- This topic has 38 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Mike,
In theory, there wouldn’t be any horses rated 50 or lower, since 60 would be the minimum handicap mark. Once a horse is rated 60, it stays there or goes up. So if you buy a horse out of a claimer, you have two options.
Firstly, you can run it in the next grade of claimer up the scale, thus putting a higher price on it than you paid.
Secondly, you can run it in a handicap off a mark of 60.
If it has the sort of improvement in it that you mention, then it should be able to handle the step up in class offered by one of those options.
AP
Cheers Alan.
After all that then, I think it’s a great idea
.Sorry to be a bit slow but thanks for the explanation, you’re very kind.
Mike
Mike,
To give an example of a claimer affecting handicap marks – when Salute won at Wolverhampton on Dec 1st, the runner up Drizzi was raised from 62 to 66 as a punishment for having the nerve to finish close to him, while Salute stayed on 77.
A 4lb rise for second place in a three grand Saturday night claimer – I’d have been very unhappy if I was the owner, but he was claimed anyway, so it was the new owner that had the problem!
AP
Wouldn’t the ‘intermediate’ maiden, for horses that have had 2 unplaced runs in ‘open’ maidens provide another weakness in the system, open to abuse? In this scenario it’s not hard to envisage horses being given 2 quiet runs down the field in an open race, perhaps over an unsatisfactory distance, followed by a cosy win in an intermediate, with the drop in class, etc., offering a ready-made excuse for the trainer.
Some very good ideas, a definite improvement on the current set-up and well worth putting forward to the authorities.
A couple of points:
1. Re your maiden race structure, you could get a number of horses running quite well in a couple of early season open maidens who would then have to sit in their stables for a few months waiting for the intermediates to begin. You couldn’t start the intermediates too early because field sizes would be so small due to a lack of qualifying horses, but they might not be low grade horses whose owners would want to risk in a maiden claimer.
2. The minimum entry level rating for handicaps of 70 and subsequent minimum of 60 could perhaps be varied according to the distance of the race. I’m thinking in particular of of staying races (14f plus) where these levels could sensibly be reduced by, say, 7lbs.
Venusian,
Thanks for the feedback – on the maiden question, I wasn’t proposing a limit of two runs in open maidens, so your theoretical horse could simply run in a third open race. The intermediate idea is simply to give those horses that can’t win an open an alternative where they know they won’t be facing a Goldolphin newcomer for five grand at Newmarket.
I agree about the potential for adjusting the entry and minimum marks for stayers – I suspect Sir Mark would as well!
Scallywag,
Whatever system is put in place, there will always be ways to ‘cheat’ it – but at least in the example you give, punters would know in advance that the intermediate maiden represented a drop in class. The test for punters in those races would always be comparing horses unplaced in open company with others that have already been placed in intermediate company.
AP
AP,
Some very good, well thought through ideas.
Does a horse graduating from a maiden win have to take the handicap route to Pattern, or do you see conditions races remaining?
Apracing, I was thinking about the horse who runs around 6th or 7th in an open maiden who might not be up to winning one, is better than a maiden claimer, but can’t get to race at the next level down until midsummer. Yes, he could continue to run in open maidens, but that would be wasting runs/energy and there’s only so much juice in an orange.
I’d like to make it clear that my point about14fplus handicaps was made quite impartially and not with an eye to future coups! Anyway, it’s usually the early season 10 to12f handicaps that our baronet pal targets, rather than longer races.
TDK,
Base rating suggested is 60, not 70 – so if you don’t want to risk losing your horse in a claimer, you have the option to keep running off 60 in a 0-70 or 0-75 handicap.
Radical maybe, but look where years of tinkering have got us – given a blank sheet of paper today, would you honestly dream up 46 – 50 handicaps for three grand? Would selling races seem like an obvious idea?
AP
No – I definitely agree that maybe a radical change to the whole structure of racing could bring about improvement – it is just hard to find a new system that wouldnt create even more problems!
I think for the claiming idea to work , the races would have to be relatively valuable, otherwise there really would be little incentive for some owners not to just cheat/lay their horses in such races. Any race where the winner gets a grand is asking for trouble imo.
TDK,
Minimum value for class 6 after Jan 1st is £2,600 – that won’t amount to much more than £1400 for the winning owner, so we’re nearly there already. Putting more money into the claimers I propose simply means less for the handicaps and I believe that the owners with horses rated 70 to 100 should be better rewarded if the BHA really believe in their ‘meritocratic’ system.
Isn’t paying more prize money as a means of deterring corruption a debateable approach anyway – Miles Rodgers and co weren’t getting any prize money and didn’t own the horses!
Jim,
Certainly would want conditions races to continue, as well as novice races for 2-y-olds. In fact, I reckon something like the existing novice races would be a useful addition for 3-y-olds as well.
AP
I’ve seen an alternative which works well and abandons the idea of arbitrary handicapping ratings.
The minimum standard is met by reqiuring all horses to win a qualifying trial as a means of gaining a run in a maiden which is run at set weights.From there you progres to class4 where you may win twice before moving on to class 3 and so on up to class1 which equates with an open handicap that can be discretionally wieghted by the handicapper
.In each of the class division there is a 2kg differential between previous winners in that particular class and non winners in the said class.
Open class horses that are difficult to place gravitate toward races which are less well endowed.
My own embellishment would be to suggest not to many races are programmed too far in advance and like an american secretary write races for the available horse population(I can expound if required)
Clubs would jointly be required to provide an opportunity of 1 run a month for every qualified horse at pain of financial compensation to those owners who are not catered for.
Some imaginative programming perhaps may see two classes melded together and may require connections to nominate a distance range at the start of every month.
Some tracks would disappear and it may give rise to super centres which cater for racing training and qualifying at the one facility.Some tracks would lose their raceday utility and become trial tracks only.A worthwhile thread imo.
The problem I see with the handicap / claimer solution (if I’ve understood it correctly) is mainly the numbers of horses that would be affected by it.
In 2007 so far of the 11204 horses that have run on the Flat or All Weather 4209 were at some point eligible to run in a 0 – 60 handicap. Thats 37% of the flat racehorse population who would now be running either 10 lbs out of the handicap or in 1K claimers with no place money in the bottom 2 levels of the new claiming race categories.
To avoid that scenario it would mean buying better quality horses to sustain numbers which owners couldnt afford, or a cull of poor quality horses which the trainers and more importantly the bookmakers (who control the sport) wouldn’t want. I doubt many cash strapped courses would agree to a reduction in claiming commission and it wouldn’t look good from a corruption viewpoint either.
Interesting!
I`m not at all keen on the British h`capping system, seeing horses raised 20-25lb for winning makes the h`capper look ridiculous,then theirs the getting them out quick on a fixed penalty which amounts to abuse of the system,why does the h`capper require such a long period to bring in a new mark?
I`m all for the tightening up of h`caps , if that means raising the ceiling for entry why not?,however, in countries like France the h`cap is much tighter even at lower levels simply because the h`capper is more astute (ie he can refuse to h`cap an horse until he`s seen its ability!).
Why can`t we introduce regional racing so lower grade horses and their horses can have their day,could run along the lines of:
-No pictures beamed to betting shops (Greedy Retail Bookmakers would probably object )
-Betting allowed is on the track (Would give the oncourse Bookie a chance).
-Regional racing h`cap mark could not be carried forward..
-Would give younger/less experienced jockeys more chance.
With regards to “Claimers“ i too would like to see better quality and more of them!
The greedy retail Bookmakers are the problem,they like everyting as it is,“if its not broke it doesnt need fixing“is their method of thought, unfortunately, the sport is too reliant on their coffers!
As several people have picked up on the idea of running a claimer for a grand, I’d just clarify that I wasn’t suggesting that every claiming race, even at the lowest grade, should have prize money at that level.
Only that the courses should have the option of putting on some races for sums lower than the current set minimum, so that more of the available money can be directed towards better horses.
There’s a basic question that needs to be answered within the current program – are we staging lots of low grade races because we have a large population of horses rated below 60, or are the horses only there because the races have been created to accomodate them (and the bookmakers).
AP
There’s a basic question that needs to be answered within the current program – are we staging lots of low grade races because we have a large population of horses rated below 60, or are the horses only there because the races have been created to accomodate them (and the bookmakers).
APA bit of both, I guess.
Anytime I have gone racing with ‘recreational’ racegoers I have been quite surprised at how unconcerned they have been with mediocre fare … most taking the attitude, "they are all just horses". So, it can be argued that a great many owners, trainers, courses and bookmakers are all content with low grade racing. Sadly, we, in this forum, are probably in the minority to think otherwise!
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.