- This topic has 49 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It wouldn’t destroy anyones lives
I said it would destroy their
livelihoods
, not their lives(!) which it absolutely would do.
It shouldn’t be forgot what trainers earn in the first place.
No, you’re right. The overwhelming majority of trainers in this country are basically skint, putting out 0-10 winners a year. The majority of these rent yards and thus will have very limited (or no) assets.
To lose even a handful of loyal owners (even one or two in many cases!) would without doubt put most of these grass roots trainers under.
If the BHA is to willingly risk doing this, it would need to define exactly what ‘a pattern of big gambles’ is. What is a ‘pattern’? Define ‘big’? What is a ‘gamble’? How can these things be defined within
exact
parameters?
Furthermore, you would need ‘smoking-gun’ evidence of bets from the trainer or a proven representative. If a trainer says a gamble is ‘nowt to do with me’, how do you propose to
prove
otherwise? Or will you just leave the panel (who will
they
be?!) to act on some vague information (from
who
?) to in effect put the trainer out of business?
If you are proposing ruining people’s careers (and it will do, no question) at a penstroke on hearsay, they will fight back. The BHA cannot abrogate itself from the responsibility of it’s actions. Saying "there are no legalities involved in having a seal of approval" does not hinder the absolute certainty of repeated legal action.
I get the idea, but let’s be honest it’s completely unworkable and anyway we both know it’s never going to happen.
Mike
It wouldn’t destroy anyones lives
I said it would destroy their
livelihoods
, not their lives(!) which it absolutely would do.
It shouldn’t be forgot what trainers earn in the first place.
No, you’re right. The overwhelming majority of trainers in this country are basically skint, putting out 0-10 winners a year. The majority of these rent yards and thus will have very limited (or no) assets.
To lose even a handful of loyal owners (even one or two in many cases!) would without doubt put most of these grass roots trainers under.
If the BHA is to willingly risk doing this, it would need to define exactly what ‘a pattern of big gambles’ is. What is a ‘pattern’? Define ‘big’? What is a ‘gamble’? How can these things be defined within
exact
parameters?
Furthermore, you would need ‘smoking-gun’ evidence of bets from the trainer or a proven representative. If a trainer says a gamble is ‘nowt to do with me’, how do you propose to
prove
otherwise? Or will you just leave the panel (who will
they
be?!) to act on some vague information (from
who
?) to in effect put the trainer out of business?
If you are proposing ruining people’s careers (and it will do, no question) at a penstroke on hearsay, they will fight back. The BHA cannot abrogate itself from the responsibility of it’s actions. Saying "there are no legalities involved in having a seal of approval" does not hinder the absolute certainty of repeated legal action.
I get the idea, but let’s be honest it’s completely unworkable and anyway we both know it’s never going to happen.
Mike
In that if you can’t prove gambles, then you can’t prove you are being discrimnated against in the context of handicapping horses. I mean, if you are on the ethical equine list, it’s not to say you receive special treatment for being honest and making your horses contest the sport the way it should be. Oh no, i’m merely stating that if Barney Curleys horse went up 10lbs, it would not be because he is not on the list, but merely because his horses clearly have ability, and it’s really hard to tell when they will improve, so precautionary measures should be taken
. I would have large gambles in handicap races implemented as cheating, which should be investigated by the intelligence unit of the gambling commision that investigates things such as suspicious betting patterns. Yes it was gullible of me to say that, just as gullible as thinkinbg that bankers should be jailed for their role in the financial collapse. It’s laughable to challenge corrupt practices in a democracy. Nobody thinks of the two banana punter who are victims of gambles on the machine, and the bookmaker who fund the gambling commision are probably paying trainers money, or at the very least have an ‘understanding’. Just like the jockeys who write articles for bookies. All corruption is intertwined, and nobody wants to step on anyones toes. There are too many dots to connect, and too many people not to be stepped on. I knew my idea is not implementable, but if people put sporting integrity first, then something could be done. If sanctions can’t be imposed on the usual suspects, then hopefully there is a new alternative system that can have a negative effect of their self serving punts.just as gullible as thinking that bankers should be jailed for their role in the financial collapse. It’s laughable to challenge corrupt practices in a democracy.
Actually, you have picked out a perfect example of why your ‘gambles’ system cannot work.
The reason that so few bankers have been jailed for their role in the financial collapse is that very few of them committed any actual crime. The majority were grossly inept, morally bankrupt and really, really stupid. But that’s not illegal (if it were, most of humanity would be on the inside whilst the streets were deserted).
The ones that were jailed were involved in things like securities fraud and tax evasion which are bona fide criminal offences and for which any of us would be liable.
Your system would only work if there were a perfect method of defining it’s parameters and proving the involvement of the trainer. Both of these are impossible.
Mike
just as gullible as thinking that bankers should be jailed for their role in the financial collapse. It’s laughable to challenge corrupt practices in a democracy.
Actually, you have picked out a perfect example of why your ‘gambles’ system cannot work.
The reason that so few bankers have been jailed for their role in the financial collapse is that very few of them committed any actual crime. The majority were grossly inept, morally bankrupt and really, really stupid. But that’s not illegal (if it were, most of humanity would be on the inside whilst the streets were deserted).
The ones that were jailed were involved in things like securities fraud and tax evasion which are bona fide criminal offences and for which any of us would be liable.
Your system would only work if there were a perfect method of defining it’s parameters and proving the involvement of the trainer. Both of these are impossible.
Mike
Even if the rule was implemented that these punt stables were breaking the rules, nothing could be done ? I think the intelligence unit of the commision who investigate suspicious betting patterns might disagree. If people(who aren’t rich usually) can be struck off by the BHA after being investigated for suspicious betting patterns, then maybe something could be done against the bigger heists. The handicap system of ‘deceive and earn’ sucks.
It is impossible to take trainers to task in that way LW, because there is no proof. You can not destroy or hinder careers without proof. BHA would be taken to court.
However, if it is left to the BHA handicapper…
A horse is given a few extra pounds by the handicapper because it is difficult to access due to the jockey’s ride (no need for the handicapper to say anything). The horse is just given a higher mark for its next race. Once running again a time or two evidence of its true ability comes to light and the horse can either be dropped or highered to a different rating. No proof is necessary, it just discourages foul play.Once connections know they are likely to be hit with more weight (not less) they’d be less inclined to try and decieve the handicapper.
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?
Truth is it happens too often for ALL to be coincidence; yet unfortunately – mostly impossible to distinguish which is skulduggery and which is coincidence. I suggest you read Timeform, they have a way of saying things so subscribers can read between the lines.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?If horses of different ratings run in the same race then it stands to reason they will not (on the whole) be as competitive as handicaps. In a 2 mile flat 0-65 handicap all horses are handicapped to finish in a line; together. Where as in a 0-65 Classified a 65 rated horse is handicapped to finish a length in front of a 64 rated horse, two lengths in front of a 63, three in front of a 62 etc.
There is also STILL every incentive for connections to disguise the horse’s true ability. If connections can get a horse in to a 0-65 Classified who should if fairly campaigned be rated 70 – then it would stand an outstanding chance of winning.
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.
According to Timeform Eddie, Man Of Leisure improved greatly in those 5 days. Improving its rating for each of those three wins. Therefore, in all probability he’d have won three races whether they were Classified/graded or handicaps and deserves to.
Value Is EverythingGingertipster,
A very poor response from you there, you usually do much better than that.
Can we stick to Heritage handicaps for now, I’m talking principally here about flat racing. Nevermind David being worried about you producing incidents of skulduggerry in them, you haven’t being able to find any have you?
If you had we could have read between the lines on your postings like you can do with Timeform.
Timeform didn’t know that before Man of Leisure ran in those races but he would been a bigger price in the higher grade and not a handicap good thing in them and running in a 0-100 off 102 and with a bigger hike to come.
A horse cannot be guaranteed a run in a race like The Ebor by running down the field prior to it, the races are too competitive anyway. What rating do you think a 3 y o will need to get a run this year?
The example you give of a 70 rated horse running in a 60-65 classified race could equally apply to that 70 rated horse in a 0-65 handicap.
Are you successful betting in classified races?Instead of tinkering the ‘system’ you could tinker with the betting.
Betting started off as head to head matches then progressed to fav versus field betting, then finally to full field betting. We could go back to jolly(s) v field, bit like B365’s jollies v rags.
Punters would never hit spirit sapping losing runs this way. They will also bet more often and in higher amounts. Sports bettors are comfortable betting binaries around evens, why not racing fans.
On coups, insiders would now be taking on risk not associated only with their horse and only be payed around evens for the pleasure, not a great proposition. The problem of corrupt laying would largely be dented also.
Just saying, not advocating, and it won’t stop cheating just for the purse money of course
Gingertipster,
A very poor response from you there, you usually do much better than that.
Can we stick to Heritage handicaps for now, I’m talking principally here about flat racing. Nevermind David being worried about you producing incidents of skulduggerry in them, you haven’t being able to find any have you?
may
" and not "
is
". As I said earlier, some are coincidences but there are TOO MANY to ALL be coincidences. I’d also need to use Timeform, so are not going to quote their work and risk getting Timeform and TRF/David in to trouble.
If you had we could have read between the lines on your postings like you can do with Timeform.
Timeform didn’t know that before Man of Leisure ran in those races but he would been a bigger price in the higher grade and not a handicap good thing in them and running in a 0-100 off 102 and with a bigger hike to come.
A horse cannot be guaranteed a run in a race like The Ebor by running down the field prior to it, the races are too competitive anyway. What rating do you think a 3 y o will need to get a run this year?So although connections do not know for certain where the cut off point will be – they do know roughly. Therefore, unless a horse is close to the expected bottom-weight, connections can try to manoever a drop in mark.
The example you give of a 70 rated horse running in a 60-65 classified race could equally apply to that 70 rated horse in a 0-65 handicap.
better
than handicaps because in your opinion they are suposedly harder for connections to manipulate a better chance.
Are you successful betting in classified races?
I have very few bets in Classified races Eddie, finding them largely uncompetitive.
Value Is Everythingxtradj
Yes fine, but the question asks what the alternative is!
It’s very easy to suggest getting rid of sometinhg, not necessarily so easy to find a better alternative. There have been suggestions on this thread, but I’m not sure anyone has come up with a clear and measured plan for replacing handicaps.
Rob
You could handicap them by distance not weight. Not staggered stalls like Shawfield, but instead, the 5th home could be the actual winner after subtracting its handicap. That should keep everyone on their toes.
According to Timeform Eddie, Man Of Leisure improved greatly in those 5 days. Improving its rating for each of those three wins. Therefore, in all probability he’d have won three races whether they were Classified/graded or handicaps and deserves to.[/color]
You don’t know what you’re talking about Gingertipster, he won the second race off 102 in a 0-100 instead of running off 112 in a much higher grade. A significant difference to the horse’s chance of winning the next race unless we can back them with hindsight.
Some may like that sort of thing and may even put it down to the skill of the trainer, and that’s fair enough.
You may be quite happy for people to take advantage of the handicap system and have relatively uncompetitive races with a handicap good thing in it but it contradicts your opinion that you prefer the competitive nature of the handicaps.
As for you not betting in classified races due to their uncompetitive nature could you give me a couple of winners in the next one or two of them? I’m not fussed on the price, a winner’s a winner in my book.
You don’t know what you’re talking about Gingertipster, he won the second race off 102….
MOL won all three off 95.
…but with penalties of 7lbs and 14lbs in the second third wins which made effective ratings of 102 and 109.
According to Timeform Eddie, Man Of Leisure improved greatly in those 5 days. Improving its rating for each of those three wins. Therefore, in all probability he’d have won three races whether they were Classified/graded or handicaps and deserves to.[/color]
You don’t know what you’re talking about Gingertipster, he won the second race off 102 in a 0-100 instead of running off 112 in a much higher grade. A significant difference to the horse’s chance of winning the next race unless we can back them with hindsight.
Some may like that sort of thing and may even put it down to the skill of the trainer, and that’s fair enough.
You may be quite happy for people to take advantage of the handicap system and have relatively uncompetitive races with a handicap good thing in it but it contradicts your opinion that you prefer the competitive nature of the handicaps.
As for you not betting in classified races due to their uncompetitive nature could you give me a couple of winners in the next one or two of them? I’m not fussed on the price, a winner’s a winner in my book.
It is you who has not got a clue Eddie.
Man Of Leisure’s handicap mark went up a stone to win those 3 races, off marks of 95, 102 and 109. But improved almost 2 stone to do so. Why do you think almost 2 stone of improvement would not have been enough to win three Classified/Graded races Eddie? It did not matter whether those races were Handicaps, Classifieds or Graded – he still would’ve won three.
I don’t need to bet in every race Eddie. Yes, I am happy to see connections "taking advantage of the handicap system". It may be "penalties" allow a horse now and again to get in lightly, but that’s fine by me. Penalties encourage horses to run frequently, not just once a month (if that). But if you don’t like penalties then fine, get rid of them – but why get rid of handicaps?
Yes, penalties mean there are exceptions… but on the whole handicaps are more competitive than any other type of race. You may like uncompetitive races Eddie, but fact is (on the whole) the more open a race is – the more money is gambled. Big betting races are usually big competitive handicaps. Go figure…
If you really want to replace handicaps with uncompetitive/less competitive races – then the levy will suffer.
The only way you can have as competitive races as handicaps is by limiting each race to those with a handicap mark of exactly 70, and another race exactly 71, and another exactly 72 etc, with no other rating allowed to take part. But are there enough horses at each distance with exactly the same rating to do this?
And even if there are… connections will still try to get a mark as low as possible – to have as big a chance to win as possible. And… What would the big meetings look like?Better still Eddie… I’ve got a great idea!
If the handicapper needs to rate every horse the same for a Classified/Graded race… It’s virtually the same as the handicapper rating one horse a pound more, and another horse two pounds etc. So why not have each horse carrying weight in accordance with its rating. That way it does not limit every race to one single rating. In fact you could have a weight range of 21 or more pounds! Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.