Rhoscolyn

They have been fcking about with this horse. He was absolutely tanking 2 out something he never showed even a glimpse of lately.


He 's not been laid out for a big one he's been laid out for adog race as he's not the horse he was 2 years ago and they have had their fingers well and truly burned today.

7/1 to as low as 4/1 was matched fro thousands on the machine in the last 2 minutes so someone lost out.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Rhoscolyn hasn't been declared for the International on Saturday. Off 91, he'd probably make the cut as he'd be #33 in a max field of 29. If something similar happens at Goodwood he could get in with a 3lbs pen.

It seems to be a more common occurrence this season that lower-rated horses are making the cut in big handicaps.
Click to expand...

Hardly surprising he's not going to win a race like that of 81...those days are way behind him he's just had his ass kicked by a 77 rated monkey
 
Given the money it looks as though today was the day and maybe DN won’t be flavour of the month.

David Nolan, the rider of RHOSCOLYN, drawn 1, was slow to remove the blindfold resulting in his horse being slow to start. Nolan’s explanation that the blindfold became stuck on the first attempt and took two attempts to remove was noted.

The stewards noted this, but didn’t comment on the interference when he was carried left by the winner and had to switch. Don’t think it made much, if any, difference though. Will post RP’s more detailed analysis later.
 
Last edited:
Just watched the race once.

I wondered, being a very cynical type, that maybe the difficulty with the hood was made to look unfortunate rather than deliberate but the way he was ridden away from the gate suggested misfortune. After that he travelled well and looked to be definitely trying.

Maybe not completely gone at the game, just maybe not as good as he once was but they still sometimes come back.

Very hard to take seriously going forward.
 
Imo, there just aren't demons around every corner, no responsible jockey would put his career on the line by acts of sabotage.
It's long been my view that, in such instances, the hood may have been applied too zealously in the first place.
 
How can you apply a hood too zealously?

Has I said earlier that he hadnt shown anything this season but tonight was better but it was only a class 4.
I'm a cynic as well and I think it was deliberate (hood) and they will hope to get into a good race as it stands.
But my bets will be low stakes though as I'm still not convinced.
 
I've replayed the opening few seconds over and over.

It looks like the jockey's left arm goes through the normal motion of removing the hood at the correct time but the hood doesn't budge. Maybe he just didn't get a proper grip, maybe reet is right and the hood was secured too tightly. Either way, I'm more than willing to give the jockey the benefit of any doubt.

They say you can't win a race at the start but you can lose it. I reckon the delay amounted to between 0.5s and 1s and that's at least 2.5 lengths and as much as five. Ally that to the interference, however slight, late in the race and I reckon the old dog should have won. It might have done a lot for its confidence.

We'll have to wait and see what happens next with him. For me, I might be 'misremembering', as Hillary Clinton once put it, but I think tonight might be the only time I've backed him this season so it's not really a big deal for me. Going forward, I can see me at least having some sickness insurance on him.
 
Outsider said:
How can you apply a hood too zealously?

Has I said earlier that he hadnt shown anything this season but tonight was better but it was only a class 4.
I'm a cynic as well and I think it was deliberate (hood) and they will hope to get into a good race as it stands.
,I,also
But my bets will be low stakes though as I'm still not convinced.
Click to expand...
But they aren't machines that can be switched on and off at will.
While I accept there's some subterfuge in racing, I'm equally aware that there are easier ways to conceal a horse's ability, that don't threaten anyone's livelihood without resort to cheating.
In this case it was Rhoscolyn's first chance for around 2 years to run at this level,and they were unfortunate not to take advantage.
Re the reluctant hood, they are - of necessity - fitted in a hurry and it's a scenario that's repeated far too frequently (imo) and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of those presiding to have someone down at the start to check they're fitted correctly,to ensure a quick and easy removal.
 
Last edited:
Depends what you mean by subterfuge, reet. If you mean downright cheating then I’d agree with you, but if you mean sending out horses without the intention of winning then I wouldn’t agree. Trainers make no secret in after race comments that it was a prep race, for example. The corollary to “I was very pleased with the way he ran, it should have put him spot on for the xyz” is “I didn’t have him ready for this race”. And running a horse over the wrong distance to get a handicap mark doesn’t break the rules, but certainly bends them. Or, novice horses not given a hard time in the interests of their further development. I could go on and on and I certainly don’t think every horse is out there trying it’s hardest to win, but I do agree that very few horses are out there doing their hardest to lose.
 
Last edited:
But that's concealing ability,BJ and it's practiced throughout the western world (afaIaa) and seemingly accepted practice,rather than cheating.
Don't have to agree with it,but it'd be daft to bet without taking it into account.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
But that's concealing ability,BJ and it's practiced throughout the western world (afaIaa) and seemingly accepted practice,rather than cheating.
Don't have to agree with it,but it'd be daft to bet without taking it into account.
Click to expand...

Concealing ability? That’s subterfuge isn’t it?

I think the rules of racing require that the horse is given a full opportunity to achieve the best possible position - so you can claim you haven’t broken the rule if it’s done the best it can half fit, you’ve nearly bent the rule if it’s given an “easy and tender” ride and you have broken the rule if you hold it back from doing the best it can on the day. Rules are one thing, but in all three cases it’s unfair on punters who have given their hard earned in the expectation that the horse will be up for it.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
Yes, but I think the rules of racing require that the horse is given a full opportunity to achieve the best possible position - so you can claim you haven’t broken the rule if it’s done the best it can half fit, you’ve nearly bent the rule if it’s given an “easy and tender” ride and you have broken the rule if you hold it back from doing the best it can on the day. Rules are one thing, but in all three cases it’s unfair on punters who have given their hard earned in the expectation that the horse will be up for it.
Click to expand...

You might say that the very notion of handicapping is, by definition, unfair to punters since if a horse carries to much weight for their ability they won't win. You can't expect trainers to have their horse, under those circumstances, ridden to their max every race; they will need to be brought on towards certain targets and then 'the screws tightened' (in the words of Mick Fitzgerald). The difficulty for us is to perhaps know/guess what the targets are. Innit? Lol.
 
barjon said:
Concealing ability? That’s subterfuge isn’t it?

I think the rules of racing require that the horse is given a full opportunity to achieve the best possible position - so you can claim you haven’t broken the rule if it’s done the best it can half fit, you’ve nearly bent the rule if it’s given an “easy and tender” ride and you have broken the rule if you hold it back from doing the best it can on the day. Rules are one thing, but in all three cases it’s unfair on punters who have given their hard earned in the expectation that the horse will be up for it.
Click to expand...
It's also considered fair to run an unfit horse, at the wrong trip, on unsuitable ground,in the wrong class,drop it out from a bad draw, on an unsuitable course, or ride it to disadvantage, but none of them regarded as cheating under the current jurisdiction.
 
barjon said:
No, yo, I don’t expect that, but the rules do.
Click to expand...

Quite so.

Typical horseracing (and perhaps more) that takes for granted a little 'leeway'. Perhaps there are times when there is a difference between what is said and what is actually done.

I think it a contradiction when the racing authorities tell us that horses are not 'forced' or cajoled into racing. I've often thought "Well, why employ a 'whipper in', then, wielding a frickin' great Long Tom?" Lol.
 
reet hard said:
It's also considered fair to run an unfit horse, at the wrong trip, on unsuitable ground,in the wrong class,drop it out from a bad draw, on an unsuitable course, or ride it to disadvantage, but none of them regarded as cheating under the current jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

100% agree. It's the type of circumstance we have to factor into our form study and why ratings on their own often "don't work".
 
reet hard said:
It's also considered fair to run an unfit horse, at the wrong trip, on unsuitable ground,in the wrong class,drop it out from a bad draw, on an unsuitable course, or ride it to disadvantage, but none of them regarded as cheating under the current jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

The bit in bold in your quote - That’s what I said, didn’t I! I part company with you in thinking it’s fair, though, because those things break the spirit of the basic “ full opportunity to achieve the best possible position” rule. Have to live with it, though, which is ok with me.
 
Last edited:
Racing Post didn’t offer anything worth reading:

Rhoscolyn was popular in the betting dropping in class and racing from an enticing mark. He overcame a slow start caused by blindfold issues to produce a much more encouraging effort than at York recently, confirming his effectiveness on heavy.
 
barjon said:
The bit in bold in your quote - That’s what I said, didn’t I! I part company with you in thinking it’s fair, though, because those things break the spirit of the basic “ full opportunity to achieve the best possible position” rule. Have to live with it, though, which is ok with me.
Click to expand...

I think the idea of whether it is, or is regarded as being, "fair" is subjective, though. I'd say reet was saying that the general followers of the sport would accept it as fair, while others will feel justified in regarding it as unfair.

Personally, I'd line the basterts up against a wall and take a machine gun to them :)
 
Desert Orchid said:
I think the idea of whether it is, or is regarded as being, "fair" is subjective, though. I'd say reet was saying that the general followers of the sport would accept it as fair, while others will feel justified in regarding it as unfair.

Personally, I'd line the basterts up against a wall and take a machine gun to them :)
Click to expand...

:lol: you often say that all you want to see to be happy is that your horse is trying - if it isn’t then you’re not getting a fair crack of the whip for your money. So I don’t regard those things as “fair” by common definition of the term, but I do regard them as “acceptable” in the sense that they are part and parcel of racing (but try telling me that when I’ve got a full bet down :mad: :mad:)
 
reet hard said:
It's also considered fair to run an unfit horse, at the wrong trip, on unsuitable ground,in the wrong class,drop it out from a bad draw, on an unsuitable course, or ride it to disadvantage, but none of them regarded as cheating under the current jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

That just about sums up racing Reet.
 
reet hard said:
It's also considered fair to run an unfit horse, at the wrong trip, on unsuitable ground,in the wrong class,drop it out from a bad draw, on an unsuitable course, or ride it to disadvantage, but none of them regarded as cheating under the current jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Don't know why you had to bring Sir Mark Prescott into the conversation:lol:
 
reet hard said:
It's also considered fair to run an unfit horse, at the wrong trip, on unsuitable ground,in the wrong class,drop it out from a bad draw, on an unsuitable course, or ride it to disadvantage, but none of them regarded as cheating under the current jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Just to add:only 2 of the above can coceivably be down to the jockey, and even those could be at the behest of connections so why is the pilot pilloried for evry one that crashes and burns?
Even Rhoscoyn's jock,begob.:)
 
Back
Top