Sprint lane debate once and for all!!!!

[Messenger]

Did Barynya really win the Oaks last night or was it simply the horse that drew 8. I have little doubt that several of the field would have won that race if they had drawn 8.

The sprint lane is a massive penalty that a leader has to carry nowadays. They destroy trotting's heritage IMO for we need to create a new category of 'grey' type for horses that win black type races using the sprint lane - the huge advantage they give the runner in the sit is plain ridiculous.

I know it has not happened yet but we could see leaders slowing up at the bell to relinquish the lead so that they can finish in the sprint lane and hamper the horse on their back. Or will we see the American style of racing where they rotate the lead - like a bicycle race where the cyclists take it in turn to cut the breeze.

It is all for the punter supposedly (the distaste for runners not getting out) but who feels confident about backing leaders anymore. What of the skill of the driver ie the skill of keeping a danger horse locked up V the gift of a golden pass up the inside. I know classics were won off cushy runs in the past but choosing to hand up the lead carried a huge risk of not getting out - now it only carries a small risk of the new leader handing up too.

[aussiebreno]

I am a big big fan of Mindarie Priddy and my post history will confirm that. I was hoping Nike Franco would want the lead or even Shes a Runa or Quick Draft so that Miles would hand up the lead. That had the inherent risk he wouldn't be able to run them down, but I knew on the back of the heat run Barinya was a big shot at running her down.
But regardless of a sprint lane or not, there was enough room and time to peel out three wide around the turn and Barinya would have won anyway.
It could just about be argued Mindarie Priddy only won the heat because she led whilst Barinya came 3wide from a long way back, so should we ban leaders? Without Barinya in the race Mindarie Priddy wins by a gap, so at least the leader gets some competition. They get a 4m headstart over about 100 150m. If they cant hang on maybe they dont deserve to win.
P.S If there sprint lanes at Mildura maybe it give someone a chance at beating Cramp!

[Maorisidol]

So Kev,

how would you feel if YOU owned Barynya in the $150,000 Group 1 Oaks and you go to the line running second hard held with her nose nearly knocking David Miles helmet off?
Mate you would think about the "one that got away" for the rest of your life, the increased value of her as a broodmare the extra value then put on her foals and dollars into your pocket, and an awesome Trophy for the poolroom! Group 1! But sorry gotta take that dream away mate, no sprint lane!
As Brenno said if you give a horse with the "sit" 4m headstart at the top of the straight (not the "lane"! hate that Americansim people think is cool to use in Australia) and it beats you, and you can't outsprint it with that headstart, maybe you were beaten by a better horse who.....................got a chance!

[Messenger]

Guys

Pt .1 If there is no sprint lane do you want to put your horse in the sit posn (other than if you are driving for luck) so it is a posn that drivers on good things avoided in the past

Pt. 2 If there is no sprint lane a good driver on a leader can use his skill to keep the horse on his back locked up or at least contribute to it (death horse of course relevant). We are now talking about real skill not the amount that a monkey would need to sit on the leader and use the sprint lane

Pt. 3 You are missing my point - the horse on the leaders back is given a Golden ticket ie after enjoying a cheap run he/she is guaranteed a run in the straight often after doing nothing but getting the right barrier draw. In the old days the 1x1 was considered a great spot to lob but the advent of sending horses 3w early (I reckon the Mannings perfected it) negated this. So the only positions with a sure fire run in the str are the Leader (who has to earn the lead and is vulnerable to attack - answer your point about banning leaders Brenno?), the Death horse who has to work, the 3W horse who has to work even harder, the swooper who has to come wide and from a fair way back, and the Sit horse who only has to keep up with the leader while getting a nice drag along and is then asked to make up about 4m to win

I have been a cyclist Ash and the 'maybe you were beaten by a better horse' argument really discounts the value of the cover/sit behind position (why track sprint cycling events are run over more than one heat with the pair of riders taking it in turns to have to lead out) The only way to know who was the better horse is to run both the 2 scenarios which we know cannot happen (for a start we are not talking about match racing) Don't you think if I owned Mindarie I might being thinking for the rest of my life about how the sprint lane cost me THE DREAM. It is the fact that it is the only free loading position in the run that GUARANTEES you a shot at the dream that I object to. Sure horses will be unlucky more often when there is no sprint lane BUT the better horse and driver is what it is going to take to win most of the time and I am fine with that

Brenno do you really think that Barynya could have put on the brakes to come 3w around Nike and got up? A big ask

[aussiebreno]

Guys

Pt .1 If there is no sprint lane do you want to put your horse in the sit posn (other than if you are driving for luck) so it is a posn that drivers on good things avoided in the past

Pt. 2 If there is no sprint lane a good driver on a leader can use his skill to keep the horse on his back locked up or at least contribute to it (death horse of course relevant). We are now talking about real skill not the amount that a monkey would need to sit on the leader and use the sprint lane

Pt. 3 You are missing my point - the horse on the leaders back is given a Golden ticket ie after enjoying a cheap run he/she is guaranteed a run in the straight often after doing nothing but getting the right barrier draw. In the old days the 1x1 was considered a great spot to lob but the advent of sending horses 3w early (I reckon the Mannings perfected it) negated this. So the only positions with a sure fire run in the str are the Leader (who has to earn the lead and is vulnerable to attack - answer your point about banning leaders Brenno?), the Death horse who has to work, the 3W horse who has to work even harder, the swooper who has to come wide and from a fair way back, and the Sit horse who only has to keep up with the leader while getting a nice drag along and is then asked to make up about 4m to win

I have been a cyclist Ash and the 'maybe you were beaten by a better horse' argument really discounts the value of the cover/sit behind position (why track sprint cycling events are run over more than one heat with the pair of riders taking it in turns to have to lead out) The only way to know who was the better horse is to run both the 2 scenarios which we know cannot happen (for a start we are not talking about match racing) Don't you think if I owned Mindarie I might being thinking for the rest of my life about how the sprint lane cost me THE DREAM. It is the fact that it is the only free loading position in the run that GUARANTEES you a shot at the dream that I object to. Sure horses will be unlucky more often when there is no sprint lane BUT the better horse and driver is what it is going to take to win most of the time and I am fine with that

Brenno do you really think that Barynya could have put on the brakes to come 3w around Nike and got up? A big ask

The 1-1 is still the best spot in the running line. I reckon the standard of driving from the 1-1 is terrible. Horses are continually expected to come from 1 out 4 back (15-20m back) and heads the three wide line at the bell, why can't a horse be expected to come from the 1 out 1 back (5m back) at the bell. It might be a little bit different at bigger tracks, but around 800m saucers in the Riverina you just aren't going to get a run very often if you stay put in the 1-1. Every single race they come 3 wide at the bell, show some initiative and pull out in front of them. A big pet hate of mine.

From race to race races can be run differently that give advantage to the leader, the sprint laner, the swoopers etc. But the one constant about sprint lanes and the biggest reason they should stay and be implemented in more tracks is because it squares up the PBD system and actually gives an advantage.

Take this example:
No sprint lane. Worst horse in race draws 1. Not so bad horse draws 4. Worst horse either burns the gate, uses up limited ability they have, and then have absolutely nothing in the straight. Either that or they just let the 4 lead. The 4 leads and the 1 who already lacks ability never gets a shot.

But if we had a sprint lane, at least the 1 horse can hand up and be a chance still. This way the 4 also gets the lead, instead of death seating which in turn gives it an advantage over the good horse drawn 11.

Supposedly the biggest thing punters hate is short priced faves. If we can create another chance in the races in our handicapping system then I am for all it.

[Messenger]

All good points Brenno but the biggest thing I hate is: the best horse (and driver ) not winning so to a large extent I do not give a rats about punting and handicapping (I do however understand that punting is our lifeblood)

[teecee]

No sprint lane at menangle.
Was Supersonic Miss a moral beaten in the APG final and how much money went down the drain and how many real punters would be so dirty on Harness racing betting because of the no passing lane ??

[Messenger]

As I said teecee I want to see the best horse and driver win and in that race Mark Purdon let down the team - driving a hot shot he should have taken the opportunity to get off the fence in the first 100m when it was there, it was tightish but it was there. Of course there will be hard luck stories but I prefer the idea of less winners thanks to soft runs

[Lenem]

Sprint lane only ensures that the trailing horse will get a fair crack. It cannot nor is it intended to add lengths to a horse that would otherwise be incapable of winning. Anti sprint laners are usually talking through their kick and would much preferred to see the trailing horse go to the line under a throttlehold.
Instead of jumping up and down like a startled rabbit (if that's what they do!) I suggest you take note of how many sprint lane horses are actually incapable of taking advantage of the run when presented!

[Messenger]

Instead of jumping up and down like a startled rabbit (if that's what they do!) ????!!!!!!

Have you been drinking Lenny?

Why should the trailing horse be GUARANTEED a fair crack Lenny. If every horse is guaranteed a fair crack then I might go along with it - cannot imagine the gallops world bringing in a sprint lane or preventing jockeys from keeping horses in a pocket. Big tracks with long straights are probably best for giving nearly every runner a chance of a fair crack, as I have explained it sucks (to me) that the trailing horse who has generally had the softest run is guaranteed a run in the straight

It is just my opinion and I have started the thread to open up the debate - I will put you down as for sprint lanes

I agree that many horses are incapable of taking the presented run but in finals after heats like last night's Oaks, I think there would have been a few happy and capable of using that barrier draw

ps I can go a year without a bet even though I attend plenty of meetings - so I am not talking through my pocket