Do we follow form or do we follow history today?

If you follow form in the first race today you would not consider Sean Tarrys runner. If you however follow history, and take the many examples of his horses improving lengths when backed, then I think we should all put our heads down and punt this horse as if it were a good thing. On form this horse seems to have no chance, but the money that has come for it indicates another scenario. A few weeks ago a horse with no form from his yard was backed as if the result were known and arrived like a good thing.

I wonder if the NHA have picked up this trend and are acting accordingly in the pre-race testing of his horses?

When it comes to Tarry and money horses then you can ignore form totally.

Some of the biggest punters in the country attached to the yard, sure there will be horses supported

Bob Brogan wrote: Some of the biggest punters in the country attached to the yard, sure there will be horses supported

That is precisely my point Bob............

Jurgs wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: Some of the biggest punters in the country attached to the yard, sure there will be horses supported

That is precisely my point Bob............

It is significant that often the horses that "arrive" are having their second run. This in my opinion is 100% designed to get better odds and better volume after a poor debut. Its not just Tarry, Howells had one on Sunday. Same scenario. Poor 1st run, buckets of cash and an easy victory 2nd time out.

Part of the shortening is a 20 percent deduction on scratched horse

Len Sham wrote: Part of the shortening is a 20 percent deduction on scratched horse

Is the favourite not dodgy at the gates also? Canie be a great race

form is way too easily manipulated to be the sole pointer to a horses chances.

Marinaresco's run in the gold challenge was a perfect example.

It's probably planned from day one.Your first run you try be slow away and then race three wide or follow the worst horse in the race.Maybe get him checked a few times and then the horse has nothing to come at the end and runs down the field.But you as the trainer know the horses ability and know how you made the horse race in it's first run.Second run you lump on and try get all your money back that you paid for the horse in the first place.Punters might think that is a bit deceiving but really the only people who lose at the end will be the bookies or the stable if the horse doesn't win.

Jurgs wrote: If you follow form in the first race today you would not consider Sean Tarrys runner. If you however follow history, and take the many examples of his horses improving lengths when backed, then I think we should all put our heads down and punt this horse as if it were a good thing. On form this horse seems to have no chance, but the money that has come for it indicates another scenario. A few weeks ago a horse with no form from his yard was backed as if the result were known and arrived like a good thing.

I wonder if the NHA have picked up this trend and are acting accordingly in the pre-race testing of his horses?

why wouldn't you consider the horse ?

trainer probably thinks the horse is good enough to make its debut agaisnt winners

money also came on that debut run

so why you moaning now ? did you miss the price ?

that's why trainers don't bother to comment

Gambler are you for real?

The horse finished last of 7 in its debut a touch under 15 lengths behind the winner.

horses can run green on debut

should khumalo continue whipping a first timer if he had no chance ?

like I've mentioned it was running against winners and it was backed on debut