I found two bunches of comments very interesting over the last week. Prendagast and Bolger both moaned about the fast ground at leopardstown, and trainers at the Curragh on Sunday moaned the ground was too soft for their fast ground horses!! Can a racecourse manager actually win? Having personal experience of racecourse management in the family, I know it is a thankless job. From my perspective, during the Summer flat season the tracks should aim to produce a good sound racing surface which should be good to firm at the fastest. If in doubt I think the racecourse management should be in a position to ring the Turf Club for directions on whether they should water and a track inspector should visit to make the call. A problem shared and all that. Practically it might be difficult but at least the decision is then not in one person's hands and the trainers cannot really complain if mother nature does or doesn't arrive. What do you think?
Grounds for disagreement
- Thread starter Cantoris
- Start date
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Someone will always moan.
Naturally, if a course is looking to produce ground on the very fast side before a major meeting they will look to water.
However, there is an argument (and an very good one!) that in watering to produce unnatural ground, especially with the risk of rain during the meeting to send the ground the other way, you are deliberately scuppering the chances of those horses who like it fast.
As far as I'm concerned, so long as safe ground is produced - and fast ground doesn't mean unsafe ground - then that is fine. When tracks water to maintain good ground and in doing so produce slow ground I think that is wrong.
Naturally, if a course is looking to produce ground on the very fast side before a major meeting they will look to water.
However, there is an argument (and an very good one!) that in watering to produce unnatural ground, especially with the risk of rain during the meeting to send the ground the other way, you are deliberately scuppering the chances of those horses who like it fast.
As far as I'm concerned, so long as safe ground is produced - and fast ground doesn't mean unsafe ground - then that is fine. When tracks water to maintain good ground and in doing so produce slow ground I think that is wrong.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,014
I agree.
I agree with SL's post too, and I'd add that overwatering esp on very dry ground produces 'false' ground where the top layer comes loose from the subsoil - and that's dangerous ground. Too many CofCs seem to be producing that these days - once a year would be too often
Kevin Prendergast moaned about the ground alright, yet he ran Alhaban on the fast ground despite saying all week that the horse hates fast ground and would only run with an ease in the going.
Now Michael Bell is saying the ground was over watered...
Now Michael Bell is saying the ground was over watered...
I was on another syndicate website that had a runner on Sunday and their comments were
"Whilst the ground was not ideal for the filly,she needs good fast ground - it reportedly rode good (dead in places according to most jockeys) and in no way rode near the official description of good to firm after overwatering by the course management. Why the course management feel that good to firm ground is not acceptable is a mystery-have they been given a new directive from the Turf Club? In the Racing Post on Saturday racecourse manager was quoted as saying that the ground on the straight track was nearer good than good to firm on Friday pm- so why was it necessary to water, especuially when showers (possibly heavy in places) where forecast by the met office for Saturday). Sundays race times confirm that the going was no way good to firm -it it was then Masterofcraftsman will need to improve a bundle to win a Guineas! If the horses who are more suited to good fast ground cannot get their conditions in mid-summer, when will they get a chance?"
"Whilst the ground was not ideal for the filly,she needs good fast ground - it reportedly rode good (dead in places according to most jockeys) and in no way rode near the official description of good to firm after overwatering by the course management. Why the course management feel that good to firm ground is not acceptable is a mystery-have they been given a new directive from the Turf Club? In the Racing Post on Saturday racecourse manager was quoted as saying that the ground on the straight track was nearer good than good to firm on Friday pm- so why was it necessary to water, especuially when showers (possibly heavy in places) where forecast by the met office for Saturday). Sundays race times confirm that the going was no way good to firm -it it was then Masterofcraftsman will need to improve a bundle to win a Guineas! If the horses who are more suited to good fast ground cannot get their conditions in mid-summer, when will they get a chance?"
According to Warbler's ratings over on the Phoenix Stakes thread, which are not influenced by official going descriptions, it is indeed the case that Mastercraftsman is still some way off the normal level needed to win a Guineas.
Confusing
Last edited:
It's considerations such as these which imo make dependence on ratings such a trap. They can't be relied on as you can never rely on the going description being accurate, the wind speed isn't posted, and the whole exercise is as much of an 'art' - ie subjective - as is any other judgment in racing [eg horse conformation , whether a jockey is any good, etc etc]
I take ratings into account but I'm far more likely to go on horse, trainer and jockey form, aptitude for a certain type of track, and similar immeasurables!
I take ratings into account but I'm far more likely to go on horse, trainer and jockey form, aptitude for a certain type of track, and similar immeasurables!