• 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!

Wind Ops

'Under a new BHA rule, British racecards from January 19 will show when a horse is having his or her first run since receiving treatment for a breathing-related issue.'

Typically mealy-mouthed. Unless there's disclosure of the actual procedure undergone, it's meaningless.
 
It probably will at first DJ, at least until punters realise it's not magic.

Nicky Henderson is going to have to employ additional staff to do his reporting as most of his horses get 2 wind ops a week :)
 
I think its a first step and its good that they at least made it happen, they can improve it in the future by declaring the types of procedures etc.
 
They are only going to show the WS mark the first race after the Operation. The majority of horses don't actually improve until the 2nd race as they get used to the fact that they can take on more oxy and run harder. As usual its ill thought out and badly implemented. We will now see the majority of mug punters just looking down a list for WS and back blindly. Only the bookies will benefit from this implementation. The call from some for horse racing weight is much more important.
 
I don't see the fuss, to be honest.

If "most don't actually improve until the 2nd race back" you can take note of that fact, and stick it in a tracker for next-time. Better that than not knowing at all that it had a wind-op two starts back. In fact, if you have faith in your "2nd start back" assertion, you should welcome Wind Ops being declared, because it gives you an edge. On this basis, I cannot agree with your assertion that only the bookies will benefit from this implementation.

The info is there to be used, or ignored - in exactly the manner as declarations of blinkers, hood, cheek-pieces and tongue-ties. Publish it, and let the individual decide whether he cares about it or not.

In summary, stop laddering your fu*cking tights about it, you giant flamer. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I don't see the fuss, to be honest.

If "most don't actually improve until the 2nd race back" you can take note of that fact, and stick it in a tracker for next-time. Better that than not knowing at all that it had a wind-op two starts back. In fact, if you have faith in your "2nd start back" assertion, you should welcome Wind Ops being declared, because it gives you an edge. On this basis, I cannot agree with your assertion that only the bookies will benefit from this implementation.

The info is there to be used, or ignored - in exactly the manner as declarations of blinkers, hood, cheek-pieces and tongue-ties. Publish it, and let the individual decide whether he cares about it or not.

In summary, stop laddering your fu*cking tights about it, you giant flamer. :cool:
Click to expand...


Its none of your business what i do with my horse! ;-)
 
You only need to worry about it when they start declaring 'Wanked-off by owner for luck" in the race-card
 
The easy answer of course is just just have a small number after WS 1 first race back 2nd etc. and its goes back to one when they have another.
 
Not really practical if a horse has a single operation, and then goes on to have 46 subsequent starts.

Mind you, it would be evident from a handful of near-term runs, whether the wind-op had worked the oracle. You would know after probably 2-3 runs, most likely, so maybe they only need show WS1, WS2, WS3 and then no further declarations, because by that stage, the wind-op would no longer be having a material effect?

It could probably be optimised with a little more thought, but the main point still stands - the information has some intrinsic value; even if it's only to rule it out as irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
This is good news
this should have been done long time ago


now he next step
is the weight of the horses, as they do in japan
 
I watch Racing.com a lot which is Australian racing and there they declare when a trainer is going to change tactics eg a front runner is going to be held up..if they don't declare I assume they are fined
 
Proposals and comments from the A (archie) HA.

Wind ops
A reasonable idea in principle but this is a strange compromise solution. If we accept that all procedures are covered by the same blanket term, then surely the easiest way to keep the information is with the WS abbreviation followed by the date of the last procedure. If the horse has been purchased from abroad it's possible that this information may not be passed on and it wouldn't be fair to punish the new connections for this so there could be an exemption here but there's no reason not to record the procedure just because the horse hasn't run before.
I'm still doubtful of the value of all this because of the wide range of conditions, procedures and success rates but it doesn't take much organising so I'm not against it.

Weighing horses
I'm assuming that this would either be done at declaration time or pre-race. Others would know better than me but do all small trainers have horse scales and is it fair to expect them to have them? If the weighing is done pre-race the information is known so late that it wouldn't help many punters.
On a more general note, I can't see this being much use on the flat because horses are still growing for most of their careers so the optimum racing weight will be a moving target.

Mares in foal
I don't see a problem with declaring this especially as there's no cost involved. What I do see is people making wrong assumptions because you only hear about the mares in foal that win. I don't believe that there's been a proper study on this and my tame equine expert insists that there is no biochemical evidence that pregnancy makes a difference. While you hear some speculate that pregnancy enhances the survival/flight instinct I'm just not convinced. Kevin Blake wrote about this a couple of years ago:
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/should-in-foal-mares-be-declared-2/

Declaration of racing tactics
A total nonsense.
 
Archie, in regard to 2. above, each track should get a weigh-bridge installed (easily absorbed cost), and the horse-weights published when they get to the track, and in the Race Report for future reference.

Appreciate the info will come 'late' to those punters getting-on early, but similar applies to jockey-changes, overweights, going-changes etc. In this day and age, there should be no issue in getting the information to punters, by publishing it online e.g. BHA website.

Don't care if or how it might be applied to Flat races.
 
As I said, Grassy, I don't have a problem with the provision of information. I just question the value of it to the vast majority of punters.
 
In my opinion, knowing a horse's race-day weight is a far better way to judge fitness/readiness, than paddock inspection, Archie. I think the information would be a real help for punters......which probably explains exactly why it has never been implemented.
 
I see the horse weights are announced one hour before the Japan Cup, no idea if this is usual procedure out there but sort of gives an idea of the timescale when it could be done.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top