Unraced Vic horses must B/Trial - Vic Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Unraced Vic horses must B/Trial - Vic Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Unraced Vic horses must B/Trial  (Read 8779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arakaan

  • Group 1
  • User 192
  • Posts: 10699
O.P. « 2009-Jan-24, 02:35 PM »
announced today from 1st april on all unraced horses in vic must have trial before first start.
« Last Edit: 2009-Jan-27, 09:23 PM by westie »

Offline arakaan

  • Group 1
  • User 192
  • Posts: 10699
« 2009-Jan-24, 02:36 PM Reply #1 »
of course the heading should read "Unraced".

Offline navajo

  • Listed
  • User 92
  • Posts: 492
« 2009-Jan-24, 03:21 PM Reply #2 »
In my opinion, it doesn't bother me either way.  I don't think u can read a great deal into trial form

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12734
« 2009-Jan-26, 09:23 AM Reply #3 »
from racenet.com

Trainer fury over compulsory Melbourne trials

Brad Waters
Saturday, 24 January 2009

Leading Melbourne trainers David Hayes and Mick Price have slammed Racing Victoria Limited’s decision to compel all horses to trial publicly before they race in the metropolitan area from April 1.

Price and Hayes were both very annoyed with the decision with both arguing that Melbourne racing will end up with “problems just like Sydney racing.”

“I don’t agree with it at all, but if it’s the rules I will have to go along with it” Hayes said.

“This will have a bad effect on the industry in Melbourne, field sizes will drop dramatically because these extra trials will come at a big cost to the industry.


“Betting on the races in Melbourne won’t change at all and Melbourne will end up with problems just like Sydney racing.

“Melbourne is the place for racing in Australia yet we are adopting the practices of Sydney which in my view will be costly.”

Mick Price, speaking from New Zealand, asked the question of where the trials will be held and laid the blame for the introduction of compulsory trialling squarely at the feet of the media.

“Where are they going to have all of these trials?” Price asked.

“Costs are going to go through the roof and for what? The owners are going to suffer with the increased costs.

“This is a media-driven introduction, everyone in the media complains when one wins without a trial and have driven everyone mad with this and it’s the owners that will suffer.

“This place will end up like Sydney because the owners won’t be able to stand it.”

Flemington trainers Mark Kavanagh and Matthew Ellerton were a little more circumspect about the decision.

“We have jump outs every Friday at Flemington, all they need to do is make them official and that will do,” Kavanagh said.

“As long as they hold trials at Flemington and we don’t have to travel to Cranbourne, it won’t be too bad,” Ellerton said.


Hayes and Price's opinions are interesting, considering everything they have whinged about is baseless  :what: can't see how having to trial before your first start leads to smaller field sizes  :what: :what: at least Kavanagh and Ellerton seemed to have thought about it before opening their mouth   :lol:

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31340
« 2009-Jan-26, 09:28 AM Reply #4 »
What they are saying is true though isn't it ?

It will cost more for the owner.

And it will  provide nothing for the punter.

Trainers will just send them around like Hawkes does.

Offline Mantaray

  • Class 4
  • User 391
  • Posts: 47
« 2009-Jan-26, 09:49 AM Reply #5 »
I'm a bit confused. Arakaan says it's for all unraced horse..which seems OK and only normal.

The article put up by someone else says it's for horses racing in Melbourne only. Is this two separate things?

Is this plan meant to stop country horses being taken to melbourne which have been hidden away in the country?

What is the aim?

Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 20130
« 2009-Jan-26, 09:53 AM Reply #6 »
Good point  emthup

Offline gratlog

  • Group 1
  • User 5
  • Posts: 12700
« 2009-Jan-26, 09:55 AM Reply #7 »
If they have raced in the bush I don't think they have to trial in town.

And they don't have to trial to run in the bush.

Is that right?

Offline manikato1

  • Group 2
  • User 195
  • Posts: 4144
« 2009-Jan-26, 09:57 AM Reply #8 »
Mantaray,

I am sure that Bruce Clark said on Saturday it is for Metro races only.  Maybe the idea is that rather than trial the horses, these horses will race first up in the bush then come to town?

Also, how much more would it cost to convert the Caulfield jump outs to trials?

One other thing, for those who know, what is the procedural difference between jump outs, trials and races?

I only ask because Melbourne seems to have a lot more problems at the barrier for 2 year old races than Sydney (although that may be a consequence of me being on course in Melbourne so I am more likely to notice), so maybe there is an advantage in trialling there?

Offline bolt_babe

  • Listed
  • User 109
  • Posts: 302
« 2009-Jan-26, 10:01 AM Reply #9 »
Mantaray, the past few weeks of Melbourne Racing there have been some unraced winners that won impressively at their first start with no trial form. From the interviews with some trainers, the media (ie TVN) have found out there are jumpouts conducted at metro tracks which are apparently "better than the real thing" (trials at Cranbourne).  Presenters, such as Richie Callendar, have been crictical because 'the punter isn't being looked after' and we need to make sure the punter is being looked after (he is completely forgetting that owners may need looking after anyway) and ensure that form can be done.  As Authorized said, what is to stop the trainers sending them round for a track gallop at a trial before starting in the city.

Offline OldLarsy

  • Group 1
  • User 177
  • Posts: 18695
« 2009-Jan-26, 10:29 AM Reply #10 »
A horse called Vital Gee won at $32 on NSW the other day having it's first start.
It had won a barrier trial over 900 in 53.94.
I thought it was overs and had a few bucks e/w
What price would it have been if it hadn't trialled?

Offline Mantaray

  • Class 4
  • User 391
  • Posts: 47
« 2009-Jan-26, 10:42 AM Reply #11 »
Still not quite getting it.

Is the "must trial publicly" to be done in Melbourne, or anywhere approved very soon before it runs in Melbourne? What i mean is is this another extra trial, so that punters can get an idea of what the standard of the "new horse in town'' is, with stewards or whoever, looking on.

I can see why this might be good for punters. The trainer who has been getting his horse near a peak, after a poor race performance then goes to town and races at 50-1. It wins.

This is how it reads in the article where mick price is whinging. If you need to travel someplace for an extra trial this will cost country trainers money.

It seems clear thae totally unraced horses need a trial so that we at laeast know they aren't going to go crazy and bite jockeys/other horse. jump the fence..or other things, come race day.


Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31340
« 2009-Jan-26, 10:49 AM Reply #12 »


It seems clear thae totally unraced horses need a trial so that we at laeast know they aren't going to go crazy and bite jockeys/other horse. jump the fence..or other things, come race day.



Unless trial day has the atmosphere of raceday nobody can be sure how a horse might behave on raceday.

Offline manikato1

  • Group 2
  • User 195
  • Posts: 4144
« 2009-Jan-26, 11:00 AM Reply #13 »
Still not quite getting it.

Is the "must trial publicly" to be done in Melbourne, or anywhere approved very soon before it runs in Melbourne? What i mean is is this another extra trial, so that punters can get an idea of what the standard of the "new horse in town'' is, with stewards or whoever, looking on.



I assumed it is only for horses who have not had a race stat, and I believe they can trial anywhere, not just at a metro course.

I don't think that trainers will have to travel to trial, I would assume that Caulfield and Flemington will turn some of their jump outs into traditional trials.

Offline bolt_babe

  • Listed
  • User 109
  • Posts: 302
« 2009-Jan-26, 11:11 AM Reply #14 »
I am fairly sure that it is only before metro race, when the horse is unraced that they must have trialled.  Now that this rule has been made, RVL must help trainers (and owners) in creating official trials on metro tracks. 

Mantaray, ideally you would be correct with unraced horses having to trial but as this move has been restricted to metro racing it seems that RVL caved to media pressure, where the punters have been 'wronged'.  Trial form is unreliable and instructions can be given to ensure the horse will appear to have trialled poorly.  There has to be some advantage for owners after all it's not the punters who pay the training fees but the owners.  Surely they can afford to have one good price when a good horse starts.

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31340
« 2009-Jan-26, 08:42 PM Reply #15 »
Trial Rule Deferred By Racing Victoria
Monday, 26 January 2009: Racing Victoria has heeded the protests of trainers and will defer the introduction of compulsory barrier trials for unraced horses.

Angry trainers claimed the new trial policy would increase the financial burden on owners and had been media driven.

The new rule requiring first starters in metropolitan races to have performed satisfactorily in official trials was approved by the RVL Board at its December meeting and was scheduled to be implemeneted from April 1.

However the concerns expressed by trainers have forcd Racing Victoria to defer the implementation of the new rule until June 1.

Racing Victoia announcd today that the June 1 date will allow extra time to ensure that trainers' concerns are understood and addressed within the confines of the new rule.

Racing Victoria acknowledged that the communication process regarding the new rule was flawed and apologised for the way the information has been conveyed to trainers.



http://www.thoroughbredinternet.com/

Offline Hillbilly

  • Listed
  • User 10
  • Posts: 433
« 2009-Jan-26, 09:12 PM Reply #16 »
You are a strange one Gintara. The claims of Price and Hayes are baseless? You've made your mind up so you must be correct? How about pointing out how exactly the points made by Hayes and Price are baseless before giggling to yourself like a school girl.

I have no doubt that forced trialling will be detrimental to, rather than positive for, the industry. The cost to all, logistics and time wasted all factor as negative and compulsive trialling should be binned as surplus to requirements.

The idea that a trainer and owner should not be able to bring their horse along quietly away from prying eyes in completely absurd. A first start coup is a cornerstone of racing. This concept may protect bookies and few others. Punters are not compelled to bet on any event.

Ultimately what we should be looking at is trainer competence. Which trainers regularly bring animals to the races that are unruly or barrier shy? Whose charges are field shy and dangerously green? The trainer decides when it's fit to race a horse so they should be competent enough to consider the safety of that animal and all humans that will come into its vicinity on a racecourse. Statistics will tell punters which trainers consistently bring fit, ready and racewise animals to the track as first start two or three year olds. Punters have no right to any information beyond that. They haven't paid anything at the yearling sales, breeding barn or in training fees.

Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 20130
« 2009-Jan-27, 07:32 PM Reply #17 »
"Punters have no right to any information beyond that."

Rubbish.

Punters pay their due via the TAB contributions to racing, they are no longer mere interested bystanders. They are integral to the survival of horseracing.


 

Offline woodywob

  • Group3
  • User 7
  • Posts: 999
« 2009-Jan-27, 07:51 PM Reply #18 »
All formguides should include everything ....... and be free of charge ....... this should include all racing performances ....... all trials and all morning gallop information........ a must is video of all these...... 

Included should be the weight of not only the horse but also that of those that have ridden the horse in trials and gallops..... including the trainers and strappers ..... not to mention their medical information ......All medication including training regime should be revealed to the punter. Blood count and bio rhythm charts should be provided free of charge to the poor punter.........

Have I left anything out ?

and are the bookies or tote guaranteed the punter will bet after all that info is given to him ...... or does the punter have the perogative to either bet or not ??

Seriously though ......... as an owner and a punter I am against too much information being available to non owners ......

Offline bolt_babe

  • Listed
  • User 109
  • Posts: 302
« 2009-Jan-27, 08:04 PM Reply #19 »
I would agree Woody.  Let's face it, it will be one run in a career when a plunge could be landed.  If the punters don't wish to be it's their prerogative.  Effectively it's the same thing with a horse experiencing a new track surface, or going for the first time, are we going to have those trial so the punters can know everything about a horse?

Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 20130
« 2009-Jan-27, 08:09 PM Reply #20 »
Surely punters are entitled to a "ballpark" idea of an unraced two year old's racing ability, rather than just leaving it to the "Oh well, the trainer wouldn't start it if it couldn't race"

Offline woodywob

  • Group3
  • User 7
  • Posts: 999
« 2009-Jan-27, 08:23 PM Reply #21 »
don't bet in the race Geoffrey ...... it's not compulsory ...... or do you want to be part of any potential plunge ..... just because you are a punter who doen't pay the bills ........ and don't go on about punters funding the industry ...... most owners are punters too .......

Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 20130
« 2009-Jan-27, 08:31 PM Reply #22 »
I don't.

However my life is devoted to advising those who aren't as wise as I am.

And before anyone starts jumping up and down...........I'm joking.   :biggrin:

Offline Hillbilly

  • Listed
  • User 10
  • Posts: 433
« 2009-Jan-27, 08:38 PM Reply #23 »
The ballpark idea is called the breeding plus trainer percentages with first starters. Both will always provide clues. Both forms of info are easily acquired.

Woody you forgot nutritional information. What is the horse fed and did they eat up last night? Did they drink  or are they dehydrated? Did the horse pee sufficiently and have a good number of solid healthy craps overnight? Gee then we could have a farrier and strapper report as well.  :lol:


Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12734
« 2009-Jan-27, 08:50 PM Reply #24 »
You are a strange one Gintara. The claims of Price and Hayes are baseless? You've made your mind up so you must be correct? How about pointing out how exactly the points made by Hayes and Price are baseless before giggling to yourself like a school girl.

I have no doubt that forced trialling will be detrimental to, rather than positive for, the industry. The cost to all, logistics and time wasted all factor as negative and compulsive trialling should be binned as surplus to requirements.

The idea that a trainer and owner should not be able to bring their horse along quietly away from prying eyes in completely absurd. A first start coup is a cornerstone of racing. This concept may protect bookies and few others. Punters are not compelled to bet on any event.

Ultimately what we should be looking at is trainer competence. Which trainers regularly bring animals to the races that are unruly or barrier shy? Whose charges are field shy and dangerously green? The trainer decides when it's fit to race a horse so they should be competent enough to consider the safety of that animal and all humans that will come into its vicinity on a racecourse. Statistics will tell punters which trainers consistently bring fit, ready and racewise animals to the track as first start two or three year olds. Punters have no right to any information beyond that. They haven't paid anything at the yearling sales, breeding barn or in training fees.

Why am I strange? Please point to how this 'will dramatically reduce field sizes'


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap