THIS WEEKS ALL WEATHER FIXTURES - 26th March KEMPTON PARK- 27th March WOLVERHAMPTON- 29th March WOLVERHAMPTON - 30th March LINGFIELD PARK, KEMPTON PARK & SOUTHWELL - 31st March WOLVERHAMPTON & CHELMSFORD CITY - 1ST aPRIL LINGFIELD PARK & WOLVERHAMPTON - 2nd April KEMPTON PARK -

Constant Dream still a bit of a nightmare!

Being more resilient than most when shrugging of losers I am surprised to find that a race from Mondays Southwell card is still playing on my mind. Four days have lapsed since and even Wednesday’s very profitable day hasn't removed the feeling that something needs to be addressed in the Sport of Kings.

The race in question was the Southwell 16:00 where I had provided subscribers with Constant Dream as a selection the evening before at 11-1. The weight of market support saw Constant Dream vying for favouritism at various stages during the morning and I am sure that this would be the horse that bookmakers wanted beaten.

As they swung off the last bend market rival Hidden Asset ridden by A Mullen, intentionally, in my opinion tightened up Constant Dream who was prominent enough to be in Mullen’s peripheral vision at minimum. Not so much as a look over the shoulder by Mullen as this would have only acted as proof of his awareness.
Hidden Asset then faded in the straight to be a poor third while Constant Dream after regaining its momentum chased home the winner Fossa going down by ¾ length. There was no doubt that the momentum lost cost Constant Dream far more than ¾ length and on that basis believe that the selection would have won.

Here lies the problem: If Mullen had been found guilty of reckless riding he would face a couple of day’s suspension, and as the horse hampered finished in front of the horse that caused the interference the result would stand. The issue I have is that jockeys can ride with reckless abandon knowing that in the vast majority of cases the finishing order will remain unaltered regardless of the means used to achieve their position.

I am not suggesting that bookmakers might ask favours of jockeys to hinder a rival but the rules of racing as they stand would allow for it. In this case it was probably no more than Mullen trying to get a march on a market rival by intentionally hindering its progress which many might view as tactically astute. I ask you to look at the picture in this article, bearing in mind that Constant Dream was little more than a head behind Hidden Asset at the time of the interference and reassess! (G.Lee - Constant Dream - light blue and black)


Me, I would rather adopt rules similar to those in operation in America where the horse causing the interference is automatically thrown out. This would add to the safety of the sport, help to stop any behind the scenes malpractices and we would see fairer results to races.

Horse Racing Tips: 14-1 or 13-2?

Friday, May 24, 2013

Constant Dream still a bit of a nightmare!

Being more resilient than most when shrugging of losers I am surprised to find that a race from Mondays Southwell card is still playing on my mind. Four days have lapsed since and even Wednesday’s very profitable day hasn't removed the feeling that something needs to be addressed in the Sport of Kings.

The race in question was the Southwell 16:00 where I had provided subscribers with Constant Dream as a selection the evening before at 11-1. The weight of market support saw Constant Dream vying for favouritism at various stages during the morning and I am sure that this would be the horse that bookmakers wanted beaten.

As they swung off the last bend market rival Hidden Asset ridden by A Mullen, intentionally, in my opinion tightened up Constant Dream who was prominent enough to be in Mullen’s peripheral vision at minimum. Not so much as a look over the shoulder by Mullen as this would have only acted as proof of his awareness.
Hidden Asset then faded in the straight to be a poor third while Constant Dream after regaining its momentum chased home the winner Fossa going down by ¾ length. There was no doubt that the momentum lost cost Constant Dream far more than ¾ length and on that basis believe that the selection would have won.

Here lies the problem: If Mullen had been found guilty of reckless riding he would face a couple of day’s suspension, and as the horse hampered finished in front of the horse that caused the interference the result would stand. The issue I have is that jockeys can ride with reckless abandon knowing that in the vast majority of cases the finishing order will remain unaltered regardless of the means used to achieve their position.

I am not suggesting that bookmakers might ask favours of jockeys to hinder a rival but the rules of racing as they stand would allow for it. In this case it was probably no more than Mullen trying to get a march on a market rival by intentionally hindering its progress which many might view as tactically astute. I ask you to look at the picture in this article, bearing in mind that Constant Dream was little more than a head behind Hidden Asset at the time of the interference and reassess! (G.Lee - Constant Dream - light blue and black)


Me, I would rather adopt rules similar to those in operation in America where the horse causing the interference is automatically thrown out. This would add to the safety of the sport, help to stop any behind the scenes malpractices and we would see fairer results to races.