breaking in the score-up

Interested in other people's thoughts on galloping in the score-up.

Today I saw a favourite backed into $1.30 just as the mobile got into position. Then the horse broke in the score up with the betting still open for another 15-25 seconds - they went without him (he was back in a pace but still about 50-80m behind them)... and the betting closed with him at $1.80. Clearly those who could put their bets on in the last 15-25 seconds had an advantage and decided to back other horses in the race.

In my view, if it has happened before the green light goes on, then the race has not started and either:
1. the horse is scratched; or
2. the horse is given a second chance (warning) but if it breaks a second time, it is labelled as 'ODM' and is scratched.

By letting the horse run you are punishing the punters who expect their horses to at least start on an even playing field and it discourages them to continue wagering on our sport.

Interested in other people's thoughts?

Hi Adam, This is a real tough topic, some horses have the ability to overcome a break and still run a very good race or even win it. If we are talking level playing fields, the best way would be to pull the horses up and have a restart, if the same horse offends again it should be scratched. I always liked the NZ system were the breaker goes straight to the ODM. I'm no expert on the matter and I would like to hear a driver(Danno) thoughts on the subject.

Personally, I reckon this is one subject where you will be forever chasing rainbows trying to get a result that meets peoples hopes/expectations.There are too many variables and individual circumstances to have "line in the sand " rules that are feasible and across the board acceptable.

In NSW we have tried many variations of the "non- Starter" rule with just as many levels of satisfaction from both the participants and the punters.

When you look at our closest competitors ( Gallops and dogs) how many times and under what circumstances do you see false starts and declarations of non-starters due to near start issues ( I use near start as a glossary term because all have inherent similarilties AND differences)

So, to cut a very long arguement short, I reckon the rules as they stand in NSW where if you have an issue with gear or you are interfering with another runner, no risk! false start!
If your horse ( or driver for that matter) have missed the kick without any outside influence...tuff...sounds a bit crook to some people, but as a driver I have seen many instances where the previous rules were being exploited to mask poor training and to a lesser extent driving and the other runners who had scored up behind the mobile perfectly well in the initial start, were being disadvantaged by the false start score down.

There will never be a perfect one size fits all starting method, I cut my teeth in the standing start era, the all moble racing was championed as the "cure-all" to percieved start related issues by our commercial breeders because they could see a way this would add value to their product ( that would be 2 fails out of 2) but we are still having people winge about "this one should have been a starter and this one shouldn't"

My answer to most of these people tends to be "go home and educate your horse rather than blame the system"

One of my uncles, who was an exceptional trainer, used to say " don't say to yourself what is this horse doing wrong.......say to yourself what am I doing wrong with this horse"

I think if more people used that type of philosophy we would in general have less problems for people to get concerned about.

Cheers,
Dan

This thread brings back very fond memories of Royce Hanover.

He was such a bad beginner at times but he was brilliant if he went away with them.
When he was in at HP & we thought he was in play and we wanted to back him we used to get one of the fellas to be the Cockatoo and stand with a view of the track & the start.
The rest of us would be in the Betting Ring waiting to put our $ on.
If Royce scored up & looked like leaving with the rest of them we'd get the single from our Cockatoo to swing away...BUT if he was in one of his piggy moods and decided to put on a prance & dance about or sometimes he'd just plain stand flat footed and steadfastly refuse to go forward...then we'd get the signal to forget it &/or maybe bet another horse.
It was as funnny as a Circus. Some fond memories of an unruly but gifted and much loved horse. He was as big a barrier rougue as I can recall seeing but I liked him as you could always get some measure of overs because you never really knew which Royce Hanover was going to turn up. Pretty sure Robbo didn't quite know for sure either. Funny times those. :)

G'day Adam

Please correct me if wrong, but I thought there was a lockout of betting just prior to the green light coming on...I know a few years ago it was introduced in NSW but maybe that doesn't apply now.

From purely a punters point of view, I don't think the current system could be any more fairer than it is if that's my selection that has gone up in the air and lost all hope, I cop it on the chin. Its just the same as a dog going up with the lids/turning in the box or a galloper that stands flat footed or just doesn't consent to jump...there is a period in all three codes when the starters are assembled that their chances lay in their manners just before they jump. Every other runner has done everything right, why should they be penalised because of anothers errant ways.

On a completely different note...I am still choking on the tactics employed on Jay Peez Knight in the 2nd at Penrith tonight by Amanda Turnbull, now that is something I cannot take on the chin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard prior

Hi Adam, This is a real tough topic, some horses have the ability to overcome a break and still run a very good race or even win it. If we are talking level playing fields, the best way would be to pull the horses up and have a restart, if the same horse offends again it should be scratched. I always liked the NZ system were the breaker goes straight to the ODM. I'm no expert on the matter and I would like to hear a driver(Danno) thoughts on the subject.

I'm glad you said LIKED as in past tense.
The New Zealand system has changed.
False starts only occur when an innocent runner is interfered with...i.e. breaking in the score up affecting only yourself = goneburger.
If you interfere with another runner a false start will be called. The driver of the offender in his/her sole discretion will choose to stay in the draw or go ODM.
If the choice is to stay in the draw and begins cleanly...fine but to break again in the restart = instant late scratch and ODM next 4 starts.
If the choice is ODM =ODM next 4 starts.
This is very similar to what Adam is suggesting I think.

From what Tony has mentioned about NZ racing and what Adam touched on, this appears to be the fairest scenario. The rule is there in Black & White and it gives the driver the option to make the hard call. The ultimate penalty for unruly behaviour being the next 4 starts from ODM is a huge disadvantage for any horse. As Danno mentioned earlier, it all comes down to educating the horse properly before going to the races.

G'day Rich,
I think the key point here is when is a horse declared a starter and when is he not, Adam makes the point of protecting the punter and that of course is a point worthy of serious consideration but I believe, needs to be balanced with the need to ensure our game is promoted in the best possible light.

Under what Adam has proposed, if every time a horse breaks in the score up through no fault of anyone else we will have a false start, then we will MANY more false starts than we now have, the pertinent question for me then becomes, how many people will feel disadvantaged by this, as the horse they have backed or the horse they are connected to was up on the gate, doing everything right, getting revved up for a start, and now has to do it again. Ask yourself how many horses have been treated unfairly in this circumstance? I would suggest the nine horses doing the right thing have suffered a disadvantage in order to provide a second chance for 1 horse that has done the wrong thing.

I think you will produce greater levels of dissatisfaction because you are negatively affecting many more people, don't forget for one second that the punters who have backed the horses that have done everything right are not going to be happy!!

That is the main reason for my comments earlier about the connections of each individual horse focussing on getting their horse educated properly rather than taking it to the races and putting those around them at a disadvantage.

I believe the rules as they stand in NSW are the closest thing to a fair deal for everyone, sure you will never make all the people happy all the time, but I cannot see the profit in making nine people unhappy in order to make one person feel better. Lets not forget we have had numerous changes to false start rules over the years before we eventually reached the fairly democratic rules we currently have, don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving anything that helps our game, but we have been here before and it wasn't as fair for all concerned as the rules we now have.

The rules as they stand allow for a false start if your had has been a victim of interferance in the score up or has failed gear, I personnaly believe this is both fair and sufficient.

Cheers,
Dan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

G'day Rich,
I think the key point here is when is a horse declared a starter and when is he not, Adam makes the point of protecting the punter and that of course is a point worthy of serious consideration but I believe, needs to be balanced with the need to ensure our game is promoted in the best possible light.

Under what Adam has proposed, if every time a horse breaks in the score up through no fault of anyone else we will have a false start, then we will MANY more false starts than we now have, the pertinent question for me then becomes, how many people will feel disadvantaged by this, as the horse they have backed or the horse they are connected to was up on the gate, doing everything right, getting revved up for a start, and now has to do it again. Ask yourself how many horses have been treated unfairly in this circumstance? I would suggest the nine horses doing the right thing have suffered a disadvantage in order to provide a second chance for 1 horse that has done the wrong thing.

I think you will produce greater levels of dissatisfaction because you are negatively affecting many more people, don't forget for one second that the punters who have backed the horses that have done everything right are not going to be happy!!

That is the main reason for my comments earlier about the connections of each individual horse focussing on getting their horse educated properly rather than taking it to the races and putting those around them at a disadvantage.

I believe the rules as they stand in NSW are the closest thing to a fair deal for everyone, sure you will never make all the people happy all the time, but I cannot see the profit in making nine people unhappy in order to make one person feel better. Lets not forget we have had numerous changes to false start rules over the years before we eventually reached the fairly democratic rules we currently have, don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving anything that helps our game, but we have been here before and it wasn't as fair for all concerned as the rules we now have.

The rules as they stand allow for a false start if your had has been a victim of interferance in the score up or has failed gear, I personnaly believe this is both fair and sufficient.

Cheers,
Dan

Here here. Scoring up, and standing behind the tapes and getting away, are part and parcel of the race just as much as say the final 400m. If you get interfered with or gear issue then fair enough, but if its your own fault no second chance. Back to the trials.