Worcester

PlaceBacker

PlaceBacker

Senior Jockey
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
2,811
Interesting comment in Sundays "The Mail on Sunday" from Mark Elliott the Chief Executive of Arena Leisure who own Worcester racecourse

"Worcester is the worst performing of Arena"s racecourses,having made a loss for the past two years.If it closed we"d be better off"
 
Everyone would be better off. Can they close it in the next hour so it won't interrupt ATR coverage of Ascot?
 
Gamla Stan said:
Everyone would be better off. Can they close it in the next hour so it won't interrupt ATR coverage of Ascot?
Click to expand...

You mean you`d rather watch that flat rubbish when theres a good jump card on. Anway, I thought Worcester had been closed for the last year after the flooding. Of course they would be the worst performing.
 
Roddy Owen said:
You mean you`d rather watch that flat rubbish when theres a good jump card on. Anway, I thought Worcester had been closed for the last year after the flooding. Of course they would be the worst performing.
Click to expand...

They missed nearly 1 1/2 seasons as the turf wasn't right after re-sowing.

Sounds like an excuse to close and sell it - although what it could be used for with its record of being underwater for half of the year ... ?
 
I think Worcester's a great track - galloping and very fair on the horses. I'd run one of mine there any day of the week.
 
Shadow Leader said:
I think Worcester's a great track - galloping and very fair on the horses. I'd run one of mine there any day of the week.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's great for novices and I miss their winter meetings when you could pick up quite a few pointers for the bigger meetings there.

It would be a shame to lose it but it sounds as though the owners are not making allowances for nature's quirks.

When did the current owners take over, it used to be owned by the local council?
 
Ironic really. After the first race the rest of the meeting has been abandoned - due to insufficient water on the track.
 
That's insufficient water available to the horses, as opposed to on the course itself. One of the runners collapsed after the first due to heat exhaustion/dehydration. Huge amounts of water were needed to treat it, leaving a severe shortage of water and the prospect of many other horses becoming dehydrated in the stables where conditions were a problem. Undoubtedly the correct call, but obvious questions about whether Worcester had adequate facilities in the first place.
 
In fairness to them, this was an extremely warm day and prob only happens a day they are racing once every 20 years. The right decision was made (a) to use all the water to help the horse after the first and (b) to stop racing as they didn't have the water. The argument that they should have approrpiate water is like the argument that London should not shut down for a bit of snow (as it did this Feb) when it only shuts down once every 20 years and the cost of having the equipment for that one time is prohibitive.
 
Do they really not have mains water outside? That seems incredible - do the groundsmen draw water off tanks for their plants and shrubs, then? I can't believe that they'd water the parade ring and any lawns by hand. We had a sprinkler going in the parade ring at Brighton up to first race to cool the atmosphere, and full barrels and buckets there of fresh, clean water for every race - plus plenty of hoses in the stables. We were warned to look out for heat distress in the horses (and issued with bottles of water for ourselves, too), so we were thinking about it, whereas Worcester seems not to have remembered that a heatwave + exercise = need for rehydration. Duh!
 
What are the feelings on here about jump-racing taking place in temperatures in the high twenties?

Was there a problem with horses collapsing with heat exhaustion at Perth?

Was it that much warmer at Worcester than Perth?.... from what I saw there were plenty of very hot horses parading before the first at the Scottish track.
 
Thanks for elucidating Rory, the phrase on the RP result sheet made it sound as though the ground was too firm, not that they had insufficient water for the horses.

While I like Worcester as an actual track, the recent management of it seems to be rather lacking in consideration of such things.

Colin, Worcester does get very hot - I got heatstroke there last summer and, much to my disgust, was told off for having a drink of water brought to me at the paddock railside by a concerned bystander. The pillock woulldn't listen when the kind lady pointed out that I was ill, insisting that I walk over to the bin and dispose of it, so I went ahead and proved I was in distress by fainting!

I was just standing watching, how the hell were the horses feeling afterwards I can't imagine.
 
Last edited:
Just goes to prove my point Cantoris that this country cannot cope with rain, lack of rain, heat, cold, snow, wind, whatever else you care to mention. A little bit of snow and London grinds to a halt. Temperature approaches that of the continent for a few days and half the country melts.
 
I got the impression from recent visits to Worcester that the prime consideration was bums on seats, which would reflect in the lack of foresight shown regarding horses' exertions on a very hot day.

The heat on the course at Worcester seems to be amplified by being between the town and the river, with heat being reflected off both concrete and water.
 
Back
Top