- This topic has 39 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
The love of money is the root of all evil, so say some. Is our collective love of the Festival causing blind eyes to be turned to the rules by many of us, the BHA included?
How many horses are truly being run on their merits throughout the jumps season? In this week’s Weekender, Alan King says . . .
“We train our horses to progress as the season develops. I would not have a high first-time-out strike rate. They are fit enough to run well, but I like them to come on for it. As a consequence they are open to progress more."
King holds the highest percentage record for trainers with 30 runners or more over the past 8 years at the Festival, for horses running closest to their best RPRs.
Is what he is doing within the rules?
There’s the matter of fitness, readying horses to peak at a particular time, and, crucially, timing medication to be out of their systems so that the doping rules are not infringed come race time. If this is what we have come to, perhaps we should be honest about it and the rules modified to fit. Some might gladly agree to such a compromise for that glorious week in March; I might even be one of them. But we need a degree of openness about it.
Should trainers be required to declare a quantifiable fitness assessment for each runner before a race? Rather than: ‘He’ll be doing his best, but I’d expect him to come on for this,’ something like, ‘I’d say he is 80% fit.’ It would then be up to punters to decide whether that 80% fit horse has enough natural talent to beat another in the race who’s been declared 95% fit. Doubtless trainers will win with horses declared as 70% fit and plenty will lose with horses deemed 100% fit. But at least the information is in the open. It is then up to punters to decide what to do with that information. Of course there is also the question of the judgement of the trainer and the honesty of the trainer. But as things stand, there’s a level of compulsory dishonesty anyway, if many horses are running in races with the intention of preparing them to win another race.
Or, if NH racing needs prep races for horses, then perhaps the Jumpers’ Bumpers should be properly structured, and horses who are being openly prepped, confined to those races until declared 100% fit and ready to win over jumps.
It’s a tough problem with many facets, but as the Festival’s influence grows, it’s going to have to be faced at some point.
Joe
I don’t see there is anything wrong with Alan King’s comments Joe.
Horses don’t need to be 100% fit first time out (or when coming back from time out, just fit enough to do itself justice.
No trainer can give a true percentage comment. We don’t need more percentages!
What he/she says all depends on how optimistic/pessimistic their character is. Means nothing.Trainers records after a break are readily available to punters. Those statistics together with whether the stable is in good or bad form are much more reliable than a trainer giving a percentage opinion.
Value Is EverythingGinger, optimism/pessimism has nothing to do with it. If he knows his job (he or she, of course) and the horse, it should not be difficult to assess its fitness level, whatever his outlook on life is
Ginger, optimism/pessimism has nothing to do with it. If he knows his job (he or she, of course) and the horse, it should not be difficult to assess its fitness level, whatever his outlook on life is
Trainers know in their own mind how fit a horse is Joe. But to put that in to a percentage figure is nonsense. One man’s 90% fit is another man’s 80% etc. There is no measuring stick.
How fit is 80% fit?
Is it that the trainer believes him capable of running to 4 lbs below his very best? Or 2 lbs? 6 lbs? or 10 lbs? You’d need a definition……And then what happens when a horse actually improves by 7 lbs?
Answer: Punters think they’ve been hard done by to an even greater extent than if saying "the horse probably needs it".
Value Is EverythingJoe is absolutely correct and in Hong Kong, Australia and South Africa both trainer and jockey could serve long bans. In UK which is possible the worst run racing they don’t even understand the rules let alone ever think they have to apply them.
The Rule is crystal clear. It does not permit horses to be run on half or 3/4 merits but only 100% merits. (Merits: the intrinsic qualities or virtues). Horse should obtain its best possible placing based on its full merits, which means it should not finish half way down the card if in 6 weeks, say, it could have won same race on its actual merits:
BHA Rules
58. General requirement for a horse to be run on its merits and obtain best possible placing
58.1 Every horse which runs in a race shall be run and be seen to be run on its merits (see Rule (D)45 (riding to achieve the best possible placing)).
58.2 No owner, Registered Agent of a Recognised Company or Trainer may58.2.1 give any instructions which if obeyed could or would prevent a horse from obtaining the best possible placing, or
58.2.2 prevent or try to prevent in any way any horse from obtaining the best possible placing.58.3 No Rider or any other Person may in any way prevent or try to prevent any horse from obtaining the best possible placing.
Ginger, optimism/pessimism has nothing to do with it. If he knows his job (he or she, of course) and the horse, it should not be difficult to assess its fitness level, whatever his outlook on life is
Trainers know in their own mind how fit a horse is Joe. But to put that in to a percentage figure is nonsense. One man’s 90% fit is another man’s 80% etc. There is no measuring stick.
Expert trainers using heart rate monitors, lactate testing, weighing and treadmills know fitness to a fairly precise percentage level. In NH there are very, very few trainers who have any real expertise in training. Martin Pipe showed that in spades and not much has changed since his day.
Not just festival but all year round. Do we think Treve was running 100% to destroy the field in the Prix Vermeille? You cant burn your horse out in the Craven/Greenham when the Guineas is around the corner. The ones that do end up losing the big prize to the ones that peak to the day win the others are suffering from the physical war of a trial.
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
Not just festival but all year round. Do we think Treve was running 100% to destroy the field in the Prix Vermeille? You cant burn your horse out in the Craven/Greenham when the Guineas is around the corner. The ones that do end up losing the big prize to the ones that peak to the day win the others are suffering from the physical war of a trial.
That’s part of my point. Treve didn’t need to be 100 percent to win the Vermeille. King could choose to run his unfit grade 1 horses in grade 3 company.
‘running on its merits’ is probably too loose a definition.
The essence of any new rule should be that the horse is not only trying, but is fit enough to beat the opposition, all else being equal. That would allow for horses to be prepped in races lower than their grade. We might then see many more top horses contesting handicaps.
Joe is absolutely correct and in Hong Kong, Australia and South Africa both trainer and jockey could serve long bans. In UK which is possible the worst run racing they don’t even understand the rules let alone ever think they have to apply them.
The Rule is crystal clear. It does not permit horses to be run on half or 3/4 merits but only 100% merits. (Merits: the intrinsic qualities or virtues). Horse should obtain its best possible placing based on its full merits, which means it should not finish half way down the card if in 6 weeks, say, it could have won same race on its actual merits:
If those countries have a 100% rule Robert then they are naive at best, stupid at worst.
Although physically looking at a horse helps, nobody outside the stable can be absolutely certain a horse is 100% fit. Having such a rule does
not
stop a trainer running something 90% or 80% fit. It merely stops him/her from telling the punters it is not fully fit. Does every horse in these countries run to form first time out?
Some horses physically need a race to get fit. Some small trainers don’t have the facilities of others to get a horse 100% first time up. Let’s take another saying trainers in Britain sometimes come out with:
"He’s as fit as I can get him at home". Some might see that statement meaning the horse is 100% fit, ie can not be made fitter without racing. But it could also be seen as meaning exactly the same as saying "He’s 80% fit" (ie not quite at his very best).
I’d be livid if such a "100%" came in here! It just prevents trainers warning punters.
Value Is EverythingNot just festival but all year round. Do we think Treve was running 100% to destroy the field in the Prix Vermeille? You cant burn your horse out in the Craven/Greenham when the Guineas is around the corner. The ones that do end up losing the big prize to the ones that peak to the day win the others are suffering from the physical war of a trial.
That’s part of my point. Treve didn’t need to be 100 percent to win the Vermeille. King could choose to run his unfit grade 1 horses in grade 3 company.
‘running on its merits’ is probably too loose a definition.
The essence of any new rule should be that the horse is not only trying, but is fit enough to beat the opposition, all else being equal. That would allow for horses to be prepped in races lower than their grade. We might then see many more top horses contesting handicaps.
So now you are saying it is ok to be less than 100% fit, just as long as the horse is running in a worse grade?
So who is going to decide what level of fitness is acceptable when coming down in grade Joe? You’re just writing about opinion now.
With all the weight given away – "top horses contesting handicaps" needs them to be just as fit if not fitter than running in a Grade 1. Why is it ok to be less than 100% fit (not trying) in a handicap?
Both yourself and Nathan have said Treve was not "100%" for the Vermaille. That is also only an opinion. I seem to remember Timeform upping her rating on the back of that Vermaille win and so making her top rated for the Arc. So up to that point the Vermaille was thought Treve’s best performance, yet she was not 100% fit?
It seems now horses are not allowed to improve, because if they do it somehow proves they were not "100%" in previous races.Value Is EverythingShe was 100% but only did what she had to. If Frankie wanted to he would of beat that lot 20 lengths+ but the aim was the Arc.
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
There is nothing quite like a race to get a horse 100%, but, there is a big difference between getting them there best as possible and the rear drop out that is using the course to get fit.
I for one have stopped following jumps racing closely this season for the first time, I certainly have not missed it and I have barely noticed it. I don’t think the fixation on two dates is particularly healthy for NH racing.
BHA Rule:
45.3 A Trainer must not send any horse to race with a view to schooling or conditioning the horse.
Value Is EverythingCall me naive but I can’t understand why a horse can’t be 100% fit every time it runs.
There was a Q&A with Equine Exercise Physiologist Bill Pressey in 2010 and below are a couple of questions asked and I appreciate he is speaking from an American viewpoint however the general point is nigh on the same
Whilst aware that each individual horse is different, in your opinion on average how long does a horse need between races to operate at an optimum level.
Thanks
‘Bill, Why can get some trainers get their horses fit to burst at home and some say "He is as fit as I can get him at home" and the horse is fatter and runs slower than me? And how is this training on the course allowed?’
If you get a horse fit to run to first time out at it’s optimum level then based on the first question in particular I can’t see a reason why you couldn’t do that at least half a dozen times a season.Ginger,
Forgive me if I don’t include quotes of quotes of quotes in this response. I find them off-putting when reading.
But just to clarify my position on this 100% fitness level – I don’t have an opinion on it. I haven’t said a horse needs to be 100%. I didn’t say Treve was 100%. My point is that it doesn’t matter what fitness level horses are at, so long as there is a structure within the rules which at least makes an attempt at letting punters know that fitness level, in the view of the trainer.
If a trainer does not have the facilities to get every ‘normal’ horse 100% fit at home, perhaps no licence should be granted. I accept that there are ‘gross’ horses and there lazy horses who might not put it all in at home – but shouldn’t that be the trainers’ problem, rather than the punters’? Jumpers Bumper type races are perhaps the answer for these horses – much as many seem to dislike such races. Field sizes suggest that trainers love them. If they have horses (the gross and the lazy) who cannot be got 100% fit at home, then maybe they should be confined to running in such races until they are 100%.
I offer all of this for debate. I don’t know the answer; I know only that the industry should – in my opinion – come up with one!
BHA Rule:
45.3 A Trainer must not send any horse to race with a view to schooling or conditioning the horse.
The essence of any new rule should be that the horse is not only trying, but is
fit enough
to beat the opposition, all else being equal.
…Exactly what it is now Joe.
Horses need to be "fit enough" otherwise the trainer should be done under rule 45.3. I’d agree this rule is too often ignored by both trainer and stewards.Value Is Everything
What he/she says all depends on how optimistic/pessimistic their character is. Means nothing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.