Mate, you outta talk

Every single post you have hijacked the same way ...

to a full time form analyst a dog having a 2 len advantage on the field, after taking as many things you can think of into account, means get on !
happy days :)

Ryan,

I have no idea what your "2 len" comment means.

2. Since I don't bet any more and I have disbanded my database, how can I possibly be a "full time form analyst"?

3. I am a commentator, like a few others.

4. Separately, since I introduced this thread (by asking half a dozen questions) how is it possible for me to "hijack" it?

5. If TT wins the Bold Trease, it will be either the greatest form reversal in the history of greyhound racing or the result of an almighty smash on the home turn and a consequent slow time.

6. While times are usually critical, their major use is to derive a comparison between runners and then to set a price on each. Too many people are tending to regard a $4 (or 3/1) price as a guarantee that it can't win. Real punters would understand that it means it loses 3 times out of 4 and wins once.

Just to better illustrate some of these points, consider below what I wrote after the 2011 Bold Trease (ref point 6 above)...

"It might even help the running over 715m, where Thursdays Bold Trease field fiddled around before finally having a committee meeting on the home turn. Half a dozen of them then decided to go over the line together one and a half lengths covered them with one miraculously poking its nose out in front in a moderate 42.27. It would have been seven of them were it not for the fact that Amity Flame got ankle-tapped going around the home turn. A mixed Grade 4/5 race was won earlier in the night in three lengths faster time. The Bold Trease was generally forgettable."

(The full article is sitting on the ARG site at the moment).

pmsl, not everything is about you Bruce.

Of course it is Ryan, its always about "That's why they call me Bruce''

RE: "pmsl, not everything is about you Bruce."

Well, much of it is when I introduce a topic, ask questions and comment further on it. You are perfectly free to skip over to the next topic if it does not interest you.

Sadly, hearing legible or logical answers is uncommon. But we do get a few.

It doesn't where you are involved

Now the full form and boxes are available for the Bold Trease, we can take a good look at the chances. It will all depend on two things - what leads and how they all stand up to successive 715m races. My guesses are ...

1. 1, 2, and 5 are having their 5th official run in the month. That's demanding and only the red has any hope of overcoming it.

2. 3 has every chance of leading, with 4 and 5 outside it for a while. Conversely, 4 could well get squeezed out as it does not like company.

3. 1 and 6 have the best recent time form but will depend on getting a clear run.

4. 2, 5, 7, 8 cannot figure without major interference. 3 will fade
a little in the run home.

5. At current prices the value is 1 for the Win and 6 Each way but (were I punting) I would edge to the 6 in hope of a bigger profit.

As for the Melb Cup - whatever gets spat out the front on the first turn will win. For once I agree with the Watchdog - that could well be Whiskey Riot. Given the prices, it should be fair value. That is likely to stay that way as the Scotchman, although easing slightly. is going to be heavily backed.

Looking at the for and against, regarding her chances.

Blazing Cartier is one of only 3 greyhounds under the age of two and a half years, the other 5 are at least three and a half years old, presumably with litle improvement left in them.

Blazing Cartier is one of the three bitches in the field, arguably bitches do make better stayers?

Her performance in winning her heat certainly suggests a strong winning chance.

However, you often make the point about greyhounds being able to repeat a good performance 7 days later?

She won on 31st October, then went missing for three weeks before her heat win on the 22nd November ????

As for your other pick, Boom Down,he appears to be too slow early, will rely on luck.

I suspect the 2 will give Boom Down some room early even though it cannot lead - but it doesn't need to.

Possible that Rajasthan will show Blazing Cartier the way over. It is young and up in class but it has been continually improving and has a terrific Sandown record. The three week gap might be because she was coming off a heavy program (incl WPK trip), or a minor niggle which is now OK??? Britton would tell us, wouldn't he?

I wouldn't be so sure about that

How would he do that, Teague?
Hold a press conference maybe?
Send an email to anyone with a TAB account?
Develop a Britton Racing app?

How exactly do you want to be notified, Teague?

As I've said before, if you own the dog or part own the dog, you have a right to know everything about your investment.
If you don't, then you rely on the judgement of the trainer to run the dog and the vet to pass the dog fit to race.

That's where backing certain trainers can be rewarding.

Bruce is correct here. For the integrity of the sport and to keep it growing these things need to be made public. Otherwise stewards need to be asking the question.

Apart from that the vast majority of Vic prizemoney used to be derived from punting coffers and highly likely still is, so it is in the best interest of the sport (esp in these big races) to keep the public informed.

Jamie,

It's not rocket science. Just read the Racing Rules. You advise the stewards, especially when $100k-plus is up for grabs and the bitch is on the second line of betting. I am surprised you did not know that. Even more surprised that two others agreed with you.

However, neither of us know if the "niggle" happened, do we? We have to assume NOT.

For punters new to the game I would not recommend "backing certain trainers". Apart from anything else you will tend to suffer lower prices when a top trainer is involved. Much better to do the form properly.

There seems to be a partial assumption that trainers are not responsible to the public. If you utilise black letter law, maybe someone is able to make such a case. But, more pragmatically, anyone with an ounce of perspective would realise that we all - meaning participants in the widest sense - accept an obligation to further the interests of the sport. To do less is to harm our own prospects as well as everyone else's.

The other side of that coin is that stewards are wholly and specifically responsible to the public for delivering a wholesome and reliable product. Not 80% or 90% but the entire 100% of it.

That's why Racing Rules are as they are.

In the current discussion, it is useful to consider what gallops stewards do, especially for feature races. Whether at Randwick or Flemington, stewards will regularly initiate action off their own bat to delve into the fitness of some or all runners in a upcoming event. Examples have been plentiful in Caulfield or Melbourne Cups (and others) where stewards, accompanied by their own vets, have sought out, inspected and withdrawn horses which they see as less than 100% fit - often to stern opposition from the trainers involved - and even at the barriers prior to the jump. That is, the public interest dominates all others.

When the shouting dies down, I suspect all concerned would accept this is a sensible policy to adopt, even though it might be disruptive at the time.

Unfortunately in greyhound racing, and not for the first time, a minority view pops up that says "trust us, we're good" so don't ask questions. That's a cultural attitude which has to be stamped out. (See also the WDA report).

In the current case, fairly innocuous comments by myself and another speaker (ie that the bitch had a three weeks gap in its form) may have no bearing on the runner's fitness. Or it may. We just don't know. Whatever, it is unusual at least, given that the bitch is facing a tough assignment in a top ranking feature race.

Tonight's distance race may well add to our knowledge of the situation. Is the breed losing stamina, to what extent and why? And does a quick back up harm a dog's prospects? On their own, tonight's results may not be absolute, but they will be indicative.

Bruce, I realise you have wandered off the topic, however you have raised an interesting issue regarding promotion of the sport of greyhound racing.

Who does the general public see as the faces of horse racing?

Obviously Gai Waterhouse, Danny O'Brien, Michelle Payne and her brother Stephen, Damien Oliver, to mention a few, and even Winx.

Horse trainers realise, or are told,that they have a moral obligation to co-operate with the media to promote the sport.

Jockeys, as far as I know, recieve lessons in public speaking during their apprenticeship, to help with their media interviews.

Who does the general public see as the faces of greyhound racing?

Zilch.

Tonight's Melbourne Cup is promoted on the size of the prize money.

The general public would not be able to name one runner, or greyhound trainer, with or without a runner engaged in the race.

Perhaps, it is time the greyhound industry stopped being faceless.

Here's the problem Bruce.

You have assumed that Blazing Cartier had 3 weeks off due to a heavy workload, or a niggle. But you actually have no idea right?
I have assumed that she had a light freshen up, probably free running, some sprint lane work, maybe a trial or 2, in preparation for a group 1 series. But I also have no idea. Like you, I am guessing, or as you put it, assuming.

And now you are assuming that I don't know the Racing Rules.

Well, assuming that you are correct, perhaps you can educate me and show me the rule that says a trainer must advise the stewards, why a dog has had 3 weeks off?
Then you can show me the clause in that rule that states 'especially when $100k is up for grabs and the bitch is on the second line of betting'

The only 'niggle' here is the one you enjoy handing out to people who read your 'assumptions'

I'm no longer one of them.
Adios.

Re "Well, assuming that you are correct, perhaps you can educate me and show me the rule that says a trainer must advise the stewards, why a dog has had 3 weeks off?
Then you can show me the clause in that rule that states 'especially when $100k is up for grabs and the bitch is on the second line of betting'"

As to the first question - I did not say that. You are cherry picking. However, had the bitch suffered an injury or niggle or similar, then the trainer would be obliged to advise the stewards. Since he hasn't, we have to assume there was nothing wrong.

As to the second point - there is no such Rule, only common sense or a keenness to do the right thing and promote fair racing. I said the trainer's racing practice was unusual in preparation for a major distance race. I offered two possible reasons without any firm knowledge - it was simply a discussion point. At the same time I mentioned that it was common practice at the gallops to check into all runners in major races in particular.

Stewards routinely go to kennels prior to higher class races to take swabs. They could just as easily do the same when an "unusual" situation is evident. Define that as you wish.

Rather than attacking me, why not just enter the discussion?