- Total Posts 562
Think you’ve missed my point a bit there Glenn.
Weighing will not tell you which of a field of 2yo debutantes are ‘off’. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Weighing will not tell you which odds-on favourite has been given a large bucket of water 15 minutes before the race. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Weighing will not tell you which jockeys are riding to order. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Weighing will not tell you whether the trainer’s choice of 6f for a stamina-bred 3yo is the correct decision. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
With Gardasee, naps knows he wasn’t fully fit, so the extra weight makes sense. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â To an uninformed observer, ‘one glance at the weight’ will mean little: the horse has been off for a year from 4 to 5, so he could be not fully fit, or he could have grown, matured and put on plenty of muscle in the meantime and have a new optimum racing weight.
And I guess that’s my point. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Was that horse at peak fitness when winning a month ago at xlbs, or did he just have better ground and everything in his favour? Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â So now, this time out at 20lbs lighter, is he fitter, or in poorer condition? Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â A horse is perfectly capable at winning weighing 1135 and six months later winning weighing 1170. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Or they might run great weighing 1040 and then absimally weighing 1041, despite all other conditions being equal. A trainer has multiple, legitimate excuses for a horse either not keeping a constant weight or not running consistently at that weight.
It would filter out some blatant cases of cheating, and occasionally the information would be useful to punters when used correctly. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â But when it is a matter of priorities, there are other opaque areas of racing that need tiding up first.
How about getting sectional timing right before they start anything else?