ForumGarden

Well, to be precise, I've got 3.

Not surprisingly really, our office is holding a sweepstake, so I've pulled 3 of them out of the hat - well, a C5 envelope for a stake of £1 each, so there's a 40:3 chance of getting the winner. Better than that, the first one I drew has got everyone jealous, being the Favourite, at 7:1, Shut The Front Door. The next is Night In Milan, at 25:1 & finally Court By Surprise at 40:1 - not that the odds really make much difference, seeing as the National has a history of being anyone's race. For all anyone knows the Favourite could (and probably will, knowing my luck) fall at the first fence.

Has anyone else got their bets on, or taken part in a Sweepstake? If so, what have you got your money on?

Big horse race coming up?

I've never understood the appeal of either horse or auto racing. I think I may favor slower sports like golf.

Is this the race where all the royal hats are on display?

flopstock;1477352 wrote: Big horse race coming up?

I've never understood the appeal of either horse or auto racing. I think I may favor slower sports like golf.

Is this the race where all the royal hats are on display?


The hats are at Royal Ascot - this is the Grand National and it is so traditional for everyone, including old granny in the corner who hates gambling, to "have a flutter" (or, more usually, pick a number out of the sweepstake) that it's not seen as betting.

It's a race that's famous as being "Anyone's Race", so the odds don't really come into it as much as they would in everyday racing, where most of the time, with the favourites, you would have to bet more than what you would hope to win back (remembering that when you win you also get your stake back). I heard on the news that the odds on the favourite, Shut The Front Door (mine), had gone from the 7:1, when I drew it, to 10:1, which are pretty good payback odds anyway - and that's the favourite!! Others go to the 100:1.

I've told them at work I want my £40 winnings in notes, as the shrapnel of all the £1 coins could get a bit heavy to carry home on Monday.

flopstock;1477352 wrote: .... I've never understood the appeal of either horse or auto racing. .....
I've had an interest in auto racing, never the horses. But I wonder, is it the jockey/pilot who's competing ...... or the horse/automobile? And as I'm fairly certain the car has no emotion regarding a win or loss, I wonder if the horse thinks the effort is worth breaking its leg or even a “compassionate bullet? Oh! I'm being much too cynical. Let's talk about bull fighting instead.

It's not unknown for horses without their rides to win races - including the Grand National. However, the rules state that they have to have their rider in order to be classed as a winner.

Personally I would like to see a race where the horses are released from the Starting Gate without jockeys & leave it to their natural herding instinct to run. No restrictions. No whipping. Just let them enjoy themselves.

FourPart;1477420 wrote: It's not unknown for horses without their rides to win races - including the Grand National.
I'm almost certain I did see a film of a horse that managed to dislodge his jockey and get across the finish line first, but I don't remember the outcome.

FourPart;1477420 wrote: However, the rules state that they have to have their rider in order to be classed as a winner.
Something seems wrong with that. I am willing to bet that jockeys have many of those “what if discussions in the locker room.

FourPart;1477420 wrote: Personally I would like to see a race where the horses are released from the Starting Gate without jockeys & leave it to their natural herding instinct to run. No restrictions. No whipping. Just let them enjoy themselves.
I'm with you 100%! In a perfect world?

Bryn Mawr;1477358 wrote: The hats are at Royal Ascot - this is the Grand National and it is so traditional for everyone, including old granny in the corner who hates gambling, to "have a flutter" (or, more usually, pick a number out of the sweepstake) that it's not seen as betting.


That's like our NCAA tourney over here only ours drags out for a couple of weeks.

flopstock;1477438 wrote: That's like our NCAA tourney over here only ours drags out for a couple of weeks.
Do the spectators wear bonnets?

There's a page on Wikipedia detailing every horse death at this one particular race, the Grand National, since it was first run in the 1830s. The only decade which is death-free was the one which included World War One, during which the race was cancelled. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... d_National

Adding them up, that's 80 deaths in 180 years. Another way of looking at the figures is that each runner on average stood a one in a hundred chance of being dead within an hour of starting each Grand National. That's per race, not per career. One jockey also died, in 1860. Were it one horse and eighty jockeys dead I'd mind a lot less, the jockeys being paid volunteers instead of mere property.

Race Horse Death Watch is a site linked from the Wikipedia page and details 1257 thoroughbred horse deaths while racing in the UK since the site opened in 2007. That's an average of three horses each week losing their lives while racing on British racecourses.

I had no idea.

No doubt a former member would have had an argument to refute these figures.

I wonder who that could be?

A guest reader no doubt.

FourPart;1477453 wrote: an argument to refute these figures.


I don't understand the concept you propose. How can one refute factual figures? One might demonstrate their inaccuracy, perhaps, but that's not a refutation, that's a correction. Do you find any of my figures suspect?

spot;1477472 wrote: I don't understand the concept you propose. How can one refute factual figures? One might demonstrate their inaccuracy, perhaps, but that's not a refutation, that's a correction. Do you find any of my figures suspect?


I do believe the sentence you wonder over contains a heavy coating of irony at the fact there is NO argument against your figures.

spot;1477472 wrote: I don't understand the concept you propose. How can one refute factual figures? One might demonstrate their inaccuracy, perhaps, but that's not a refutation, that's a correction. Do you find any of my figures suspect?
Yes, but you know these "guest readers", forever instigating dissent.

spot;1477472 wrote: I don't understand the concept you propose. How can one refute factual figures? One might demonstrate their inaccuracy, perhaps, but that's not a refutation, that's a correction. Do you find any of my figures suspect?


I am sure you have done your homework spot. You are nothing if not thorough, but as you know perfectly well that the said ex-member would be bound to try to find some detail that could offer a disagreement with your factual figures, had that person still been a member on FG !

Let's see. The board rolling to a stand-still of participation ¦.. or another fight.

What you see is a forum on which discussion is once again, after far too long an absence, a possibility. The essence of discussion is to at least remember what's been said so far in a thread, and then to address posts on that basis. I'm still hopeful that we might one day all aim, as a further principle, to uncover common ground on whatever topic engages our attention, but the remembering and addressing are core aspects without which nothing can work.

Oh Mr. spot, please .............................. try not to turn Forum Garden into a totally debating forum. There are already one or two of those on the internet. We should have a few more light-hearted threads, even though the more serious members may consider those sort of threads 'fluffy' threads. However 'fluffy' they may be, they offer a much wider choice of subject to any potential members, passing through, looking for a new forum to join. Don't you think ?

I find it is part of the enjoyment of participating in a forum, when the original subject is slightly deviated from, sometimes causing a slight outcry from some of the participating members. Keeps people on their toes a bit !

Can you repeat that, Spot. I seem to have lost my concentration. Just from the "long absence" part, please.

High Threshold;1477484 wrote: Can you repeat that, Spot. I seem to have lost my concentration. Just from the "long absence" part, please.


I lost track there as well.

G#Gill;1477483 wrote: However 'fluffy' they may be, they offer a much wider choice of subject to any potential members, passing through, looking for a new forum to join. Don't you think ?


Should you find yourself in Penzance, Gill, I'll teach you how to cook rice. That's the closest I ever approach to fluffy. I might even stretch to a little light-hearted wine tasting.

spot;1477491 wrote: Should you find yourself in Penzance, Gill, I'll teach you how to cook rice. That's the closest I ever approach to fluffy. I might even stretch to a little light-hearted wine tasting.
That reminds me - I reckon it must be getting towards tasting time of my Banana Wine by now - then bottling it, perhaps.

I fear that any potential similarity between your Banana Wine and the contents of my cellar is illusory.

If you just heard a susurration of bones, that was me shuddering.

Banana wine? Sounds positively horrid! Keep it away from me!

I came across a load of recipes for it last year & thought I just had to try it. Apparently it's quite popular.

FourPart;1477505 wrote: I came across a load of recipes for it last year & thought I just had to try it. Apparently it's quite popular.
In what circles? I could just be a prude but ..... banana wine, wine in boxes, screw caps ......

High Threshold;1477507 wrote: In what circles? I could just be a prude but ..... banana wine, wine in boxes, screw caps ......


Banana wine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FourPart;1477509 wrote: Banana wine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The only thing missing is a tablespoon of Coleman's Mustard.

Oddly enough I have actually fermented "banana wine", but solely to create a source of ethanol for distillation. The idea of tasting it in a raw state never entered my head.