Ask PN - November 2011
- Thread starter Ron
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Re the dam. Possibly Oddy but they don't have many. Eg Denman's dam had 9 foals as far as I can see and only 1 appears to have been any good. Silverburn was the most successful behind Denman. However, there were 2 unnamed, one that sold for 60k euros as a 4yo in 2002 (no idea who that was).
I always look at the dam's sire but the reason I have analysed by dam's sire is that it was the only info I could grab to analyse automatically. By dam would have to be done manually. one by one, unless Princess has the data.
I always look at the dam's sire but the reason I have analysed by dam's sire is that it was the only info I could grab to analyse automatically. By dam would have to be done manually. one by one, unless Princess has the data.
Afternoon all, sorry have only just noticed your questions Oddy!
National Hunt breeding is always hard to gauge. Partly because a lot of true "National Hunt" stallions are dead/past it by the time they get a few good runners and also because a lot of jumpers these days have flat pedigrees.
You can never quite tell whether a flat sires' progeny are likely to go jumping, I guess it is one of those things that evolves over time.
With regards to dam influence, firstly there is no easy way of searching for statistics. Secondly, many trainers (Sir Henry is one) believe that a horse gets his/her stamina from the dam's side. People put so much emphasis on the stallion's influence because it is easier to spot trends and patterns as you can have literally hundreds of horses to research from just one stallion. Most mares will have no more than 10-15 foals in a lifetime so it is that bit harder to extrapolate the data.
National Hunt breeding is always hard to gauge. Partly because a lot of true "National Hunt" stallions are dead/past it by the time they get a few good runners and also because a lot of jumpers these days have flat pedigrees.
You can never quite tell whether a flat sires' progeny are likely to go jumping, I guess it is one of those things that evolves over time.
With regards to dam influence, firstly there is no easy way of searching for statistics. Secondly, many trainers (Sir Henry is one) believe that a horse gets his/her stamina from the dam's side. People put so much emphasis on the stallion's influence because it is easier to spot trends and patterns as you can have literally hundreds of horses to research from just one stallion. Most mares will have no more than 10-15 foals in a lifetime so it is that bit harder to extrapolate the data.
Princess & Ron thanks for the feedback. I think the RP website offers a great database for researching the breeding of a particular horse (although some is reserved for members only). I think beyond the sire it is also important to look at the dam, not only in terms of her breeding but also what she did on the track (if anything). Even then it isn't always a guarantee - Ron the horse named after you 
in the bumper today was out of a mare who had achieved a 95 rating on the flat so I was quite hopeful of a bold showing, but with hindsight there would have been plenty of juice in the ground for Ron as his dam only ever won on Gd/Fm 
in the bumper today was out of a mare who had achieved a 95 rating on the flat so I was quite hopeful of a bold showing, but with hindsight there would have been plenty of juice in the ground for Ron as his dam only ever won on Gd/Fm PN - Do you know if Raymond Mould sold or retired Knowhere?
He is my favourite Horse - which is ironic seeing as though he owes me a fortune ha!
He is my favourite Horse - which is ironic seeing as though he owes me a fortune ha!
I don't know for sure, but looking at Nigel Twiston-Davies' website, he is not listed as in training and as he has not run since January and holds no entries I'd take it that they've called it a day with him. The old warrior is almost 14 after all!
PN
I read a number of people commenting on Jim Mcgraths letter regarding the whip debate in the Racing Post yesterday, unfortunately I didn't get to read the article myself, do you (or anyone else) have a copy of the article that can be copied/pasted in here ?
Thanks
I read a number of people commenting on Jim Mcgraths letter regarding the whip debate in the Racing Post yesterday, unfortunately I didn't get to read the article myself, do you (or anyone else) have a copy of the article that can be copied/pasted in here ?
Thanks
Here you go:
New whip penalties are totally disproportionate
THE current furore surrounding the use of the whip, following the implementation of new rules on Monday, October 10, is a hugely regrettable postscript to the review of its use in horseracing, as published by the BHA towards the end of September.
Much of this report is interesting, well written and, in tackling aspects such as whip design and public perception as well as examining statistics pertaining to its use over a period from 2004 through 2011, provided an overview the like of which the industry had not seen before.
What a shame therefore that the conclusions reached, presumably by the review group, and fully endorsed by the BHA board, have proved such a disaster for the riders on whom dramatic changes were imposed at extremely short notice, together with swingeing suspensions and fines, and, also, for the perception of racing in general, by the wider public.
Why has it all gone pear-shaped? To my mind, in most cases the old rules worked really well: in particular they gave stewards and jockeys the scope to allow horses to adapt to the varied circumstances most races provide. Let’s be honest, in recent years only rarely has racing seen the whip used in a manner that could be described as “reckless” or “completely unacceptable”.
Notwithstanding the skills, individually and collectively, of those responsible for the report (detailed as an “expert Review Group”, it is surprising that no-one with top-level riding experience either from racing or another equine discipline formed a regular part of this team.
Although reference is made to “wide consultation within racing” and with “participants in other equine sports”, in contrast to the extensive veterinary and statistical analysis, there is no significant contribution from any leading riding/racing practitioner.
Some of the top jockeys and trainers are quoted as being supportive, although post-publication it appears the case that one or two merely gave the thumbs up in response to a generic call for change.
Given that in conclusion the veterinary evidence states “basic behavioural obser¬vations do not currently indicate that whip use in British horseracing is [provided appropriate controls are enforced] inherently a welfare problem, why there¬fore the huge change to both rules and penalties?
Among a raft of statistics the report in¬cludes is one concerning all runners in the prescribed period from January, 2004 thro ugh April, 2011. This shows that 99.25 per cent of runners competed with no whip offence taking place — isn’t that a statistic to be proud of? Doesn’t it ac¬tually support what I hope most of us be¬lieve — that, day in day out, whip offences are not anything like the problem the cur¬rent brouhaha suggests and that doubt¬less some of the wider public now believe? Yes, statistics can mislead and percen¬tages across the various types of racing (eg. chasing, hurdling, AW) do vary somewhat. The stats also show that six courses. in particular (with stiff/long, uphill finishes) result in a higher proportion of rule breaches compared to the other 54. Five of these are jumps tracks, leading one to query why, if five dearly stand out, is there a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the new rules and pretty much no mitigating circumstances at all? Every horse, every race, let alone
every course, has its own nuances. The presumption is that our jockeys are trying to cope with these and any guidelines in order to win. As such, it’s inevitable that, periodically rules will be breached and
riders suspended. Racing needs firm, consistent and fair regulation.
Many other sports have rules where; in the heat of competition, participants do not follow the rules to the letter either. These, too, have their own scale of penalties, but it is only following serious breath that those involved lose their livelihoods for any period of time, let alone, as British racing now demands, for days on end, often for something that has bothered on nothing!
The new prescriptive penalties, which mean a five-day ban handed to a jockey as though it’s a Mars bar, are completely disproportionate and surely fly in the face of a person’s right to earn a living, as are the consequences for anyone offending a second or third time.
No-one in racing wants to see a ‘Rewilding’ again. Opinion as to whether disqualification should be the result of a rider breaching whip rules in the way Frankie Dettori did on this horse seems to be divided. For what it’s worth, my view is that in serious cases of whip misuse, where wanton disregard for the rules has clearly occurred, disqualification should be mandatory.
In lesser situations, where on the balance of probability one cannot be sure whether a rider has won because he was mildly excessive in his use of the whip, the jockey should continue to carry the can.
As for successful punters in the former situation, they have won at least in part because the rider on that horse committed a serious breath. Such a penalty should help to eliminate a win-at-all costs attitude and ensure that owners and trainers have to pay more than lip service to the consequences of serious whip misuse.
In summary the current situation is unacceptable, essentially an over-reaction to detailed research that could, and should, have been used in support of racing’s approach to an emotive subject and, also, to the thoroughbred and its welfare.
Jim McGrath
New whip penalties are totally disproportionate
THE current furore surrounding the use of the whip, following the implementation of new rules on Monday, October 10, is a hugely regrettable postscript to the review of its use in horseracing, as published by the BHA towards the end of September.
Much of this report is interesting, well written and, in tackling aspects such as whip design and public perception as well as examining statistics pertaining to its use over a period from 2004 through 2011, provided an overview the like of which the industry had not seen before.
What a shame therefore that the conclusions reached, presumably by the review group, and fully endorsed by the BHA board, have proved such a disaster for the riders on whom dramatic changes were imposed at extremely short notice, together with swingeing suspensions and fines, and, also, for the perception of racing in general, by the wider public.
Why has it all gone pear-shaped? To my mind, in most cases the old rules worked really well: in particular they gave stewards and jockeys the scope to allow horses to adapt to the varied circumstances most races provide. Let’s be honest, in recent years only rarely has racing seen the whip used in a manner that could be described as “reckless” or “completely unacceptable”.
Notwithstanding the skills, individually and collectively, of those responsible for the report (detailed as an “expert Review Group”
, it is surprising that no-one with top-level riding experience either from racing or another equine discipline formed a regular part of this team.Although reference is made to “wide consultation within racing” and with “participants in other equine sports”, in contrast to the extensive veterinary and statistical analysis, there is no significant contribution from any leading riding/racing practitioner.
Some of the top jockeys and trainers are quoted as being supportive, although post-publication it appears the case that one or two merely gave the thumbs up in response to a generic call for change.
Given that in conclusion the veterinary evidence states “basic behavioural obser¬vations do not currently indicate that whip use in British horseracing is [provided appropriate controls are enforced] inherently a welfare problem, why there¬fore the huge change to both rules and penalties?
Among a raft of statistics the report in¬cludes is one concerning all runners in the prescribed period from January, 2004 thro ugh April, 2011. This shows that 99.25 per cent of runners competed with no whip offence taking place — isn’t that a statistic to be proud of? Doesn’t it ac¬tually support what I hope most of us be¬lieve — that, day in day out, whip offences are not anything like the problem the cur¬rent brouhaha suggests and that doubt¬less some of the wider public now believe? Yes, statistics can mislead and percen¬tages across the various types of racing (eg. chasing, hurdling, AW) do vary somewhat. The stats also show that six courses. in particular (with stiff/long, uphill finishes) result in a higher proportion of rule breaches compared to the other 54. Five of these are jumps tracks, leading one to query why, if five dearly stand out, is there a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the new rules and pretty much no mitigating circumstances at all? Every horse, every race, let alone
every course, has its own nuances. The presumption is that our jockeys are trying to cope with these and any guidelines in order to win. As such, it’s inevitable that, periodically rules will be breached and
riders suspended. Racing needs firm, consistent and fair regulation.
Many other sports have rules where; in the heat of competition, participants do not follow the rules to the letter either. These, too, have their own scale of penalties, but it is only following serious breath that those involved lose their livelihoods for any period of time, let alone, as British racing now demands, for days on end, often for something that has bothered on nothing!
The new prescriptive penalties, which mean a five-day ban handed to a jockey as though it’s a Mars bar, are completely disproportionate and surely fly in the face of a person’s right to earn a living, as are the consequences for anyone offending a second or third time.
No-one in racing wants to see a ‘Rewilding’ again. Opinion as to whether disqualification should be the result of a rider breaching whip rules in the way Frankie Dettori did on this horse seems to be divided. For what it’s worth, my view is that in serious cases of whip misuse, where wanton disregard for the rules has clearly occurred, disqualification should be mandatory.
In lesser situations, where on the balance of probability one cannot be sure whether a rider has won because he was mildly excessive in his use of the whip, the jockey should continue to carry the can.
As for successful punters in the former situation, they have won at least in part because the rider on that horse committed a serious breath. Such a penalty should help to eliminate a win-at-all costs attitude and ensure that owners and trainers have to pay more than lip service to the consequences of serious whip misuse.
In summary the current situation is unacceptable, essentially an over-reaction to detailed research that could, and should, have been used in support of racing’s approach to an emotive subject and, also, to the thoroughbred and its welfare.
Jim McGrath
Thanks for that PN, a star once again.
Have you heard any rumblings that the BHA may be prepared to review again ?
JM is a well respected figure in racing so maybe there is hope.
Watch for abandoned fixtures leading up to Cheltenham where jockeys take a holiday through fear of a ban....
Have you heard any rumblings that the BHA may be prepared to review again ?
JM is a well respected figure in racing so maybe there is hope.
Watch for abandoned fixtures leading up to Cheltenham where jockeys take a holiday through fear of a ban....
He raises many interesting and valid points, not least:
"The new prescriptive penalties, which mean a five-day ban handed to a jockey as though it’s a Mars bar, are completely disproportionate and surely fly in the face of a person’s right to earn a living, as are the consequences for anyone offending a second or third time."
Might we see a jockey appealing to the court of human rights?
"The new prescriptive penalties, which mean a five-day ban handed to a jockey as though it’s a Mars bar, are completely disproportionate and surely fly in the face of a person’s right to earn a living, as are the consequences for anyone offending a second or third time."
Might we see a jockey appealing to the court of human rights?
So a chance of common sense at last ?
I don't think anyone has an issue with there being a limit (whether you feel 8 or 108 is the right number), but the fact no discretion can currently be used is insane - Ruby got done for 9 when one wasn't even a strike, it was a 'brush'.
I would also question whether the new rules fit with NH racing, striking a horse 7 times in a 5f race is acceptable but 9 times over 4m isn't ? Put fences in front of horses and they occasionally need reminders to concentrate, plus some of the more difficult ones 'switch off' during their races.
By all means interview the jockey but listen to his/her explanation, they are the professionals and only they understand what happens during a race....
Copy of my email to BH 24/10/11
"To [email protected]
Hi,
my name is Ron and I moderate the horse racing forum on Not 606. I provide below direct links to 2 debates on the whip issue. Please find the time to have a read to see views of typical horse racing folk. I would add that the majority on this forum are very knowledgeable (ie not the average pocket talking punters).
http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/93052-Whip-Restrictions-Day-1-review-Horse-Racing#post1467447
http://www.not606.com/showthread.ph...me-objectivity-to-the-whip-issue-Horse-Racing
My own view is this:
"In my opinion the only sensible solution is to change the rule to something along the lines of "If the whip is used more than x times, the jockey will be called to the stewards to face a stewards' enquiry. After viewing a recording of the race and listening to the jockey's explanation the stewards will decide on an appropriate penalty, if any. At the discretion of the stewards, a jockey may also be called where the number of hits does not exceed x but the severity of the hits is considered to be too harsh."
I think that to remove the application of all common sense will, inevitably, cause problems. And in some cases, depending on how the whip is applied, is it not possible that (for example) 5 hits could be more harmful than 8? Hence it may be necessary to have the discretion clause.
I'm sure some will argue my suggestion will lead to inconsistencies but I believe that the jockeys will be more receptive to a ban/fine having attended a well considered hearing than to be banned/fined as a result of someone being able to count, especially as it is arguable what counts as a hit."
Best regards
Ron"
They replied immediately
"Thank you for your email to the British Horseracing Authority. It is our aim to respond to all enquiries within seven days but please do bear with us during busy periods. We look forward to responding to your query shortly."
Just emailed them to remind them it was now 17 days without reply and got this reply immediately
"Thank you for your email to the British Horseracing Authority. It is our aim to respond to all enquiries within seven days but please do bear with us during busy periods. We look forward to responding to your query shortly."
I wonder how long this will go on for.
"To [email protected]
Hi,
my name is Ron and I moderate the horse racing forum on Not 606. I provide below direct links to 2 debates on the whip issue. Please find the time to have a read to see views of typical horse racing folk. I would add that the majority on this forum are very knowledgeable (ie not the average pocket talking punters).
http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/93052-Whip-Restrictions-Day-1-review-Horse-Racing#post1467447
http://www.not606.com/showthread.ph...me-objectivity-to-the-whip-issue-Horse-Racing
My own view is this:
"In my opinion the only sensible solution is to change the rule to something along the lines of "If the whip is used more than x times, the jockey will be called to the stewards to face a stewards' enquiry. After viewing a recording of the race and listening to the jockey's explanation the stewards will decide on an appropriate penalty, if any. At the discretion of the stewards, a jockey may also be called where the number of hits does not exceed x but the severity of the hits is considered to be too harsh."
I think that to remove the application of all common sense will, inevitably, cause problems. And in some cases, depending on how the whip is applied, is it not possible that (for example) 5 hits could be more harmful than 8? Hence it may be necessary to have the discretion clause.
I'm sure some will argue my suggestion will lead to inconsistencies but I believe that the jockeys will be more receptive to a ban/fine having attended a well considered hearing than to be banned/fined as a result of someone being able to count, especially as it is arguable what counts as a hit."
Best regards
Ron"
They replied immediately
"Thank you for your email to the British Horseracing Authority. It is our aim to respond to all enquiries within seven days but please do bear with us during busy periods. We look forward to responding to your query shortly."
Just emailed them to remind them it was now 17 days without reply and got this reply immediately
"Thank you for your email to the British Horseracing Authority. It is our aim to respond to all enquiries within seven days but please do bear with us during busy periods. We look forward to responding to your query shortly."
I wonder how long this will go on for.
Ron I'm sure your mail will be on a chart somewhere which they use to monitor how long it takes them to respond to each e-mail. This will then be presented at regular management meetings under the banner of "Key Performance Indicators".