There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Had a good think about how I got the draw wrong and as I take notice of the draw something is not right in racing, I’ve always believed the draw is fiddled from many years ago, with watering not been accurate and courses watering a favoured side to even up results that does happen and we accept they do not tell you, so why don’t they give going reports at either side of the track, near side,middle,far side, we are talking millions of pounds on that race and I think some knew and most did not, it’s always been high when soft when spread across the track but it was low draw that won by a long way on Saturday, so what’s going on and who is benefiting from these dodgy going reports, it’s a area that rears it’s ugly head as multi millions ride on it but we do get any accurate information on it, why is it that it has to be like that when it’s easy to correct and the tv fellows say nothing and just go along with it
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 7
|
By:
Past results indicated a high draw was best overall.
Ascot draw bias impossible to gauge. The golden Highway at Chester has dissipated to bugger all. |
|
By:
Doesn't the going stick cover stands side, middle and Far side? Didn't look on Saturday i admit.
|
|
By:
normally it does SR, but you will struggle to find that info on Newmarket website. Unlike York who publish updated going stick "across the course" readings every morning at about 8am or so. What would we punters want with such information appears to be the view of JCR
|
|
By:
know all
Going back over the last 20 years, the last time there was a soft ground Cambridgeshire was 2010 (stick reading 6.6-6.7) and the first six home all raced on the far side. Before that it was 2005 with the first four home racing on the far side. Maybe the jocks are at fault for not walking the course. The previous races on the day were all small fields (by comparison) all being run on the near side. |
|
By:
Karl Burke said he had walked the course and was sure the near side was the place to be - admittedly, he only said that (publicly) after the race!
|
|
By:
Hoiles and few others on the morning racing show thought the low numbers had an advantage ( maybe going on the Friday results ) but they got it spot on. Can't see the problem myself, regards the discrepancy in going reports even the jockeys don't agree half the time.
|
|
By:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/track-bias-meant-the-cambridgeshire-just-looked-and-felt-wrong-while-heres-an-underestimated-arc-contender-a0BXa8I5AqOI/
I can't read this, but I have lost count of the number of times on In The Know that Segal has said he just makes his selections and isn't bothered about draw bias. One race has changed all that? Was it okay in previous years when high numbers have dominated and the best you might do with a high draw was most likely midfield? How about asking the question about Balmacara who was punted from 25/1-8/1 and despite a high draw was beaten three furlongs out? Another question would be the inconsistency of the Karl Burke horses - Ice Max in the same colours the previous day an obvious example. Many don't seem to run two races alike. Andesite another high profile example. |