- This topic has 24 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
We know that the BHA are investigating the coup organised last week, which is ironic when it was the actions of their own handicappers that did most to anable the organisers to place their horses to win.
Much of this was debated in detail during the epic thread started by Jose in the Trends and Notebooks section, but let’s look at what preceded the coup and see if it made sense.
I have owned horses on and off for over thirty years and must have had several hundred flat runners in that time. Not once have I ever owned a horse beaten more than 100 lengths in a flat race. Mr Curley managed this feat in consecutive races with Eye Of The Tiger and was gifted a 17lb fall in his handicap mark as a result.
I would suggest that a horse can only be beaten that far in a handicap flat race for two reasons :
1) It has been deliberately prevented from running to form, either by the actions of the jockey or by administration of a sedative drug.
2) It is carrying a serious physical problem which ought to be obvious during training and that racing the horse is a welfare issue that should be taken up with the trainer.
Since it is plain as day that a horse beaten so far has not simply shown that it is unable to win from the current handicap mark, it is nonsensical to lower that mark. If you have beeen beaten 100+ lengths in a 12F race, are we seriously suggesting that carrying 8 or 9lbs less would have made a difference?
I propose a simple rule change that would mean any horse beaten more than three lengths per furlong (i.e 15+ lengths in a 5F sprint, 48+ lengths over 2M), would have its handicap rating unchanged. But leave the handicapper with discretion to cope with abnormal results, such as a horse winning a sprint by six lengths and pushing too many horses over the limit of this rule. That discretion could also extend to races on heavy ground and probably to races at Southwell as well!
In plain English, you have to show that your horse is still capable of performing to a reasonable level in order to get rehandicapped. If it cannot achieve that fairly modest level, then either take it out training until it has recovered or retire it.
One thing is for sure – the more that the racing program consists of handicaps, the more important it is to have a properly documented and controlled handicapping system that gives all horses an equal chance. Such a system would also act as a first line of defence in the battle against cheats.
Currently we have a totally unaccountable head of handicapping who genuinely believes that his primary role is to keep trainers happy and punters confused. He, rather than Curley, is the one the BHA should be investigating.
Am not usually for any rule changes, but can’t fault any of that AP. Must say was amazed the handicapper dropped those horses by so far. Obvious something amiss and it wasn’t that they’d suddenly gone on the downgrade.
Have you put it to the BHA?
This just shows why Puunters/Customers need a representitive on the BHA. Would you be interested in such a "job" AP?
Value Is EverythingGinger,
No, and no.
Phil Smith isn’t interested in improving the current process and has shown several times that critcism just bounces off him.
As for a job, I’m retired and plan to stay that way.
AP
Is this a general problem though? If you look at other horses beaten hundreds of lengths they don’t seem to get the leniency Curley’s are afforded.
Look at the two horses Eye of the Tiger beat home in those six runs. Not dropped nearly as much. Arctic Cosmos was a further 86 lengths back at Newbury, and put in subsequent lamentable runs. His handicap mark dropped by a single pound by season’s end.
I’ve never met Phil Smith, and he might well be a perfectly nice man. But he seems to enjoy the limelight, and people with large egos tend to do better in ‘creative’ occupations.
Mastering the ‘science’ of handicapping should, imo, be left to those who prefer to be neither seen nor heard in public.
In his blog, published today, Mr Smith says he used Restless Harry as his benchmark for handicapping the Argento, ‘because he’d won last time out, so was in form.’.
Restless Harry’s 6 previous RPRs over fences:
147:123:89:128:99:142.
OK, he ran a 145 on Saturday, but he’s one of the last many would look to as a benchmark.
Ginger,
No, and no.
Phil Smith isn’t interested in improving the current process and has shown several times that critcism just bounces off him.
As for a job, I’m retired and plan to stay that way.
AP
Can’t say I blame you AP.
Must say think there should be a punters representitive, though possibly an impossible job with the current BHA.Value Is EverythingI gave up reading the Phil Smith blog years ago, but ventured back for this one given your comments.
The whole thing is laughable and stands as written confirmation that he just makes it up as he goes along.
Take this as an example :
"Perhaps I should have rated the race a couple of pounds higher but there would have been a knock on effect on Harry Topper and I didn’t want to have him going up more than 3lb after such a poor round of jumping."
Since when has the handicapper been expected to make allowances for horses that can’t jump!
It’s also an example of the endless fiddling with ratings after every race that exemplifies the current set-up. The Argento Chase was a conditions event run on heavy ground in a very slow time – imo the correct handicapping response would be to simply ignore the race and leave all the runners unchanged.
I have owned horses on and off for over thirty years and must have had several hundred flat runners in that time.
I would suggest that a horse can only be beaten that far in a handicap flat race for two reasons :
1) It has been deliberately prevented from running to form, either by the actions of the jockey or by administration of a sedative drug.2) It is carrying a serious physical problem which ought to be obvious during training and that racing the horse is a welfare issue that should be taken up with the trainer.
Since it is plain as day that a horse beaten so far has not simply shown that it is unable to win from the current handicap mark, it is nonsensical to lower that mark. If you have beeen beaten 100+ lengths in a 12F race, are we seriously suggesting that carrying 8 or 9lbs less would have made a difference?
I propose a simple rule change that would mean any horse beaten more than three lengths per furlong (i.e 15+ lengths in a 5F sprint, 48+ lengths over 2M), would have its handicap rating unchanged.In plain English, you have to show that your horse is still capable of performing to a reasonable level in order to get rehandicapped.
If it cannot achieve that fairly modest level, then either take it out training until it has recovered or retire it.
One thing is for sure – the more that the racing program consists of handicaps, the more important it is to have a properly documented and controlled handicapping system that gives all horses an equal chance. Such a system would also act as a first line of defence in the battle against cheats.Currently we have a totally unaccountable head of handicapping who genuinely believes that his primary role is to keep trainers happy and punters confused. He, rather than Curley, is the one the BHA should be investigating.
Handicapping is a nightmare AP and history shows the Official handicappers have given some weird and strange marks and always will.
It is ironic that Curley etc pulled off the exact same stroke 4 years ago with a 4 timer and cleared £13m. BHA did nothing then and will not do anything this time. Racing has not been called into disrepute by Curley – he is the messenger of a rotten system that continues to be rotten. Rampant steroid use swept under the carpet is a far more serious integrity issue that they have done almost nothing about – just the usual sacrificial scapegoat from the lower ranks.
The easiest way to get a horse beat is to let it fatten up by 50 pounds, feed it well on race day and let it drink a few buckets of water pre-race. No drugs needed. The weight set by Phil Smith is then irrelevant.
BHA should insist on horse body weights being recorded.
It is pointless, in equalising handicap chances, for a horse to go up 10 pounds, say, in the weights but strip 30 pounds fitter for its next race. It has then gone down 20 pounds but is priced as if it had gone up 10. That is institutionalised cheating of the betting public that fund the sport.No horse in handicaps ever runs on its true merits. Even winners just win by the slimmest margin they can get away with.
With low prize money and wall to wall handicaps a trainer even with the best intentions is forced to cheat to stay in business.When will BHA ever fine a trainer who brazenly states – "the horse should come on for the run".
Schooling in public or a non-trier they act with impunity to BHA ever acting to enforce its own regulations.BHA will probably do the UK PR thing and quietly announce Smith is leaving but will only ever address their embarrassment to select a scapegoat, but never address the cause or the real issues of zero integrity.
]Trouble is though horses have always been dropped considerably for an absence,’Imperial Commander’ had a mere 660 odd days off and was dropped over 20lb and all but won his comeback off 164,he only wins a Gold cup off 174 which was lenient in his heyday and wins the Betfair off 185 which was harsh considering ‘Tidal bay’ was only a 160 odd rated horse! :shock .
Is there a ‘rule’, written or unwritten, that states handicappers should reduce the mark of horses that’ve been off for a ‘long time’?
For example was the 56 Eye Of The Tiger ran off last week the mark he was awarded after his Haydock run (off 67) in September 2012, or was it revised down to account for length of absence?
Good post Robert, Racing has been deregulated in much the same way that banking was and we know what happened there. Loopholes are being exploited with a vengeance and the sport is completely toxic.
Good post Robert, Racing has been deregulated in much the same way that banking was
Has it?
Which rules have been removed?
Mike
Loopholes are being exploited with a vengeance
There are loopholes and they are being exploited by shrewd connections, this is nothing new, it was happening 100 years ago, it WILL be happening 100 years hence. You cannot legislate human nature out of any sport – especially gambling-heavy ones! – you simply attempt to improve the situation.
Some intelligent comments on here regarding that.
the sport is completely toxic.
No it isn’t. But how would you know anyway? You don’t follow racing. You have no opinions on the sport!
Mike
Loopholes are being exploited with a vengeance
There are loopholes and they are being exploited by shrewd connections, this is nothing new, it was happening 100 years ago, it WILL be happening 100 years hence. You cannot legislate human nature out of any sport – especially gambling-heavy ones! – you simply attempt to improve the situation.
Some intelligent comments on here regarding that.
the sport is completely toxic.
No it isn’t. But how would you know anyway? You don’t follow racing. You have no opinions on the sport!
Mike
I may be naïve but I’ve always believed that the object of racing was to be in front at the finishing line, a laughably childish concept I know.
Below is yesterday’s BHA’s official Why They Ran Badly report for 2 whole race meetings.
Not a single reason as to WHY they ran badly. Just a cosy and unchallenged parroting of the fact that they did ran badly that is 100% obvious to anyone watching the race. Adds absolutely zilch to integrity enforcement.
They do not seem to have a clue as to what they should be demanding in terms of answers." Southwell, 28 January 2014
1.20, first race
Mark Brisbourne, the trainer of ROYAL TROOPER (IRE), unplaced, reported that the gelding had a breathing problem.
2.50, fourth race
Mark Coumbe, the rider of SOFIAS NUMBER ONE (USA), placed fourth, reported that the gelding ran flat.
3.50, sixth race
George Baker, the rider of VICTORIAN NUMBER (FR), placed third, reported that the gelding hung left.
Adam Kirby, the rider of MUNAAWIB, placed fourth, reported that the gelding hung left.
4.20, seventh race
Joe Fanning, the rider of FERDY (IRE), unplaced, reported that the horse had no more to give.
28/01/2014Taunton, 28 January 2014
2.10, second race
Micheal Nolan, the rider of ALL BUT GREY, unplaced, reported that the gelding stopped quickly."
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.