- This topic has 49 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The UK system of running handicaps where, in effect, trainers and owners are rewarded for in one way or another disguising the true ability of their horse, surely encourages skullduggery of one kind or another.
Interesting, if short, discussion on ATR forum just now on this topic with Alastair Down wheel-barrowing out the old argument that it’s ‘all part of the game’. You suspect he enjoys that part of the guesswork.
Do you enjoy asking yourself questions like ‘was it fit last time?’, ‘was it trying last time?’, was it deliberately run over the wrong ground, trip, course last time?’. Some people do, I accept that, they see it as an intriguing part of the puzzle.
From a serious punters point of view if the puzzle was easier it wouldn’t necessarily help. It’d be easier for everyone and, in some ways, it’d be harder to gain an edge. Maybe it’s actually in (some) punters interests to retain the status quo?
BUT it’s the aspect of the simple fact that in order to win a handicap (and handicaps are a fundamentally central part of our racing architecture) it is necessary to run a horse who is now better than he was when assessed by the handicapper and the easy way to do that is to disguise his ability (in any one of a number of ways).
So, to get back to my original question, is there an alternative? People have often held up the US system of claiming races as the way forward.
Is it?
Graded races were the higher up the pyramid you go the more money you run for, you could still have the big heritage handicaps.
They would still be as competitive as handicaps if not more so and would satisfy punters, owners and bookmakers.
Lots of claiming races wouldn’t work, they are frequently uncompetitive.I’m not sure what the American system is, or if there is a viable alternative, I’d like a class system ranging from Class 1 just below listed level and Class 10 just above Claimers / Sellers with horses all running off the same weight. The prize money would rise the higher the class introducing a rule were possibly a horse has to win three times in a class before moving up and if unplaced three times it must drop down a class.
The issue with the above is that what happens to are more prestigious handicaps such as the National, The Lincoln for example? If you had the National in particular as a level weights race would it be as good?
Tend to agree with Eddie, the problem is with the ordinary, everyday, handicaps.
Heritage handicaps, ie class 2, could continue to exist quite happily.
More claiming races wouldn’t work. Why should owners have to risk losing their horses every time they run (after they’ve won their maiden)?
In any case, a horse’s monetary worth doesn’t necessarily correlate with their ability, an old gelding would be worth less, a well-bred mare, more.
You could use allowance races. Allowance races are typically restricted to horses who fit a certain set of conditions such as non-winners of 2 races lifetime, non-winners of a race other than maiden/claiming/starter, non-winners of a race in the past year, non-winners of a race at a mile or over in 6 months, etc. etc. Rather than a handicapper picking weights, weight "allowances" are given if a horse fits further conditions i.e. in a race for non-winners in 6 months, a horse who has not won in the past year may receive 2lbs.
Harness racing used to use money earned as a condition, but this is slowly getting replaced by the ABC system similar to that used by American greyhound tracks. Rather than assigning handicaps, the track steward puts horses into categories-P, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, M- with P(preferred) being the fastest horses who are given highest priority in carding free-for-all races, and C2 being the slowest. A1 horses run in A1 races, A2 in A2 races, etc. This works for harness horses and greyhounds because they run as often as every week so it’s easy to tell their form.
The slowest horses always run in claiming races, though. It’s a very good system since there’s multiple incentives for trainers to run their horses as best they can. If they don’t want their horse to get claimed, they have to run well enough to move up in class to higher priced claimers or to allowance company. If they want their horse to get claimed they also need their horse to run well so that other owners/trainers will take notice.
We already have an answer – hybrid races: selling handicaps and claiming handicaps.
They work because they force the lowly rated to run with a price on their head, which you wouldn’t do if you had been cheating and had a horse 20lb well in. You still get the occasional older horse that hasn’t been off a yard in years running in them, but they do a good job in weeding out the majority of cheats as the main problem in this country is horses not trying before they attain their handicap mark.
Unlike wfa claimers/sellers, they offer a chance for the entire lowly rated population, not just those that can compete with 70-90 rated verterans on their last legs, so they attract good fields.
They’re the best of both worlds, so, needless to say, they have been all but wound down by the BHA in recent years.
The UK system of running handicaps where, in effect, trainers and owners are rewarded for in one way or another disguising the true ability of their horse, surely encourages skullduggery of one kind or another.
BUT it’s the aspect of the simple fact that in order to win a handicap (and handicaps are a fundamentally central part of our racing architecture) it is necessary to run a horse who is now better than he was when assessed by the handicapper and the easy way to do that is to disguise his ability (in any one of a number of ways).
I’ve no doubt trainers do plot to win handicap races by getting their horse in at a favourable weight. However your premise that you can’t win one without doing this is flawed as if so no horse would win one carrying a high let alone top weight yet they do. You also ignore the fact that horses do actually improve and that improvement is not necessarily due to the trainer/jockey disgusing how good the horse is.
Graded races were the higher up the pyramid you go the more money you run for, you could still have the big heritage handicaps.
They would still be as competitive as handicaps if not more so and would satisfy punters, owners and bookmakers.
Lots of claiming races wouldn’t work, they are frequently uncompetitive.If handicaps are so bad, why would it still be ok to cheat for a "Heritage Handicap"? Surely if these Graded races are just as/more "competitive" as handicaps – then it can work at Heritage Handicap level too.
How are Graded races going to work? What do you propose as the weight range of a Graded race Eddie? Do all horses rated 75 to 71 race against each other at level weights? Then 70 to 66 etc?
I am not convinced anything will work as well as handicaps. May be there’s a case for just reducing the weight range carried in conventional handicaps now that there are more horses in training than 30 years ago.
Value Is EverythingIf handicaps are so bad, why would it still be ok to cheat for a "Heritage Handicap"? Surely if these Graded races are just as/more "competitive" as handicaps – then it can work at Heritage Handicap level too.
How are Graded races going to work? What do you propose as the weight range of a Graded race Eddie? Do all horses rated 75 to 71 race against each other at level weights? Then 70 to 66 etc?
I am not convinced anything will work as well as handicaps. May be there’s a case for just reducing the weight range carried in conventional handicaps now that there are more horses in training than 30 years ago.
How many cheats do you get winning "Heritage Handicaps"?
Wont be wasting my time going into the fine detail about how graded races would work as they are most unlikely to happen and there are better brains than mine at the BHA. They would be more competitive than handicaps as there would be less "good things" in them. Man of Leisure wouldn’t have been able to hack up for the second time in 3 days at odds on the other day, he would have had to run in a higher grade.
How many owners would be prepared to lose their horse for a few grand in selling and claiming handicaps after paying many times that for the horse in the first place?
How many owners would be prepared to lose their horse for a few grand in selling and claiming handicaps after paying many times that for the horse in the first place?
Every racehorse owner in America?
How many owners would be prepared to lose their horse for a few grand in selling and claiming handicaps after paying many times that for the horse in the first place?
Every racehorse owner in America?
£100k horses able to be claimed for £6000? And claiming/selling handicaps?
Claims are much higher in the states and made before the race (bad idea), encourages injured/sick horses to be entered.
How many owners would be prepared to lose their horse for a few grand in selling and claiming handicaps after paying many times that for the horse in the first place?
Every racehorse owner in America?
Tells you something about the mindset of the average American owner, doesn’t it?
It hasn’t proved much of a draw elsewhere.
You could use allowance races. Allowance races are typically restricted to horses who fit a certain set of conditions such as non-winners of 2 races lifetime, non-winners of a race other than maiden/claiming/starter, non-winners of a race in the past year, non-winners of a race at a mile or over in 6 months, etc. etc. Rather than a handicapper picking weights, weight "allowances" are given if a horse fits further conditions i.e. in a race for non-winners in 6 months, a horse who has not won in the past year may receive 2lbs.
Harness racing used to use money earned as a condition, but this is slowly getting replaced by the ABC system similar to that used by American greyhound tracks. Rather than assigning handicaps, the track steward puts horses into categories-P, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, M- with P(preferred) being the fastest horses who are given highest priority in carding free-for-all races, and C2 being the slowest. A1 horses run in A1 races, A2 in A2 races, etc.
Yes, I think something along these lines may be the way forward.
Having said that, harness racing has the advantage of horses running far more frequently than thoroughbreds, and in America they also have the strange and boring tradition of running 99.9% of races over exactly the same distance, one mile. Both these factors make it easier to assess what grade a horse belongs in, compared to thoroughbreds in countries like the UK.
Glad to see the problem of disguised ability being discussed. My efforts to draw attention to this form of cheating have been roundly condemned here. It all comes under the heading ‘non triers’ which is theft as Eddie Ahern has recently discovered.
How we make racing worth supporting again is a big question but action is needed now.Oh come on Heritage races are probably the very worst for disguising ability seldom won by horses showing recent form..Run of the mill handicaps are just fine and run generally very well to form. Personally I don’t back in any else and any move to do away with them would see me quitting betting altogether
Oh come on Heritage races are probably the very worst for disguising ability seldom won by horses showing recent form..
You wouldn’t get a run in most heritage handicaps nevermind win one by disguising the ability of a horse. A high rating is needed to even get a run.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.