- This topic has 179 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Good post Coggy.
I think it’s a sport you have to take a bit of time to get to know for sure.
It’s a bit alien, other sports you can play in your garden or in the playground.
The unknown of it all, the mystery will appeal to some but most like to know what’s going onGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I stopped betting about 5 years ago as I was fed up of trying to work out which horses were trying to win a race, especially in handicaps. For example I could never work out if John Ferguson’s runners were there to get “considerate” rides, the same with Jonjo O’Neill.
However I don’t think this puts a lot of people off, I agree with Nathan that the majority don’t want to use much brain power when placing a bet or they don’t have the time. They just want to be entertained such as watching a football match, where you can get 90+ minutes of exciting action whereas with horse racing say over a 3 hour period the actual sport can take minutes to take place especially on the flat.
If getting rid of handicaps what do you replace them with?
Reason why Heritage Handicaps are popular (and therefore attract a lot of punters money) is they are open competitive races – with bigger prices.
If the Grand National was more often than not won by a short priced horse it would not be a popular race.
Value Is EverythingNobody has said get rid of handicaps.
It’s an opinion of Phil’s that it puts people off betting and the most likelihood of non trying
If someone doesn’t want to bet or watch horse racing for whatever reason that’s up to themEvery year we have on here ‘how to attract new people to the sport’ and every year nothing much changes and racing continues as it has done for thousands of years.
Move with the times was the heading of TRF back in 1883
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Nobody has said get rid of handicaps.
I have often wondered if scrapping handicaps, and therefore the need for running below par, or alternatively non trying (as is your interpretation ) would help matters.
If “scrapping handicaps” is not suggesting “getting rid of handicaps”, Nathan – what does?
Am just asking what we replace them with?
Value Is EverythingThat was Coggy wondering what would happen, sorry, I thought you were responding to Phil
I reckon they would replace them with the F1 style championship which focuses on jockeys to attract new people yet again to the sport they are not interested in
It would be like Football and Cricket where no team gets a handicap
It’s a funny old gameGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
“If getting rid of handicaps what would you replace them with?”
As Mark Johnston (who talks more sense than you ever hear from the BHA, particularly that bookmakers puppett Rust) says “The handicap system is long outdated and now unfit for purpose. It cannot beyond the wit of man to come up with a better and fairer system that would demystify, without dumbing down, our sport”.
I would imagine it would consist of graded racing, were meritocracy would be rewarded more fairly, while the races would probably be just as competive, if not more so, as winners would have to run in a higher grade rather than thrown in, in the same grade under a penalty. The Heritage handicaps would continue.
You get some absolute tosh talked about handicaps, some from people who really should know better. Recently Richard Hughes suggested only winners should rise in handicap
Does he really need pointing out the flaws in that idea?Not sure the wins of Auroras Encore, Pineau De Re, Mon Mome, Silver Birch etc did much for the poularity of the National compared to the likes of Red Rum, L’Escargot, Don’t Push It, Rough Quest etc. Think it would be very popular if the fav won every year
I agree with you Yeats, that Hughes’s suggestion is crazy; encouraging non-triers in all prep races.
However, although “graded races” could be an alternative – why would it be any different than handicaps for non-triers? Might help the very best races; but in lower grades they still rely on being graded by a BHA handicapper. Could even make things worse, decieving the handicapper means getting your horse in to a lower grade – an easier race to win.
Value Is EverythingAttraction of the Grand National is -as far as the wider betting public is concerned – anything can win. If the fav won most years you’d have much shorter priced favourites and no mystery… If easy for the fav to win Red Rum would not have a place in history.
Value Is Everything“Could make things worse, deceiving the handicapper means getting your horse in a lower grade – an easier race to win”
Not necessarily, why would a lower grade race be easier than a low grade handicap? The horse would have the same rating.
Don’t see what you can do about someone deceiving the handicapper and apparently everyone else, apart from them “in the know” if you don’t know about it.
The lower the grade the less prize money, of course they can back the horse but if you had a Tote monopoly that would be another thing you wouldn’t have to worry about but we don’t so you have to put up with that.
The term keeps cropping up, has anyone stopped betting due to a perception that there too many?
Back in the mid-90’s when I subscribed to Timeform Perspective, anything that caught their eye on a card was highlighted at the top of every result card. I noted down all those horses that should’ve at least gone close to winning with a better ride, together with the trainer and jockey.
Guess which flat trainer and jockey caught the eye most?
Lynda Ramsden and Kieran Fallon.
Both were some way ahead of the rest.
Willie Carson was second, but his were all on inexperienced/unfit two year olds; very similar to Stoute.
For Ramsden and Fallon there was no pattern, catching the eye with young and old experienced horses alike (even 8 year old) in maidens and handicaps, first time out, half way through a season (seemingly fit and ready) and late-season.. Most of Fallon’s were when riding for Ramsden.Value Is EverythingLOL Ginge in what way are you or anybody else surprised? If indeed you are surprised!!
The term non triers has been around for years and IMO there are plenty of them almost daily.
Surely part of the skill is analysing the degree of improvement in a horse!
I class it as another part of the problem and finding the solution is inclusive in deciding what to bet.
Was/am not surprised the two that “caught the eye” most often were those particular twosome, Raymo. Whether that is the same as “non-trier”? imo It was close to it. What constitutes a non-trier to you, Raymo?
Is a trainer having an unfit racehorse first time out running a non-trier?
imo Yes, but it all depends on how fit. I believe the rules state a horse should meet a certain standard and the vast majority make that standard because it isn’t very high. But to have the standard any higher would in all probability be too difficult to police. Same with whether a horse has been taught enough to race.There are trainers who win with very very few debutants – if any… Very often (even the winners) can be expected to make abnormal improvement from first to second time out. But were these non-triers on debut? If a horse happens to be good enough at that point the jockey will still try and win… and therefore (in the vast majority of cases) imo not a non-trier. It’s just that those horses are seldom good enough primarily because of their fitness and/or basic readiness. Although some trainers are evidently capable of getting them fitter than others, it is worth remembering no debutant is 100% fit and/or 100% ready – so:
Where do you draw the line between trier and non-trier in a way that can be policed?
And if taking these “unfit” horses out of the equation, where are the “plenty of them almost daily”?
For all bar the odd runner there are hundreds of possible excuses.
With Ramsden and Fallon, although they caught the eye much more than the rest, it was still only 13 and 12 times in the year, with if I remember rightly 8 being second best (worst). Even taking every trainer and jockey and every runner in to account… it’s nowhere near every day.
Value Is EverythingMost TRFers will know the valid reasons a horse can run poorly and/or the jockey not appearing to be giving full effort; but just to give an idea:
Along with the obvious draw/jumping, distance and ground, there’s speed/stamina/pace. I’ve sometimes seen tactics changed and people say it was a non-trier because it was further back than usual. But often – looking at the race beforehand – you can see there’s a lot of potential pace angles. Only one horse can ever front run and only a certain number can race prominently. So tactics are wisely changed (don’t want the pace to be overly fast) and unfortunately as a result some don’t like the change and run poorly. Then there’s wrong type of track (left / right-handed, flat/undulating/stiff/sharp, best at the/a local track), some need a certain jockey, some haven’t had the best of trips to the races and got upset, some are best at a certain time of year… And temperament! The amount of horses that either don’t like being in front very long and/or find little under presure – is enormous. These often look non-triers where as actually the best way a jockey can win is to hold it up until the last moment. Some are best tenderly handled and/or appearing to be given more to do than is wise with the majority. Some need a strongly run big field so they can settle in behind rivals and conserve energy, so doing best in big handicaps. May look as if a horse is a non-trier, but every horse has a different temperament – a different set of ideal conditions.
Value Is Everything
Does he really need pointing out the flaws in that idea?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.