- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
THE BHA is to take steps to eliminate the increasingly successful practice of returning an improved horse to either hurdles or chases in order to take advantage of an old handicap mark.
The practice, which was highlighted by James Willoughby inSaturday’s Racing Post when assessing the Paddy Power Gold Cup prospects of the ill-fated Granit Jack, was already high on the agenda when the jump racing sub-committee held a routine meeting at Cheltenham on Friday morning, and a variety of possible solutions were discussed.
On Saturday, Granit Jack was able to return to fences from a mark of 133, despite having subsequently improved to a level of 142 over hurdles, while the previous weekend, Abragante successfully returned to fences at Wincanton from a mark 23lb lower than that to which he rose over hurdles in the spring.
More commonly, horses are reverting to hurdles very favourably treated long after they have developed into decent chasers. Don’t Push It, for example, won at Chepstow from a hurdles mark 22lb lower than his chase figure, and in the last fortnight, top chasers Dempsey, Twist Magic and Voy Por Ustedes all had the opportunity to race in handicap hurdles from ratings upwards of 31lb lower than their chase marks.
By no means all of them win – only on Sunday the Ferdy Murphy-trained Marshall Hall was well beaten over hurdles at Carlisle from a mark 41lb lower than would have applied in a handicap chase – but their presence usually leads to depressed betting levels owing to the uncompetitive nature of the race, and it is also seen as being unfair to connections of the other runners.
Outlining some of the options being considered, senior handicapper Phil Smith said: “If a horse has made massive improvement and we are unsure if theprogress has been through the different obstacle rather than maturity, there has to be an assumption it could be a combination of the two and we might move it midway to its chase mark.
“Alternatively, we might move the horse’s hurdle rating to the chase mark it has won off, if it has won a handicap and therefore demonstrated its ability to win off that mark over the other code. Thus Dempsey, who on our current database is 165 over fences and 132 over hurdles, could go either to a halfwaypoint of 148, or to 153, which is the highest mark he has won off over fences.â€
- Total Posts 17716
Well they would wouldn’t they, wouldn’t want it too easy for the punters now?
I think they’ll get in a right mess with it, the ratings differ for a reason and not just out of fancy.
Are we going to end up with invented ratings for some horses that improve all round? What about the ones that will lose out because they aren’t as good over fences as they are over hurdles, but will get penalised for it anyway?
their presence usually leads to depressed betting levels owing to the uncompetitive nature of the race, and it is also seen as being unfair to connections of the other runners
.. LOL !!!
Good luck to the BHA with this one. For a while I’ve been of the opinion that the present system is far from ideal, but without being able to produce a suitable solution to it, I have refrained from criticising them for it. I fear what this will lead to is a similar situation to that which we currently have on the Flat with Turf/All-weather ratings where there seems to be little consistency as to how a horse achieves split ratings.
I was mildly amused that the story praised Willoughby for raising this issue, just a pity the Post were 12 months late on it as I remember a lengthy debate on the same subject on here regarding Star de Mohasion at the meeting the previous year.
For the small number of races (out of the thousands run) to which this proposed re-calculation could be applied each year, the argument for countering depressed betting levels seems a touch hard to swallow.
I’m not sure I’d concede that bookies were put out by so much, simply by dint of Marshall Hall’s appearance in that low-grade Carlisle handicap hurdle on Sunday; and this on a day when only three of 19 favourites obliged in Britain and any number of odds-on shots were sunk.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- Total Posts 17716
I’m sure its only coincidence that 4 of the 6 horses mentioned in the report actually won, ( It would have been 5,but for Granit Jack’s unfortunate demise ). and all as favourites in their respective races,
The BHA – this supposed bastion of racing’s integrity – once again changes the rules to suit their paymasters with little regard to its total effect on the sport..
Surely the Gambling Commission should look into this unholy alliance before the BHA go the full distance and let the big 3 write their own rule book.I agree Reet, this whole thing is quite laughable.
The Gambling Commission should look for some sort of evidence to back these silly claims up.
Very true Reet.
And the confesion by Phil Smith that they (the BHA handicappers) might adjust (or fudge, in other words) a chase or hurdle mark so as it is halfway between what is there now in cases where one or the other is deemed unfair is nothing more than an admission of severe incompetence.
The huge number of horses that are supposedly marginally better on either turf or all weather than the other on the Flat, according to BHA ratings, is ridiculous in the extreme and just goes to show that the handicappers have either little understanding of what they are doing or need to constantly tinker to justify the little that they actually have to do. Or both.
- Total Posts 17716
Today’s Betfair Hurdle at Haydock would have been farcical if subject to the BHA’s above proposal.
At least one third of the field would be racing off their "intermediate guess" handicap marks, and none of them representative of what they’d actually achieved in this sphere.
Still, it will probably pass unremarked – as long as Taranis doesn’t win?I think they’ll get in a right mess with it, the ratings differ for a reason and not just out of fancy.
Are we going to end up with invented ratings for some horses that improve all round? What about the ones that will lose out because they aren’t as good over fences as they are over hurdles, but will get penalised for it anyway?
their presence usually leads to depressed betting levels owing to the uncompetitive nature of the race, and it is also seen as being unfair to connections of the other runners
.. LOL !!!
Agree with you 100% and that’s why I never look at ratings…. waste of time IMO. If something is way wrong and a horse is chucked in, the dogs are barking it anyway.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.