Seamus Heffernan

The more trainers instruct their jockeys to ride exactly to instructions, the less and less jockeys are likely to think laterally. Heffernan's critics seem to think that he should've thrown AOB's master plan out of the window and done something different (so that they could win money, of course, since I'm sure they're talking out of their ruined betting slips). I'm amazed that people seem surprised that trainers actually give orders! What do you think happens over the phone before racing? The trainer looks at who's declared and knows which of those horses is usually run a certain way, and how his opponent trainers like to run their horses. This happens in little Class 6 races, so you've got to know it certainly happens in the high-class ones! The orders may well be to miss the break deliberately, pop in behind, produce the horse off the pace 2f out and go for it. Or, get out fast, dominate, rail, and let the horse burn off the oppo - which ROSES FOR THE LADY would've done without SARISKA's presence, for instance. Really, I don't understand this notion that jockeys should just gaily abandon their instructions and make things up as they go along, when their trainers just don't operate that way.
 
Have to say I agree wholeheartedly with SL, DJ and Krizon, I'd just add that on occasions the way the race is run doesn't pan out as expected and a top class jockey realising that will adjust the riding plan accordingly. But I'm talking as an owner who has never had more than one wholly owned horse in a race.

Would have thought it was blindingly obvious that when AOB has more than one horse in a race he has told the jocks which one he wants to win and the jocks ride accordingly to detailed instructions. And it's usually the one not ridden by Heffernan.

richard
 
In simplistic terms;

Racing without punters = Point to Point
Racing without owners = Portman Park

The nature of the beast is that you've got a whole host of sub-industry groups who are mutually dependent on each other, but with that of course you get a whole host of different opinions about who the most important is. If you removed any of them the sport would be dramatically altered as the knock on effect rippled through.

Personally I can see that the equine horse lover would be happy enough playing around in the 'Ditchwater Downs' P2P, and good luck to Jessica Wurzelhurst in winning £25 first prize and a lovely blue rosette for her ride in the Womens Institute Victoria Sponge Cake Handicap for 15yo's, but it wouldn't be my own cup of tea
 
I've always agreed with the viewpoint that every aspect of racing is interdependent, without any one 'top dog'. Owners assume that racing would collapse with them, but in fact, they wouldn't exist without breeders, who are supported by, and in turn support, vets, sales houses, transporters, consignors, bloodstock agents, and trainers looking for youngstock. Thus it goes - right through to supporting any amount of jobs in journalism, photography, silks-making, saddlery, horse-box construction - there is an almost endless list of major and peripheral activities involving the business.

I'd take you up on PtPs not attracting punters, though. There are probably as many attending the south-west arena's PtPs as there are any small-course meeting, and they do stand bookies, if not the Tote. And while you're obviously poking fun at it as some sort of twee activity, it's particularly well supported by many of 'regular' racing's members. Philip Hall's father, Christopher, is a director of Northern Racing and his wife is a steward, for example, so there's quite a lot of cross-over. Likewise the Tindalls and many others. And you've only to see that some of today's good chasers had their starts in PtPs to know that it spawns as many nascent NH runners as it embraces in their mature years.
 
At an over-round of 200% I'm not sure it would catch on other than with those who don't mind donating money. I'm sure I'd rather resort to betting football scores even though I know this to be nearly as bad.
 
I'd always understood that running an obvious pacemaker was against the rules anyway.
It's only within about the last 10 years or so that they have appeared in English racing; have the rules actually changed, or just been fudged?
I do realise that trainers would do deals among themselves and enter an unofficial pacemaker to help out, which would be difficult for the stewards to prove.
 
EC1 said:
I wonder how a rookie punter views these sports when assessing the difficulty of actually making money from them

POKER
FOOTBALL
RACING
GOLF
TENNIS
HORSE RACING

I can guarantee that just from that short list..horse racing looks far the hardest sport to get into from scratch...so we know what is going to happen over the next 10 years don't we?
Click to expand...

I'm already betting more and more on these sports, and I would add Cricket to the list, excellent for trading, but keep your eye on the Weather!
 
So they don't run on their merits then? Can't see the Youtube clip either at home, because my machine is too old, or at work because the buggers won't let me.
 
Stupid question of the day; if the BHA rules allow horses to run in races as 'pure' pacemakers, could these not be marked/declared as such in the press/racecard? Regular racegoers et al may know that something is running purely to help star of the stable win, but those new/newish to the sport wouldn't and I can't help but it is not fair that they may back something at 200-1 thinking that will pay for the family holiday.
 
Yes, I agree completely with you there, G-G. Definitely should be noted in race cards as 'pacemaker for Bonzo Dog, No.9' and also announced by the raceday presenter before racing kicks off.

One has to ask, really, whether pacemaking is, at its heart, dishonest? The pacemaker isn't being put into the race with the view that he is supposed to try and win it, for a start. Sometimes, he's flung so far out to the front that, even given an innate determination to try and stay there (think SHOLOKHOV), he can't win on his own merits. If a horse is put in a race with the knowlege beforehand that he is highly unlikely to win on his own merits, because he's going to be deliberately blown up, then surely this is as good as fixing his race?

What I also don't like about it is that I assume having pacemakers denies other horses the chance to run - they're ballotted out of the race and their opportunities are sacrificed to animals who are, themselves, sacrificial. Does that make sense?
 
What I also don't like about it is that I assume having pacemakers denies other horses the chance to run - they're ballotted out of the race and their opportunities are sacrificed to animals who are, themselves, sacrificial. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Has this ever actually happened?
 
chroniclandlord said:
Wise move from Seamie to withdraw the appeal and move on.
Click to expand...

Following instructions again I'd imagine.

For the record,I had no financial interest in the race. The ride he gave that horse he was lucky to be only charged with an 'injudicious ride'. Jockeys cannnot be absolved of responsibilty by claiming ' they where just following orders'. Every now and again one of AOB's throw in a ride like this. The stewards should not be castigated for acting on it... at last. A reflection of the arrogance that exists in Ballydoyle perhaps,that heffernan than has a go at the stewards for having the gall to pick him up on it.

I have a fair idea now as to why Kinane didn't hang around at Ballydoyle...integrity perhaps.
 
walsworth said:
I'd always understood that running an obvious pacemaker was against the rules anyway. It's only within about the last 10 years or so that they have appeared in English racing; have the rules actually changed, or just been fudged?
Click to expand...

I think there have been pacemakers allowed in the UK as far back as there have been races. I knew someone who saw this contest, as well as the Grundy/Bustino one. This account is from the Racing Post 100 Greatest races book. Alycidon was famous for requiring a pacemaker, and two were even better for him!


70. Alycidon v Black Tarquin
Gold Cup, Ascot, June 16, 1949

1 Alycidon 5-4
2 Black Tarquin 11-10f
3 Heron Bridge 25-1

Winning owner: 18th Earl of Derby
Trainer: Walter Earl
Jockey: Doug Smith
Distances: 5l, 10l

What made it great
In an epoch-making Ascot Gold Cup, Alycidon proved himself the greatest stayer of the post-war era by trouncing reigning champion Black Tarquin, reversing the placings of the previous year’s St Leger. After his pacemakers Stockbridge and Benny Lynch had done their job to perfection, the blinkered Alycidon took the lead five furlongs from home, and though Black Tarquin ranged almost upsides him early in the straight, his relentless stride soon told and he galloped the favourite into submission. He went on to become the first winner of the stayers’ triple crown in 70 years. [JR]

I'd be most interested to know if there are races where horses could not get into a race due to pacemakers taking all the places. I cannot bring one case to mind.
 
If jockeys are supposed to be masters of judgment of pace, why are pacemakers needed? If you know the optimum pace at which your horse should be covering the distance, why not ride your own race? How often have fields not bothered with the pacemaker, anyway? Send one way out in front and nobody takes any notice of the poor, disappointed animal. Is there really much benefit to be had from them, but, I do ask this genuinely, why aren't they clearly signposted to the less-knowing racegoer as there for show only, as it were, and why is it legal to put them in, knowing you do not expect them to win, and that you are not even trying to win with them?
 
Good points Kri - over to the experts then.

But I will just say that if you have a horse who needs to come from behind it is pretty hard to set your own pace. :lol:
 
You make the "pacemaker" thing sound like its an actually hazard on course, pace is invisible but interprited by time.
 
krizon said:
If jockeys are supposed to be masters of judgment of pace, why are pacemakers needed? If you know the optimum pace at which your horse should be covering the distance, why not ride your own race? How often have fields not bothered with the pacemaker, anyway? Send one way out in front and nobody takes any notice of the poor, disappointed animal. Is there really much benefit to be had from them, but, I do ask this genuinely, why aren't they clearly signposted to the less-knowing racegoer as there for show only, as it were, and why is it legal to put them in, knowing you do not expect them to win, and that you are not even trying to win with them?
Click to expand...

A pacemaker should be a horse that is capable of winning if ignored..hence shoving 70 & 80 horses in is no good.

There are different types of pacemaking as well

If a trainer puts a G3 horse in as pacemaker then he can't be ignored..so automatically the field will be near him..if he runs at even pace..then the race will be truly run..job done

the idea of shoving horses that cannot win in..is totally pointless...because they won't generate the field to do anything

if you look at Roger Bannister..he used a few pacemakers i think..they were used purely for their judgement of even pace over the section of track they ran..then they dropped out..Bannister kept close to them just as a guide to even pace..they were his clock


another type of pace making.....getting a horse to win over shorter than ideal trip..is that a trainer wants a race to be run faster than even pace to tire others out..in that scenario he puts his proven stayer near the pacemaker who is actually going just faster than even pace..this plays to the strength of the stayer and gets the other horses out of their comfort zone trying to keep up..

sensible use of pacemaikng has plenty of uses..just shoving any old horse in and going hell for leather..which you see quite often is a bit clueless
 
Last edited:
Back
Top