The law of large numbers -- belief best not suspended - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK   harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



The law of large numbers -- belief best not suspended - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: The law of large numbers -- belief best not suspended  (Read 1049 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3695
O.P. « 2017-Sep-24, 04:10 PM »


The law of large numbers -- belief best not suspended

The incidence of suspensions for carless riding in Melbourne being higher than in Sydney raises the question of the contribution made by the RVL policy of running inflated fields in Melbourne.

As well, the risk of being involved in interference is greater for the better jockeys on the more favoured mounts riding to win as distinct from just being there for a run.

This could be just another illustration of  left leaning administrators in Victoria making sure that racing money is spread around but it involves suspending belief in the law of large numbers.

It is common sense to believe that there will be more interference in races overcrowded with no-hopers  -- and one wonders why the jockeys association does not speak up.

Melbourne 6 v. Sydney 3 over the past two Saturdays

MELBOURNE


pleaded guilty to a charge of careless riding ............approaching the first turn near the 1800m he permitted his mount to shift in to a point where he left insufficient racing room for runners to his inside

pleaded guilty to a charge of careless riding .............. passing the 100m she permitted her mount to shift in whilst riding it along

pleaded guilty to a charge of careless riding ............. near the 1400m he permitted his mount to shift in leaving insufficient racing room for three runners to his inside

was found guilty of a charge of careless riding .............. approaching the 1200m he permitted his mount to shift in making heavy contact with ........ and then continued to apply unnecessary pressure to that horse for some distance
pleaded guilty to a charge of careless riding ............. permitted his mount to shift out near the 250m when insufficiently clear ....... resulting in ...... having to be eased.

pleaded guilty to a charge of careless riding ............inside the final 100m he permitted his mount to shift out whilst riding it along

rider ............. was severely reprimanded for shifting out when not fully clear.

SYDNEY

pleaded guilty to a charge of careless riding .............. he permitted his mount to shift in when not clear of .......... which was checked and lost its running.

pleaded guilty to a charge of careless riding ........... near the 1200m he permitted his mount to shift in when not clear

was found guilty of a charge of careless riding ................near the 1000m he permitted his mount to shift in when not clear


Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 30582
« 2017-Sep-24, 04:16 PM Reply #1 »
  emthup

Offline Dave

  • Group3
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 789
« 2017-Sep-24, 04:54 PM Reply #2 »
The vast majority of Interference and hence suspensions can be directly attributed to Jockeys riding short and in turn giving up 99% of control of their mounts.....

It is a "trend" there is no logic to it.....like 14 year old girls once a trend starts everyone follows suit........further proof that Jockeys are brain dead........they risk their lives and the lives of their fellow riders because it is trendy!

If they all dropped their irons a half dozen holes so their knees were level with the horses wither no one would be advantaged or disadvantaged but rider safety would be increased 10 fold.....regardless of the size of fields..........

Race riding should be much safer than it was 100 years ago......but it ain't and it is THEIR (Jockeys) Own fault!.......very little horsemanship skills, they ride like monkeys and want to be treated like Rock Stars

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3695
« 2017-Sep-24, 05:55 PM Reply #3 »

No one, especially jockeys' near and dear, would condone jockeys not riding safely and it would not be in their own interests to do so

To some extent safety is assessable by counting 'falls' but if administrators considered a jockey to be riding 'too short' they would counsel them -- as they did Gavin Duffy some years back, and he went to Queensland.

The issue here is a different one -- are fields overcrowded with horses just out for a run more conducive to the 'interference' that reflects in suspensions of the better riders for supposedly causing interference?

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-24, 06:32 PM Reply #4 »
are fields overcrowded with horses just out for a run more conducive to the 'interference' that reflects in suspensions of the better riders for supposedly causing interference?



No

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 30582
« 2017-Sep-24, 06:35 PM Reply #5 »
yes

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-24, 06:38 PM Reply #6 »
Well don't be like the dishonest Peter,tell me what horses were out "for the run"  in race 8


Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 30582
« 2017-Sep-24, 06:46 PM Reply #7 »
That is a rather specific race when Pete is making a correct generalisation.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-24, 06:52 PM Reply #8 »
It struck me, having backed a couple in the race, as a race where interference was high. I assume that the long stewards report Peter posted was from from that race.
Hence, I picked that race.

Not one incident in that race was due to horses "out for a run" or being "hooked" as Peter likes to infer

So Peter was wrong as usual and the correct answer to his question was no.


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-24, 06:58 PM Reply #9 »
That is a rather specific race when Pete is making a correct generalisation.

Rather ironic you used the word generalisation.

That's what's peters problem is. He generalises and tars everything with his same poorly thought out judgements

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 30582
« 2017-Sep-24, 07:07 PM Reply #10 »
That is because it is a generalisation.

The fields are too big for our small tight turning tracks where as Pate says and you fully know, trainers use races to get horses fit and jockeys are too afraid to sit wide. If they get stuck 3 and 4 wide you are the first to condemn them.

Caulfield on the 1400 and 1600m courses should really only cater to 8 horse fields, even that is stretching the limits.


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-24, 07:15 PM Reply #11 »


If they get stuck 3 and 4 wide you are the first to condemn them.
.

Am I :chin:

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 30582
« 2017-Sep-24, 07:26 PM Reply #12 »
  :lol:

OK, you might 3rd or 4th in, It's been a while since I opened the bad ride thread.

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 9997
« 2017-Sep-24, 07:44 PM Reply #13 »
The vast majority of Interference and hence suspensions can be directly attributed to Jockeys riding short and in turn giving up 99% of control of their mounts.....

It is a "trend" there is no logic to it.....like 14 year old girls once a trend starts everyone follows suit........further proof that Jockeys are brain dead........they risk their lives and the lives of their fellow riders because it is trendy!

If they all dropped their irons a half dozen holes so their knees were level with the horses wither no one would be advantaged or disadvantaged but rider safety would be increased 10 fold.....regardless of the size of fields..........

Race riding should be much safer than it was 100 years ago......but it ain't and it is THEIR (Jockeys) Own fault!.......very little horsemanship skills, they ride like monkeys and want to be treated like Rock Stars

spot on     emthup

Pete and his ilk are wrong as always

how wide is Caulfield compared with Randwick , Newcastle , Eagle Farm etc

come up with facts to back up your bias

only track i think should be restricted to 10 is MV

any other tracks ?

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-24, 08:11 PM Reply #14 »
Rats, don't  expect Peter to come back and discuss facts.
He doesn't have the nous  :thumbsup:

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 9997
« 2017-Sep-24, 08:57 PM Reply #15 »
Rats, don't  expect Peter to come back and discuss facts.
He doesn't have the nous  :thumbsup:

WOD a couple of others have the same view ?

maybe they could comment

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3695
« 2017-Sep-24, 09:22 PM Reply #16 »


........... you can tell when you are on the money by the immediate response from riff-raff defenders of any suggestion that something is wrong in MN.

I hope these defenders are paid well so they sleep at night!

The challenge on the line here is self-evident to any punter routinely lamenting the rough results in MN.



Offline gunbower

  • Listed
  • User 2463
  • Posts: 482
« 2017-Sep-24, 09:30 PM Reply #17 »
Pete, Time to give yourself another uppercut.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3695
« 2017-Sep-24, 09:55 PM Reply #18 »


............ another, self-identified, member of the rr club!

Offline Dave

  • Group3
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 789
« 2017-Sep-24, 10:32 PM Reply #19 »
I am not Blaming Pete, to some extent he ain't wrong, there is something wrong he is just wrong about what it is..........and how to fix it.............he is looking at the end result and blaming what looks obvious to anyone without a rudimentary knowledge of horses or horsemanship, assuming a Jockey must be a good judge of how to ride, I can see why he would think they were "horse people"...It just ain't necessarily so

Not many horsemen (and women) among trainers either, takeaway all the Vet checks, weigh bridges etc and a lot of trainers would be lost, most can't even tell when a horse is lame unless they have a vet tell them, I have no doubt a lot of injuries like bowed tendons etc would not be anywhere near as severe if they were picked up at first sign of trouble......but they miss it and gallop them again and the tendon injury goes from a 1 to a 5 or the horse tries to save the sore tendon and bows both tendons.....even Vets need to run tests for everything.....and I am not against that, it's a great tool and would be silly to ignore it............

Trainers like Bart and TJ could tell be sight if a horse was a half gallop short, they didn't need to weigh them, again it is a great tool but it has helped take horsemanship out of racing.....same as using a calculator means Kids can't add 2 + 2 in their head.....they don't need to know..........but would be nice if they could......Sorry got a bit off track but it has been a bone of contention with me for a long time

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-25, 07:43 AM Reply #20 »

........... you can tell when you are on the money by the immediate response from riff-raff defenders of any suggestion that something is wrong in MN.

I hope these defenders are paid well so they sleep at night!

The challenge on the line here is self-evident to any punter routinely lamenting the rough results in MN.

Firstly, you're the one on the payroll. Well, actually they got rid of you so your not.
That perhaps explains your disingenuous posts

2ndly. You contended that horses who were not trying to win got in the way hence all the interference.
We would like to see evidence of this.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 3695
« 2017-Sep-25, 08:21 AM Reply #21 »


.......we do not like to see the evidence of this

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-25, 08:29 AM Reply #22 »
So you can't back up your claims so therefore they become lies

Everybody can see right through you peter :bulb:

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24173
« 2017-Sep-25, 05:12 PM Reply #23 »
Nothings changed.
Get home from work, keen to see Peter address the forums questions and he's missing in action.
Hiding :clap2:

Offline Dave

  • Group3
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 789
« 2017-Sep-26, 12:15 PM Reply #24 »
What I don't understand is why Pete continues his involvement with a sport he obviously has no love for, no understanding of......and has so many things wrong that he doesn't like and makes him unhappy, sure it ain't perfect but the rest of us still have a passion for it and get around the things we can't change and accept them


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap