Kilmore Cup 2019 (and Stable numbers debate)

It is on this Thursday night (pre AFL Grand Final Holiday in Vic)
Emma Stewart has 7 of the 12 horse field

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...19#KIC26091901

Personally, I cannot see how this is good for the sport
Maybe we need an Olympics Athletics type rule (a limit of 3 athletes that one country can have in an event so that we do not have All American, All Kenyan, All .... finals)

Some will say that having so many runners make the field is an achievement that should be lauded
I cannot help but think that it can actually devalue the trainers achievement

I know Bart used to have multiple runners in the Melbourne Cup but would his record be so revered if he had half the field each time?

I know one can take the view that it is all about the horses but I see the way that our races are run (in an ordered fashion compared to the gallops) that stable tactics are a far more significant factor.

I am not comfortable with a stable of 7 runners v five stables with only 1 runner in one of our major races

Blake Redden however thinks that Kima Frenning will go back to back as a driver, this time with Buster Brady whom she also trains

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/art...ck-at-weekend/

I agree with you Kevin on 3 per trainer in any race but at the moment we are struggling to make full fields so I would let them have more runners only if there were insufficient noms to make a full field.

Superb first up effort by San Carlo, strange run by Buster Brady, the first FIVE all started off the 2nd line

The pools showing on the TAB ($8k? in Win pool) make you wonder where the $80k prizemoney comes from
More in the Win Pool for the $10k R1 with a $1.30 favourite

https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2019-0...ILMORE/KIL/H/7

The gallops aren't much better as the Vic TAB's Win Pool for the $1m Moir Stakes at MV tonight was only $164k so the big races are subsidized by smaller races throughout the season

7 runners for Tonkin/Stewart in the Kilmore Cup obviously drove punters away. If they want to maximize turnover they need to look at this problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gutwagon

7 runners for Tonkin/Stewart in the Kilmore Cup obviously drove punters away. If they want to maximize turnover they need to look at this problem.

Thursday night, the best two horses in the race being 1st up, and most of the horses meeting their toughest FFA field they have ever faced big contributors. Saturday arvo pools seem to be fine in Sydney with Waller having 3quarters of the field. I'm not sure why each runner just can't be assessed on its merits just because it shares a trainer. One way for Stewart to train less horses is to get an owner offside because they've run the horse dead...

I wouldn't know the make up of Sydney gallops fields (I think you might be exaggerating a little Brendan although I do note with the small fields today he has half the field in a couple of races) but IMO the big issue with harness racing is the ability of multiple runners from the same stable to 'control' the race

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

I wouldn't know the make up of Sydney gallops fields (I think you might be exaggerating a little Brendan although I do note with the small fields today he has half the field in a couple of races) but IMO the big issue with harness racing is the ability of multiple runners from the same stable to 'control' the race

Rebecca Bartley controlled the race!

Phoenix Prince and Rocknroll Icon cost Born to Rocknroll the race in the first 200m.

Let's concentrate on what is actually happening when Stewart's have multiple runners in a race rather than what could possibly happen in people's imaginations. Remember they would need 7 drivers who don't necessarily like each other and are actually competing with each other for better drives on the same page. More chances of drivers who are mates driving for separate stables doing a fix or setting up a race. Do we put a restriction on drivers being mates or boyfriend and girlfriend?

Sure it is a bit 'conspiracy theory' stuff but forget all your above scenarios - all they need is drivers who do what the trainer tells them to (I cannot see how those who don't would have long futures with the stable)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

Sure it is a bit 'conspiracy theory' stuff but forget all your above scenarios - all they need is drivers who do what the trainer tells them to (I cannot see how those who don't would have long futures with the stable)

So what were Rod Petroff and Darby McGuigan instructed?

I don't think anyone is saying that drivers are always given specific instructions

Wasnt the point. Petroff and McGuigan clearly drove with their horses best intentions at heart and screwed over the Stewart's stable favourite. Jumping at shadows to suggest Stewart's shouldn't be allowed multiple runners in a race.

Nobody is talking about multiple runners - just half the field in major races

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

Nobody is talking about multiple runners - just half the field in major races

Thats what I'm still talking about. 7 horses is multiple runners .... I'm not trying to misconstrue any posters opinion about Stewarts having 7 in a race turning it into their opinion is they should be banned from having 2 in a race. I'm not moving the goal posts of the discussion.

Massive injustice to restrict somebodies trade or assume they are guilty of an offence.

You need to be more specific than mulitiple then Breno - say half if you mean half.

I am not suggesting restricting somebody any more than every rule/law in the world does.

The purpose would be the same as the Olympics athletics rule - for the good of the sport/competition

Assuming people guilty of an offence?! No more so than suggesting we have a 100kmh speed limit because without it everybody would travel faster

It is OK for us to have different opinions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

You need to be more specific than mulitiple then Breno - say half if you mean half.

I am not suggesting restricting somebody any more than every rule/law in the world does.

The purpose would be the same as the Olympics athletics rule - for the good of the sport/competition

Assuming people guilty of an offence?! No more so than suggesting we have a 100kmh speed limit because without it everybody would travel faster

It is OK for us to have different opinions

Clearly in the context of the thread it was referring to the suggestion Stewart shouldn't be allowed to have 7 in the Kilmore Cup. I said it was "jumping at shadows to suggest they shouldn't be allowed multiple runners in a race". That statement was clearly a retort to what had been previously suggested in this thread. Nobody previously in this thread had suggested anything about disallowing say 2 runners in a race so, only suggestion had been about not having 7 in the Kilmore Cup.

IOC only partly puts athlete quotas for reasons of giving other countries a chance. It is more to do with ensuring there is only x amount of athletes in each event so it runs smoothly in a short 2 week (or shorter) window. Given their event is about showcasing Countries while the individuals are largely anonymous it makes more sense for them to restrict the no of athletes. Our event isn't about showcasing the trainers, its about the horses so it doesn't make sense to restrict a horse from racing.

You have said they could 'control' the race and tell drivers how to drive. Implying they would race fix and thus are guilty of an offence. That at least forms part of the reason you want a rule to restrict no of runners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

You have said they could 'control' the race and tell drivers how to drive. Implying they would race fix and thus are guilty of an offence. That at least forms part of the reason you want a rule to restrict no of runners.

I see what you have done there Breno
Changed could to would

HUGEdifference there Brendan
I am starting to think you are a 'hanging judge'

You also said I am assuming they are guilty of an offence.
That is absolutely false

I am talking about a rule to decrease the likelihood of an offence
(and IMO only, make a race a more attractive betting proposition)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

I see what you have done there Breno
Changed could to would

HUGEdifference there Brendan
I am starting to think you are a 'hanging judge'

You also said I am assuming they are guilty of an offence.
That is absolutely false

I am talking about a rule to decrease the likelihood of an offence
(and IMO only, make a race a more attractive betting proposition)

Word semantics.
Hanging judge says the guy imposing a ban on multiple runners for what could happen in a figment of his imagination rather than what on actually happened.

Why are they more likely to have an offence with more runners? I would say the chance of a race fixing/team driving type offence are 0% for any amount of stable runners in the one race. That stays constant. Why do you think limiting numbers decreases the likelihood of an offence?

Word semantics for could v would nearly convinced me to give up on any chance of a sensible debate with you Brendan
You were declaring me guilty of something I never said!

The shire built a huge open drain on the edge of the road in my street (that does not have any street lighting) but did not put any railing around it - I convinced them to put some railing around it. Nobody had fallen in it but .......

The chance of team driving are nearly 0% for a stable with 1 runner in a race
If you don't think the chance goes up with even 2 runners then you have not read as many stewards reports as I think you have especially the ones with a QDT
I will grant you that the incremental increase for more than 2 runners is nowhere near as great as the jump between 1 and 2

A trainer has every right to give his drivers instructions and it may well be that 99% of the time there is no hint of collusion but I doubt he gives the drivers the same instructions eg I want you to lead, I want you to death seat
I believe there is more chance of collusion from a single stable than multiple stables (which you suggested earlier) because the trainer is entitled to give his drivers instructions, he is not breaking any rules. Talking between stables however .....

Forget team driving and think about public appeal. Do you think races in Tassie with every horse trained by Ben Yole or a doggy race with every dog a 'Bale' (old memory there) is as attractive as your average race with a spread of stables?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

Forget team driving and think about public appeal. Do you think races in Tassie with every horse trained by Ben Yole or a doggy race with every dog a 'Bale' (old memory there) is as attractive as your average race with a spread of stables?

They probably don't appeal to the public as much but the Australian principles of a fair go, free market society and innocent until proven guilty must prevail in my books.

When I see a field with 4 or more runners from 1 stable I don't bet in that race. It seems by the small pool in the Kilmore Cup that many others think the same. Around 90% of race fixing or team driving goes unpunished due to it being too hard to prove. It may be rare but the perception is always there when a single stable has to many runners.

I may be in the minority but I would prefer a limit of 3 per race unless there are not enough runners for a full field.

You should be watching Thoroughbred Central this afternoon Brenno
We just saw/heard Chris Waller giving his instructions to the jockey (with owners in a circle) for the fav in the Flight Stakes
Amazing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

You should be watching Thoroughbred Central this afternoon Brenno
We just saw/heard Chris Waller giving his instructions to the jockey (with owners in a circle) for the fav in the Flight Stakes
Amazing

Was on track, didn't know what they were talking about but probably seen the interview taking place as I watched them in the yard pre race!

I know all the All Stars runners just had to be in NZ Trotting Cup today and I know it was over 3200m so the drivers tactics were sound especially when you look at the result but I cannot help but wonder whether the All Star runners would have handed up that easily to a horse from another stable

https://harness.hrnz.co.nz/gws/ws/r/...rSite&Arg=TRUE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

I know all the All Stars runners just had to be in NZ Trotting Cup today and I know it was over 3200m so the drivers tactics were sound especially when you look at the result but I cannot help but wonder whether the All Star runners would have handed up that easily to a horse from another stable

https://harness.hrnz.co.nz/gws/ws/r/...rSite&Arg=TRUE

Cruz Bromac ran 3:57 for 3200 from a stand. He handed up to Classy Brigade after half a lap, so that takes a bit of wind out of your comment Kev. Open class ranks in NZ lacks depth at the moment as shown by the smallest Cup field in 20 years. The first three all led at some stage and all traveled along the pegs. Chase Aukland was the only horse that came wide and made ground so handing up "easily" wasn't a factor for the other runners. I watch all the metro races from Addington and the racing style we saw in the Cup is just as much as what you would see in a maiden.

And how good was it to see a crowd like that? And nobody dressed like a bogan.

Agree with Trev

Over 2 miles fair enough $14 shot hands up to $2.70 shot. Fair enough sit sprinter $2.70 shot hands up to $2.40 shot.