• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Irish Sunday Racing Thread

Slim said:
I get your sentiment but it's really not the point.
Click to expand...
I guess the point for me is that I can't control how individuals within the sport operate and how the sport's governing body deal (or don't deal) with that.

All I can control is how I deal with the additional uncertainty as a punter.

Whether it's an owner, a trainer or a jockey, if I have reservations about them and their name is on the racecard, I have the option to swerve the race.

I shouldn't have to, but there are a lot of things in life I shouldn't have to do - life's like that, as we know.

In summary, I try to focus on what I can control (my own betting) and swerve as best I can what I can't control (how people, who are a red light for me, within the sport operate).

I often wish every punter would do the same - if literally every punter didn't have a bet on a race because a particular owner, trainer or jockey had a runner in it, turnover was zero and revenue to racing was zero, the authorities would be forced to act and start properly addressing these ongoing concerns punters have about individuals within the sport.

In short, if punters want the authorities to feel compelled to take action, punters need to take meaningful action themselves - refuse to bet.

Sadly, it will never happen - most punters seem to bet in these races regardless and often endlessly repent at their leisure afterwards: it's a cycle.
 
Last edited:
I'd never wish death on anyone, but I wouldn't miss him and I couldn't care less how many jobs he supposedly supports.

I think there's a myth about big owners - they push up average bloodstock prices, making it less affordable to be an owner for everyone else, and the only pockets they line are the narrow band of breeders they buy off and the people they employ.

Everyone else is actually worse off.
 
Why single out JP? How healthy is it to have races with half a dozen of the runners from the same stable? Or the runners day in and day out that are running for the purpose of lowering their handicap mark? Or the runners that are running short of fitness (often announced as such - after the race, of course)? Or the runners that are running over the wrong distance in the interest of their opening handicap mark? Or………you name it.
 
barjon said:
Why single out JP? How healthy is it to have races with half a dozen of the runners from the same stable? Or the runners day in and day out that are running for the purpose of lowering their handicap mark? Or the runners that are running short of fitness (often announced as such - after the race, of course)? Or the runners that are running over the wrong distance in the interest of their opening handicap mark? Or………you name it.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after your opening question.
 
I think they call it "whataboutery" on social media - the idea being that any other alleged defect in another area undermines the legitimacy of criticising the alleged defect under discussion plus, in addition, incidentally, any historical record of the critic ever having been less than perfect themselves somehow disqualifies them from being able to make credible critical comment.

Unless we suddenly become a planet of saints, the notion means no one is ever able credibly to criticise anything ever.
 
Ian_Davies said:
I think they call it "whataboutery" on social media - the idea being that any other alleged defect in another area undermines the legitimacy of criticising the alleged defect under discussion plus, in addition, incidentally, any historical record of the critic ever having been less than perfect themselves somehow disqualifies them from being able to make credible critical comment.

Unless we suddenly become a planet of saints, the notion means no one is ever able credibly to criticise anything ever.
Click to expand...

Congratulations.. Your first good post of 2026. I won't lie, I expected you to go deep into the year.
 
Absolutely whataboutery, but if you’re going to call out one to the extent of applying the final solution you have to be sure you’re not over egging the pudding.
 
barjon said:
Absolutely whataboutery, but if you’re going to call out one to the extent of applying the final solution you have to be sure you’re not over egging the pudding.
Click to expand...

The final soloution would be a good start, excellent suggestion.
 
As I've said before, limiting the number of entries trainer and/or owners can have in a race, relative to the size of the field, would curtail some of the issues i.e. about the 20-25% point so no more than 2 in an 8 runner race.
Then no one can whine that they're been targeted personally, then you'd have less of the situation of most the best horses and money going through a handful of yards, as I've shown is the case in UK and IRE, but worse for the latter.
 
Last edited:

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top