Three of those four banned apprentices have never ridden a winner, two had never ridden in a 2M race, and the other two had only ridden one previous 2M race. So they had no experience with which to judge the pace.. And pace judgement is vital in a race like this.. Also, the leader was initially taking a strong hold. Horses that take a strong hold usually come back to the field. These inexperienced jockeys must have seen this and thought the leader was going too fast and would come back. However, the leader settled once clear and that enabled him to stay there and stay there quite easily. No "fix", just poor judgement of pace by inexperienced riders..
@@brevity4308 Thanks Brevity, although I did pinch the first two lines of that explanation from a well known professional gambler. I myself make a reasonable profit from backing horses (solely from studying form, no inside info) and - if I do say so myself LOL - one thing that gives me an edge over most punters is a greater understanding of pace.
Clive Holt was a professional punter in the 70s, 80s and 90s. He made a fortune from betting on horse racing only and stated that in his opinion British racing was one of the straightest of sports with very little corruption. He said that when he started he didn't know anyone else involved in racing and therefore had to rely on form. Therefore he couldn't have been as successful as he was if the game was bent. BUT he also said that race fixing did occur on very rare occasions and stated that the following criteria had to be in place for a successful outcome: a minimum distance of 10 furlongs, it had to have a small field, ideally the jockeys were inexperienced, and the most important of all, which at first surprised me, but then made absolute sense: the only person involved who didn't know that the race was fixed was the jockey of the winning horse. He would be given pre-race instructions along these lines, "Look, we've got no chance of winning but if there is no pace on after a few hundred yards, kick on, build up a lead and see if you can hang on for some place money before the others come charging at you." I don't know what happened yesterday but I would say that the commentator Ian Bartlett would have been fully aware that these were inexperienced jockeys but was still obviously shocked at what happened.
Of course betting coups like that are possible, Graham. But they also invariably include a betting pattern too. Bookies always shorten up horses which have been well backed. Especially in races which have very small amounts wagered on the whole race. ie Where the percentage of the overall money taken on the gambled on horse is a large share of the overall amount wagered. Especially when the horse in question is originally 28/1. If Certain Style had shortened up from 28/1 to 4/1 before this happened, then I'd agree with you... And what's more, I'd be arguing for the riders being banned for life! But there was no change in Certain Style's odds. Indeed the Betfair SP was even bigger at 37/1. There was NO betting coup. Didn't Clive Holt say something about horses shortening in the circumstances you describe? If he didn't I'd be very surprised.
@@MARKBINGHAM-m5k What bollocks. The industry survives because the betting market has an over-round... And the bookmakers close accounts of those of us who make a good profit. Look up the "Mathematics Of Betting", you might learn something. As with everywhere; where there is money there is some skulduggery. No more than that. If the game is "bent" then I would not be able to make a good profit betting, by solely studying form and backing whatever I believe is value.
日本人へ 二人はプリキュアしただけやろコレ 八百長ちゃうわ This was the result of a misjudgment of the horse's ability in front of him, and he did not lose on purpose. In fact, their disciplinary action was based on a "mistake".
I'd never bet in a race like this myself, but if you were, surely having a look at the experience of the jockey's in an apprentice handicap and factoring that into the price is key. The winning rider was miles more experienced than the other 4, and when he takes the lead he knows he's got Chloe Lyons with minimal experience in second. She paces it wrong, the other 3 are unwilling to do the chasing and the result is an inevitability at that point.
@@arkle1964 I guess thats my point. You’ve got 3 out of 4 jockeys in behind who’ve never won a race. The one who’d won 3 was on the fav whose entire form reads ‘held up’ or ‘always behind’. Which one was going to do the chasing? It won’t be the last time a more experienced jockey does a field, but I’ll save my frustration when it’s not all inexperienced claimers!
If anybody has a bet in a hands and heels apprentice race over 2 miles on the all weather, then they deserve everything they get. The winner had the most experienced jockey which counts for a lot
@ aren’t all favs maybe give the winning jockey a bit of credit it was a hands and heels race basically their first day at school plenty off pros do it too. Plus they were probably going by instructions from the trainer the winning jockey deserves a bit off credit
You mean to say, there were also two rank outsiders who despite their very minimal chance of winning... their jockeys still tried their hardest... And won! Oh we can't have that. You'd think those jockeys would have more sense and instead wait until they had a better chance before trying their best to win.
@markchapman2933 That's not the point. The point is these jockeys shouldn't be allowed a chance if they fail to notice a horse striving ahead and refuse to give a challenge. Its great to witness outsiders win, but not if it's taking the piss. This race was absolutely ridiculous.
@@PenaltyKicc A massive part of a 2m flat race is the pace in the race. Every punter should know that Inexperienced jockeys can get judgement of pace very wrong. Especially in these particular circumstances. if seeing a horse taking a strong hold go clear, because most horses that race that freely do come back to the field if the field itself is running at a fair pace. This leader settled once getting clear which was fortunate for him... And the field wasn't racing at a fair pace... And when knowing their horses aren't natural front runners; wanting a rival to lead them back to the front runner... Inexperienced jockeys won't go against their riding instructions,. So when on a known hold up horse and told to hold the horse up, they are only naturally going to be reluctant to head the chase. Yes, the standard of jockeyship was poor - even for inexperienced jockeys - so they deserve a ban. But there were many reasons / circumstances to combine for this to happen without it being thought of as a "fix". Did you never make a mistake in your line of work in the first weeks of your career?
Watched this live, and couldb't believe how the other jocks were allowing the softest of sofr leads after Certain Style had gone half a mile. From then on it just got more and more ridiculous. I suppose that, as apprentices, they didn't dare not follow the strict instructions from their trainers, which didn't allow for this situation. The winning jock doubtless took advantage of that. Probably the Xmas bonus sorted nice and early for Laura Mongan and her yard. An even bigger bonus sorted for another yard later on the card when a 100/1 shot went in.
100/1+ doesn't mean there was any skulduggery. They win the number of times overall that their odds entitle them to. No more, no less. In my gambling career I have backed three 100/1+ winning horses. Purely by studying the form book. No inside information whatsoever. Even tipped them up beforehand on a racing forum. If believing a horse has just a 2% (what would be a fair 50/1) chance of winning I'll back it if available @ 100/1.
@@David.L291 A few of us inexperienced "punters" went to our local track here in Canada to sit in the dining room and have an enjoyable meal. We made a few bets, then a race came up with a horse named same as our daughter. It was 50-1 and had not raced for some time. Miss Zip Lynn was at the back the entire time until the backstretch when she started to accelerate and blew by the entire field to win by 10 lengths!!! You can imagine the screaming and jubilation from our table. What a hoot!
Also: Trainers give inexperienced jockeys riding instructions. None of the horses had made the running on any of their last 5 starts. Only one - Grand Duchess Olga - had tracked the pace . With all the others either raced in mid-div or held up. So all bar one trainer giving jockeys instructions probably told their jockey to “hold the horse up and don’t hit the front until late” or “get some cover”. Therefore had a jockey disobeyed.. ie Had a jockey gone after the leader and still lost ... He / she would never get another ride from that trainer again, because the jockey went against the trainer's instructions.
@@marcusprice3199 If someone had put £5ew on it, they would have slashed it down to 8/1. Some of the so called pundits on here are just talking complete balls.
@@nicpaps1311 no money for it. Price fluctuated between 28s and 33s.. As someone else said you put any kind of money on this the bookies are just going to wipe out 28s and make it 9/1.
I'm assuming the stewards had the trainer in after the 100/1 shot won . Previous 4 runs: 10th of 10 8th of 8 11th of 11 9th of 9 However, he was running over 1 mile 2 furlongs instead of the usual 7 furlongs so the explanation will be the horse appreciated the longer trip. And it won relatively easy.
I thought the horse had taken off with the jockey, but then it had enough time to get a breather in, I don't think any of the jockeys had a clue what was going on, though in a 2m race there is plenty of time.
TBH dont think the race was fixed at all. How many NH races does a horse try and lead all the way from the front in at least a two mile race hoping to catch the others out? Betting patterns would indicate a fix. Think just very poor judgement from the jockeys caught out
Class 6 horses that far back.Regardless of the trainers instructions.These horses aren’t good enough to make up that ground.They’re the lowest grade of horse.
Every time a heavy longshot wind the race convincingly, I IMMEDIATELY look at fractional times. If the favorite ( and a couple of real contenders) ran a couple of seconds slower than ever before, you know there was an agreement in place among jockeys before the race, in other words it was not a competition, but a choreographed performance , like a pro wrestling match where you know the outcome ahead of time.
I too am a great believer in sectional times - a follower of Simon Rowlands etc. However, these were very inexperienced jockeys, so judging pace is far more difficult for them... And the fact none of the horses were natural front runners (none had made the running in their last 5+ starts) meant their riding orders were probably to hold their horses up.. If an inexperienced jockey had disobeyed riding orders by chasing after the leader and still got beat, then he / she would probably never ride for that trainer again. ie Inexperienced riders are far more likely to keep to the trainer's instructions no matter what else happens in the race. Also you may want to watch the first couple of furlongs again. You'll see the winner's jockey also did not want to lead. It was only the fact his horse was taking such a strong hold that he either couldn't hold it or thought (wisely) not to fight the horse, as being too free all the way around would've resulted in nothing left for the finish. ie The winner only led on sufferance, which pretty much destroys any idea of there being as you claim, "an agreement in place among jockeys before the race",
@@markchapman2933 is your name not Matt chapman your going well out your way to say this was t rigged or racing isn't rigged when everybody knows it is. I've been gambling for 30 odd year n racings never been the way it is it's rigged to the hilt because racing badly needs the bookies n goes out it's way to make sure the bookies make profits.
@@seanmcginlay7358 LOL No, my name is not Matt. I just care about the sport I love If you're so convinced that racing is "rigged to the hilt" Sean, why have you been gambling on it for "30 odd years"? Don't get me wrong, am sure there is some skulduggery going on... And most of it at the lower class racing. Believe I've seen some of it with my own eyes on the racecourse. Even been to the stewards room myself to complain about two rides.. Just that the amount of it that goes on is imo exaggerated... And in this particular case there are reasons why it is probably due to inexperienced jockeyship rather than actual skulduggery. Look. I don't like bookies either. But if the game was rigged as much as you believe. Then how come me and many other punters can hardly get a bet on with bookmakers? Some have closed my accounts and others limited the amount I can bet to such a degree they just as well be closed.Not because we have any inside information, just through studying form and being able to evaluate that form into chance better than bookmakers odds compilers. Thank xxxx for Betfair!
@@markchapman2933if you can use them lol. Struck off from pp and they must collaborate with one another. Struck off from alot, wanna interfering noise xxxxxxxxx
@@seanmcginlay7358 Why is it that when a surprise result comes up, there are always screams of "It was rigged!" ? Sometimes things just happen. The winner was pulling like a train at the beginning and the jock sensibly decided to let her run, instead of making her use up all her energy fighting him. The others just misjudged the pace owing to inexperience. I seriously doubt a 10-day ban will teach them anything. A few more race rides might.
I still don't understand ,in running, on Betfair, where 2 horses go over the line within an inch or two of each other, that everyone during wants to be on the winne r@ 1.01.
The winner was 20 seconds slower than average time for CD (course & distance). The now infamous Lingfield 4. Gormless young apprentices, with no clue they should be averaging 13 seconds a furlong over a 2 mile race, not 14 seconds a furlong.
This is what's known as milkshaking a horse 4 hours prior to race. In the UK there is no pre race Oxygen raised level testing. It is not steroids so it can't be detected in blood or urine tests. It can only be detected just prior to the race. I have a list of all the Trainers who do this and make millions profiling these trainers. It stops lactic acid stopping a horse from that barrier all runners hit at speeds. So they keep running with excess Oxygen levels in their system it takes a few minutes to milkshake the horse prior tp the race. UK mug racing there ripping your eyes out
Rubbish. The overall race time and sectional times tell you there was nothing exceptional about the winning racehorse's performance. This was all about the one jockey going off in front... And the others believing he'd gone too fast and would come back to them. The "others" (all extremely inexperienced jockeys) got their pace judgement wrong. Not that surprising this will happen from time to time. As their previous experiences of a 2m flat race was virtually nil. Pace judgement is everything in a race like this.
Ojala y ayude la traducción (no hablo inglés). En mi país se corre anualmente una carrera grado 1 en 2 millas. La instrucción que los entrenadores le dan a los jinetes es tratar de buscar a los punteros cuando hayan recorrido ya los primeros 2000 metros, porque si se deja al puntero correr solo y tomar ventaja, cuabdo toque buscar la carrera será demasiado tarde. Eso fue lo que sucedió: ningún jinete fue a plantearle lucha al puntero y ganó de punta a punta.
Commentator: ‘many hundreds of yards ahead….probably a furlong.’ 200 yards to a furlong. 200 yards is not ‘many hundreds’. He then repeats the ‘many hundreds’ claim later in the race. He’s a good commentator, always exciting, but needs to be sat down and put right on his maths.
Shocking 😳 the only way to describe it the jockeys behind must have got there friends to back the winner absolutely horrific stuff no doubt about that 🤔
I assume this is an attempt at a joke given the Jockey Club hasn't ran British racing since 2006. Anyway assuming you are actually thick then the other jockeys are massively inexperienced with only 4 wins between them.
@arkle1964 no I'm not joking if punters put up with this then people may as well just not have a bet a just pass their money over to the bookies and walk away
@@Freddie-x4s OK you're a moron who knows so little about racing that you want the Jockey Club disbanded for something that had nothing to do with them.
Yes, it's not a fix, I think. Just the very inexperienced jockeys completely misjudged the race and how to deal with the runaway leader. They'll be wiser next time, live and learn...
Everybody can see they are not making any attempt to close the leader down and that's still with a circuit remaining. Disgraceful rides from the 4 of them - they should never be allowed to ride again under rules.
Done a Wrecking Ball Paul. All the conspiracy theorists, if they ever watched racing would realise this is a yearly occurrence with the green apprentices. Happens yearly
@@Adampetty6 Every year, hundreds of horses go clear when taking a strong hold. The vast majority then come back to the field because they've either used too much energy doing so, or gone too fast for the trip. In this race the leader settled pretty well once clear and the other jockeys misjudged the pace.
lol never even had to break a sweat. But looked like the winner could have gone another mile. Be interesting to see if the winner had a turn of speed in the last furlong to match the staying power
It's easy done I expect..A horse showed massive improved form by allowing to lead...Being the outsider the other lads thought he had gone too fast and rode their own race thinking he would come back..why ban??? Also same meeting 100/1 and 125/1 no problem??????
Far too few runners in this race to get away with "a fix." Anyway, in modern horseracing there is little to no "fixing" - far too many cameras recording from different viewpoints. There's also no need to fix: there are so many ways to cheat. One of the funniest things you can see at the racecourse is a handicap in which a jockey has been instructed to make sure a horse (one that obvioulsy fit, primed and trained to the minute and full of running) is placed by its rider behind a wall of horses with no way out so that it finishes well down the field - then next time out it's "o f f."
It's 2 miles at Lingfield. The bookies really don't care who wins , the market is so weak and the margins So high. Any big bets on the winner would shorten it's price quickly.
@MichaelDowd-h5s At prices of 28-1 and over, an array of small bets can be placed at various firms and locations without drawing too much attention. £100 to win at 28-1 at four different places is a nifty ten-grand ! Some neighbourhoods, especially in London, have several different bookies within a 5 minute walk.
@@mediastarguest They have centralised accountancy and pick this up straight away There will be an Interfirm investigation to see if anything strange happened with bets. The trainer and owner go a list and some punters would be blocked. Maybe they could get away with this, but trainer , owners and jockeys will have their cards marked. All for a few bets in a weak market. I am sure there was 15% margin in this race minimum. The bookies don't care. In reality the punter doesn't have inside information, yet believe that they have a gift from god to pick winners over every other punter. Modern bookies provide a service to punters, they don't really care who wins. For this service they take on average 10% from every punter. Punters are playing against eachother. Insiders have an advantage. For an owner to get this advantage, he pays money to a horse and trainer fees.. An expensive hobby. If bookies, trainers owners can't won lthe sport dies. Families go hungry. It punters even broke even , bookies would go broke. Think about it.
So a horse with odds of 28/1 wins a 5 horse race and people still claim that racing isn't "dubious"......think of all the bookies that benefit from all those mug punters betting in races like these - - - especially on a Tuesday in winter on a minor race track
If you think that then why don't you just back all the outsiders in that type of race? If you're right then you'll make loads of money. But if actually looking at the odds of all winners of that type of race, you'll find it doesn't work... This is the first race in this particular All Weather Apprentice "Hands And Heels" series. But a similar 10 race Hands And Heels series on turf this year produced winners of: 5/2, 6/4, 7/1, 20/1, 9/4, 4/1, 9/4, 100/30, 17/2 and 13/8. Only one winner at double figure odds. Another Salisbury Hands And Heels series had three favourites winning the four races. And if bookies know who is going to win why do they offer massive odds for that horse?... And why did those unscrupulous bookies not back the horse themselves? When a horse is well backed (especially in this type of race which has very little money in total wagered) the horse's odds shorten considerably. In betting coups where skulduggery is more likely to have taken place, the winner is well backed and so shortens considerably in price. THIS winner's odds never fluctuated from what you'd expect of a horse with a small chance of winning who has not been well backed.
Brilliant , bet the cocky jockeys behind won't assume a horse will come back to them next , BTW I backed that horse . Small fields always back the outsider my grandad taught me 😊
It's a joke. The jockey club and the whole racing game. Making fools of the punters. A horse who hadn't won a race in 15 starts. No chance for the punter.
Won't have bn many times in a flat race in which the commentator states that the leader is 'several' hundred yards clear 4f from home!! 🤣 in all seriousness though the jockeys in behind had a shocker albeit I understand they were inexperienced!
Of course there is always some skulduggery wherever money is involved. But when betting coups happen they all are accompanied by a betting pattern. The horse shortening up... This particular horse did not shorten. Always available at the same sort of price... And this was a Hands And Heels apprentice race - where all jockeys had pretty much no experience of race riding. So very little money is wagered on this type of race. Therefore just a small betting coup would've been a large percentage of the overall stakes. Which would've resulted in a massive shortening of the price. The odds were always around 28/1 and even bigger, a 40something betfair starting price. There was no betting coup with off course bookmakers, on course bookmakers or on betting exchanges. These were incredibly inexperienced jockeys, with no judgement of pace. In all probability jockey error.
If racing was as bent as that then I and many others would not show a reasonable profit purely by studying form (no inside information whatsoever), evaluating form into chance and backing whatever horses are available at bigger odds than my prices to beat. Punters good at evaluating form into chance will make a profit. Losing punters often - subconsciously at least - blame Racing for being bent, rather than themselves for backing the wrong horses. Having siad that, part of making a profit is knowing what races to avoid. Not because of skulduggery but because of inexperienced riders and the quality of racehorse and their temperaments.
Those jockeys who you claim backed the winner must have kept it extremely quiet for it to have an SP of 28/1. Give these extremely inexperienced jockeys a break. When you started in your first job, did you never make a mistake? The jockeys got the pace wrong. That's all.
I have myself backed a winner @ over 100/1 this year, purely from form study. That said, it is true there are more 100/1+ winners these days. Simply because 30+ years ago bookmakers did not want to take the risk of offering 100/1 or more. Whereas today bookmakers have betfair and other betting exchanges to lay the bets off. ie When a bookmaker lays a 100/1 shot nowadays he does not care if it wins or loses. Because although he's laid the horse @ 100/1, with that money he's also backed it himself @ 300/1 on betfair - for a guaranteed profit.
Bet all the trainers and jockeys had some money on the winner it's better than the prize money if they had £200 on the winner. Any stewards enquiry 😮😮😮😢 A BIG FAT NO DISGUSTING.
The amount of money wagered on all the runners in a Hands And Heels Apprentice race is perhaps the least amount of any horse race in Britain. Therefore, had the jockeys all "had £200 on the winner" the percentage of the pot that represents would see the odds of Certain Style shorten enormously... And yet the odds of the winner in this case never fluctuated... And as Arkle rightly says, A BIG FAT YES, there was a stewards enquiry and as a result the jockeys all got 10 days... I personally think distorting the facts is DISGUSTING.
![Selby V O'Sullivan FINAL Fr23 2014 World Champ [HD1080p]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kp-uekNe6ms/mqdefault.jpg)
Three of those four banned apprentices have never ridden a winner, two had never ridden in a 2M race, and the other two had only ridden one previous 2M race. So they had no experience with which to judge the pace.. And pace judgement is vital in a race like this.. Also, the leader was initially taking a strong hold. Horses that take a strong hold usually come back to the field. These inexperienced jockeys must have seen this and thought the leader was going too fast and would come back. However, the leader settled once clear and that enabled him to stay there and stay there quite easily. No "fix", just poor judgement of pace by inexperienced riders..
Agree it was not a fix i agree it was poor judgement .A ban does not address lack of experiancr
Nicely explained, most people on here don'tseem to have a fooking clue.
@@brevity4308 Thanks Brevity, although I did pinch the first two lines of that explanation from a well known professional gambler. I myself make a reasonable profit from backing horses (solely from studying form, no inside info) and - if I do say so myself LOL - one thing that gives me an edge over most punters is a greater understanding of pace.
Set up nicely !! Fix it was !
November December all weather racing is not worth a bet imo
Clive Holt was a professional punter in the 70s, 80s and 90s. He made a fortune from betting on horse racing only and stated that in his opinion British racing was one of the straightest of sports with very little corruption. He said that when he started he didn't know anyone else involved in racing and therefore had to rely on form. Therefore he couldn't have been as successful as he was if the game was bent. BUT he also said that race fixing did occur on very rare occasions and stated that the following criteria had to be in place for a successful outcome: a minimum distance of 10 furlongs, it had to have a small field, ideally the jockeys were inexperienced, and the most important of all, which at first surprised me, but then made absolute sense: the only person involved who didn't know that the race was fixed was the jockey of the winning horse. He would be given pre-race instructions along these lines, "Look, we've got no chance of winning but if there is no pace on after a few hundred yards, kick on, build up a lead and see if you can hang on for some place money before the others come charging at you." I don't know what happened yesterday but I would say that the commentator Ian Bartlett would have been fully aware that these were inexperienced jockeys but was still obviously shocked at what happened.
Of course betting coups like that are possible, Graham. But they also invariably include a betting pattern too. Bookies always shorten up horses which have been well backed. Especially in races which have very small amounts wagered on the whole race. ie Where the percentage of the overall money taken on the gambled on horse is a large share of the overall amount wagered. Especially when the horse in question is originally 28/1. If Certain Style had shortened up from 28/1 to 4/1 before this happened, then I'd agree with you... And what's more, I'd be arguing for the riders being banned for life! But there was no change in Certain Style's odds. Indeed the Betfair SP was even bigger at 37/1. There was NO betting coup. Didn't Clive Holt say something about horses shortening in the circumstances you describe? If he didn't I'd be very surprised.
Horse racing has always been bent and it is the only way the industry can survive.
@@MARKBINGHAM-m5k What bollocks. The industry survives because the betting market has an over-round... And the bookmakers close accounts of those of us who make a good profit. Look up the "Mathematics Of Betting", you might learn something. As with everywhere; where there is money there is some skulduggery. No more than that. If the game is "bent" then I would not be able to make a good profit betting, by solely studying form and backing whatever I believe is value.
日本人へ
二人はプリキュアしただけやろコレ
八百長ちゃうわ
This was the result of a misjudgment of the horse's ability in front of him, and he did not lose on purpose. In fact, their disciplinary action was based on a "mistake".
Taking the piss out of punters
I'd never bet in a race like this myself, but if you were, surely having a look at the experience of the jockey's in an apprentice handicap and factoring that into the price is key. The winning rider was miles more experienced than the other 4, and when he takes the lead he knows he's got Chloe Lyons with minimal experience in second. She paces it wrong, the other 3 are unwilling to do the chasing and the result is an inevitability at that point.
The winning jockey's only had 7 wins but that's more than all other four put together. They just messed up.
No, just inexperienced riders not judging the pace very well. Which is often the case,
@@arkle1964 I guess thats my point. You’ve got 3 out of 4 jockeys in behind who’ve never won a race. The one who’d won 3 was on the fav whose entire form reads ‘held up’ or ‘always behind’. Which one was going to do the chasing? It won’t be the last time a more experienced jockey does a field, but I’ll save my frustration when it’s not all inexperienced claimers!
Why ?
If anybody has a bet in a hands and heels apprentice race over 2 miles on the all weather, then they deserve everything they get. The winner had the most experienced jockey which counts for a lot
💯
Fav was well backed by numerous folks on second start for the Owen yard lots of good word was flying about. Definitely some foul play at hand.
@ aren’t all favs maybe give the winning jockey a bit of credit it was a hands and heels race basically their first day at school plenty off pros do it too. Plus they were probably going by instructions from the trainer the winning jockey deserves a bit off credit
Proves it's all bent ! 😮
@@philjohnson2609 Proves you are clueless.
at the same meeting there was a 100/1 winner and a 125/1 winner…
Great
You mean to say, there were also two rank outsiders who despite their very minimal chance of winning... their jockeys still tried their hardest... And won! Oh we can't have that. You'd think those jockeys would have more sense and instead wait until they had a better chance before trying their best to win.
@markchapman2933 That's not the point. The point is these jockeys shouldn't be allowed a chance if they fail to notice a horse striving ahead and refuse to give a challenge. Its great to witness outsiders win, but not if it's taking the piss. This race was absolutely ridiculous.
Lingfield is grave yard for punters
@@PenaltyKicc A massive part of a 2m flat race is the pace in the race. Every punter should know that Inexperienced jockeys can get judgement of pace very wrong. Especially in these particular circumstances. if seeing a horse taking a strong hold go clear, because most horses that race that freely do come back to the field if the field itself is running at a fair pace. This leader settled once getting clear which was fortunate for him... And the field wasn't racing at a fair pace... And when knowing their horses aren't natural front runners; wanting a rival to lead them back to the front runner... Inexperienced jockeys won't go against their riding instructions,. So when on a known hold up horse and told to hold the horse up, they are only naturally going to be reluctant to head the chase. Yes, the standard of jockeyship was poor - even for inexperienced jockeys - so they deserve a ban. But there were many reasons / circumstances to combine for this to happen without it being thought of as a "fix". Did you never make a mistake in your line of work in the first weeks of your career?
Still available at good odds at betfair despite being "many hundred yards" ahead. In-running experts thought is was coming back. Wrong.
Yeah i was looking at the odds in play for this around halfway it was still 5/1
You get the odd race like this with 1 horse much better than the rest especially when apprentices are riding.
Watched this live, and couldb't believe how the other jocks were allowing the softest of sofr leads after Certain Style had gone half a mile. From then on it just got more and more ridiculous. I suppose that, as apprentices, they didn't dare not follow the strict instructions from their trainers, which didn't allow for this situation. The winning jock doubtless took advantage of that. Probably the Xmas bonus sorted nice and early for Laura Mongan and her yard. An even bigger bonus sorted for another yard later on the card when a 100/1 shot went in.
100/1+ doesn't mean there was any skulduggery. They win the number of times overall that their odds entitle them to. No more, no less. In my gambling career I have backed three 100/1+ winning horses. Purely by studying the form book. No inside information whatsoever. Even tipped them up beforehand on a racing forum. If believing a horse has just a 2% (what would be a fair 50/1) chance of winning I'll back it if available @ 100/1.
And it's CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!
@@David.L291 A few of us inexperienced "punters" went to our local track here in Canada to sit in the dining room and have an enjoyable meal. We made a few bets, then a race came up with a horse named same as our daughter. It was 50-1 and had not raced for some time. Miss Zip Lynn was at the back the entire time until the backstretch when she started to accelerate and blew by the entire field to win by 10 lengths!!! You can imagine the screaming and jubilation from our table. What a hoot!
@SirCamsmorethanalot that's amazing 🤩
This how jockeys pick winners & get their mates to back the winner for a cut.
Jesus I missed out on a good bet there 😂 the others got 10 day bans should have been longer 😭
They’re apprentices wise up no whips riding to instructions blame the trainers
Take them 10 days to catch up !
Also: Trainers give inexperienced jockeys riding instructions. None of the horses had made the running on any of their last 5 starts. Only one - Grand Duchess Olga - had tracked the pace . With all the others either raced in mid-div or held up. So all bar one trainer giving jockeys instructions probably told their jockey to “hold the horse up and don’t hit the front until late” or “get some cover”. Therefore had a jockey disobeyed.. ie Had a jockey gone after the leader and still lost ... He / she would never get another ride from that trainer again, because the jockey went against the trainer's instructions.
Big results at Lingfield today 28 s 100 125 hopefully someone got the placepot😮..
Just looked at the results and that 100/1 could've been had. Last four runs beyond awful but the previous form at Lingfield was sound
A £1 treble would have been nice.
28 to 1, I think the jockeys just paid their mortgage off 😂
Yeah right. Have you ever tried to get a decent chunk on a 28/1 shot in a 5 runner amateur riders race on the all weather?
@@marcusprice3199 If someone had put £5ew on it, they would have slashed it down to 8/1. Some of the so called pundits on here are just talking complete balls.
I doubt the four losing jockeys who have 4 wins between them have a mortgage.
@@nicpaps1311 no money for it. Price fluctuated between 28s and 33s.. As someone else said you put any kind of money on this the bookies are just going to wipe out 28s and make it 9/1.
@@unionjakjakson not if you placed the bet at the bookies and held the price
Extraordinary 😮
I'm assuming the stewards had the trainer in after the 100/1 shot won .
Previous 4 runs:
10th of 10
8th of 8
11th of 11
9th of 9
However, he was running over 1 mile 2 furlongs instead of the usual 7 furlongs so the explanation will be the horse appreciated the longer trip. And it won relatively easy.
Get the bookies in. 100/1 ?? It paid 502/1 on the exchange. Legalised theft.
Erm, sir mark Prescott. Lol
I thought the horse had taken off with the jockey, but then it had enough time to get a breather in, I don't think any of the jockeys had a clue what was going on, though in a 2m race there is plenty of time.
TBH dont think the race was fixed at all. How many NH races does a horse try and lead all the way from the front in at least a two mile race hoping to catch the others out? Betting patterns would indicate a fix. Think just very poor judgement from the jockeys caught out
Don’t hate the player, hate the game. I see nothing wrong here.
Certain Style ..... YOU BEAUTY !!!!!!
Doubled it with Epsom Faithfull 100/1 missed last winner 125/1
Should be a 14 day ban for all the jockeys behind
They got 10 days
Bent as an Arabs dagger
@@pauldarn Massively inexperienced jockeys.
And what's that going to do? Banning them for a mistake is ridiculous, no other sport would take that option for a simple mistake.
They knew what they were doing alright @@arkle1964
Class 6 horses that far back.Regardless of the trainers instructions.These horses aren’t good enough to make up that ground.They’re the lowest grade of horse.
Every time a heavy longshot wind the race convincingly, I IMMEDIATELY look at fractional times.
If the favorite ( and a couple of real contenders) ran a couple of seconds slower than ever before, you know there was an agreement in place among jockeys before the race, in other words it was not a competition, but a choreographed performance , like a pro wrestling match where you know the outcome ahead of time.
I too am a great believer in sectional times - a follower of Simon Rowlands etc. However, these were very inexperienced jockeys, so judging pace is far more difficult for them... And the fact none of the horses were natural front runners (none had made the running in their last 5+ starts) meant their riding orders were probably to hold their horses up.. If an inexperienced jockey had disobeyed riding orders by chasing after the leader and still got beat, then he / she would probably never ride for that trainer again. ie Inexperienced riders are far more likely to keep to the trainer's instructions no matter what else happens in the race.
Also you may want to watch the first couple of furlongs again. You'll see the winner's jockey also did not want to lead. It was only the fact his horse was taking such a strong hold that he either couldn't hold it or thought (wisely) not to fight the horse, as being too free all the way around would've resulted in nothing left for the finish. ie The winner only led on sufferance, which pretty much destroys any idea of there being as you claim, "an agreement in place among jockeys before the race",
@@markchapman2933 is your name not Matt chapman your going well out your way to say this was t rigged or racing isn't rigged when everybody knows it is.
I've been gambling for 30 odd year n racings never been the way it is it's rigged to the hilt because racing badly needs the bookies n goes out it's way to make sure the bookies make profits.
@@seanmcginlay7358 LOL No, my name is not Matt. I just care about the sport I love If you're so convinced that racing is "rigged to the hilt" Sean, why have you been gambling on it for "30 odd years"? Don't get me wrong, am sure there is some skulduggery going on... And most of it at the lower class racing. Believe I've seen some of it with my own eyes on the racecourse. Even been to the stewards room myself to complain about two rides.. Just that the amount of it that goes on is imo exaggerated... And in this particular case there are reasons why it is probably due to inexperienced jockeyship rather than actual skulduggery. Look. I don't like bookies either. But if the game was rigged as much as you believe. Then how come me and many other punters can hardly get a bet on with bookmakers? Some have closed my accounts and others limited the amount I can bet to such a degree they just as well be closed.Not because we have any inside information, just through studying form and being able to evaluate that form into chance better than bookmakers odds compilers. Thank xxxx for Betfair!
@@markchapman2933if you can use them lol. Struck off from pp and they must collaborate with one another. Struck off from alot, wanna interfering noise xxxxxxxxx
@@seanmcginlay7358 Why is it that when a surprise result comes up, there are always screams of "It was rigged!" ? Sometimes things just happen. The winner was pulling like a train at the beginning and the jock sensibly decided to let her run, instead of making her use up all her energy fighting him. The others just misjudged the pace owing to inexperience. I seriously doubt a 10-day ban will teach them anything. A few more race rides might.
Reminds me of Outlaw Torn winning at Newcastle
This is brilliant. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.
I still don't understand ,in running, on Betfair, where 2 horses go over the line within an inch or two of each other, that everyone during wants to be on the winne r@ 1.01.
Never in all my time have I seen such a farcical race.
Carreras de caballos en Venezuela 🗿
And that's why I don't bet on that corrupt shite.
I have never seen a jockey almost standing up in the irons......unbelievable...the death grip on the mouths of the other horses was ridiculous
Get a grip. They are extremely inexperienced riders who made a misjudgement of pace.
Ron Barry ride like that
Mark is correct
Wow. What a fantastic ride by the young jockey. Tyrese Cameron take a bow. Follow this jockey. Great ride 👏👏
Nothing to do with the ride pal
Was it "Christmas Money Day" for the stables at Lingfield today ? The results were ridiculous , this wasnt even the worst of it.
Afterwards, we shouldn't complain that people don't play racing anymore
The 4 shortarses who didn't win the rate all got 10 days ban and sent to bed early.
STERRING JOB FOR THE JOCKEY 🐴..DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO WHIP IT ??? STILL HAD PLENTY OF HORSE 🐴 UNDER NEATH HIM AT THE FINISH 👍.. DON'T BLAME THE WINNER 🥇
It was a hands and heels only race.
That was because their was no pace at the start of the race,so he took the initiative.
The winner was 20 seconds slower than average time for CD (course & distance). The now infamous Lingfield 4. Gormless young apprentices, with no clue they should be averaging 13 seconds a furlong over a 2 mile race, not 14 seconds a furlong.
Stewards trainer's owners all in with it 😡 and on the morning line they say bring your family racing, yer right 🤣 🤣
How many times has this been done its ridiculous
I don't know, how many? I would say not alot in the whole scheme of things.
This is what's known as milkshaking a horse 4 hours prior to race. In the UK there is no pre race Oxygen raised level testing. It is not steroids so it can't be detected in blood or urine tests. It can only be detected just prior to the race. I have a list of all the Trainers who do this and make millions profiling these trainers. It stops lactic acid stopping a horse from that barrier all runners hit at speeds. So they keep running with excess Oxygen levels in their system it takes a few minutes to milkshake the horse prior tp the race. UK mug racing there ripping your eyes out
Rubbish. The overall race time and sectional times tell you there was nothing exceptional about the winning racehorse's performance. This was all about the one jockey going off in front... And the others believing he'd gone too fast and would come back to them. The "others" (all extremely inexperienced jockeys) got their pace judgement wrong. Not that surprising this will happen from time to time. As their previous experiences of a 2m flat race was virtually nil. Pace judgement is everything in a race like this.
That wasn’t fixed
How much did those other jockeys bet on the winner?
This was the the fixed race I was told to back the winner I love bent horse races
IFTHIS WAS TODAY THERE WAS ALSO 100-1 AND 125-1 WINNERS AT THE SAME COURSE.
Photo finish guy put his feet up in this one lol.
I had a tenner on the winner , Certain Style . Tip came from a golf caddy actually.
Ojala y ayude la traducción (no hablo inglés). En mi país se corre anualmente una carrera grado 1 en 2 millas. La instrucción que los entrenadores le dan a los jinetes es tratar de buscar a los punteros cuando hayan recorrido ya los primeros 2000 metros, porque si se deja al puntero correr solo y tomar ventaja, cuabdo toque buscar la carrera será demasiado tarde. Eso fue lo que sucedió: ningún jinete fue a plantearle lucha al puntero y ganó de punta a punta.
Yep. Watched it live. Lumped on in race! Got 18s
Commentator: ‘many hundreds of yards ahead….probably a furlong.’
200 yards to a furlong. 200 yards is not ‘many hundreds’.
He then repeats the ‘many hundreds’ claim later in the race.
He’s a good commentator, always exciting, but needs to be sat down and put right on his maths.
220 yards in a furlong, i get your point, but if you comment on math better check your own numbers. The internet is a cruel mistress
@ yes, you are right. I quoted metres instead. That’ll teach me.
He was just exadrating the point, don't take it too literally. 😂
Shocking 😳 the only way to describe it the jockeys behind must have got there friends to back the winner absolutely horrific stuff no doubt about that 🤔
This is why i prefer to bet on the dogs! Especially Australian . 8 runners usually. Pay on 3 places.
The jockeys on the horses behind should be banned for life if not then the the jockey club of Britain should be disbanded with immediate effect
Just shush. Shit happens. There’s thousands of races and this shit will happen.
I assume this is an attempt at a joke given the Jockey Club hasn't ran British racing since 2006. Anyway assuming you are actually thick then the other jockeys are massively inexperienced with only 4 wins between them.
@arkle1964 no I'm not joking if punters put up with this then people may as well just not have a bet a just pass their money over to the bookies and walk away
@@Freddie-x4s OK you're a moron who knows so little about racing that you want the Jockey Club disbanded for something that had nothing to do with them.
Yes, it's not a fix, I think. Just the very inexperienced jockeys completely misjudged the race and how to deal with the runaway leader. They'll be wiser next time, live and learn...
If i had a bet on it 50 yds from the line it would of lost.😅
From the Start of the Race and the Leader go in front the Race was over
Reminds me of a certain horse I used to ride in G1Jockey.
Everybody can see they are not making any attempt to close the leader down and that's still with a circuit remaining. Disgraceful rides from the 4 of them - they should never be allowed to ride again under rules.
The other jockeys weren't good.. but this winner obviously stayed the trip better and more
Done a Wrecking Ball Paul.
All the conspiracy theorists, if they ever watched racing would realise this is a yearly occurrence with the green apprentices. Happens yearly
A 2 Miler? Perhaps Certain Style should start training for the Melbourne cup run on 4 November 2025?
This was a business race… that’s horse probably never win another race
Kentucky Derby prospect in the making...is there any blood lines to Secretariat
Yes I've backed the winner at 33/1for next year's donkey derby. 😊
Bookies love it when an outsider wins. No money on it
I am surprised by this, normally when a race is fixed, they try not to make it look so blatantly obvious...
So they fixed it so an errmm... completely unbacked 28/1 shot wins?
Yes if they're it & you bet on it you make money$$$$
If you could be bothered to be any research before making libellous comments you'd realise how inexperienced the other four jockeys were.
@@arkle1964inexperience or not was so clear they were miles off the pace
@@Adampetty6 Every year, hundreds of horses go clear when taking a strong hold. The vast majority then come back to the field because they've either used too much energy doing so, or gone too fast for the trip. In this race the leader settled pretty well once clear and the other jockeys misjudged the pace.
lol never even had to break a sweat. But looked like the winner could have gone another mile. Be interesting to see if the winner had a turn of speed in the last furlong to match the staying power
It's easy done I expect..A horse showed massive improved form by allowing to lead...Being the outsider the other lads thought he had gone too fast and rode their own race thinking he would come back..why ban??? Also same meeting 100/1 and 125/1 no problem??????
Just a nice easy fix up for some extra pocket money. Fools will deny it was set up so more fool them.
Far too few runners in this race to get away with "a fix."
Anyway, in modern horseracing there is little to no "fixing" - far too many cameras recording from different viewpoints.
There's also no need to fix: there are so many ways to cheat. One of the funniest things you can see at the racecourse is a handicap in which a jockey has been instructed to make sure a horse (one that obvioulsy fit, primed and trained to the minute and full of running) is placed by its rider behind a wall of horses with no way out so that it finishes well down the field - then next time out it's "o f f."
It's 2 miles at Lingfield. The bookies really don't care who wins , the market is so weak and the margins So high. Any big bets on the winner would shorten it's price quickly.
@MichaelDowd-h5s At prices of 28-1 and over, an array of small bets can be placed at various firms and locations without drawing too much attention. £100 to win at 28-1 at four different places is a nifty ten-grand ! Some neighbourhoods, especially in London, have several different bookies within a 5 minute walk.
@@mediastarguest
They have centralised accountancy and pick this up straight away
There will be an Interfirm investigation to see if anything strange happened with bets. The trainer and owner go a list and some punters would be blocked.
Maybe they could get away with this, but trainer , owners and jockeys will have their cards marked. All for a few bets in a weak market.
I am sure there was 15% margin in this race minimum. The bookies don't care.
In reality the punter doesn't have inside information, yet believe that they have a gift from god to pick winners over every other punter. Modern bookies provide a service to punters, they don't really care who wins. For this service they take on average 10% from every punter. Punters are playing against eachother. Insiders have an advantage. For an owner to get this advantage, he pays money to a horse and trainer fees.. An expensive hobby.
If bookies, trainers owners can't won lthe sport dies. Families go hungry.
It punters even broke even , bookies would go broke. Think about it.
So a horse with odds of 28/1 wins a 5 horse race and people still claim that racing isn't "dubious"......think of all the bookies that benefit from all those mug punters betting in races like these - - - especially on a Tuesday in winter on a minor race track
If you think that then why don't you just back all the outsiders in that type of race? If you're right then you'll make loads of money. But if actually looking at the odds of all winners of that type of race, you'll find it doesn't work... This is the first race in this particular All Weather Apprentice "Hands And Heels" series. But a similar 10 race Hands And Heels series on turf this year produced winners of: 5/2, 6/4, 7/1, 20/1, 9/4, 4/1, 9/4, 100/30, 17/2 and 13/8. Only one winner at double figure odds. Another Salisbury Hands And Heels series had three favourites winning the four races.
And if bookies know who is going to win why do they offer massive odds for that horse?... And why did those unscrupulous bookies not back the horse themselves? When a horse is well backed (especially in this type of race which has very little money in total wagered) the horse's odds shorten considerably. In betting coups where skulduggery is more likely to have taken place, the winner is well backed and so shortens considerably in price. THIS winner's odds never fluctuated from what you'd expect of a horse with a small chance of winning who has not been well backed.
Well, I bet those four jockeys behind never saw that one coming ....... or did they?
Pace Makes The Race
Wonder how many large bets were wagered up and down the country on the distance overs ?!!
Pretty much none I'd imagine.
Brilliant , bet the cocky jockeys behind won't assume a horse will come back to them next , BTW I backed that horse .
Small fields always back the outsider my grandad taught me 😊
"In layman’s terms they rode a misjudged race and we went for the entry point as they are all inexperienced riders.”
Basically they cheated
Basically they are all very inexperienced riders with only four wins between them.
His speed was good I saw like the other horse were going slow ,,at the beginning
It's a joke. The jockey club and the whole racing game. Making fools of the punters.
A horse who hadn't won a race in 15 starts. No chance for the punter.
Won't have bn many times in a flat race in which the commentator states that the leader is 'several' hundred yards clear 4f from home!! 🤣 in all seriousness though the jockeys in behind had a shocker albeit I understand they were inexperienced!
This race stinks so bad I had to open a window while watching it.
That lot will be having a fab xmas for sure Nothing to conclude from this other than it was a get up
They should be put in PRISON
Steward's Enquiry ?
You'd like to thi k so.
Of course there is always some skulduggery wherever money is involved. But when betting coups happen they all are accompanied by a betting pattern. The horse shortening up... This particular horse did not shorten. Always available at the same sort of price... And this was a Hands And Heels apprentice race - where all jockeys had pretty much no experience of race riding. So very little money is wagered on this type of race. Therefore just a small betting coup would've been a large percentage of the overall stakes. Which would've resulted in a massive shortening of the price. The odds were always around 28/1 and even bigger, a 40something betfair starting price. There was no betting coup with off course bookmakers, on course bookmakers or on betting exchanges.
These were incredibly inexperienced jockeys, with no judgement of pace. In all probability jockey error.
No one wanted to make the running so the winner had to because he was taking a strong hold .
And never looked back well done
Happens everyday at Woodbine Race Track!!!
Not shocked in the slightest what goes on in horse racing nowadays and it's allowed to go on with the lamest of excuses
If racing was as bent as that then I and many others would not show a reasonable profit purely by studying form (no inside information whatsoever), evaluating form into chance and backing whatever horses are available at bigger odds than my prices to beat. Punters good at evaluating form into chance will make a profit. Losing punters often - subconsciously at least - blame Racing for being bent, rather than themselves for backing the wrong horses. Having siad that, part of making a profit is knowing what races to avoid. Not because of skulduggery but because of inexperienced riders and the quality of racehorse and their temperaments.
Think that win was 0 15 aseell I honestly can't see a reason how it won like that, but never trust small fields at Lingfield
The jockeys backed the winner. Ten day ban is a joke.
Meanwhile the bookmakers make a fortune out of the race but get away scot fre.
The other four jockeys had 4 wins between them. It's simply a cock-up.
Those jockeys who you claim backed the winner must have kept it extremely quiet for it to have an SP of 28/1.
Give these extremely inexperienced jockeys a break. When you started in your first job, did you never make a mistake? The jockeys got the pace wrong. That's all.
これが競馬の恐ろしさだ！やイングランディーレ一人旅！どころじゃないなこれ
That’s why racing is fixed
Secretariat 🤣
Los de atrás pensaron que se cansaría
This has got to be a fixed race
Just when we thought it couldn't get away worse!What is happening to English racing?
250/1,,,100/1,,,200/1 winners all recently!!! Glad I stopped gambling years ago £££££S in my pocket 😅😅😅
I have myself backed a winner @ over 100/1 this year, purely from form study. That said, it is true there are more 100/1+ winners these days. Simply because 30+ years ago bookmakers did not want to take the risk of offering 100/1 or more. Whereas today bookmakers have betfair and other betting exchanges to lay the bets off. ie When a bookmaker lays a 100/1 shot nowadays he does not care if it wins or loses. Because although he's laid the horse @ 100/1, with that money he's also backed it himself @ 300/1 on betfair - for a guaranteed profit.
This race shows one thing, THE DIFFERENCE In CLASS IN HORSES.
I have been gambling for over 45 years and it's some of the worst riding l have seen.the stewards do nothing it's a joke
Bar the 10 day ban.
Bet all the trainers and jockeys had some money on the winner it's better than the prize money if they had £200 on the winner.
Any stewards enquiry 😮😮😮😢 A BIG FAT NO
DISGUSTING.
Then they must have been all banned for 10 days by a banshee.
The amount of money wagered on all the runners in a Hands And Heels Apprentice race is perhaps the least amount of any horse race in Britain. Therefore, had the jockeys all "had £200 on the winner" the percentage of the pot that represents would see the odds of Certain Style shorten enormously... And yet the odds of the winner in this case never fluctuated... And as Arkle rightly says, A BIG FAT YES, there was a stewards enquiry and as a result the jockeys all got 10 days... I personally think distorting the facts is DISGUSTING.
Just letting the horse win out of pity?
I bet the trainer is pissed at the jockey?
Other jockeys awful rides for sure, but also the winner just ran off
Not one person in the racing game could lie straight in bed.
I love you too.
Lay off the crack.
@@markchapman2933
I hope not I have got no time for cheats, liars and frauds.
Epsom Faithfull ran 4 poor races before with good form at Lingfield the much better horse in that field. How did it go off 100/1 and win 😂