louisg tell the nha they are clue less

Frodo, here's two quick examples from Saturday, one of which you may have missed the rating on
1) The filly Planet Queen ran 4th behind Cante Libre on Emerald Day. She was under sufferance and incurred a 22 point penalty on her sand rating.
But, when she won on Saturday, it was still off her old Turf rating of 55. Her Turf rating was NOT raised, only her sand rating. She is currently rated 60 on Turf (up 5 points for the win)and 80 on sand, up 22 points for the 4th place.

2)Another winner on Saturday was Stuart Pettigrew's filly Break of Dawn. This was her 5th career win, all on Turf. She has run twice on sand without a win. After Saturday's Turf win, they raised her by 6 points.... on BOTH surfaces! Just because she hasn't had her 3rd run on Sand yet ! And have a look at Flitter, who ran second to her on sat - she is rated 85 on sand and 91 on Turf....The point is that Break of Dawn couldn't win off her old sand rating but incurs a winners penalty on sand for her Turf win. It is a joke !


So, I agree 100% with you that the Race Figure system is not better than the MR system. I say that later in the article. My only point is that the way the cracks are appearing right now and the way the MR system is being APPLIED RIGHT NOW by the handicappers, makes the Race Figure system a better system. And you and I both agree that that should NEVER be the case !

Flash Harry Wrote:

---

> Rob what do it mean to bring into disrepute and is
> it ever be test be fore this rule?


Yes......2 well known racing men(amongst others).............Charl Pretorius and recently, Gavin Venter!

The main problem with the Merit Rating system is they don't seem to be able to decide whether it is an ABILITY ,FORM or FITNESS rating so they just mix and match the lot!

keniza999 Wrote:

---

> 100% on this one:
>
> "Not balancing the line – For merit rating to
> work, in its purest form, horses must also be
> dropped in the ratings, based upon their current
> form. This is just not being done. Currently, it
> is easy to gain 8 points and extremely difficult
> to lose even one point, unless you run your horse
> into the ground and run it badly."
>
>
> the system is good but the application is the
> problem...


Horses wouldn't need drastic drops if they ran consistently. But trainers have that magical ability to get their horse to be a 100 on one day and a 52 the next.

Louis u couldnt have stated it better the major problem is nobody is policing the police in this case to who is the nha ultimtely accountable to certainly sum sort of commitee must be formed by the owners and trainers to start talks with the nha regarding these issues

Thor as for only blaming the trainers for inconsistent form i think u should rather start looking at the multitude of variables when it comes to racing

So excuse my very obvious ignorance who is right and who in our very humble and informed opinion wrong? Just asking ? You go Charl ! I'm just a little confused where Louis is coming from. Maybe he can confirm which side he is on ? Who are the police and who appoints them? Who is Mathew Lips . Just asking? So as a punter what and who should I listen to? Just asking? It is confusing when people in the game keep changing sides?

I agree fully Lou..great writeup...change is inevitable but not for those who bring it about in this industry!!

Weird

bloodshot Wrote:

---

> So excuse my very obvious ignorance who is right
> and who in our very humble and informed opinion
> wrong? Just asking ? You go Charl ! I'm just a
> little confused where Louis is coming from. Maybe
> he can confirm which side he is on ? Who are the
> police and who appoints them? Who is Mathew Lips .
> Just asking? So as a punter what and who should I
> listen to? Just asking? It is confusing when
> people in the game keep changing sides?


Just bet the favourite and moan like fuck when it gets beat,works for most and is a great excuse to get pished...

All the points of concern expressed by Louis were discussed in August on this forum-that was 2 months ago ...lol

louisg Wrote:

---

> Frodo, here's two quick examples from Saturday,
> one of which you may have missed the rating on
> 1) The filly Planet Queen ran 4th behind Cante
> Libre on Emerald Day. She was under sufferance and
> incurred a 22 point penalty on her sand rating.
> But, when she won on Saturday, it was still off
> her old Turf rating of 55. Her Turf rating was NOT
> raised, only her sand rating. She is currently
> rated 60 on Turf (up 5 points for the win)and 80
> on sand, up 22 points for the 4th place.
>
> 2)Another winner on Saturday was Stuart
> Pettigrew's filly Break of Dawn. This was her 5th
> career win, all on Turf. She has run twice on sand
> without a win. After Saturday's Turf win, they
> raised her by 6 points.... on BOTH surfaces! Just
> because she hasn't had her 3rd run on Sand yet !
> And have a look at Flitter, who ran second to her
> on sat - she is rated 85 on sand and 91 on
> Turf....The point is that Break of Dawn couldn't
> win off her old sand rating but incurs a winners
> penalty on sand for her Turf win. It is a joke !
>
>
> So, I agree 100% with you that the Race Figure
> system is not better than the MR system. I say
> that later in the article. My only point is that
> the way the cracks are appearing right now and the
> way the MR system is being APPLIED RIGHT NOW by
> the handicappers, makes the Race Figure system a
> better system. And you and I both agree that that
> should NEVER be the case !

I accept your examples and re Planet Queen, it will be interestting to see what she does nex time on the sand.

Overall, I think we are saying mostly the same thing, your view seems to be that the MR system as being applied right now, is failing us most of the time and is only being applied correctly every now and then, while I think that the MR system is being applied correctly most of the time and is only failing us every now and then -

But whatever slant we put on it, I think most reasonable people would agree that there is room for improvement (tu)

the mr rules are clear you only get rating after 3 run on surface so what do louis expect the handicapper to give separate rating for break of dawn? this is silly it weaken hes argument. he have same situation with negev who is same rating on sand as grass but is clear she is the dog on the sand and must get low rating than grass, this will now happen after today she run 3rd or worse, let us be fair to the handicapper too he work under the rules, the horse who get 22 point rise is also right under rule. do not have the go at the handicapper because the trainer is so stupid he no under stand the rules. to me you can see many example of very stupid placing of horse by trainer where you get situation louis describe after horse run a place then every one cry. you here how can this get 22 point after run fourth? it is clear these stupids who do these for the living dont have the clue. this show me the diference in quality of trainer in the plan of a good horse career. where i agree and say so is where handicapper put 6 points up on grass. where does this rule exist that give the nhra the right to adjust mr to fit in to "international standards"?

now the one thing i no under stand is why louis is going to sporting post and complain. sham racing say that things should be done properly use the right channel. he talk about trainer association and industry liason. why these change in what he propose as the solution? may be he find out the hard way the solution he say be fore is just the lip service?