The Bookmakers’ pricing of horses based on jockey engagements may have skewed the perceived chances of Monday’s 50-1 Fairview winner Matsuyamo, and the consequent starting price bias may have inadvertently dominated the conversation of why the trainer was not questioned, or why the Stipes failed to test the gelding.
The Sporting Post had a number of questions from punters after the Stipes report from Monday’s meeting was published.
In a nutshell, a 50-1 shot won and:
- 1.The trainer was not questioned.
- 2.Contrary to a long-standing pattern of always testing winners (at all prices), he was not tested.
Here is the story that was run on the Sporting Post website on Tuesday.
The African Betting Clan (ABC) subsequently ran the editorial and there was, not unexpectedly, some debate, including comments from the owner and trainer of the runner-up, El Moriachi.
NHA CEO Vee Moodley
ABC Boss Dave Scott subsequently approached NHA CEO Vee Moodley and kindly sent us the racing regulator boss’ response, which is published hereunder.
Mr Moodley writes:
I attach a copy of Matsuyamo’s form line. (Ed – plse access Formgrids, in need)
Please study carefully.
There was absolutely no reason for the Stipendiary stewards to open an inquiry or question the trainer for the so called ‘improved run’ performance.
It’s clearly evident that he performs better on the polytrack – as all of his 3 wins were on that surface. His prior run, he was beaten 9,75 L on the turf over 2000m, his first run in just under 3 months, & wins 10 days later.
What surprises me, is why there was no request for an improved run inquiry when on the 17.02.2023 Matsuyamo was beaten 10,40 L behind Light Without over 2400m & then won his next start on the poly over 1900m, 11 days later.
I am of the opinion that the ” starting price ” bias is dominating the conversation.
It is obvious that when the ‘odds makers’ (Bookmakers ) price up runners they have certain jockeys at much restricted odds & others at much longer odds, stable jockeys selection are an indication, especially when there are couplings.
From a racing control perspective, the winner (we ignore betting) won a handicap of a MR 71 28 February & was adjusted to a MR 75 , he was beaten an average of 5 L in his last 4 runs, coupled with a 2 point MR drop,& this being a handicap, where every runner should have an equal chance of winning, there was no need to inquire into the win. I trust that this settles your first query.
As for the deviation for specimen collection in this particular race, I cannot expand on the exact details for obvious Racing Control reasons, the Stipendiary Board & the Veterinary Surgeon on duty applied themselves accordingly, & fully supported by Executive Management, post race.
On another note, if you follow the Stipendiary stewards Reports nationally, you would notice a host of changes on our standard specimen collection procedures & selection criteria.’
You be the judge.
