- This topic has 40 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Keep the top handicaps and replace the day to day racing with a series of allowance races:
NW1, NW2, NW 1 in a year, NW2 in 6 months etc.
Yep, screw races such as the Hunt Cup, The Wokingham and The Cambridgeshire – which generate far more interest and betting turnover each week than dozens of uncompetitive small field graded races – and lets make life easier for him to win with his, generally better class, 200 odd horses. Like his strident opposition to 48 hour declarations and Sunday racing, we all know MJ only has racing’s better interests at heart.
Maybe he could start by boycotting handicaps himself, then we wouldn’t have the situation we had when he christened himself ‘Mr Always Trying’ years ago, then proceeded to run his group class Ebor horse Yavana’s Pace over 10f for most of his qualifying season.
Skulduggery and betting go hand in hand, and it’s no different in countries where the non-triers go up and down in grades, rather than on official marks.Thought those 3 races were bookies races, they create that much interest I wonder how many could name the 3 winners of them last year off the top of their head.
All 3 are lotteries, dependant on the draw and which side of the track you’re on.
Johnston isn’t alone in his opposition to 48 hour decs, how much has British racing made from having them including the money lost from people backing the stream of non runners created by them?
It is widely acknowledged Johnston has done better under 48 hour decs so he is not driven by self interest on the subject as he isn’t by Sunday racing.
They said they were going to have quality racing on a Sunday which they have failed to deliver.
Yavanas Pace had only run for him for 3 months when running in the Ebor which he didn’t win off 92 after being campaigned at 10 and 12fs which is not unusual for an Ebor horse.I don’t know what the world is coming to but I have to agree with Reet Hard on this. Just a little bit of self interest showing through in MJ’s comments.
I hope that ridiculous piece by Smith is addressed by someone in the media at some point. I seriously can’t believe he attempted to justify the rating of Jeu De Roseau. I put it fairly simply on here – either the horse was a 100 horse or it was a 0 horse. That’s almost how bad those runs were. Why was the horse being dropped minuscule amounts for being beat further than a Fergus Wilson runner in a Gold Cup? Dropping it 5lbs each time was doing nothing to help. The horse was beaten miles. What different would 5lbs make? And it’s this that needs answering. That horse wasn’t dropped too much, it should have been rated closer to 0 and that would have stopped it entering handicaps, which is what this is about – confidence in the handicapping system. So the message to any trainer is clear, go and get your horse to finish last with no comparable relation to any ability it has shown previously, and you could have your horse dropped 10lb. As for dropping horses off long absences, that is sheer guess work.
Maybe there should be two marks given to each horse: a handicap mark and a mark out of ten representing the handicapper’s confidence in that mark.
Low grade handicaps could then use the second mark as the sole criterion for balloting. If the number of such handicaps was pruned this would leave them as the preserve of old family pets and always trying seasoned handicappers. Keep getting balotted? There are maidens, sellers and claimers for you to run in until the handicapper is confident he has your mark.
This would help stem the tide of unfair competition for honest campaigners and maybe even make betting in such heats a worthwhile proposition for the general public again.
A radical, but eminently sensible, suggestion.
Unfortunately, one of Smith’s remarks in that blog is very revealing and shows why it will never be adopted:
"…I hope he will be available in my office on a Monday to take the complaining phone calls."
It appears you should measure the success or otherwise of an initiative by how easy it makes your life as a result.
You can measure success also if you have the skills in doing it. A sensible suggestion is really awesome. As always, we need to have the initiative in every one’s life.
Maybe there should be two marks given to each horse: a handicap mark and a mark out of ten representing the handicapper’s confidence in that mark.
Low grade handicaps could then use the second mark as the sole criterion for balloting. If the number of such handicaps was pruned this would leave them as the preserve of old family pets and always trying seasoned handicappers. Keep getting balotted? There are maidens, sellers and claimers for you to run in until the handicapper is confident he has your mark.
This would help stem the tide of unfair competition for honest campaigners and maybe even make betting in such heats a worthwhile proposition for the general public again.
A radical, but eminently sensible, suggestion.
Unfortunately, one of Smith’s remarks in that blog is very revealing and shows why it will never be adopted:
"…I hope he will be available in my office on a Monday to take the complaining phone calls."
It appears you should measure the success or otherwise of an initiative by how easy it makes your life as a result.
hAHA,
and how’s he gonna do that thing?The most widespread cheating concerns getting a horse’s initial mark.
Not sure about that Glenn.
Yes, it is much easier to analyse such occurrences but surely "skulduggery" is more widespread with horses not being allowed to win.
Bucketnut wrote about trainers running horses over unsuitable distances/tracks/ground etc. Again much easier to analyse if looking at the form book.
So for me the main problem (apart from ‘medication’) is when a horse is stopped from possibly winning. If discovered and the cheats are punished, racing’s image suffers. How to reduce this cheating is for me the nub. I have always thought handicapped racing does not help, and might even encourage.
I dont think there are really horses that were cheating on that time. They should have know horse racing cheats though other horses were not trained just to do those cheats. If only people are conscious enough why bother cheating right?
Yeah right, I don’t there are really cheats for horses but a strategy would be consider but if they will use this one as tragedy I wont count on if they will have to agree or not.
Keep the top handicaps and replace the day to day racing with a series of allowance races:
NW1, NW2, NW 1 in a year, NW2 in 6 months etc.
While there may be some merit to the claiming system as used by the Yanks, the allowance system makes absolutely no friggin sense. Think about it, what does "Non Winner of One Race" mean? That could be anything from the worst horse in the country to Youmzain (he’s a NW1 in 2½ years!!.. he also has over €4m to his name). It does a shite job of providing evenly matched fields.
Look at this race… http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result … &popup=yes
The winner, a multiple G1 winner, who had finished 3rd in the BC Turf in his last start, is getting 4lbs from the top weight, a horse who had only ever run once in group/graded company in his life, finishing 2nd in a G3. Why? because Croton Road had won a couple of egg and spoon races in the previous few months and the multiple G1 winner was sitting in his stable?
Stupid system.
- Total Posts 17716
Yep, screw races such as the Hunt Cup, The Wokingham and The Cambridgeshire – which generate far more interest and betting turnover each week than dozens of uncompetitive small field graded races – and lets make life easier for him to win with his, generally better class, 200 odd horses. Like his strident opposition to 48 hour declarations and Sunday racing, we all know MJ only has racing’s better interests at heart.
Maybe he could start by boycotting handicaps himself, then we wouldn’t have the situation we had when he christened himself ‘Mr Always Trying’ years ago, then proceeded to run his group class Ebor horse Yavana’s Pace over 10f for most of his qualifying season.
Skulduggery and betting go hand in hand, and it’s no different in countries where the non-triers go up and down in grades, rather than on official marks.Amazes me sometimes how alike we think Reet.
Personally I have no time for MJ as the honest trainer as he’s far from it IMO.
He is quite happy to send a horse out who is bred in the pink but 6 weeks short of a gallop and watch the punter lose his balls. He does it time and time again……weve all seen them. They start at 6/4 from 7/4 are last away, run green then pick up like Nijinsky when the race is over.
Next day a horse with the same profile jumps out the gate like Overdose makes all and wins doing handstands.
He couldn’t care less how many punters get their fingers burned on one of his unfit, bred in the pink, no chance monkees.
Ok he’s not stopping horses but he’s making damn sure they can’t possibly win and they get an education at the punters expense.
I just don’t see the difference between him running one short of a gallop at the wrong trip and someone like Sir Mark Prescott doing the same thing. MJ has a nicer smile or what?
Listening to the self named "Mr Always Trying" you would think he sends every horse racing 199% fit and never lets one down a bit in preperation for a race in the future.
In good old Scottish language which he’ll undertsnd if he reads this…….His balls in a tinny he doesn’t
Handicaps are graded but the only worry about changing the way trainers view weight ect is the apprentices. Why would trainers use them if the weight isn’t such an issue?
I personally laugh hearing trainers bang on about 7 pounds here 5 pounds there but if its going to stop apprentices chances I would leave it how it is.
Keep the top handicaps and replace the day to day racing with a series of allowance races:
NW1, NW2, NW 1 in a year, NW2 in 6 months etc.
While there may be some merit to the claiming system as used by the Yanks, the allowance system makes absolutely no friggin sense. Think about it, what does "Non Winner of One Race" mean? That could be anything from the worst horse in the country to Youmzain (he’s a NW1 in 2½ years!!.. he also has over €4m to his name). It does a shite job of providing evenly matched fields.
Look at this race… http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result … &popup=yes
The winner, a multiple G1 winner, who had finished 3rd in the BC Turf in his last start, is getting 4lbs from the top weight, a horse who had only ever run once in group/graded company in his life, finishing 2nd in a G3. Why? because Croton Road had won a couple of egg and spoon races in the previous few months and the multiple G1 winner was sitting in his stable?
Stupid system.This is why the allowance system is often paired with claiming (so you have nw2L $10000 claimers, for example), and the conditions are often more complex than simply not winning a certain number of races in a certain amount of time. There’s the non-winners of X races other than ______, where ______ is usually maiden, starter, state-bred, and sometimes certain types of races don’t count (so in a certain nw3L allowance you might have a horse that’s won 4 or 5 races, but 3 of them were for less than a $4000 tag and thus the horse is eligible). Purses scale up dramatically from the lowest claiming levels to conditioned allowances and then to classified/optional claiming races, and conditioned claimers have lower purses than open claimers. In addition there are starter handicaps,claiming handicaps,waiver claiming, the occasional crazy conditions race (only horses over age 8, only horses who have raced at least once at the current meet), plus steeplechasing has its own system. Confusing, yes, but the races are generally evenly matched.
Handicaps are graded but the only worry about changing the way trainers view weight ect is the apprentices. Why would trainers use them if the weight isn’t such an issue?
I personally laugh hearing trainers bang on about 7 pounds here 5 pounds there but if its going to stop apprentices chances I would leave it how it is.
Apprentices still get the 7/5 lb allowance in every race except stakes races and, funnily enough, in handicaps.
- Total Posts 17716
I had to laugh when Mark Johnston bemoaned the state of British greyhound racing, only to suggest almost immediately that horses be graded rather than handicapped.
Irony obviously hasn’t found its way to Middleham.
But isn’t grading, in whatever form, simply lazy handicapping? Why will cheating suddenly be wiped out because horses of wildly varying abilities are suddenly racing off level weights? Will four duck eggs in claiming races not result in a bigger price next time, just as they do in handicaps? Do we need 400 different sets of eligibility criteria – non-winner of two, winner of one but crap in six, been close in a few and stone last after a dump at the start etc – when, by and large, entry remains fairly self-explanatory?
Handicapping isn’t the problem; it’s the way it is applied.
I’d prefer to see the weighing of horses – picking out the fatties becomes remarkably easy – brought in before such a drastic structural change is even considered.
Keep the top handicaps and replace the day to day racing with a series of allowance races:
NW1, NW2, NW 1 in a year, NW2 in 6 months etc.
While there may be some merit to the claiming system as used by the Yanks, the allowance system makes absolutely no friggin sense. Think about it, what does "Non Winner of One Race" mean? That could be anything from the worst horse in the country to Youmzain (he’s a NW1 in 2½ years!!.. he also has over €4m to his name). It does a shite job of providing evenly matched fields.
Look at this race… http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result … &popup=yes
The winner, a multiple G1 winner, who had finished 3rd in the BC Turf in his last start, is getting 4lbs from the top weight, a horse who had only ever run once in group/graded company in his life, finishing 2nd in a G3. Why? because Croton Road had won a couple of egg and spoon races in the previous few months and the multiple G1 winner was sitting in his stable?
Stupid system.He’d still not run one in X amount and is highly unlikely to contest such a race again.
It might look uncompetitive but it also include two other Grade 1 winners and is from 3 years ago, the Grade 1 winners being Request For Parole and Gun Salute who had placed in the Gulfstream Park Handicap on his previous start.
All those in the race fitted the criteria, i’m sure if the BHA wanted to prevent such a situation arising they could opperate the French system and incorporate prize money into the criteria, NW100k in 2 years for example or 5lbs penalty per 10k for all lifetime earnings over 50k.
The graded racing idea would be no improvement on the status quo. If it were modelled on greyhound racing you would move up the grades for winning and down for perhaps 3 losses in a row- still a cheat’s charter.
as I’ve said countless times, the only way forward is the U.S. system of claimers, from the cheapest (say 5k) to the dearest (say 200k). That way if someone is trying it on they risk losing their horse too cheaply, a perfect deterrent. It also allows talent to get rewarded as good trainers claim horses from bad ones and proceed to win with them- the free market at its best.- Total Posts 17716
The graded racing idea would be no improvement on the status quo. If it were modelled on greyhound racing you would move up the grades for winning and down for perhaps 3 losses in a row- still a cheat’s charter.
as I’ve said countless times, the only way forward is the U.S. system of claimers, from the cheapest (say 5k) to the dearest (say 200k). That way if someone is trying it on they risk losing their horse too cheaply, a perfect deterrent. It also allows talent to get rewarded as good trainers claim horses from bad ones and proceed to win with them- the free market at its best.Then you can kiss goodbye to competitive racing.
I, for one, don’t want to see wide-margin winner after wide-margin winner and dread the day that every other race has an odds-on favourite.
Brian Ellison was interviewed on ATR a few months ago and said that he makes the effort to call the trainer of any horse he likes the look of in a claimer; if they don’t want to lose the horse, he doesn’t make a claim. If trainers are already talking to each other in this way, with some unrepentant in their breaking of the rules, why would claimers be run any more honestly? Would there not be scope for unprecedented collusion?
And who in their right mind would pay £20,000 a year to keep a horse in training if they could lose it at any time? Can you see Godolphin running their currently 80 and 90-rated handicappers in claimers?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.