Secretariat, we see similar. Triple Crown, Sham minus Secretariat, would have won it, and the times would have been very impressive.
Only 3 horses have run the KD faster than Shams time, and he did that after knocking 2 teeth out in the stalls waiting for the starter.
Again came second less than 3 lengths, then as Excelebration did, tried to go the whole trip and tired. Excelebration lost by 11. Sham, lost by 31.
Yes without Frankel, Excelebration would have won a few more G1 mile races. But he would have done so very unimpressively.
Sham on the other hand, would have the 3rd fastest time in history. You know history, right?
Secretariat beat him by 31 lengths, in a time that no horse ever, has come within 14 lengths of. He doesn't need excuses, his numbers do the talking.
So yes, what the fcuk has Frankel done?
Sure, he won 14/14 races. But so what? If he had have raced like others in history he would have been beaten for certain. But we have horses that have done plenty more than that undefeated. Horses that have won plenty more prizemoney. Won better races, and beaten much better opposition.
Phar Lap. Won 32 of his last 35 races. Riding track work dodging bullets. Won the Melbourne Stakes later that day then the Melbourne Cup 3 days later. The races he didn't win he was carrying up to 68kg. In the 1930s, he made the trip to America by boat to take on the world. Cracked his hoof leading up to the biggest race in North America weeks before the race to the point where he could hardly train, needed special shoes just to hold his foot together. Nursed around the track and won, then poisoned and killed for being too good. Won between 7f and 18f breaking track records. If there was a big race, he was in it whether he was being shot at poisoned, injured, or what.
Frankel? Oh, he beat Excelebration a couple of times, in ordinary time, within 200kms of his stable, over the same distance.
Can't wait for the movie on Frankel. Wonder what their angle will be. A few rich folk sitting around drinking tea and eating scones looking over the race cards deciding which ones they need to dodge. Then sticking their pinkies out laughing at the ridiculous ratings he was getting?
What a fcuking movie that would be. Why? Because Frankel was an uninspiring horse, that did nothing, achieved nothing, and had nothing special about it.
Excuse after excuse as to why we need a commercial rating system to tell us he was the best ever.
With Secretariat, we see similar. Triple Crown, Sham minus Secretariat, would have won it, and the times would have been very impressive.
Only 3 horses have run the KD faster than Shams time, and he did that after knocking 2 teeth out in the stalls waiting for the starter.
Again came second less than 3 lengths, then as Excelebration did, tried to go the whole trip and tired. Excelebration lost by 11. Sham, lost by 31.
Yes without Frankel, Excelebration would have won a few more G1 mile races. But he would have done so very unimpressively.
Sham on the other hand, would have the 3rd fastest time in history. You know history, right?
Secretariat beat him by 31 lengths, in a time that no horse ever, has come within 14 lengths of. He doesn't need excuses, his numbers do the talking.
So yes, what the fcuk has Frankel done?
Sure, he won 14/14 races. But so what? If he had have raced like others in history he would have been beaten for certain. But we have horses that have done plenty more than that undefeated. Horses that have won plenty more prizemoney. Won better races, and beaten much better opposition.
Phar Lap. Won 32 of his last 35 races. Riding track work dodging bullets. Won the Melbourne Stakes later that day then the Melbourne Cup 3 days later. The races he didn't win he was carrying up to 68kg. In the 1930s, he made the trip to America by boat to take on the world. Cracked his hoof leading up to the biggest race in North America weeks before the race to the point where he could hardly train, needed special shoes just to hold his foot together. Nursed around the track and won, then poisoned and killed for being too good. Won between 7f and 18f breaking track records. If there was a big race, he was in it whether he was being shot at poisoned, injured, or what.
Frankel? Oh, he beat Excelebration a couple of times, in ordinary time, within 200kms of his stable, over the same distance.
Can't wait for the movie on Frankel. Wonder what their angle will be. A few rich folk sitting around drinking tea and eating scones looking over the race cards deciding which ones they need to dodge. Then sticking their pinkies out laughing at the ridiculous ratings he was getting?
What a fcuking movie that would be. Why? Because Frankel was an uninspiring horse, that did nothing, achieved nothing, and had nothing special about it.
Cant see any horse alive today as good as Phar Lap and his feats, 4 group 1 wins in 7 days, 5 including the Cox Plate in 14 days
he ran and won 2 x 2 mile races in 5 days and ran and won a mile race 2 days after winning the melbourne cup 2 miles
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: J. Pike Prize Money: £850
Race Date:
Location: 25 Oct 1930
MOONEE VALLEY Race Name:
Race Type: W. S. COX PLATE
Weight-for-age. 9 1/2 furlongs
Margin: 4 len, 1 len. Race Time: 1:59 1/4
Betting: 1/7 PHAR LAP, 10 Tregilla, Mollison, Veilmond, 50 Donald, Fulham
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: J. Pike Prize Money: £1,000
Race Date:
Location: 01 Nov 1930
FLEMINGTON Race Name:
Race Type: MELBOURNE STAKES
Weight-for-age 10 furlongs
Margin: 8 len, 4 len. Race Time: 2:4 1/2
Betting: 1/5 PHAR LAP, 6 Amounis, 16 Tregilla, 25 Carradale, 100 Donald
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: J. Pike Prize Money: £9,429
Race Date:
Location: 04 Nov 1930
FLEMINGTON Race Name:
Race Type: MELBOURNE CUP
2 miles
Margin: 3 len, 3/4 len. Race Time: 3:27 3/4
Betting: 8/11 PHAR LAP,5 Tregilla, 16 Baloon king, 20 Soulton, Nadean, 25 Carradale, Veilmond, Muratti, 40 Star God, 50 Second Wind, Shadow King, Some Quality, Temptation, 66 Donald, 100 First Acre
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: J. Pike Prize Money: £1,000
Race Date:
Location: 06 Nov 1930
FLEMINGTON Race Name:
Race Type: LINLITHGOW STAKES
Weight-for-age 1 mile
Margin: 4 len, neck. Race Time: 1:37
Betting: 1/7 PHAR LAP, 12 Amounis, 33 Mystic Peak, Wise Force, Mollison
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: W. Elliot Prize Money: £1,112
Race Date:
Location: 08 Nov 1930
FLEMINGTON Race Name:
Race Type: KING'S PLATE
Weight-for-age. 2 miles.
Margin: 20 len, 3 len. Race Time: 3:25
Betting: 1/10 PHAR LAP, 15 Lineage, 20 Second Wind, 33 Mondiaga, Some Quality
he ran and won 2 x 2 mile races in 5 days and ran and won a mile race 2 days after winning the melbourne cup 2 miles
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: J. Pike Prize Money: £850
Race Date:
Location: 25 Oct 1930
MOONEE VALLEY Race Name:
Race Type: W. S. COX PLATE
Weight-for-age. 9 1/2 furlongs
Margin: 4 len, 1 len. Race Time: 1:59 1/4
Betting: 1/7 PHAR LAP, 10 Tregilla, Mollison, Veilmond, 50 Donald, Fulham
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: J. Pike Prize Money: £1,000
Race Date:
Location: 01 Nov 1930
FLEMINGTON Race Name:
Race Type: MELBOURNE STAKES
Weight-for-age 10 furlongs
Margin: 8 len, 4 len. Race Time: 2:4 1/2
Betting: 1/5 PHAR LAP, 6 Amounis, 16 Tregilla, 25 Carradale, 100 Donald
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: J. Pike Prize Money: £9,429
Race Date:
Location: 04 Nov 1930
FLEMINGTON Race Name:
Race Type: MELBOURNE CUP
2 miles
Margin: 3 len, 3/4 len. Race Time: 3:27 3/4
Betting: 8/11 PHAR LAP,5 Tregilla, 16 Baloon king, 20 Soulton, Nadean, 25 Carradale, Veilmond, Muratti, 40 Star God, 50 Second Wind, Shadow King, Some Quality, Temptation, 66 Donald, 100 First Acre
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: J. Pike Prize Money: £1,000
Race Date:
Location: 06 Nov 1930
FLEMINGTON Race Name:
Race Type: LINLITHGOW STAKES
Weight-for-age 1 mile
Margin: 4 len, neck. Race Time: 1:37
Betting: 1/7 PHAR LAP, 12 Amounis, 33 Mystic Peak, Wise Force, Mollison
Winner: Phar Lap Jockey: W. Elliot Prize Money: £1,112
Race Date:
Location: 08 Nov 1930
FLEMINGTON Race Name:
Race Type: KING'S PLATE
Weight-for-age. 2 miles.
Margin: 20 len, 3 len. Race Time: 3:25
Betting: 1/10 PHAR LAP, 15 Lineage, 20 Second Wind, 33 Mondiaga, Some Quality
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539