Race 4 Aqueduct Saturday

[tholl]

Aqueduct, race 4 Saturday.

Not sure what happened prior, but the #1 horse was manhandled backward into the gate. Took several tries and aggressive action from the gate crew (who I have the most respect for). I really though the horse should have been scratched. But he was allowed to run but, not surprisingly did not leave the gate and was not declared a non-starter. Seemed odd to me.

[the little guy]

Seems odd to me that you would leave out that the same horse got badly left in his debut and still ran well.

[tholl]

That has nothing to do with this.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by tholl

That has nothing to do with this.

It has everything to do with it, and you know that. Horses are difficult to load all the time. There are horses that get badly left in their debuts that come back and run fine the next time, sometimes winning. We all know the risks in betting horses with gate issues. It's part of the game and every actual horseplayer recognizes this.

[P.Rosa]

The Woodbine gate crew almost never has a problem loading horses.
All of the other tracks should have their gate crews observe Woodbine to see what they are doing right.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by P.Rosa

The Woodbine gate crew almost never has a problem loading horses.
All of the other tracks should have their gate crews observe Woodbine to see what they are doing right.

Great qualitative observation, but how about some quantitative backup?

Whenever expressions like "almost never" are used, one can easily turn the observation around : "The Woodbine gate crew absolutely has problems loading horses."

Without metrics, it means nothing.

[SBD400]

Originally Posted by tholl

Aqueduct, race 4 Saturday.

Not sure what happened prior, but the #1 horse was manhandled backward into the gate. Took several tries and aggressive action from the gate crew (who I have the most respect for). I really though the horse should have been scratched. But he was allowed to run but, not surprisingly did not leave the gate and was not declared a non-starter. Seemed odd to me.

If you owned that horse you may think differently. $5k to $7k a month, I want the starters to do everything reasonably possible to get that horse in the gate and get a chance to run.


Horses acting up at the gate or not is part of the game as a bettor. Sometimes you will bet a horse like that, it sucks but all should even out. If previous bad behavior is in PPS or chart or maybe you have seen it before with your own eyes, consider it when you decide whether you want to wager on the horse or not.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by tholl

Aqueduct, race 4 Saturday.

Not sure what happened prior, but the #1 horse was manhandled backward into the gate. Took several tries and aggressive action from the gate crew (who I have the most respect for). I really though the horse should have been scratched. But he was allowed to run but, not surprisingly did not leave the gate and was not declared a non-starter. Seemed odd to me.

I did not see this approaching gate --> loading ---> break etc...


Horse racing tends to 'run' through loading issues, gate issues, break-through-the-gate issues...
Whether I fully agree with that standard operating procedure, or not, -have to face reality.

That's consistent - which is all I can ask for.

My only gripe there is the inconsistent handling of things like pool-closure..., time to re-bet, etc... which is a stressor.

It pays to know the horse's history and any significant behavior issues.

Originally Posted by the little guy

Seems odd to me that you would leave out that the same horse got badly left in his debut and still ran well.

If you are beyond the basic need for consistency and are a 'Gate Player', you want to play on-site with a wager pad or a teammate and watch up close or through the binoculars... You may get 2 seconds or so at times advantage over some of 'the public'

[tholl]

Originally Posted by SBD400

If you owned that horse you may think differently. $5k to $7k a month, I want the starters to do everything reasonably possible to get that horse in the gate and get a chance to run.


Horses acting up at the gate or not is part of the game as a bettor. Sometimes you will bet a horse like that, it sucks but all should even out. If previous bad behavior is in PPS or chart or maybe you have seen it before with your own eyes, consider it when you decide whether you want to wager on the horse or not.

I agree that if one owned the horse one would want the starters to do what they could to get horse in to gate to race.

But this was a little different. I don't know how the horse ended up having to be backed into the gate but he was clearly distressed and it took a good few minutes for the gate crew to get him loaded. I have no idea why they did not walk him back around to the back of the gate instead of shanking him repeatedly in the mouth. Maybe there was a good reason for that, I don't know.

What I do know is that this was just the horse's second outing and he had a bad experience and it was not a surprise that he refused to leave the gate.

Now it will take the trainer a while to get the horse's mind straight for his next outing. If he had just been scratched and given more schooling for the gate he would be racing back much quicker.

I did not bet this race but do agree that one certainly should take into account horses with bad behaviour at the gate.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by tholl

...this was a little different. ...

The other day at a smaller circuit I saw the favorite rear up, and fighting the stablehand's correction - sort of flipped and banged his head in the paddock stall. No mention of it, business as usual from the connections, Finished out of the Tri. It's possible that the incident had some effect on his performance. I don't know for sure.

[iamt]

Originally Posted by tholl

I agree that if one owned the horse one would want the starters to do what they could to get horse in to gate to race.

But this was a little different. I don't know how the horse ended up having to be backed into the gate but he was clearly distressed and it took a good few minutes for the gate crew to get him loaded. I have no idea why they did not walk him back around to the back of the gate instead of shanking him repeatedly in the mouth. Maybe there was a good reason for that, I don't know.

What I do know is that this was just the horse's second outing and he had a bad experience and it was not a surprise that he refused to leave the gate.

Now it will take the trainer a while to get the horse's mind straight for his next outing. If he had just been scratched and given more schooling for the gate he would be racing back much quicker.

I did not bet this race but do agree that one certainly should take into account horses with bad behaviour at the gate.

The only reason a horse would be backed into the gate was if he had been schooled to do it, and the trainer requested it.

[IamNewt]

Originally Posted by P.Rosa

The Woodbine gate crew almost never has a problem loading horses.
All of the other tracks should have their gate crews observe Woodbine to see what they are doing right.

The Japanese are tops at loading IMO. I wish the English would import some to teach their clowns how to load.

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by IamNewt

The Japanese are tops at loading IMO. I wish the English would import some to teach their clowns how to load.

'tops' (perhaps) 'at loading'


CLOWNS when it comes to BIG BOY TRACK results charts.