Forum Replies Created
- Posts
In the earlier thread about my ideas for changing the racing program, the proposal to replace low grade handicaps with claimers was quite reasonably seen as a potential problem, and as a disincentive for owners.
I wonder whether peope realise just how much things have already changed for low rated horses in quite a short space of time?
In the 2001 season, I part owned a 5-y-old called Democracy that I’m sure some old timers on here will remember. During that season he won an apprentice race at Brighton off a mark of 46, but his subsequent exploits that year reflected opportunities that no longer exist.
In early June, he won a 0-70 amateur race at Goodwood – he ran off a mark of 49 and there was a field of 22 runners. In the current program, the bottom weight in that race would be rated 56 and the maximum field would be 16.
Subsequently he ran at Newmarket (July course), Kempton, Epsom (in a 0-80 handicap) and in a valuable 0-70 at Beverley with over £7k to the winner. All that despite the fact that he was never rated higher than 52.
Nowadays, it would be almost impossible to get such a lowly rated horse in any race at a Grade 1 track and he certainly wouldn’t be able to run in a 0-80 or a 0-75. Beverley no longer stage the valuable 0-70 handicap, as the prize money offered then exceeds the maximum allowed for such a race in 2007.
Unless my memory is playing tricks, in 2001, there were hardly any races with a rating band lower than 0-60, but we never had any problems getting into races, even from our low mark. In contrast, this year, we had Greenwood eliminated from 0-60 races twice when he was himself rated 55.
The present program of claimers offers little opportunity for horses rated under 60, as almost all such races are dominated by older horses taking advantage of soft contests – I’ve done it myself twice this year with Salute.
So to provide for the increased number of horses kept in training despite being rated below 55, there are now handicaps scheduled with ratings such as 46 – 50, 46 – 52, 46 – 53 – I’ve seen examples of all those in recent weeks. Personally, I don’t think that’s a better option than claimers, but I acept that others may differ.
AP
It is a fair point AP. That was surely the intention of the BHB when they narrowed handicap bands. The idea was to encourage a meritocracy with prize money related more to ratings. Connections were to be encouraged to move their horse up through the grades rather than pick off wide band handicaps. To an extent it has worked.
Having an interest in an old sprinter called Blackheath, once rated in the 90s now 11 years old and down to 50, I appreciate the difficulties of getting into some low grade handicaps and running into 80+ rated horses in Claimers. We have just been ballotted out of a 0-60 at Wolverhampton on Saturday.
Nevertheless I think that a lot of people in syndicates and racing clubs would be switched off ownership by the transience of Claimer racing, particularly when they lose their horse. There are large numbers of people from all walks of life who now have a bit of horse. They are enthusiastic and key supporters of racing, and the racing programme needs to accommodate them.
The problem being that the ever-bloating fixture list only results in the base of the pyramid becoming broader without commensurate increase in the perpendicular. Tall and slim healthy, squat and fat not
Perceptions can often be wide of the mark. Can anyone say for sure, say by an analysis of Racehorses of 19xx and 2006, that the standard distribution of racehorse ability is any different in shape now than it was many years ago? People could be relying on the number of grades of narrow band handicaps and making assumptions that aren’t really valid.
What does culling a few thousand horses and jobs achieve that is healthy?
Why would British Racing do that, and for whom?Personally I have never understood the "elitists" in horse racing (like Bill O’Gorman). Those who want to dispense with the lower grades. Offhand I cannot think of any sport in this country where the cream is not supported by a broad pyramid below. There is something healthy about trying to accommodate everybody’s participation and interest. Whether it’s racing, the FA Cup or local leagues.
A 60 rated handicapper runs 6 furlongs in about 3 to 4 seconds slower than a Group One winner. Which means they run at about 95% of the speed of a top class horse. On the track at a distance they are indistinquishable. In the paddock beforehand only somebody who knows racehorses fairly well could tell the difference, without direct comparison. I have seen no credible evidence to support the idea (widely held) that 60 rated horses are any less consistent either.
Perhaps the "recreational racegoers" are more in tune with the realities than the elitists.
If there is too much racing for you, ignore that which is less interesting. Culling the lower grades means in practice many stable staff, jockeys, trainers and others out of a job, and large exports of horsemeat. Who benefits?
A large proportion of races are handicaps to maximise the competitveness of racing for betting purposes. You cannot separate the nature of the racing programme from betting. Get rid of off-course bookmakers and presumably it would be a different ball game?
My guess is that the people who contribute by far the most to racing, the owners, would not be impressed by a sport where the horses ran in claimers and changed hands on a regular basis. You cannot just graft another country’s racing programme onto ours without working through the consequences.
I have read it and I don’t agree that it’s pathetic. Journalists can’t win. They are criticised for sitting on the fence but when they stick their heads above the parapet and express an opinion they get slated.
Journalists are the most enthusiastic participants in the blame culture. You do not get sensible answers by setting a lynch mob baying for blood. The Commentary is the equivalent of a quick w**k to relieve the frustration built up in this poor journo. He should go and get a proper job instead of spending his working life mocking and criticising others.
Surely it’s possible to disagree with the sentiments expressed in the article without labelling the journalism itself as "pathetic."
No guskennedy read it, it is pathetic.
One sided, mocking, dare you to disagree and look silly rubbish. Fish an chip wrapping is too good for it.
Yes pathetic journalism bluechariot, just another example of the appallingly low level of debate which our media feed us.
Could it be that the Jockey Club needed the police and their powers of investigation in order to know whether criminal offences had been committed or not. Was it not their duty to do this with a prima facie case of a conspiracy revealed by Betfair, bearing in mind the public and media pressure for action on dodgy races. For decades the Jockey Club had been criticised for inaction.
I would like to know on what grounds the BHA asked Channel 4 Racing not to comment on the suppression of Jim McGrath’s views in this case.
So Prufrock yours is the nth accusation levelled at the BHA these past few days, none of which seem to have any validity.
Are the BHA too good for us? We expect our racing to be dodgy and our authorities to be mockable.
If it meets and acts like a conspiracy, texts like a conspiracy, phones like a conspiracy, passes envelopes of cash like a conspiracy and bets like a conspiracy but wins no money, what is it?
Would certainly guarantee media interest if they pursued the registered owner reported to contact Fallon every day for tips – one Michael Owen!
I would have thought a quiet word as to future conduct is all that’s needed given the fact that any investigation would be unlikely to result in a ban longer than that already served.
Personally, I reckon it would be better if the authorities removed the anomaly in the rules that makes it wrong for Fallon to exchange text messages with a footballer, but OK for him to write a newspaper column, Ok to talk to corporate guests at the racecourse, OK to give interviews on TV pre race.
AP
AP no doubt if you came up with a workable system which has the support of the industry, discourages race fixing and provides evidence for disciplinary action purposes the BHA will be pleased to hear from you.
Despite FoF’s rants the pressure for cleaning up the sport is coming from the public (punters) and the media. Keeping it in-house with a quiet word in the ear is the way it was done by the aristocrats who ran racing in a past age. It is not an option anymore.
Many sports seem to be struggling with these sorts of issues – Athletics and Cycling with performance enhancing drugs, Cricket and Football with match fixing. I think sport in general struggles to find the right response in terms of disciplinary action or prosecution, and effective controls which are not draconian.
Fist of Fury 2k8 your picture is of a thoroughly corrupt sport which does not deserve to survive.
I see a great sport, which is dodgy in parts, and support the authority’s efforts to clean it up as much as practicable. Times change, and what may have been allowed to go on in the past is not going to survive the scrutiny even sport receives in this century. Whatever you say.
I always think of Dettori as being exceptional by European standards for minimising wind resistance by getting down behind the horses neck. Possibly Piggott did it the other way by adopting the downhill ski racer position i.e the egg on two sticks?
Jim what I should have written instead of streamlining was slipstreaming. But streamlining is interesting too.
In athletics the mechanics of the elite athletes movement is honed to "perfection". In track cycling they spend enormous amounts of time and effort minimising drag and maximising slipstreaming. Meanwhile the application of scientific knowledge to horse racing barely seems to scratch the surface.
You are trying to buck a deeply entrenched culture of prefering the witch doctor to the GP. Don’t worry though race commentators will still insist that the winner quickened up nicely when he was actually slowing down. It sounds better.
Interesting thread Jim.
I have often wondered about the uneven pace which one usually sees in top class human 400 and 800 metre races, and whether even pace really produces the best performances in the shorter horse racing distances.
Without any evidence to back it up, I have come to think that the best sprinting performances often result from a fast early pace allied to slipstreaming. I wonder if your thinking has considered the peleton effect? Normally unimportant in athletics but surely a factor with racehorses travelling at 40 mph?
Doesn’t anybody do applied maths or physics at school anymore?
I have a dim recollection that applying Newtons Laws of Motion will demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that every extra particle of weight will slow the horse down a bit.
Of course in horse racing there are so many factors affecting a racehorses performance that you can convince yourself of almost anything. Hence horse racing is fertile ground for bizarre theories such as extra weight makes no difference, or that extra weight only kicks into effect at a certain point.
Adrian Massey’s stats are similar to ones I came up with 15 years ago and I concluded then that there were several factors which could help to explain a slight advantage to higher weighted horses in handicaps. Among them was that the higher weighted horses tend to be ridden by the better jockeys.
