JUST HOW GOOD IS THIS HORSE ???

Barry, not sure if you were asking a serious question or just commenting on the 'blind school' bit.

Just in case you do want to know, it was a MR77 handicap but included two 3 year olds that came off winning debuts and another with two runs, the second being its maiden victory. Those three each gave the 4 year old winner a tiny bit of weight.
Most of the other runners had a fair number of runs under the belt, the top rated being a 4 time winner from 26 starts.

Handicaps are not a farce in principle, but we are steadily turning them that way. I'd be in favour olf giving the handicappers carte blanche to give horses whatever ratings they see fit, without all these ifs and buts that we have intorudced, but most trainers and owners would have a fit. So we just give in and carry on ripping the guts out of the system and creating "one horse" races in handicaps, as we have seen recently with Swan Neck and Royal Zulu Warrior.

Maybe someone on the "other" forum, where they are always so quick to quote rules verbatim, should challenge all of these restrictions etc. on the basis that they make it impossible to enforce handicapping the way it should be enforced in a perfect world.

good morning all !
This is what one calls a loophole.
As a punter,this is a tough game and these flaws help a little! Ala swan neck!

True enough, antsinner. These loopholes can be turned to a punters' advantage.(

the biggest crybaby regarding merit ratings is mr tony rivaland and i recall he actually formed a commmitee to change the system...i dont hear him complaining about mr mickey mouse royal zulu warrior or takeover targets soft ratings in the past 6 months...the situation regarding ratings sums up the industry as a whole in this country where individuals want change for themselves rather than the industrys betterment...COME ON MERIT RATINGS MEANS JUST THAT RATE HORSES ON MERIT ...TO HAVE 1 TO 3 SHOTS IN HANDICAP SHOWS HOW FCUKED THE SYSTEM IS

magiclips Wrote:

---

> Handicaps are not a farce in principle

Heh, I realise that probably not 1 in a thousand (million?) racing folks will agree with me, but I think the whole principle of handicaps is a farce, by definition!

You can catch the replay here

Running every race on equal terms will kill racing faster than anything else you can dream of. An uneven playing field keeps countless horses competitive that would otherwise be useless and allows so many races to be staged.

magiclips Wrote:

---

> Running every race on equal terms will kill racing
> faster than anything else you can dream of. An
> uneven playing field keeps countless horses
> competitive that would otherwise be useless and
> allows so many races to be staged.


especially the tote turnover

Well, yes, the tote turnover is what allows races to be staged in the first place. (Forget Dubai and the other oil-rich Middle East nations, comparisons to them are pointless.) Handicaps tend to attract the biggest fields, as we see so often in the UK and elsewhere as well, and if you consider them evil then I'm afraid that you'll have to classify them as a necessary evil.

magiclips Wrote:

---

>
> Yes, the eight pound rule is another slap in the
> face for true handicapping, because next time he
> runs his opposition will have no chance (at least
> on paper), which is exactly contrary to what
> handicapping should be all about. I love merit
> ratings, but I think we in SA have completely lost
> our way with the restrictions, caps, etc. that we
> have imposed. It's like taking a dinner from a
> three Michelin star restaurant and then sloshing
> tomato sauce all over it.

Magic, there is one good consequence of this rule, that being that jockeys can ride the horse out to a ten length win instead of trying to win as narrowly as possible and causing punters much anxiety. In fact in the UK if I'm not mistaken the handicappers take into account how easy the horse was doing it when they assess the victory. Hence the regular analyst comment "I don't think he fooled the handicapper."

spot on, pirates

Rivalland was very involved with the MR system's latest amendments and which should be to his benefit in this case. While he obviously didn't plan this particular scene, he definitely plotted for this type of thing to occur. Ultimately the panel felt it would happen seldom enough for it to be swallowed, although those architects should blush with shame with 1/3 shots in handicaps, and they can't say they didn't think about it either. Ironic that it now involves a main architect. Swallow that.

Mr Rivalland might argue that the capping of the penalties will allow a good horse to win a few and that is not a bad thing.

You can't argue that, however it does spit in the face of what a handicap is trying to do, and the betting shows it. Handicaps are designed to give our lesser bretheren a chance against better horses and capping the weight just defeats it.

(As a matter of interest, I read that when handicaps were introduced the weight spread was something like +70 lbs, or over 30kgs.)

To keep some perspective, while Royal Zulu Warrior beat National Chant (66 and 78 at best) by 9L yesterday, Cupid's Prey beat National Chant by 8L and Never Forever beat him by 15L the start before. I guess we will see RZW against some real talent in about 3 races from now when he emerges from the MR shelter program.

You can't blame the trainer for playing the system, or from placing his horse to the best advantage. I suppose it's when they play the system which they amended is what galls because it might be human nature to invent a system that suits the way you like to program the type of horse you prefer. A bit like a rugby team adjusting the rules to play their strengths. I'm sure this isn't what happened, it would just be nice know it can't.

Having said all that, I WAS going to say that NHRA really slipped up with a MR70 for this horse and the capping stops them from correcting the mistake in a hurry. (That too was mentioned in the prelims to the amendments, also fell on deaf ears).

You would think before the hcppers issued the 70 for this horse, they would wonder if a firstimer favourite who wins by 10L can be a 70....apparently not... R1,000 fine for not thinking! BUT the rules say max rating for 4yo Maiden winner is 70. You can only laugh!