Well I have my own views on this, and from what i hear on the grapevine he needs the money and is being watched very closely!! TRAINER Jim Best on Thursday insisted he had not engineered a betting coup and had a clear conscience in relation to Saint Helena's victory at Southwell 24 hours earlier under champion jockey Tony McCoy. Saint Helena, making her handicap debut over hurdles having failed to make the frame in seven previous starts since joining East Sussex-based Best, had been due to be partnered by Rhys Flint, who has not had a ride this season. Into The Wind, McCoy's intended mount, was vying for favouritism for the 2m handicap hurdle, with Saint Helena available at 6-1, before strong support during the morning resulted in Saint Helena being promoted to market leader. Into The Wind was withdrawn due to fast ground at 11.34am and McCoy switched to Saint Helena, who was sent off 11-10 favourite. Saint Helena landed the gamble by a length under a typically robust McCoy drive, after which the improved performance of the winner was subject to an inquiry, with stewards forwarding Best's explanation to the BHA, and stewards also asked about the circumstances surrounding Into The Wind's withdrawal and the subsequent jockey change. Best's responses were noted and the whole affair will be subject to a BHA investigation. But Best told the Racing Post: "I have got a clear conscience. I never feel bad for going out and doing well with a horse and getting a winner, and I was over the moon to be honest. "It was a bad race and on her best form Saint Helena was there with a chance and it was nice to win with her."
It stinks. You can say it's just circumstantial - there is nothing concrete that would prove it was a planned coup - but the weight of those circumstances is such as to leave little doubt that someone was "at it". The official going yesterday was good - Into The Wind has won on good. In fact of his 27 turf appearances, 10 have been on good-to-firm, and one on "firm" If the horse was withdrawn just because of the going, then they are lying.
When Barney Curley pulls off his coups he get a lot of stick but in truth he is only playing the handicapping system. This however if true is 10 times worse. What was the reason given for taking off the original jockey? If this is a manipulated situation the most disappointing thing is that it presumably could not have been done without AP's prior knowledge unless they just took a chance that any pro would be available on the day, and if this is the case this makes me sad. AP is someone I like a great deal and a great ambassador for the sport, he does not need be getting on horses like that. If true this is the worst thing for the sport as it provides fuel for the it's all fixed brigade.
Very similar to the Planetoid episode where a jockey was declared to ride but failed to turn up due to "car trouble" and McCoy took over which was always the plan. People find these coup's amusing for some reason but the fulcrum of them involves pulling a horse for a sustained period of runs to perfect conditions for a gamble. In other words his horses have been deliberately running below what they are capable of. Pathetic and I believe the BHA still haven't concluded other investigations into Mr Bests activities. At least Curley held his hands up.
If you chaps don't think that similar is happening at ninety per cent of training establishments in the UK then you are poor misguided fools. The list of trainers adept at getting one ready for a handicap are probably headed by Sir Mark Prescott and Jonjo O'Niell.
This is more than about getting one ready for a h'cap. BHA still investigating the Planetoid episode 15 months later and has made the sports page of the Guardian. None of the other "90%" under investigation. Perhaps the BHA are just misguided fools like us?!..for once I support their intervention in at least seemingly doing the right thing even though proof of wrong doingwill be impossible.
This is more than getting one ready for a handicap, If St Helena had won with the declared jockey on then I say well done to them and half the battle in punting is spotting these coups. The mark was crossed if there was indeed colluding between all parties to declare one jockey without intention to leg him up, if the fav was always going to be pulled out and If AP was always going to ride St Helena. If, and I say If as we don't know for sure, but if all these things are true then this is so much more than what goes on in most yards. It's the colluding between jockeys and trainers and owners to carve a result which crosses the line. One trainer getting one handicapped and selecting a day and collecting I say well done to them, but when two trainers, two owners, two jockeys are involved in winning one race, that's not for me.
Of course playing the handicap game goes on all the time but this is tantamount to insider dealing. 2 horses are falsely priced up. One has AP riding and is backed accordingly. The other has a "nobody" riding and is considered to have no hope. So why would the one with no hope get backed down before announcing that the fav was being withdrawn. And then switch jockeys. The trainer must be pretty thick to think that would go unnoticed. Unless he is confident that nothing can be proved and nothing can be done about it. I suppose had we known what he was up to and got the 6/1, we wouldn't be complaining.
Everyone knows horse racing is a bent sport, it's fiddled and fixed all the time by trainers/owners so why are people so surprised when the obvious gets highlighted
I think people with a genuine interest in the sport would disagree with that ridiculous generalisation but realise that a fair amount of unsavoury behaviour is evident. That is why threads like this are important. What is more important is that those who police the sport are aware of the true racing fans ire at certain actions,such as those that transpired yesterday.
Everyone knows that racing has a handicapping system that can be played and some people say it is bent to do so and so if you agree with this you can say it's bent. I do not consider that playing the handicapping system does make it bent however. Trainers and owners who simply play the handicapping system lose everyday as well as win. I do feel collusion between separate and supposed opposing parties to create a specific result does very much constitute cheating however. When this becomes the norm then I would agree with your statement Badger. For me it's all about collusion. If I had a horse I could happily handicap it to a mark I believed it could win a race from, I could never however collude with other runners connections to win a race however. We must be clear that we do not know just how far any collusion ( if any) went, but if it did it's this that disappoints. I really hope AP did not know of the plan.
It will never become the norm Blue. There are many ways to win a h'cap...many horses run and try to win to get a penalty to "get in" to a big race where the h'cap has been formulated in advance. Connections of such types know their horses have improved since the weights have been announced and this is thoroughly transparent. Some horses run in good maidens are targeted at easier h'cap targets after three outings..again transparent. Some horses are bought from abroad and improve for their new surroundings and are targeted by connections who have inmates at home who give them a good handle on their ability and what will be required in their new venture. Mark Prescott was famous for running 2-y-o's with stout pedigrees over sprinting trips and steeping them up in trip off very favourable marks as 3-y-o's..it was expected at least half a dozen of his 3-y-o's would run up a sequence in a short space of time carrying penalties.No secrets here. The dilemma nowadys is horses campaigned over a period of time to slip down from previous winning marks or simply showing nothing for long periods before striking out of the blue after a weight of money. A lot of such types pop up at big odds and connections are generally surprised (they aren't machines as Sir Nicky so rightly says). When they are "laid out" so obviously it's only common sense to enquire as to why the horse has suddenly improved so much and been so well supported. Whether it happens all the time is irrelevent. The rules of racing state every horse must run on it's merits to maximise its finishing position.If these rules are being flouted then connections have to be investigated.The weight of glib and banal excuses that trainers can tender as acceptable is the problem to my mind. I find newcomer maidens infuriating where schooling is rife and even commended.How many times times have we heard of a maiden being given a lovely educational introduction by a jockey when never put in the race.These events should be made what they effectively are..hands and heels races. When is the line crossed and by how much and how do we deal with that? The BHA and racecourse Stewards need to be able to act with reasonable doubt rather than impossible definitive proof to punish those who bend the rules.
What price did Saint Helena open? 6/1? Based on absolutely no form whatsoever. 6/1? Is that not 'bent' as well?
Even worse - Into The Wind was installed as 5/2 joint fav in the morning - here my post from Wednesday's daily thread: The bookies pricing of the Best horses in that race was ridiculous, agree with Bob - "bent". As the great Barney Curley once said: "You couldn't have 2 bananas to a banana"
This seems to indicate that the bookmaking fraternity, at least, knew that Jim Best was planning something - and assumed ITW was the target as AP had been declared. I'd guess that carefully leaked info was part of that plan, and the bookies got played as well. Despite what they portray in public, bookies DO share info amongst themselves to prevent any one bookie from being taken to the cleaners, and whilst seeing a skint bookie wouldn't put me off me dinner, it's a different matter when it's the betting public being fleeced. But I won't be "holier-than-thou" and freely admit that if I'd known about it in advance, I too would have been piling in. If you can't beat 'em .........
As I regularly say to my regular readers on a regular basis. Not all trainers are like Mr Henderson. The reason ‘coups’, ‘plots’, ‘gambles’, call them what you want, like this go on is because of the absolute Appalling, with a capital ‘A’, levels of prizemoney in British racing. I would certainly concur with the Stick boys figure of 90% and would add that a huge amount of trainers almost have little alternative if they wish to survive in this financial climate. With many 1st prizepots of less than £2k how on earth are they supposed to earn a living without some lets say ‘creative accounting’?!?
It's not the first time Mr Best has done it and it won't be the last, fair play to him. Last year I was often looking for races with 2 Mr Best horses in them, normally one towards the top of the handicap is withdrawn. Unfortunately I stopped looking out for them and missed this one. The bookies will now just take no chances when he has 2 in a race, is that fair? Is it fair for them to limit stakes for some people to ridiculously low amounts? Swings and Roundabouts in this game, well done Mr Best and connections
