- This topic has 49 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
as Ginger says Top Sees but heritage handicaps start at 0 in any case high rating doesn’t mean the animal has run to it recently and then there are the unexposed group ability horses
as Ginger says Top Sees but heritage handicaps start at 0 in any case high rating doesn’t mean the animal has run to it recently and then there are the unexposed group ability horses
Scraping the barrel going for a horse from the last century.
What relevance has 0?As you state that horses with a high rating have not been running to the rating recently, presumably they are not well handicapped then, so it can hardly be cheating nor does having unexposed group ability.
Think you need to look at recent results in Heritage handicaps these last few years, they bear no resemblance to what you are claiming.
I would keep the handicap system but change the structure.
Turn around the 0-80, 0-85 etc and make it minimums by having 80+, 90+, 100+.
Secondly make the bad horses carry the most weight rather than the good ones.
I would keep the handicap system but change the structure.
Turn around the 0-80, 0-85 etc and make it minimums by having 80+, 90+, 100+.
Secondly make the bad horses carry the most weight rather than the good ones.
Eh?How can that work HWNN?
Value Is Everythingas Ginger says Top Sees but heritage handicaps start at 0 in any case high rating doesn’t mean the animal has run to it recently and then there are the unexposed group ability horses
Scraping the barrel going for a horse from the last century.
What relevance has 0?As you state that horses with a high rating have not been running to the rating recently, presumably they are not well handicapped then, so it can hardly be cheating nor does having unexposed group ability.
Think you need to look at recent results in Heritage handicaps these last few years, they bear no resemblance to what you are claiming.
It’s true there is less skulduggery in Heritage Handicaps than other handicaps Eddie. But the point is connections sometimes try to disguise a horse’s ability PRIOR to that Heritage Handicap; in order to win BIG MONEY. Just look at the Cheltenham Festival Handicaps Eddie.
Therefore, KEEPING Heritage Handicaps will STILL result in said skulduggery WHATEVER type of PREP race is used.
I probably do not believe this skulduggery is widespread as some on this forum… But if you are trying to find an alternative to handicaps (because of what you see as too much cheating) – then (imo) it does not make sense to keep Heritage Handicaps.
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.
How can you say "Graded races would work" and they’d be "more competitive than handicaps" Eddie – without knowing
how
they’d work?
Come on, you’ve got to come up with something Eddie, otherwise it appears you have not thought your opinions through.
Value Is EverythingHave a handicap review panel that meets at the end of each flat season. Compile a report on all handicap races, and once all of the trainers who are at it are cyphered out, go hard on them the following seasons ratings. Connections wouldn’t be quick to send a horse to a take out merchant if their horse could get hit 5lbs for winning the ‘haha we’ve caught you now stakes sponsored by TRF’ at Yarmouth for 3 grand. I haven’t thought this out and it no doubt has flaws, but in principal the more honest trainers would get more horses to train. I don’t know if i’ve ever agreed with gambles, i can’t remember. However, now i don’t think much of rich men like JP McManus landing big punts. He’s got more than enough. The same goes for Barney Curley hiding behind charity work. I don’t blame him, but he’s no robin hood. The panel could also have interaction with the trainers deemed to be more honest, so that they are less likely to go rogue.
Keep hcps, but all trainers get egged if they don’t finish within 4l of the winner.
+ve for gate receipts too.
Abolish handicaps.
Make all races WFA conditions events.
Might make "the sport" more "transparent."
Abolish handicaps.
Make all races WFA conditions events.
Might make "the sport" more "transparent."
…And boring…
…and less competitive…
…shorter priced favourites…
…with fewer horses winning.Value Is EverythingHave a handicap review panel that meets at the end of each flat season. Compile a report on all handicap races, and once all of the trainers who are at it are cyphered out, go hard on them the following seasons ratings. Connections wouldn’t be quick to send a horse to a take out merchant if their horse could get hit 5lbs for winning the ‘haha we’ve caught you now stakes sponsored by TRF’ at Yarmouth for 3 grand. I haven’t thought this out and it no doubt has flaws, but in principal the more honest trainers would get more horses to train. I don’t know if i’ve ever agreed with gambles, i can’t remember. However, now i don’t think much of rich men like JP McManus landing big punts. He’s got more than enough. The same goes for Barney Curley hiding behind charity work. I don’t blame him, but he’s no robin hood. The panel could also have interaction with the trainers deemed to be more honest, so that they are less likely to go rogue.
You make a good point LW, but I don’t know about a panel. Asked Matthew Tester if they (BHA handicappers) could do their bit. By erring on the side of caution when it comes to handicapping horses looking as though they could’ve done better; striking them with more weight in their next race/s. eg. If a horse with a mark of 76 gets a poor ride (that looks dishonest) and runs to say 70 – where with a good ride the Handicapper believes he’d probably would’ve run to 76 – it is instead given a future mark of 80. Connections would soon get the message running a horse on its merits is more advantageous to not running on its merits.
Value Is EverythingGingertipster,
Cheltenham handicaps are not Heritage handicaps, thought you would have known that
Lets have some examples from you in the last few years of skulduggery in Heritage handicaps, it’s no use making claims if you can’t back it up with facts or are you going to rely on Top Cees from the last century?
3 year olds need to be rated over 100 to even have a possibility of getting a run in the Ebor these days and the rating for older horses has shot up. The same applies to other Heritage handicaps, you can’t afford to disguise a horse’s ability for these races as you probably wouldn’t get a run.
As I said previously I wont be wasting my time going into fine detail about graded races as they wont happen, if the BHA see sense the brain boxes there can do it.
They would be similar to classified races.
Have you any evidence handicaps are more competitive than graded racing would be?I gave you a good example before of Man of Leisure who was making similar handicaps uncompetitive, he has won again since. Under graded racing he would have to go up grades not run in the same company under a penalty.
Have a handicap review panel that meets at the end of each flat season. Compile a report on all handicap races, and once all of the trainers who are at it are cyphered out, go hard on them the following seasons ratings. Connections wouldn’t be quick to send a horse to a take out merchant if their horse could get hit 5lbs for winning the ‘haha we’ve caught you now stakes sponsored by TRF’ at Yarmouth for 3 grand. I haven’t thought this out and it no doubt has flaws, but in principal the more honest trainers would get more horses to train. I don’t know if i’ve ever agreed with gambles, i can’t remember. However, now i don’t think much of rich men like JP McManus landing big punts. He’s got more than enough. The same goes for Barney Curley hiding behind charity work. I don’t blame him, but he’s no robin hood. The panel could also have interaction with the trainers deemed to be more honest, so that they are less likely to go rogue.
You make a good point LW, but I don’t know about a panel. Asked Matthew Tester if they (BHA handicappers) could do their bit. By erring on the side of caution when it comes to handicapping horses looking as though they could’ve done better; striking them with more weight in their next race/s. eg. If a horse with a mark of 76 gets a poor ride (that looks dishonest) and runs to say 70 – where with a good ride the Handicapper believes he’d probably would’ve run to 76 – it is instead given a future mark of 80. Connections would soon get the message running a horse on its merits is more advantageous to not running on its merits.
I’d rather see the trainers punished in context, rather than the horse. The panel could then give particular trainers the BHA mark of approval, which is then seen as a badge of honour in racing. Those with the ‘mark of approval’ are seen as trainers who don’t ready horses for a gamble, and will therefore not have their horses hiked to the same degree as the trainers on the hit list. Of course it will would ruffle a few feathers in NH racing, but that’s tough. If you were an owner, you would be far more likely to send a horse to someone who doesn’t have their name crossed out. Harsh but fair.
If you were an owner, you would be far more likely to send a horse to someone who doesn’t have their name crossed out. Harsh but fair.
Indeed. You would basically destroy the livelihood of all non-‘mark of approval’ trainers and their staff on an entirely unprovable, subjective opinion formed by a panel of (non-) experts. I think the BHA’s lawyers would be busy.
If one is so concerned about this I would prefer the handicapper to make his decisions based on the usual guesswork, forming opinions on such runs as has been mentioned earlier. I really couldn’t care less. For me, seeing horses ‘prepped’ is just part of form study, part of the game.
I’ll take a wild guess that mine (as usual) is a minority opinion.
Mike
Keep hcps, but all trainers get egged if they don’t finish within 4l of the winner.
+ve for gate receipts too.
I like the cut of your jib on this issue – comfortably the most sensible post to date.
Maybe stocks could be involved? (I don’t mean Oxo or Knorr etc).
Mike
If you were an owner, you would be far more likely to send a horse to someone who doesn’t have their name crossed out. Harsh but fair.
Indeed. You would basically destroy the livelihood of all non-‘mark of approval’ trainers and their staff on an entirely unprovable, subjective opinion formed by a panel of (non-) experts. I think the BHA’s lawyers would be busy.
If one is so concerned about this I would prefer the handicapper to make his decisions based on the usual guesswork, forming opinions on such runs as has been mentioned earlier. I really couldn’t care less. For me, seeing horses ‘prepped’ is just part of form study, part of the game.
I’ll take a wild guess that mine (as usual) is a minority opinion.
Mike
It wouldn’t destroy anyones lives. There are no legalities involved in having a seal of approval. It would make training a two tier system, the first is a training license, and the second a training certificate of equine ethics for those who meet a definite criteria. The sooner the big gambles are weeded out, the better for the majority. If there is a pattern of big punts from stables when by coincedence the horse improves and runs to a higher mark, then put them on the hit list. This wouldn’t effect many trainers, and if they compromise their staff to land gambles, then that’s their fault, and not the rule implementers. The JP McManus’s and Barney Curley’s of this world have had an easy ride for too long. It shouldn’t be forgot what trainers earn in the first place.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.