- This topic has 39 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I noted on Saturday that Noddies Way ran in the Cesarewitch despite being nearly 40lbs out of the handicap based on his recently revised rating of 48. I know there is now a 3lb limit for overweight – Noddies Way was only nearly 40lbs wrong at the weights.
With a lot of talk in racing about RFC etc, how is it such a horse is allowed to run in the Cesarewitch still in 2010? This is a horse who would struggle to win any staying flat race in Britain in the whole of 2010 judged on his last five starts. Why is there not a rule preventing horses like Noddies Way from running from 40lbs out of the handicap? Unless Phil Smith and co are wrong by up-to nearly 40lbs with their ratings, Noddies Way was not going to be featuring in the finish of the Cesarewitch. Finishing within 20 seconds of the first placed horse was clearly more of a challenge.
There is a rule preventing poor jumpers, although how often it is used I’m not sure, but not one that prevents a horse who can’t possibly win from running? Or should that be something about preventing a horse from injuring itself pointlessly?
I’m just surprised connections never fancied the final Champion Stakes at Newmarket with Noddies Way. I’m sure Ascot will be very welcoming ahead of this horse running in next year’s Champion Stakes. I can imagine the TV coverage for all new viewers now… "And there is Noddies Way who has no chance whatsoever." Skip seeing him, ignore him and pretend he is not there.
I’m sure between everyone at BHA towers someone can put the following in the rulebook at some point today – "any horse who is more than 7lb out of the handicap at declaration time shall not be allowed to run."
A minimum rating of 90 will do for Group 1 races. If that means horses have to run 3 times to qualify so be it.
- Total Posts 17716
Sort of agree with what you are saying and you could even say allowing low rated/bad horses to run in the Hennessy is worse then allowing the same in to run in the Cesarewitch because they present a bigger danger.
Only problem is they could then be considered a danger in any chase and shoudn’t be allowed run at all.
The fist thing that springs to mind is who going to subsidise the loss?
If you bring in a rule like you suggest how badly will it affect the amount of entries each handicap gets on average?
I personally have no idea but it’s bound to have some affect. You got fees to enter fees to declare fees to run and it soon adds up.
Must be hundreds of horses entered in handicaps by trainers lookin ahead thinking they could get in if the goes up for running a good race in between times
Prize money is already a disgrace in the UK which does little to deter cheating without courses having to reduce prize money further because entries are down.
I’m guessing but I would imagine that’s one reason why they don’t have a miniumum.
Everyone knows about horses out of the weights beforehand, not necessarily the case with overweight.
How much would racing lose if they introduced such a rule, eg all Noddies Way’s entry fees would have to be refunded and it would give connections free rein to enter any horse for any race no matter how far out of weights knowing full well they will get a full refund if more than 7lbs out of the weights.
In any case many horses have won from more than 7lbs out of the weights, sadly I remember Jodami off only 10st 2lbs getting beaten in the Hennessy by Sibton Abbey who was 21lbs wrong.
If connections are prepared to pay the money to run I don’t see a problem.The last Hennessy winner from out of the weights was the disqualified Be My Royal, 7lb wrong when "winning" in 2002 before her post-race pee burned the bottom out of the test tube.
The last "legal" (for want of a better expression) winner from out of the weights was Ever Blessed from about nine or 10 wrong in 1999. Since then, around 40 further horses have tried to win the race from between 1lb and 15lb out of the handicap, and only Niche Market and Character Building have so much as placed.
If you’d have routinely excluded those horses from competing solely on account of being out of the weights, you would have;
1) removed two recent favourites in Island Flyer and Montifault, plus other leading fancies such as Ad Hoc and Lord Transcend,
2) rubbed out the third of last year’s runners who happened not to be rated within 26lb of Denman.
Fair to do that when the excluded would have a favourite’s chance in the majority of good (as opposed to top-class) handicaps? I have my doubts. Something for trend analysts to exploit, though? Quite possibly!
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.
I don’t think any rule change in this area has the potential to harm racing.
Firstly, if Noddies Way was eliminated, entry fees should not be returned. In this scenario he is not allowed to run because he is not good enough. I think connections would be able to work out that a 48 rated horse would be prevented from running under this system.
If the no-hoper Cheltenham system has been put in place, why should a system like this fail?
Assigning minimum ratings to races based on averages and history of runners is an option for big handicaps.
My idea is not perfect, but the problem is the BHA won’t write into their rulebook something about the handicapper having discretion in all situations. Probably because some sad-case would take them to court claiming discrimination.
Perhaps some horses whose connections fear they might be eliminated by being 7lb out of the handicap would be campaigned aggressively at the same time?
I really want to see horses who are bringing the sport into disrepute stopped from doing that. The pay your money take your chance philosophy is not something I agree with. If your horse belongs at Southwell, it belongs at Southwell.
The problem with anything of this sort is that there are always going to be examples of horses proving the official handicapper wrong.
Like Arctic Cosmos this summer, fnishing second in the Group 2 King Edward VIII Stakes at Royal Ascot when his handicap mark was 78. Then going on to win the St Leger.
Or See Enough winning the 1996 Grade 2 Rendlesham Hurdle, a limited handicap, from 38lbs out of the handicap.
If people want to tilt at windmills, have paid the entry fee and have got into the race without depriving a ‘better’ horse of it’s place, I fail to see what possible harm it can do.
So Noddies Way had no chance – so what. He didn’t stop any other horse from running, or get in the way at the finish. The only race he ever won was an 81 – 100 rated handicap, and he was rated 60 when his trainer made the entry – I’m familiar with the circumstances as I owned the third!
AP
The pay your money take your chance philosophy is not something I agree with.
It’s one of the bedrock philosophies on which National Hunt racing in particular was founded. And heaven forfend that it ever loses sight of that.
I really want to see horses who are bringing the sport into disrepute stopped from doing that.
Quite possibly too hard to define to everyone’s satisfaction, but I’d venture there are any number of horses more capable of that than something as low-rated as Noddies Way.
Racing has far less to fear from, say, a Quixall Crossett type putting in a safe round as a distant last to finish in a novice chase than from something that regularly plants itself at the start / in the stalls, endangers itself and others with a terminal inability to jump, or will duck the wrong side of a wing given half a chance.
The Noddies Way issue would not, of course, have even bubbled up at the weekend had the horse not made the cut. Rather than fingering the small man, isn’t the fact that one of the premier marathon Flat handicaps on the calendar failed to attract its maximum field of 34 in the first place a bit more of a concern? If you have a fit and ready to go 2m+ handicapper that wouldn’t have minded the good to soft going on Saturday and, yet you didn’t let it take its chance in the Cesarewitch, what in blazes will you run it in?
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.
Good to see a few different opinions at least!
Fair point about the fact the Cesarewitch never filled. But because the race never filled any horse shall do in what is supposed to be a professional sport?
This is about attaining a rating worthy of competing. The handicapper can be wrong
– I’ll change that, the handicapper is often wrong as I’ve said it often enough, but why should a horse not qualify for a top race on merit?Have the bars set low if you wish, but how can the sport be "premierised" with issues like this?
Is stating a horse has to be rated within 7lbs of the minimum weight to have the right to run from out of the handicap really too drastic?
Arctic Cosmos was rated 78, but that could have been nearer 90 after his Kempton win. Maybe they should have tried to save him for the Cesarewitch!
Good to see a few different opinions at least!
Welcome to my world, Jose.
As one of my favourite philosophers, Kurt Wagner, once said: "truth rises from dissent".
No wonder we have such a nanny state. People look for problems that don’t exist or are so marginal they require little or no regulation.
Are you a member of Racing for Change Jose?Welcome to my world, Jose.
As one of my favourite philosophers, Kurt Wagner, once said: "truth rises from dissent".
I wish I was intelligent enough to definitely know what the meaning of your comment is. Sadly I’m not.
No wonder we have such a nanny state. People look for problems that don’t exist or are so marginal they require little or no regulation.
Are you a member of Racing for Change Jose?Why ask such a pointless question? You clearly don’t need an answer and you made your point well enough that you disagree with me. And unlike RFC, at least this is some way really relates to the sport on the track. I might be saving RFC some kind of embarrassment from this type of horse lining up, because there’s a good chance if he’s still running next year he will run in the Jockey Club Cup.
I suspect Iris De Balme’s 2008 Scottish Grand National win from 26lbs wrong was one of the more extreme examples of winning from out of the handicap. In long distance chases in particular suitable conditions can be enough to outweigh a handicap disadvantage.
Rob
Sorry, I got it wrong, Phil Smith does get it wrong by nearly 40lbs.
Mostly NH examples so far.
I feel my "Martinstown and the drunken jockey" story coming on (again)…
Mike (pub bore)
When you have a horse rated 48 it’s nigh on impossible to get a run at this time of year. Running a horse out of the handicap in a better class of race can be a legitimate tactic to try and get a horse’s mark raised to a level where they are more likely to get a run.
Our first ever horse, Maravedi, made her debut for us off a rating of 35. Having finished last on her debut she was dropped to 30. Next time out she was beaten by 7 lengths in a 0-77 from 26lbs out of the handicap. It was a deliberate tactic to get her mark up to a level where she would be able to get into races in the 0-55 bracket. The handicapper put her up 15lbs for that run which enabled us to get into more suitable races.
Admittedly, the most likely reason for a lowly rating is a lack of ability on the horse’s part but sometimes a low rating can reflect a horse failing to show its true ability on the course and in those circumstances being well handicapped can be a curse rather than a blessing. The only solution then can be to run against much better opposition to get a run.
- Total Posts 17716
I’m not sure whi there’s aminium weight a horse can carry in a handicap but I do know there’s a very true saying. "Weight can stop a good one but the lack of it won’t make a bad horse go faster"
How much differnece it actually makes to a horse when your talking the bottom of the handicap I don’t know. Wouldn’t think it would make the same difference if running in his own class if he were mid handicap in the race.
Would a horse notice the differnce anywhere near as much down that end of the handicap between 7st7lbs and 8st? considering his size and build.
Obviously he would but surely it would have much less affect on stopping him at that end.
Could be the reason horses miles out the handicap win sometimes.
i aint no weights and measure inspector just stabbing a guess.
– I’ll change that, the handicapper is often wrong as I’ve said it often enough, but why should a horse not qualify for a top race on merit?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.