James Owen

Stable lass
is
FIT!!!

Good luck to him

How extraordinary that he couldn't win any footling races after the Lincoln near-miss and then comes into this on an undamaged mark and no c unt can find him at 28s and he wins! The Royal Hunt Cup: almost everything I hate about Flat racing rolled into one!

There are always rumours,the dealer

Quite so, the Dealer. I was only thinking this morning as I looked at the runners and riders: 'How could any racing official establish a line between training in public (supposedly against the rules) and 'trying a trip' and all the other incidences of sad sacks failing to win paltry races then dotting up when a purse is fat? Answer, they can't, and racing has been immemorially corrupted by these largely unenforceable 'gentlemen's codes'.
Personally, I priced in a little skullduggery to my calculations long ago but huge fields it gets ridiculous, an insult to the intelligence.

What incentive do you have to pay the game straight, Epidavros for example, ran at Hamilton today, has ran 17 times without winning and her mark is only 2lb lower than when she won that day.

What incentive do you have to pay the game straight, Epidavros for example, ran at Hamilton today, has ran 17 times without winning and her mark is only 2lb lower than when she won that day.

Being honest and not breaking rules? It's a poor lookout for the sport if, underneath all the top hats, it can't be played straight.

One of the first books I ever read about racing said: Royal Ascot is a punters graveyard. Nuff said.

It doesn't diminish my enthusiasm for the sport but it can be massively frustrating, losing to something you know has been messed about with.

The small number of connections who try hard every time need their bumps felt.

Dealer - are you a pro gambler?

The small number of connections who try hard every time need their bumps felt.

So you are confirming that the sport is a mug's game and bent?

An exaggeration,colonel but it is essential to be able to read a form book to have any chance

OK, I think I can. The only way a form student would back Rogue Diplomat would be by saying: 'The form says no as he he has been **** since the Lincoln but he might have just been acting **** since the Lincoln to keep fit and and workable handicap mark but he might come back to life now there's loads of money in the pot'. I've thought that before about other horses and I've won, but when the nag has won I've thought: if that is the workings-out to get a winner then this is not so much a mug's game as a full-on c unt's game. And so it is at Royal Ascot obviously.

That's the way it's structured, colonel. There are very few sports where poor performance is rewarded, and good performance penalised. I cannot believe people pay £20K+ annual fees to keep a horse in training, and don't want to work the system. Look at Goldie as a great example of how to work the system. You don't have to blatantly hook horses either, but it does need some patience and strategy.

Never mind the handicap fodder, the Irish mafia sometimes use group 1 races as preps.

My main betting genre is specials and there is a corollary with horse racing. You can't make connections try, no point in complaining when they don't. It's up to gamblers to figure out what the outcome will be, not what it should be. So I have no qualms with betting for example a Skelton one lined up for a big pot. It doesn't matter to me that previous races might have been used as stepping stones. If I bet one and it is used in that race in a stepping stone, that's my fault for getting it wrong.

If I bet one and it is used in that race in a stepping stone, that's my fault for getting it wrong.

I take a similar view throughout both seasons but I also think: This is a c unt's game and I must be one for playing it.

There's artful, which I think all connections have to be, and then there's crooked, and there's grey areas in between. But you can go DECADES without that essential truth being aired on television or in the sporting press. Why? Seems wrong, corrupt and unjust.

Needless to say that when connections, however so grand they may be, go out not to try, they are no more than cheap crooks. You can't make it morally right; you can only make it explicable because the sport is immemorially corrupt.

Gosden opening admits to telling Halling's jockey not to win. It wasn't a truth serum, I believe that the jockey went live in New Zealand and made the story public.

Presvis another high profile case, hooked in three maidens and was a group 1 horse (albeit a nutcase).

I was betting on horse racing for my income during bandit racing.

As I allude to above, it is what it is. If I was offended by a none jigger then I wouldn't bet on horses.

The most egregious has generally gone imo, flat out hooking a fav to lay it and get it beat at any cost. But a recent example where a jockey opted to risk going home in an ambulance instead of winning, it's not completely eradicated.

As I allude to above, it is what it is. If I was offended by a none jigger then I wouldn't bet on horses.

Makes sense to me but as I say, you can accept the status quo but you cannot square it and make it right: it's stinky.