Post by cait on Feb 9, 2015 19:00:43 GMT -5
i can't say there's a lot of this in the US - in other countries, it's standard practice but then they can't use drugs or plow into the competition and get away with it lol do you think there are more "rabbits" lately? do you factor them into handicapping? hovdey made no comment
Letters to the editor: 'Concealed' rabbits are affecting races
Jay Hovdey
DRF
In the 1967 Woodward Stakes at Aqueduct, Frank Whiteley Jr. used Hedevar as a rabbit to force Dr. Fager to use up too much of his great speed and thus ensure a very fast pace so that his come-from-behind champ Damascus would have a much better chance to win, which, as everyone knows, is exactly how the race developed.
Everyone also knew Whiteley’s strategy before the race, and the ‘67 Woodward remains a textbook example of pace handicapping when a rabbit is employed. But with or without a rabbit, the handicapping of every race involves an evaluation of pace, and especially its early speed. If there’s a lone speed, and if the horse has shown some ability in the past, the lone speed will have a much better chance of winning than he would when there are a couple of other horses who might contest the early pace.
This is Handicapping 101. But lately – let’s say in the last five years – something major has happened that has made this basic handicapping tool almost obsolete: the proliferation of “concealed” rabbits in races. They’re impossible to ignore at every level, including major stakes: Horses who are often at odds of 50-1 or higher, have virtually no chance of winning, and often haven’t even displayed much early speed in the past are constantly going for the lead in race after race, inevitably hurting speed horses who have a legitimate chance to win.
These longshots usually finish far back, but they have significantly increased the chances for off-the-pace horses to prevail. If you’re new to the sport, you might even think that this is a normal way for races to develop, but I assure you that this wasn’t the case when I first began betting races in 1960, and it has only become commonplace during the past few years.
Also, it’s getting worse. But why are trainers now using their horses this way? They’re not training other horses in these races, so there’s no obvious reason for their telling the jockeys to go for the lead, even though their chances of winning are slim, at best. Is it possible that there is collusion between the trainers or the jockeys? Is this a new way of fixing races?
I’d like to think that there’s another reasonable explanation for what’s happening repeatedly in races now, but surely everyone who handicaps races from a pace standpoint knows that what I’m observing has warped many races and is giving closers an unfair advantage that they never had in the past. With a hidden rabbit ready to jump out in any race, who can back any horse with early speed in any race now with confidence?
Joel Flegler
Tenafly, N.J.
Letters to the editor: 'Concealed' rabbits are affecting races
Jay Hovdey
DRF
In the 1967 Woodward Stakes at Aqueduct, Frank Whiteley Jr. used Hedevar as a rabbit to force Dr. Fager to use up too much of his great speed and thus ensure a very fast pace so that his come-from-behind champ Damascus would have a much better chance to win, which, as everyone knows, is exactly how the race developed.
Everyone also knew Whiteley’s strategy before the race, and the ‘67 Woodward remains a textbook example of pace handicapping when a rabbit is employed. But with or without a rabbit, the handicapping of every race involves an evaluation of pace, and especially its early speed. If there’s a lone speed, and if the horse has shown some ability in the past, the lone speed will have a much better chance of winning than he would when there are a couple of other horses who might contest the early pace.
This is Handicapping 101. But lately – let’s say in the last five years – something major has happened that has made this basic handicapping tool almost obsolete: the proliferation of “concealed” rabbits in races. They’re impossible to ignore at every level, including major stakes: Horses who are often at odds of 50-1 or higher, have virtually no chance of winning, and often haven’t even displayed much early speed in the past are constantly going for the lead in race after race, inevitably hurting speed horses who have a legitimate chance to win.
These longshots usually finish far back, but they have significantly increased the chances for off-the-pace horses to prevail. If you’re new to the sport, you might even think that this is a normal way for races to develop, but I assure you that this wasn’t the case when I first began betting races in 1960, and it has only become commonplace during the past few years.
Also, it’s getting worse. But why are trainers now using their horses this way? They’re not training other horses in these races, so there’s no obvious reason for their telling the jockeys to go for the lead, even though their chances of winning are slim, at best. Is it possible that there is collusion between the trainers or the jockeys? Is this a new way of fixing races?
I’d like to think that there’s another reasonable explanation for what’s happening repeatedly in races now, but surely everyone who handicaps races from a pace standpoint knows that what I’m observing has warped many races and is giving closers an unfair advantage that they never had in the past. With a hidden rabbit ready to jump out in any race, who can back any horse with early speed in any race now with confidence?
Joel Flegler
Tenafly, N.J.