Ziets, thanks for taking the time to look at the programme - maybe after I write the following, then you will see the Trainers side and the complexity -
1) This horse has had one race in his life. At his next start, he broke through the stalls, scratched. On this one, we had no warning that he would react like this. Because of how well behaved he was first time out, the starter put him in first. We have had to re school him and he now goes in later, with a head hold.
2)This horse won on sand, over 1000m on debut, his only run. Why would I look for another surface or further?
3)In your earlier posts on this thread, you slate Trainers for messing up horses careers by rushing them. Yet, in your programme of races, you include Feature races....
Also, Ziets, please note that in a plate race (not maiden plates, but progress or pinnacle plates), there is a maximum penalty of 6 points for winning and zero for places etc, no matter what the weights or if the horse runs above rating. But, it is also very important to note that the form of that race is not ignored. It is considered as part ofvthe overall formline of the horse, by the handicapper.
I am pleased that Flash started this thread, because so much debate and opinion makes for extremely interesting reading. But, the bottom line surely remains that we must not surely condone a system that costs Owners (and Breeders) money, just because they found a good horse and we now singlemindedly look to stop that horse from winning again, or too many races, as we "bring it back" by adding weight through rating.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the system right now, has produced more multiple winners rated below 70 than those rated above 70. Much more.....about 3 to 1. And what does this say to us all?
It simply says that a weaker horse wins more races than a stronger horse. And that is just not logical, surely. And I agree that we cannot go back to the race figure system, but we must concede that it was a system that allowed the better horses to win their fair share of races. So, as much as logic comes into play on this one, so too does fairness.
Finally, much has been said about inconsistent horses and I agree. But, surely, never in our history has the time been more rife to give horses runs by running when not ready etc. Yes, it will take time to drop the ratings, but the time is less, with good planning... when you spend as much time planning losing, as you plan winning.
And that is not what racing is supposed to be and it is not what this yard is all about. But, once you are in the bottom lot and your horse comes well, you can win many races, whilst the really good sorts battle it out against other really good sorts, running their hearts out, consistently and going up in the ratings without winning !
As for an insinuation made that I, for example, could lie to the handicapper etc, there is nothing further from the truth. Also, where Neigh was right, was when he/she mentioned that Trainers shouldnt be calling the handicapper.
Right now, I am going to complete my objection against the allocation of 88 to Negev as her sand rating. Have a look and tell me why I am doing this...... on what grounds will I object ?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
