Champagne Haze - Tantamount to Cheating!!

So now I hope we can cry and moan and crucify the Kotzen stable too for their handling of Double Whammy.....Different price but they did exactly the same thing by trying to settle a horse who patently runs and wins from the front......

No difference to the CH incident imo.

Chris van Buuren wrote: So now I hope we can cry and moan and crucify the Kotzen stable too for their handling of Double Whammy.....Different price but they did exactly the same thing by trying to settle a horse who patently runs and wins from the front......

No difference to the CH incident imo.

Chris ,we get lambasted on the forum for being too harsh but there are centres where there would be an enquiry if the riding tactics were changed without pre-notification to the stewards...............basically they expect answers to the questions the average punter would ask.................and that is all we want IMO.

rob faux wrote:

Chris van Buuren wrote: So now I hope we can cry and moan and crucify the Kotzen stable too for their handling of Double Whammy.....Different price but they did exactly the same thing by trying to settle a horse who patently runs and wins from the front......

No difference to the CH incident imo.

Chris ,we get lambasted on the forum for being too harsh but there are centres where there would be an enquiry if the riding tactics were changed without pre-notification to the stewards...............basically they expect answers to the questions the average punter would ask.................and that is all we want IMO.

SO I guess we can at least all agree that the NHA means absolutely nothing, they have been for a long time and seem that they will continue to be an agency that has no teeth....

Chris van Buuren wrote: So now I hope we can cry and moan and crucify the Kotzen stable too for their handling of Double Whammy.....Different price but they did exactly the same thing by trying to settle a horse who patently runs and wins from the front......

No difference to the CH incident imo.

Again I maintain that every trainer should note his riding intentions and they should be signed by jock and put into a box. When horses that run handy are suddenly dropped out for no good reason then very easy to check and suspend the horse.In both these cases I think the trainers would find it impossible to defend the rides given to both horses especially when you look at their winning form. I think it is disgusting that so few horses are ever suspended for in and out running.

Double Whammy I don't think is the same horse after its injury, I know the horse had knee chips late year that's why she never ran for so long,that may be why they trying different tactics with her.

savasp wrote: Double Whammy I don't think is the same horse after its injury, I know the horse had knee chips late year that's why she never ran for so long,that may be why they trying different tactics with her.

That is a very reasonable explanation but as have so many before me said, would it not make sense to let the people know at declarations that tactics will be changed??? I mean the only reason I backed her at 6's, 5's and 4's was because I was absolutely locked that she would go to the front and not get caught......

Oh well, just another kick in the nuts!

Chris van Buuren wrote: So now I hope we can cry and moan and crucify the Kotzen stable too for their handling of Double Whammy.....Different price but they did exactly the same thing by trying to settle a horse who patently runs and wins from the front......

No difference to the CH incident imo.

This one hurt my pocket as I read the exact same as you.

Back to Champagne Haze, I own a leg in the horse and was advised that he wasn't quite ready, but that "his class should pull him through" I did a very large sum, but surely by the mere fact that CH drifted from 3/10 to 5/10, and the Tarry horse shortened, I and other ardent punters should have known that this was some alarm bell ringing. "Watch the betting" the 1st thing I learnt as a teenage punter. Good lads the Alexanders

Look at the trainer comments for New Predator : "obviously a prep run" am I missing something here, isn't this pretty cheeky?

PC wrote: Back to Champagne Haze, I own a leg in the horse and was advised that he wasn't quite ready, but that "his class should pull him through" I did a very large sum, but surely by the mere fact that CH drifted from 3/10 to 5/10, and the Tarry horse shortened, I and other ardent punters should have known that this was some ala
rm bell ringing. "Watch the betting" the 1st thing I learnt as a teenage punter. Good lads the Alexanders

According to Formgrids, this horse opened at 16/10 and drifted out to 7/2 Sp when it WON the Pravin Chetty handicap over 1400mt at Turffies.
Without trying to undermine anyone but the reasoning is flawed if the poor run is based on the drift in the betting. :silly:

My reasoning is actually the other way around. The drift could likely indicate support for another horse, or uncertainty on the part of the connections. In the PC race, the hype was all about Captain Nemo, hence the drift on CH.

Agree Capt Memo came in for all the support and your horse was not quite up to it considering he failed in his 1st run in open co.in a MR 67 hcap where he ran 3rd to the 5 y/0 MR 58 Facebook.

I suspect you had a big punt in that race bcos CH shortened from Op 15/10 to Sp 8/10. Were you told that his " class should carry him through" in that race? :lol: