Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Can anyone clarify what weight this horse carried in the 3.50 at Hamilton.
RP website had 8.13, although it was no. 1 on the racecard.
Oddschecker and Sporting Life show 9 st. 6lbs, which would tally with his status as no. 1 on the card.
The race conditions suggest Ballymore Castle should not be carrying any penalty, as he has not won any kind of race 'since 2014'. It seems to me he should have carried 8st 13 lbs.
Did Mr Fahey complain about the weight alloted to his horse or is he still at that pub we heard about on Saturday fter the Cambridgeshire.
Many thanks to anyone who can shed light.
RP website had 8.13, although it was no. 1 on the racecard.
Oddschecker and Sporting Life show 9 st. 6lbs, which would tally with his status as no. 1 on the card.
The race conditions suggest Ballymore Castle should not be carrying any penalty, as he has not won any kind of race 'since 2014'. It seems to me he should have carried 8st 13 lbs.
Did Mr Fahey complain about the weight alloted to his horse or is he still at that pub we heard about on Saturday fter the Cambridgeshire.
Many thanks to anyone who can shed light.
Show More
I'm sure your answer is in here somewhere
Weights 3yo colts & geldings 9st 2lb; fillies 8st 11lb; 4yo+ colts & geldings 9st 4lb; fillies 8st 13lb Penalties after 2014, each Class 4 race won 3lb; for each Class 3 race won 5lb; for each Class 2 race won 7lb Additionally, a winner of a Pattern race in 2014 7lb (handicaps excluded the purpose of penalties) (penalties cumulative and maximum penalty 10lb) Allowances horses which have not won a Conditions Race run under the Rules of a recognised Racing Authority in 2015 3lb
Weights 3yo colts & geldings 9st 2lb; fillies 8st 11lb; 4yo+ colts & geldings 9st 4lb; fillies 8st 13lb Penalties after 2014, each Class 4 race won 3lb; for each Class 3 race won 5lb; for each Class 2 race won 7lb Additionally, a winner of a Pattern race in 2014 7lb (handicaps excluded the purpose of penalties) (penalties cumulative and maximum penalty 10lb) Allowances horses which have not won a Conditions Race run under the Rules of a recognised Racing Authority in 2015 3lb
As far as I can see, he has not won any race 'after 2014'. So why the penalty?
http://media.britishhorseracing.com/pdf/
stewardsreport/?fixtureId=861&year=2015
Fixture Note
The Stewards held an enquiry into why the stalls position advertised in the race card for Races 3 and 4 were incorrectly published as being on the stands side and not in the centre as correctly published on the Racing Administration site. They interviewed the Clerk of the Course and having heard her evidence the Stewards passed the matter to the British Horseracing Authority for further consideration.
stewardsreport/?fixtureId=861&year=2015
Fixture Note
The Stewards held an enquiry into why the stalls position advertised in the race card for Races 3 and 4 were incorrectly published as being on the stands side and not in the centre as correctly published on the Racing Administration site. They interviewed the Clerk of the Course and having heard her evidence the Stewards passed the matter to the British Horseracing Authority for further consideration.
That has nothing to do with it .... but there was a weight issue the other day .... maybe a repeat of that glitch ....
BHA and RUK have it on 9.6
8.13 seem correct tho, as you note, on RP
8.13 seem correct tho, as you note, on RP
Found what I was on about ....
NEWMARKET, 26 SEP 15
Fixture Note
The Stewards held an enquiry into why the allocated weights printed in Races 5 and 7 of the race card were incorrectly published and therefore appearing below the lowest weight of 8st as stipulated in the conditions of the race. They interviewed the Clerk of the Scales and the Jockey Club Racecourses' Regional Director; having heard their evidence they were satisfied that the weights were correctly allocated but incorrectly published. The Stewards passed the matter to the British Horseracing Authority for further consideration.
NEWMARKET, 26 SEP 15
Fixture Note
The Stewards held an enquiry into why the allocated weights printed in Races 5 and 7 of the race card were incorrectly published and therefore appearing below the lowest weight of 8st as stipulated in the conditions of the race. They interviewed the Clerk of the Scales and the Jockey Club Racecourses' Regional Director; having heard their evidence they were satisfied that the weights were correctly allocated but incorrectly published. The Stewards passed the matter to the British Horseracing Authority for further consideration.
Was there any comment from the sainted Richard Fahey?
8-13 is CORRECT.
Looks like somebody at Weatherbys, when compiling the Racecard, misread it's sole win - in 2014 - as a Pattern race - when it was a Maiden - and, incorrectly, allotted it a 7lb penalty for a Pattern win in 2014 - after deducting 3lb for No wins in 2015 - making 9st-6lb.
Perhaps it came about as it's next outing in 2014, following it's win, was a Listed race at Epsom - and they simply misread the Form line.
Maybe Fahey spotted it and complained - or, maybe, Weatherbys themselves spotted the error - and then issued a weight CORRECTION, which the RacingPost has changed - but other sites, who would have already loaded the race into the databases, simply did not act upon, and change.
If anybody has a RacingPost NEWSPAPER for last SATURDAY - when they publish the MONDAY card, as the 48-hour decs are set to be made by trainers - OR - last THURSDAY's NEWSPAPER - when the original WEIGHTED Entries were published in the paper - then we can cross-check what weight the RacingPost printed on those two days - and see if, and when, there was a difference.
Timeform also have the wrong weight.
Looks like somebody at Weatherbys, when compiling the Racecard, misread it's sole win - in 2014 - as a Pattern race - when it was a Maiden - and, incorrectly, allotted it a 7lb penalty for a Pattern win in 2014 - after deducting 3lb for No wins in 2015 - making 9st-6lb.
Perhaps it came about as it's next outing in 2014, following it's win, was a Listed race at Epsom - and they simply misread the Form line.
Maybe Fahey spotted it and complained - or, maybe, Weatherbys themselves spotted the error - and then issued a weight CORRECTION, which the RacingPost has changed - but other sites, who would have already loaded the race into the databases, simply did not act upon, and change.
If anybody has a RacingPost NEWSPAPER for last SATURDAY - when they publish the MONDAY card, as the 48-hour decs are set to be made by trainers - OR - last THURSDAY's NEWSPAPER - when the original WEIGHTED Entries were published in the paper - then we can cross-check what weight the RacingPost printed on those two days - and see if, and when, there was a difference.
Timeform also have the wrong weight.
What surprises me is that the batallion of journalists, TV presenters, administrators etc seemed to let the situation pass them by. Who is running racing and who is holding the authorities to account? When the trade paper has the no.1 horse carrying a lower weight than the horse below, it leaps out off the page. It would be good to hear confirmation from the clerk of the scales what weight was carried.
In Saturday's paper it was due to carry 9-6, onlooker
Thank you - GEORGE.
That reinforces my line of thinking that Weatherbys were probably made aware of the error - and, consequently, then issued a corrected WEIGHT - AFTER the 48-hour declarations were made - AND PROCESSED.
Just how individual recipient websites handled such a scenario - given that it is more than likely their whole output processes are ONLY handled by IT operatives - who do not really understand racing, or such a significance (1.01) - it would, then, have been just 'left to ride'.... (another 1.01)
That reinforces my line of thinking that Weatherbys were probably made aware of the error - and, consequently, then issued a corrected WEIGHT - AFTER the 48-hour declarations were made - AND PROCESSED.
Just how individual recipient websites handled such a scenario - given that it is more than likely their whole output processes are ONLY handled by IT operatives - who do not really understand racing, or such a significance (1.01) - it would, then, have been just 'left to ride'.... (another 1.01)
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539