Trainers comments - Post race

I was talking to a mate and racing fan who is a born and bred pom, about SA racing and more specifically, post race comments made by trainers. He said that in England a trainer would never be alllowed to say in a post race interview that he quietly fancied the outsider of a three way coupling post race. I got the feeling that there may even be some sort of penalty for making comments such as these.

He made specific reference to one of PAC Miller coupling that won at long odds and the trainer saying post race that the horse was working well and he told the owners to have a go.

The obvious problem with post race comments like these is that the punter gets pissed off when a trainer stands there and says: "I knew this 50/1 would win" yet the odds on is missing. The punter feels robbed and leaves with a bad taste in his mouth. Of course when this happens continually, he decides racing is a mugs game filled with underhandedness and another racing fan / punter is lost.

The reason why I raised this is that there has previously been a debate regarding information pre race and the owners and punters rights. My mate advised that in England they do there best to give the public as much info as possible and I am sure that this is one of the reasons why racing over there is as strong as it is. Can you imagine how turnover would grow if each trainer commented on his runner pre race. This would negate the theory that the info belongs to the owner as the punter would have a comment from each and every trainer not just a few. Eg No chance, Prep run, place chance, should win. You would obviously have more than one trainer who would think that their horse could win and therefore you would have a lot more backing the potential winner rather than a no hoper running in a warm up race. The punter would be left to make up his mind which one to back based on these comments.

This would be an impossible task to get comments from all trainers but if we could, at least the punter would not be faced with I told you so after the fact.

The reason Charlie Laird does not give his 2 cents .

I understand that the punter feels that they should get as much info as possible, but surely the owner who bought the horse and pays the bills has a right to get the right price? once it shortens its public domain and the punter can make up there own mind?

This topic is like a iceberg - it keeps on popping up.

The first fallacy in the argument of the 'disclose all' or 'disclose nothing' brigades is that it assumes the trainer actually does know what is going on. That's mistake #1 in more cases than not as many will CLAIM they knew after the event to make themselves look a little less foolish. By the same token all owners know that trainers keep handy a number of substantial volumes entitled EXCUSES; VOLUMES 1 - 10 to rationalise why the 'it can't lose' runner did just that!

I personally post everything I know regarding my own horses on this site with embarrassing results. I am tempted to keep quiet if only to save my own red face in future. Nevertheless I belong to the 'disclose all' sector as I am always very keen to pocket a stakes cheque - which is provided in the main by the very punters whom many seem eager to hoodwink. Furthermore - with racing people being as cynical as any you are likely to encounter I would be quite confident of finding more than one person who diasgreed with me if my horse was running in a one horse race! So actually believing that EVERYONE will jump on an alleged 'good thing' merely re-inforces why a handful of bookmakers prosper against thousands of endlessly gullible punters.

South Africa lacks a couple of things which would bury this debate once and for all :

Barrier trials would expose most of the horses being tried at home. Alternatively 'clockers' would quickly ensure that the appropriate information reached interested ears very quickly.

In the meantime the shrewdies will successfully execute the odd coup by whatever dubious means are available. And the stands will continue to empty.

Barrier trials seem to be the way forward for the punter.

The point of my post was more to raise the issue of post race "I told you so" comments though and I was wondering how the clan felt on the issue.

I personally do not see how it is possible for any trainer, jock, owner to say with authority and absolute certainty that their horse will win. There are too many variables in racing and almost anything can happen. That is what makes the sport so colourful. I always approach comments with a punter beware approach and at the end of it all there is no one to blame as I made the final decision when deciding to back a horse on trainers comments

Without getting too embroiled in this argument yet again, I have to take issue with fatboy's assertion that the owner deserves first crack at the best price. This is nonsense. Prices are "in the public domain " from the moment they are put up, not after they shorten. We don't have one price for the owner and another, shorter price for the punters who ultimately provide the prize money which the owner is racing for.

Betting markets must work on the first come, first served basis. This is a separate debate, in any case, from how much so-called priveleged information should be shared publicly.

You are looking at the roulette wheel as it's spinning and you think to yourself "no.21". It lands on 21 and you burst out "I knew it!"...as if it's a skill or talent you have, or as if you've been clever.

Yesterday I backed a 40/1 shot which arrived (true), but I must add that I've tried many times and only remember the successes/near misses and the failures get filed under amnesia.

As owners we secretly 'know' today's the day when we have a runner, and when it turns out not to be, we move onto the next time and repeat. Every jock who is travelling well with 300 to go "knows" he's going to get up as do those to his left and right, even though only one will win. Whoever wins, what will they say in the interview?

This is a new dimension to racing 'information' and we should learn to read between the lines. The trainer is recorded and broadcast, what he says and what happens after can have an effect on his business. No one wants to be branded a liar or a fool.

For example 3 weeks ago Tarry won with OMEGA WARRIOR in the first and RUSSIAN WARNING in the next race. In the interview he was asked about one of his remaining runners and he glossed right past it and said "but BAYETE can never be 16/1". I had a look and you could get 20/1 in a 7 horse hcp...I clicked as fast as I could..although the price never moved for the next few races...Fortune looped the field went to the front (I thought it looked like they had a plan) and was never in any danger.

Even if Garrick is mostly correct when he says "it assumes the trainer actually does know what is going on", all they can do is either lie or tell what they think.

What is an opinion but an estimation of what you think MAY happen?

Perhaps the reason "in England a trainer would never be allowed to say in a post race interview that he quietly fancied the outsider" is that he is judged to be an idiot. All that will do is make trainers hide their opinions even more and how does that help?

I do want to listen to post race interviews, but I wish they focused more on what happened in the contest rather than a platform to thank each other like the Oscars. Special thank you's are ok, but race after race after race.....who cares except for the stroked egos. I blame the interviewers for not asking sharper questions or for thinking we want their opinions ( Cecil asked a 3 minute [question/politically correct statement] the other day, 3 x longer than the whole race..

Stakes are so low in Kzn, that 2 wins in a season - winning stake R37k - will not cover training fees for that year. Backing horses when they are fancied is then the only way an owner can ever hope to recoup some of his outlay. It is highly annoying to get 2nd or 3rd best price.

If I cannot make a decent return occassionally, what is the point of owning horses?

Why do so many posters complain all the time.Garrick hit the nail on the head,most of the trainers have no idea.In Cape Town a trainer of a unraced 2yo has to gallop it at Durbanville around the turn.Raceday at Kenilworth is up the straight.Fat use in most cases as a guide except as regards the fitness level.
The rule for a punter is "Remember you don't have to bet"
If in doubt wait there is always a next race or races.
Also don't tell me about the old days because then many horses were given an easy for their first run or two.
Wait and enjoy your punting.

Adios Bookies Wrote:

---

> Matthew what do you think of the practise where a
> choice few punters are given the prices before
> publicly displayed?

I'm hoping this isn't something you just made up for effect?

I don't agree with that, AB. The market should be a level playing field, and if you manage to get on first, good luck to you - whether the horse belongs to your, or not. The fact that the stakes are considered inadequate to cover costs does not change this one iota, in my book.

If you're awake enough you'll get the best price, it's as simple as that, but there is absolutely no justification for an owner believing he has first bite at the cherry. Owning the horse entitles you to several priveleges, primarily the prize money, but it does not entitle you to some sort of ownership of the betting market. That, as I said in my earlier post, is in the public domain right from the outset. It cannot work any other way.

It would explain how horses are claimed simultaneous to the calling of it's price.

There is of course nothing stopping a bookmaker laying a horse to a customer before official betting is out, and then claiming any price as the betting opens. It's not wrong, just not smart unless the punter in question is a proper mugg with a long history of paying for his stupidity or poor information.