Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro
I completely disagree! A horse may be entered in a race for any number of reasons including a request by a racing secretary to a trainer to simply fill a race. Anyone playing also has the right to simply pass a race if they feel that there’s something going on beyond their subjective analysis. Fortunately there are ways to recognize a racing workout from a handicapping perspective. So the public is not entirely in the dark when it comes to racing workouts. No trainer has to disclose their reason for entering or not entering a horse in a race. They do that at their own discretion. The final result of any race doesn’t hold anyone accountable for its outcome unless there’s a major infraction during the race.
There may very well be similar situations in Hong Kong, but because they require the local stock to compete in race trials periodically to prove they’re capable of competing it’s probably not as prevalent.
Also, the jockeys in Hong Kong are held accountable and sometimes heavily penalized and fined when the stewards believe that they did not make a serious attempt to remain competitive in any race.
Supposedly trying? You just have to always keep in mind who's controlling EVERY aspect (from health to conditioning) of race horse's competitive life.
|
Interesting. I challenge anyone to point out 100 contenders (under 10-1 final odds) over any period of time and presumably all 100 of these horses will not win, because here are detectable signs in the past performances that these horses are not out to win today.
RE No trainer has to disclose their reason for entering or not entering a horse in a race. They do that at their own discretion.
Does this make it right that many unsuspecting members of the betting public are betting a horse with zero intention of winning a race? It would be like Vegas having a roulette wheel where 3 numbers are disabled from popping up and accepting bets on those numbers? What is the difference?
