Seamus Heffernan

Galileo said:
"None trying pacemakers" is surely one of the lesser concerns they have right now...or certainly one of the smaller problems facing racing.
Click to expand...

i never understand why there is an issue tbh..there are clues as to which horse is a pacemaker in a big race..the odds tell you for one.

i don't expect horses to be run on their merit all the time..it will never happen.

Obviously this topic will be a big one now that AOB has changed the goal posts re the actual roll of a pacemaker..traditionally a pace maker is there to set even fractions...AOB uses a pacemaker to set fast or slow fractions to suit whichever horse he wants to win a race.

In hindsight..anyone backing F&G in the Derby didn't read him very well..because he wasn't bothered about that horse winning..he wanted RVW..the clue was in the stable jockey being the jockey.

Had I backed F&G for the Derby..I would have been none to pleased at how the race was "shaped" for a different horse...basically shitting on my betting slip.

Its funny really..each time an AOB horse loses due to tactically naive riding it seems its ok to pillory the jockey...even more ok if its kicking boy Heffernan...but when many here lost their money on F&G in the Derby there was not wrong word said against the man behind the plan...AOB.

You are very forgiving of someone who cared bugger all about your bets I would say.

I doubt if its possible to get a more pro AOB group of punters than on TH.

You know..some of the defences of him are a bit embarassing...and the omission of comment even more telling.

I would love to know what starts this staunch support of somone who isn't a relative..a friend etc..but who appears to command an allegiance that allows him to do owt he wants without criticism...and yet poor sod that has to carry his instructions out gets ripped to bits

I guess I just don't understand blind allegiance :confused:
 
Last edited:
Well I have learnt something today and I have decided you can stick horse racing where the Sun don't shine, it's cricket for me now on!
 
I certainly wouldn't take anything Muscat said seriously and I'm sure that no-one at Ballydoyle will be losing any sleep over his condescending pronouncements.
 
walsworth said:
Well I have learnt something today and I have decided you can stick horse racing where the Sun don't shine, it's cricket for me now on!
Click to expand...

Well do yourself a favour and find a team other than England to support, otherwise you're next stop will be an alcohol clinic
 
Then how reasonable is it when three different trainers employ pacemakers for their horses in the same race? That means there are three horses taking up space, possibly hampering (and not entirely unintentionally, either) opponents' horses, and definitely not in the race with the purpose of trying to win it? That means there are, literally, three non-triers. How can that possibly be glossed over by the rules of racing, when stewards are forever doing various trainers for 'schooling in public', riders for 'not riding out to obtain the best possible position', and so on, ad nauseam? If you were going to try to obtain the best possible position (that is, attempt to win), you'd be riding the pacemakers in the manner in which they'd produce their best effort - not spoiling their chances by trying to wreck the opposition's pace - which is the real remit of many of them - not so much to set the pace for their stablemate star, but to spoil it for others.

As for the point about horses which need to come from behind - well, to be honest, I can't see how they'd benefit from a pacemaker at all. If the opposition knew your horse had to be run like that, it'd be very simple to scupper your chances by running at a false pace - or just keep you in and deny your late run.

I'd like to see every horse in every race running on true merits and being ridden as if it was in the race to try and win it. If we're supposed to be thinking about how best to showcase racing to a new public, surely not having to explain why a number of horses won't actually be trying to win would be a basic start?
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
As for the point about horses which need to come from behind - well, to be honest, I can't see how they'd benefit from a pacemaker at all. If the opposition knew your horse had to be run like that, it'd be very simple to scupper your chances by running at a false pace - or just keep you in and deny your late run.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that I think pacemakers ought to be allowed, I can see the pros and cons about them. And I too like to see the best horse in the race win. It is a travesty when some races are full of them.

On the pro side the point of a pacemaker is to ensure that there is a steady pace and none of that stop start stuff, which the opponents might conjure if they knew that a horse needed a steady pace to come from behind for instance. And if such a horse had a pacemaker that would prevent the opposition from scuppering the chances because the pacemaker would set the pace not the other horses.

I hate it when people keep horses in, to me that is cheating, I know - some will say it is great race riding and strategy and all of that but I don't like it and when it happens it leaves a sour taste. If I had to do that to win a race I'd feel I had actually cheated my own horse too.

Those who use pacemakers to 'improve' the placing of their own horses get in trouble and also stewards are looking more at those who use them spoil the chances of others too.

The only way to end the problems is to ban pacemakers, obviously, and perhaps they will, who knows? If you read the old books on racing though they say that the reason they began using them regularly was to prevent ridiculous races where no one wanted to lead, everyone hung about having a fag, and then some rank outsider won. Now, that might please people who own a rank outsider, but not the general public who attend the races to see the star win, or those who have backed any of the more likely horses in the race.

So - swings and roundabouts. You really cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I think racing is not as bad as some of you make out. There is no way I could watch cricket all the time, far too boring, nothing hapens for hours and then just when you go out to get a drink it's all over. :lol:
 
If you read the old books on racing though they say that the reason they began using them regularly was to prevent ridiculous races where no one wanted to lead, everyone hung about having a fag, and then some rank outsider won. Now, that might please people who own a rank outsider, but not the general public who attend the races to see the star win, or those who have backed any of the more likely horses in the race.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
krizon said:
As for the point about horses which need to come from behind - well, to be honest, I can't see how they'd benefit from a pacemaker at all. If the opposition knew your horse had to be run like that, it'd be very simple to scupper your chances by running at a false pace
Click to expand...

...which is where a pacemaker comes in handy, to ensure there isn't a false pace!
 
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...

I'm sure they did some experiments a few years ago where jockeys were asked to ride horses at a specified speed etc Half way through the experiment the jockeys pulled out as what they were discovering is that, well basically they weren't very good at it!!! Jockeys tended to take their lead from the horse who was setting a speed they were comfortable with and jockeys were pretty well clueless as to what speed they were actually doing even though many were climbing off the back and stating what speed they thought they'd ridden at only to be told how wrong they were.

You might like to try the same experiement next time you go out for a drive (and there's not to many people around). Without looking at your dashboard try and drive for half a mile at say 35 mph, and then flick your eyes to see what speed you're doing. It's easier in a car because there are many more reference points in the landscape then there normally is on a racecourse.

The other point about nominating a pacemaker I believe has been taken a step further in Hong Kong where a trainer is required to state how their horse will be ridden?. I believe there are some kind of sanctions in place that mean that a horse that's been nominated to be held up gets penalised if it suddenly starts front running? I don't know if we'd have too many takers for introducing that system here. I can see that it might help put in some kind of 'chinese wall' against alleged inpropriety but personally I think it would take more away than it would give.
 
EC1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Chris Chattaway and Chris Brasher were international atheles in their own right rather than pace making fodder and as such would have been closer to your idea of a Gp3 horse doing the pacing. Bannister called the moves and dictated when he needed Chattaway to take over from Brasher as the latter started to tire. I think both of his pacemakers completed the course and set personal bests in their own right though equally I've got it in my mind that one did drop out? which makes me wonder if there wasn't a fourth in there at some point? Bannister only kicked clear of Chattaway in the final 200 metres so he would most have completed
 
Warbler - perrrr-leeeease! Every jockey in the USA has a 'clock in his head' and know their sectionals inside out! Why, some of our very own have benefitted from a spell over there (William Buick as one example) and come back with a very much better identification of pace, something which all apprentices should be taught, of course - and if the BRS isn't doing so, then why not? American, Australian, Far Eastern work riders all exercise their horses to timed paces, even if we here in the UK don't.

And, Warbs - your notion that jockeys need pacemakers to know what speed they're going is full of holes, old dear - for the reason that if jockeys don't have a clue about it, then how would the jockey on the pacemaker miraculously know what pace he's setting? Blasting an animal to the front at 7/8 speed isn't pace-setting - it's just an attempt to frighten the opponents into thinking if they don't keep close, he might be the one to steal the race. Yeah... right, everyone's falling for that one, aren't they?

To set a pace you must record sectional timings, and what the optimal timings are for the horse you're setting the pace for. If the trainer hasn't bothered to time his star horse over sectionals and ascertained where his best pace lies (at the front, in the middle, 3/4, last 7/8), then bunging something into the race called a pacemaker ain't going to make the blindest bit of difference. The pacemaker has to mimic the star horse's own preferences and set those timings for that horse. That's what his job is. Anything else chucked in the race, called a pacemaker, but whose remit is no more than to confuse the opposition, or get in its way, is just bum fluff.

(Gosh - what has old Seamus started??)
 
krizon said:
And, Warbs - your notion that jockeys need pacemakers to know what speed they're going is full of holes, old dear - for the reason that if jockeys don't have a clue about it, then how would the jockey on the pacemaker miraculously know what pace he's setting? Blasting an animal to the front at 7/8 speed isn't pace-setting - it's just an attempt to frighten the opponents into thinking if they don't keep close, he might be the one to steal the race. Yeah... right, everyone's falling for that one, aren't they?
Click to expand...

I've got a suspicion that might be nearer to the truth than we realise.

I didn't actually say jockeys need pacemakers to work out what speed they were doing. What I said is that some research had been done which asked jockeys to ride at a prescribed speed, and basically they couldn't do it, and were failing to do it so regularly that they eventually withdrew their co-operation from the experiment. As such I'm quitye prepared to believe that a lot of supposed pacemaking wouldn't be too far removed from exactly what you describe i.e. scrubbing one along a lot earlier. The experiment concluded that jockeys were allowing horses to set the pace and then estimating how fast they were going based on how much the horses were felt to be putting in or struggling etc If that is how they do it? then pushing one out a little bit at a much earlier part of the race seems to be an entrieely plausible explanation about how they set a fast early pace. It would also explain why the chasing pack can often let a pacemaker have a 10L lead without thaving to run with it, as they aren't using the pacemaker to set a pace as such, but rather as a marker to work out how far behind that pace they are, and therefore what likely pace they'll be travelling at.

One of the classic ones that comes to my mind was David Juniors Eclipse win when Meehan was congratulating himself for using a pacemaker to upset Ouija Board and reverse Prince of Wales form. The Eclipse was actually run slower than the Prince of Wales though and the pacemakers participation was in actual of no consequence (the 10F handicap run over the same C&D about 90 minutes later was faster). It would be a classic case of trying to spin a web of aura about something that didn't exist, which of course was in everyone involved interests to do so, as it allowed a tag of 'master tactican' to be applied to the winning trainer. It's a bit like the over intellectulisation of football tactics and trying to give something the outward appearance of being much more technical and complicated than it is as it suits all those concerned to develop a pseudo science to something which isn't really that difficult. In this case David Junior won on merit and the pacemaker was neither here nor there, but the media latched onto the fact that Meehan had changed tactics and lauded him for it, and Meehan himself wasn't going to dispute it of course and decided instead to take the plaudits for something by way of plotting a path to victory that frankly I could have done. All he'd done in effect was enter another horse, let a race unfold, and then attribute all sorts of reasons for his principal horses success, to his tactics when in effect they weren't remotely close to being a factor.

I'm probably more persuaded by EC1's suggestion in that to ensure a good pace, the pacemaker(s) have to be credible potential winner. If you're using a 0-75 handicapper then jockeys aren't going to feel sufficiently threatened into following the pace if they don't want to. If however you have a Gp3, Gp2 or even inferior Gp1 horse doing the honours, then the margin of slack they'll cut a pace maker has to shorten.

I'd be surprised if too many trainers actually sit down and work out sectionals for any given course on any given going to be honest. Even if they did, they'd have the unenviable task of trying to communicate it to jockeys!!! Who even if they were able to understand what was being asked of them, then have to execute it!!! The only way you could do this would be to have 'pit to horse radios' or old fashioned 'motor racing pit boards' or timing points being displayed like they have in atheletics. I don't think there is anything like this level of science and planning put into racing and its much more likely I'd have thought that it relies on hunch and 'finger in the air guesstimates' rather than any of specially contrived schedules that peter Coe used to sit down and work out for the Sebastian's world record attempts
 
Warbs - understand all wot u say, but if the Americans have worked out proper pacemaking - that is, horses put in races to actually control the pace of the field to the advantage of the star horse, then surely our Briddish jockeys aren't less bright than the Yanks? What are you implying?!

We all know the optimum times for certain race lengths at certain tracks. (Well, in truth, I don't, but an awful lot of sectional buffs do, and I'm sure that a lot of trainers do, too.) So, given those stats, knowing your own horse's time over the distance, figuring in the going + or - and replaying enough of your oppo's previous winning races to see where their winning play was made from - what more do you need? If your and Mr XYZ's horses have identical times for the distance, but his must be played late and yours likes to be up in the van, then I can't see why you need a pacemaker - just a jockey who'll follow your instructions to ride a certain way at certain points in the race.

What I put more faith in, therefore, is employing tactics with the 'real' runners. I'm not convinced that British pacemakers have ever materially enhanced a winner's position, or helped it accomplish what it could do and would've done in any case. (Stands by for 185 examples... )
 
The nature of speed-oriented dirt tracks has meant that the average US jockey has had to had a better understanding of pace than the average European jockey purely to make himself a living. Nothing to do with them pacemaking.
 
Isinglass said:
I'm not saying that I think pacemakers ought to be allowed, I can see the pros and cons about them. And I too like to see the best horse in the race win.
Click to expand...

Comes down to a simple question then really: is the best horse in the race more likely to win it if the race is run at a genuine gallop?

In more cases than not, I would say so. If this requires the use of a pacemaker then I have no problem with that.

As for these races "full" of pacemakers, I've yet to hear one example of a race where horses were "balloted out" of a race due to the presence of a pacemaker(s).
 
Balloting would normally happen on the basis of official ratings anyway, wouldn't it? So the pacemakers would likely be the first out.
 
Shadow Leader said:
I certainly wouldn't take anything Muscat said seriously and I'm sure that no-one at Ballydoyle will be losing any sleep over his condescending pronouncements.
Click to expand...

Spot on; "he will live to regret those words for the rest of his career" was a particular low point amidst the guff that constituted most of the rest of the piece.

What a load of shite.
 
Back
Top