- This topic has 86 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Being under optimum weight is often worse for performance than being slightly over-weight.
However, it is more the governance of racing that might make the HRA take notice. A horse 30 pounds over weight wins a race and goes up 6 pounds. For its next race it reappears at optimum body weight and actually carries 24 pounds less than the public are currently aware of, who think it is carrying 6 pounds more.
It could be for the trainer to nominate the body weight for race day at declaration time. The weight is then officially checked on course and adjustments made in saddle lead, if light, or horse carries announced limited over weight (as per jockey over weight) or is withdrawn. The horse would then run on its merits.
Some good points, robert99, though I would say that the effect of "live" weight (from which the horse is likely to gain a certain amount of strength) and "dead" weight are not going to be exactly the same.
There are still some practical difficulties with implementing your suggestions – namely that smaller trainers and more behind-the-time trainers are unlikely to have weighing facilities with which to come up with a reasonable estimate of what their horse will weigh – but I do like them in principle. We do, however, have more than enough non-runners on account of the laziness of trainers already.
Totally agree, tdk.  Horse weights are an interesting addition, but the cost and effort required to impliment a worthwhile system could, at this present time, be better spent elsewhere.
Do we take notice of paddock judges? Or of our own judgements about a horse’s fitness? Wouldn’t it be better if we do to have something more useful to go on than just "looks a bit tubby" etc?<br>Silent Witness is the best example I can think of. Since his illness they haven’t been able to get his weight down to within 40 pounds of what it was when nothing could beat him, and he’s run as though carrying about two stone overweight. The other 12 pounds would fit with Prufrock’s reminder that dead weight is not the same as live.<br>Don’t want to appear obsessive, but I’d love to know what Deep Impact weighed on Arc day and on Arima Kinen day. Also Hurricane Run last May and last October for that matter. <br>Of course the integrity issues are important, but this is not a trivial matter.
Trackside and other replies,
Perhaps the UK racing industry can no longer afford to procrastinate and fundamental changes that may have been unthinkable pre the "Fallon" wake up call might now have to be seen to be working.
Should the sort of suggestion made be taken up I would hope that trainers would not declare a weight that they could not meet on race day. There has also to be an allowable margin of error. The owners would have something to say if carrying additional saddle lead ever came about. They pay the trainer to care for their horses professionally and know their condition.
It is accepted that horses grow and what I have suggested takes account of that ie the trainer tells us what body weight the horse will be from current measurements – we still have to make our own conclusions on what that means but we then have something to go on. For handicaps, we currently don’t even know for sure whether a horse is actually "carrying" more or less total weight.
Much of the variation in excess weight above the optimum is additional fat reserves and water retention, rather than muscle, so will act as dead weight – particularlry in sprinting. However, when a horse wastes below that optimum it is the muscles that are adversely effected.
It is no coincidence that the tightest regulated racing is in Hong Kong and they weigh horses as a norm. They didn’t say well it costs a few quid (and it is a very few quid) it is a bit of a pain to do, and they don’t do it in UK – so we won’t bother either.
The current perceived lack of integrity and enforcement in UK is costing the industry dearly. Large potential overseas markets are put off by lurid headlines and the trend to sports betting increases. I have earlier written to HRA and they have responded they will consider this as an integrity issue.
Also proposed that the Trakus video timing can be used for integrity issues as you can see (by rewinding) the "tape" exactly what happened at any stage and what effect it had. Trakus also measure the distance each horse raced and if the track distance is not as stated then the Clerk should be fined for negligence.<br>Races run at less than advertised distances should be declared null and void under the existing rules of racing.
HRA/JC have been working on the going stick for going report "predictions" which to be fair is at least a small step in the scientific direction for a £multi-million sport. The actual going can only be reliably measured by a timing a squad of horses, stabled at the course, over 3 furlong sections. Even a hopeful, optimist like me doesn’t think that will ever happen. :)
All the above are "quick win" applications of existing technology that can actually supply hard data for Court evidence. Hearsay and some betting evidence is costly to gather, sift and may have little weight in Court. If we do not take steps to shore up the basic integrity issues, then the lifeblood funds for prizemoney will certainly wither away.
Weighing horses would be straightforward.
Each course to install weighbridge, horses to be presented to the scales between four hours and half an hour before racing (failure to do so renders ineligible to run), weights to be keyed into computer system and relayed immediately to press. Jobs a bobby.
Trouble is courses don’t want aggro, trainers and owners have reasons to actively oppose (well would YOU want the public, or the authorities, to know when your underperfoming seven year old handicapper had finally returned to the racing weight it was when notching up a hat-trick at five).
The authorities, who should be championing this cause and forcing it to happen, have a long, very long, record of being absolutely hopeless. All of which leaves us as we are now.
As for assessing horses fitness at paddockside. Who are you trying to kid? If it as that easy why do the top trainers all spend significant amounts of money employing all manner of technolgies to help them assess when a horse is fit. I’m sure all the top trainers all weigh their horses regularly. Why? Because it is one of their definitive measures of a horses readiness to perform at, or near, it’s best (or worst).
It’s a no-brainer and we’ll catch on to it eventually, thirty years behind as normal.
(btw – that Bigtony post is a bit sus, most un-Tony-like.  If it wasn’t for the sloppy punctuation I’d almost swear it reeked of…)
<br>
Quote: from cormack15 on 7:15 pm on Jan. 8, 2007[br]<br>As for assessing horses fitness at paddockside. Who are you trying to kid? If it as that easy why do the top trainers all spend significant amounts of money employing all manner of technolgies to help them assess when a horse is fit. I’m sure all the top trainers all weigh their horses regularly. Why? Because it is one of their definitive measures of a horses readiness to perform at, or near, it’s best (or worst). <br>
It’s probably as easy as assessing what an individual horses ‘optimum’ racing weight is. I’m all for extra information being in the public domain but I honestly don’t think that in terms of cost and hassle to implement, it would be of little use to the punter.
I’m with Zorro here. If you go to Japan and enter one of their amusement arcades, you’ll find their version of virtual racing. No Portman Park this – the graphics are state of the art and each horse has a full performance profile..including it’s weight. Ask one of the guys punting on this why they have the weight listed and you’ll get a resonse of ‘what sort of idiot would have a bet without knowing the horse’s weight?’
That’s right – we’re looked down upon by virtual racing punters overseas!
The objections raised are ludicrous:
Also, I would imagine it would be extremely difficult to find a horses ‘optimum weight’ as: a) they are always changing (especially the fairer sex) and b) you would also have to take measure the performances around ground preferences, trip etc. (possibly allowing for the trainer to make up added s**t e?)..
How is this different from determining the class of a horse? A 3yo wins against 4yos over 10f in June and reappears over 12f in Septmber – are you saying we can’t even estimate how it will run using a decent weight for age scale and interpreting it’s running style/breeding/trainer etc?
As for cost, I know sponsoring such a scheme was being mooted by a certain exchange a while back. If the demand was there…..
Don’t think there’s anything wrong with weighing horses from an integrity issue, i just can see what benefit the punter would gain
Give me a 30 runner field full of horses from owners like Golden Anoraks, The Firm , honest jockeys, containing past performances with a decent going description, accurate race distance and sectional times
I don’t need to know what the horses weigh and neither should anyone else with half a brain cell
(Edited by empty wallet at 6:36 am on Jan. 9, 2007)
.. I agree with everything that Robert has said in his last post, especially about using racedata to check that the race distances published are the ones that are run over.
A horse’s actual body weight should be published, the same as it is in HK.
:old: stick
going stick, sectional timing, uneven watering, pounds and ounces are all the same constituents.
Horses weights vary as they grow from two to three<br> presumably,<br> and who could you trust to weigh the beast<br> a Justice of the peace or the man with an old Napp card.<br> Obviously it would be a sensible addition<br> but trainers and the cloaked bookies wouldnee want it,<br> and are way too heavy a match<br> for the weak matchstick punter arm.
flatcapgamble… I weighed myself once and got off just in time
<br>
(Edited by gamble at 8:47 am on Jan. 9, 2007)
As an aside to the racing information debate, in Oz they are actually asking punters what they want – a long list :o
<br>From: "Rob Waterhouse" <rob@robbiewaterhouse.com><br>Subject: [AusRace] better results and form guide<br>To: "’AusRace Mailing List’" <ausrace@it.net.au><br>Message-ID: <001c01c732df$05cee750$26b5820a@RW><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I understand an Andre Kassay (a.kassay@racingvictoria.net.au) of Racing<br>Victoria is preparing a "paper of recommendation" to his Board with a view<br>to giving punters access to more data.
I believe he would like to improve sectional times, marking tracks (running<br>rails), improving information on broadcasts (race times, times for last 600m<br>splits), par time information, race-replay repository of all races run in<br>Australia etc."
Anyone with any thoughts on what more results and form could contain should<br>drop Mr Kassay an e-mail to a.kassay@racingvictoria.net.au
I’ve sent something along these lines:?<br>1. Nominations and acceptances to be declared a day earlier.<br>2. ?Official body weight? and actual body weight on the day of each runner<br>in results and pre race form guide (as in Hong Kong and Australian<br>greyhounds).<br>3. ?Official heights? of horse at the wither, as were always published by<br>the proprietary clubs pre WWII.<br>4. Jockey?s actual weight (excluding dead weight) in results<br>5. Abbreviated equipment in the results (e.g. blinkers).<br>6. Unique horse names ? no horse should share its name with another who<br>raced or trialed within five years. Delta Blues is one of hundreds of<br>examples.<br>7. A single registered unique name for all jockeys and trainers in results.<br>8. Trainer and jockey stats<br>9. Age of horses in the results (maybe there now).<br>10. Name of owner and breeder of every runner in results.<br>11. Yearling and all bloodstock purchase prices in results.<br>12. Pedigree imbedded in results.<br>13. Colour of runner in results.<br>14. Foal date in results<br>15. Club secretary certified exact distance as opposed to nominal.<br>16. Distance rail is ?out? in results.<br>17. Going stick numbers in the results.<br>18. Numerical going description in results.<br>19. Race by race wind readings (already in Sydney by the photo people)<br>20. Whereas, as a result of ?political correctness?, no track is these days<br>declared a ?1? or a ?2?: perhaps there could be sub groups of ?3s? ? a 3a,<br>3b and 3c. Rosehill Saturday (an old fast) would be a 3a ? a perfect betting<br>track.<br>21. Whether race run under lights, in results.<br>22. Coded Stewards comments.<br>23. Quicker results<br>24. Better overseas form<br>25. NZ in running.<br>26. Sectional times for each 100m metres for each horse.<br>27. Proper running rail makings ? at a stewards? enquiry last year, it was<br>demonstrated that from where the Stewards timed the Newcastle 800m position<br>(where the sign said 800m), it was, in fact, 150m out; moreover I guarantee<br>not one racegoer in 100 could say, off the cuff, what marks the finish line<br>on the running rail at Rosehill and Canterbury. ?<br>28. A better layout, e.g. a ?columned? in run as in attached US results and<br>form guide.<br>29. A ?year book? should be a priority ? ?growing? a fan base is important.<br>?<br>In addition, it should be said:<br>1. The current way of declaring betting fluctuations could be said to be<br>dishonest, exposing clubs to litigation, and is perhaps the greatest boon to<br>corporate bookmakers, and does the racing industry a large disservice.<br>2. The new ratings-based handicaps should be for a ?certain rating to carry<br>the limit?, but open to every rating, with better horses to carry very large<br>weights (and, perhaps, where weights have to be raised, the ?rating to carry<br>the limit ?should be lowered). <br>3. The current policy of aim to produce ?dead? tracks is poisonous to<br>betting turnover, as said recently by the TAB Corp. Punters bet a lot more<br>on firm tracks.<br>4. Perhaps some Australian handicappers should be sent on a 12 month work<br>experience with UK handicappers. I fear there is no course and not even list<br>of books to study for trainee Australian handicappers.
Rob Waterhouse
<br>
here
<br>http://http://ausrace.com/
Got to current archives -Jan 2007, Click Subject and you’ll see Rob Waterhouse
(Edited by empty wallet at 9:12 pm on Jan. 11, 2007)
lots of trainers in the UK weigh there horses before and after a race and if they go on long journeys too…as this can make them loose condition too…
Mark Johnston certainly weighs his horses and sets plenty of stall by it. When Bandari was sent down to Sandown as a two-year-old for the Solario Stakes he didn’t live up to expectations. He was later found to have lost plenty of weight after the long round trip.
When Bandari was three, Johnston was so concerned that his fancied Derby runner might not cope with the long journey to Epsom that he purposely sent him to Lingfield for the Derby Trial to see if he would be affected by a long journey a second time. He wasn’t on that occasion, winning by 13 lengths, and was deemed fit enough to take in the Derby.
Fair enough, Bandari got stuffed in the Derby, but that’s besides the point! The point is that he knew his horse had lost lots of weight, which would explain away a poor run. It surely wouldn’t hurt for punters to have this information too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.