Has Flat Racing Become A Joke?

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Tamerlo

Tamerlo

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2011
2,233
942
113
78
Nuneaton, Warwickshire
Ante-post backers of Bated Breath and Strong Suit are waiting to hear whether these horses will take part in today’s July Cup.
This poses the question........Has Flat Racing become a joke?
Here we have arguably the most prestigious sprint in the UK calendar, and the trainer of the favourite has declared...” I will leave the decision to the owner.”
For over forty years since I first became interested in horse racing, I cannot recall the current practice of horse’s connections running scared of competing in top races on ‘soft going.’
Are these horses so delicate that they may tire themselves out on anything but good or fast ground?
Many past sprinters ran more times in a month than the two aforementioned have run all year- they’ve only had three races to-date between them!
Add to that other unwelcome aspects of Flat Racing...too many third rate fixtures; small Group fields and a decline in overall quality; ridiculously high training fees; poor and inconsistent stewarding.....all of which points to the sport being more exclusive and parochial than it ever was.
To cap it all, we have six UK Flat meetings today- including three concurrent prestige venues- Newmarket, Newbury, and York. That never used to happen and exemplifies a poorly planned calendar.
I wait with “bated breath” to see what will transpire in the July Cup today- and in Flat Racing generally.
I admit though, that cynicism always was my “strong suit.”
What do other members think?
 
Agree entirely, Tamerlo, although I have always thought ante-post was always a dodgy bet; far too many imponderables, regardless of the apparent fancy prices on offer? Horseracing has always had its problems, but it does appear that there are far more nowadays, although cannot be sure about that? Do you recall before overnight declarations came into force (whenever that was) when a horse who appeared to be a non-runner (in the Sporting Life) in such-and-such a big handicap turned-up and won the damn thing? I remember my Dad getting terribly pissed-off when this happened at Ascot once. God, seems so long ago now! <laugh>

Feel that connections, especially the trainer, should post-up in bold letters well before a big event e.g. 'will not run if going is soft or heavy', this being the case with Bated Breath. And the reverse of course in the case of horses who don't go on the firm.
 
The weather year is proving a nightmare for trainers and punters alike. As a punter you have to hugely factor in the going or even likely going before having a punt. I have been leaving the juveniles alone as I simply dont have the time to work out who's progeny acts with cut.
From the trainers perspective, get real lads, we dont keep them in Range Rovers their owners do. Very few have too much of a second thought about the dear old punter that props this industry up, it's as simple as that.
One of my main gripes these days is that there is far too much racing. Most days we are seeing three meetings during the day and three meetings during the evening across the UK and Ireland with races timed to go off every ten minutes. This is purely to get betting revenue in a constant stream. Your average punter doesnt have time to study forty races in a day but how many of us get drawn into having a bet because it's there.
I had a fantastic day last Saturday but I put most of it down to the fact that I looked purely at two meetings and left all the other races alone.
My last point on this subject is about the recent boycotting of a race at Worcester. All races have a tariff value and if the sponsorship or levy money doesnt reach that tariff then the racecourses are meant to make up the difference, but how can they possibly afford to when there is so much racing going on. Prize money needs to be higher to keep the trainers in business and the only place this money can come from is the bookmakers who are making a fortune. I know a lot so sponsorship etc that puts a lot back in but shouldnt we all seriously consider boycotting bookies that move their operations off shore to avoid taxes and the levy?
 
He was their consultant everything
You must log in or register to see images
 
I think to be fair Tam, most really good horses have been handled with kid gloves, it's usually the toiler who gets the guts raced out of him.

As for the bookie/punter question. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is the punter getting a service or is he being preyed upon? It's probably a bit of both, but I suspect that it's mostly the former. Man has been betting since he climbed down from the trees and it was just a matter of time before some smart bloke saw an opening. I don't think it's just a matter of providing fodder for the bookies, it far more complicated than that. Racing can't be provided without the horse numbers. As long as people love racing, there will always be folk who want to plunge in and buy a horse. Breeders know this so they go up againt each other looking to get those funds. It's no different from any other enterprise, in that maunfacturers start flooding the market in an effort to get their hands in the buyers pocket. So frolific are the numbers from these breeders today, that only a small percentage actually make it to the track. So for mine, bookies are only a small part of the game.
 
stick said:
The weather year is proving a nightmare for trainers and punters alike. As a punter you have to hugely factor in the going or even likely going before having a punt. I have been leaving the juveniles alone as I simply dont have the time to work out who's progeny acts with cut.
From the trainers perspective, get real lads, we dont keep them in Range Rovers their owners do. Very few have too much of a second thought about the dear old punter that props this industry up, it's as simple as that.
One of my main gripes these days is that there is far too much racing. Most days we are seeing three meetings during the day and three meetings during the evening across the UK and Ireland with races timed to go off every ten minutes. This is purely to get betting revenue in a constant stream. Your average punter doesnt have time to study forty races in a day but how many of us get drawn into having a bet because it's there.
I had a fantastic day last Saturday but I put most of it down to the fact that I looked purely at two meetings and left all the other races alone.
My last point on this subject is about the recent boycotting of a race at Worcester. All races have a tariff value and if the sponsorship or levy money doesnt reach that tariff then the racecourses are meant to make up the difference, but how can they possibly afford to when there is so much racing going on. Prize money needs to be higher to keep the trainers in business and the only place this money can come from is the bookmakers who are making a fortune. I know a lot so sponsorship etc that puts a lot back in but shouldnt we all seriously consider boycotting bookies that move their operations off shore to avoid taxes and the levy?
Click to expand...

Stick, you have many good points there, but you seem to be viewing it more from the punter's perspective than anything else.
It's an emotive subject and I tend to try and view the sport 'overall,' and it will always be geared towards the rich.
Yet why should anyone "keep the trainers in business?" I've always felt their fees are way too high. In one sense, it's a job like any other and, if they're not competitive or don't perform, then there's the door. The exclusivity/ wealth factor has created a modern-day oligarchy - more so than ever before. Henry Cecil is living proof of this. If'd he'd lost Khalid Abdullah several years back, a trainer of his high standing would have gone out of business.
I'm sorry but I just can't get over this..."will he or won't he run on soft going syndrome." The stayers races have all but disappeared and a trainer is messing about, wondering whether a horse can be risked- exerting itself over six furlongs on soft going to win traditionally the most important sprint of the year. I think it's pathetic!
 
cyclonic111 said:
I think to be fair Tam, most really good horses have been handled with kid gloves, it's usually the toiler who gets the guts raced out of him.

As for the bookie/punter question. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is the punter getting a service or is he being preyed upon? It's probably a bit of both, but I suspect that it's mostly the former. Man has been betting since he climbed down from the trees and it was just a matter of time before some smart bloke saw an opening. I don't think it's just a matter of providing fodder for the bookies, it far more complicated than that. Racing can't be provided without the horse numbers. As long as people love racing, there will always be folk who want to plunge in and buy a horse. Breeders know this so they go up againt each other looking to get those funds. It's no different from any other enterprise, in that maunfacturers start flooding the market in an effort to get their hands in the buyers pocket. So frolific are the numbers from these breeders today, that only a small percentage actually make it to the track. So for mine, bookies are only a small part of the game.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Cyc. No I don't blame the bookies,even though they are grabbing ba--ards. They're just capitalist opportunists.
It's just that the whole sport seems out of kilter.
 
Tamerlo said:
The exclusivity/ wealth factor has created a modern-day oligarchy - more so than ever before. Henry Cecil is living proof of this. If'd he'd lost Khalid Abdullah several years back, a trainer of his high standing would have gone out of business.
Click to expand...

I don't think he'd have gone out of business as such, however, Sir Henry always says that while the Prince is willing to send him horses he will carry on. If he ever stopped then he'd pack it in.

As for the question at hand, why run when you know conditions won't suit? There are other targets and this might be the most prestigious sprint of the year but it's hardly the be all and end all.
 
Flat Racing and gambling appear to have got mixed up in this argument. Those who choose to bet ante-post (all in, run or not) the week before a big race should accept that if the weather turns against their selection the trainer is going to give zero consideration to ante-post backers when withdrawing his charge. Roger Charlton should pack Bated Breath off to stud because that will surely guarantee us an Indian summer of unbroken sunshine and fast ground. If the Sprint Cup at Haydock was not six furlongs and Group 1 they would have conceded to the weather.

The fixture congestion that occurred on Saturday 14th July was not the fault of racing but was the result of the Olympics. In a normal year, the King George meeting at Ascot would have been the last weekend in July. Unfortunately, the Olympics Opening Ceremony is that weekend, so Ascot was brought forward a week. That created a clash with the Super Sprint just down the road at Newbury, so that card was moved forward a week creating a triple-header. If the Newmarket July Meeting had been left in its original midweek slot, the July Cup would have been on Thursday. Somebody at Racing For Change can be blamed for that.

Despite the ground at Newmarket being completely unsuitable for Strong Suit, it would be reasonable to conclude that the hefty supplementary fee that the owners had shelled out was the only factor in their decision to race a horse that had absolutely no chance. They do not get a refund for withdrawing.

As for this year&#8217;s actual July Cup result, can somebody ask commentator Simon Holt why he thinks Mayson loves soft ground? If he loved soft ground he would not have been 20/1. Why did he get beaten twice, including when I backed him in the Duke Of York Stakes (when on a hat-trick) on ground that was not fast? Yes, I am grumbling through my wallet.


cyclonic111 said:
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is the punter getting a service or is he being preyed upon?
Click to expand...

Cyc, I can help you here: the egg definitely came first. As US bookie Nick &#8216;The Greek&#8217; Dandalos said, &#8220;The house doesn&#8217;t beat a player, it merely gives him the chance to beat himself.&#8221;
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back