One-time winner rated 108 - what will Louis say?

No, Louis. I haven't read all of them. For which I apologise. But I detect a level of 'needle' in the communication between yourself and other parties which I assume is a carryover from the posts you allude to.

I simply focused on the matter in hand - this post. Which I still feel is confusing if one is unaware of your 'history' with other posters. Rather like interjecting on an unrelated basis with - " And while we are on the subject I haven't forgotten about..............."

Whether you like it or not you are, in your own way, a public figure. And if you make the decision to air your views in a public forum such as Tellytrack or ABC you cannot be that naïve so as to believe you are only going to get responses which endorse your standpoint.

I note that you have extended an invitation to KM on another thread to debate handicapping with you although it read more like an ultimatum than an invitation!

Louis,on a more general note,you are right ...........I do not think racing is in good hands,but forget the forum,read letters to the Sporting Post by the general public.................I am not an orphan.
I think that the tote and Tellytrack are badly managed, and I think the regulators do not regulate many of the rules (mainly I suspect because they are not independently funded).............ironically I think the handicappers are the most efficient of the lot ,WITHIN THEIR MANDATE!

I have mentioned before that I have no real issue with the RA, except that at times I think they dance a little too closely to the operators!

You ,of course have your own reasons for supporting "your cronies" as you put it.

louisg Wrote:

---

> Stop ! I mixed up Jack and Rob !!!! Sorry Rob, the
> post is aimed at Jack Dash, not at you. HUMBLE
> APOLOGIES !

Classic example as to why you should NEVER respond to an incident when you are angry.

Rather- Cool down, formulate a response, review your response and THEN deliver it. And make sure it only addresses the topic.

Wars have been started by over reactions!

I may or may not be proven wrong,but i have a feeling that after his Daily News run RC will be an overrated horse:S
IMO neither Legislate nor LTKs race went as planned
I do not believe that Kevin or Richard planned to be that far back
We know both horses can come from behind and in fact legislate went past RC,after having to work harder than RC
LTK may just have been unlucky not to get a clear run sooner
Legislate had to go wide,surely that took it's toll late in the race
Here i am not taking anything away from RC,but would another jock have got the same out of him? Anton is world class(tu)
IMO RC had a much easier race than the other two and Anton almost pulled it off

But,even though i'm in the Legislate camp, i am confused...
The race did not really tell me who is the better of the two

We've had match races years ago...
Maybe a three horse race?

Yeah yeah i'l dream on tonight

Garrick, I mixed up a name and apologised. Pity that's not enough for you.

louisg Wrote:

---

> Rob, you have a personal problem with me. Good
> luck to you and to whichever cronies you
> support.If I were the only Trainer complaining
> about MR system and the handicappers application,
> on TT you would be right.... Unfortunately you are
> not....
>
> As long as you are on ABC with your anti Operator
> and RA views, I will remain. So, go your hardest
> and attack me too....
>
> Soon we will see....

Hello LG, apparently this was a reply to my post where I said your comments were disgraceful and not to Rob. You are incorrect, I have no problem with you, in fact I look forward to your posts and I often back your runners. You have extra credibility on the forum as a trainer who speaks his mind. I don't have any cronies though, no cronyism.

My criticism of the operators is that they take the customer for granted and then are shocked when they choose to go elsewhere. They are the custodians of the sport, but instead they bully and profiteer, in my opinion, and they have no urgency to provide service but just to collect more money for the least effort and expense. You obviously disagree. I have no link to the RA and owners can and should do whatever they like, individually or as a group, I don't care.

But to the main point:
Still you continue to accuse the handicappers of purposely choosing to "punish" or penalise individuals as if there is some hidden agenda. How you keep saying this with only a few people like Rob or Garrick pointing it out is why you keep on. I have no doubt that the handicappers make mistakes, but I also can see that they struggle continually to have the handicap ratings as correct as possible. I can see that every rating is sent out with a best effort to get the weights as correct as the form has shown, and your attacks are just unjust. The fact that you do have credibility just makes it worse.

Elsewhere JAP actually works through a specific example of Moggytwoshoes who you said has been stopped by the handicapper in their effort to punish all good horses. Are you mad? The example actually shows the exact opposit. Not only did you cause a major increase by revealing the ability by running under sufferance, the handicapper could not give the horse the correct mark to assist other horses to remain competitive to Moggy. So in other words, it was mostly your fault that the horse's ability was prematurely revealed and even then it could not be given the full "penalty". And you accuse them of cheating you of future wins?

You are entitled to your view and can express it on TV and here in writing. Its not personal if I disagree and give you a reasoned explanation why I point it out. You need not think im anti you if we disagree. I think our really big difference of opinion here is on what we understand "handicaps" to be. The rules are clear, I know you can't show where the handicappers have broken them. But at some point you need to be able to back up your accusations...or change the rules. Maybe you have some cronies who can help. A crony being someone in authority who has no knowledge, more or less.

Jack, I will back my statement on Moggy, believe me. There is one very critical point that you are missing and I will highlight it. Again, this is not at you, but at the system as applied.
Basically, I looked forward to the debate with Karel on the main debate thread. I requested that only myself and Karel debate there. This has already changed and now, it seems , that many will become involved on the thread, so it is not what I requested and I will decide whether to get involved there or not. Let's see...

I will not comment on Moggy etc but if one speaks to almost any trainer they constantly complain about the MR
system
The system works for the BIG horses ie those above 95
For the rest there are too many compliants
When a horse has had numerous starts 6+ and has not won or placed in a Maiden he may finish up with
MR of 55 He then runs 4th in a Maiden and the MR is moved to 63 Any chance in a handicap is gone and often the
handicaps are weaker than a Maiden
Then then biggest problem HIS MR wont be rectified for 3 or more starts and then 1 point at a time
There was a juvenile winner who won by 5+ and went to 89
A year later he was still a 1 time winner and not a horse from that race had won
Eventually died a one timer

There are major problems with the MR system but every ducks when questioned
The line horse never seems to be the winner always the 3rd or 4th

When you rate race after race you will often find the line horse isn't the winner.

BEFORE a race, the handicapper uses the merit rating to set the weights horses will carry, to create a dead/heat.

AFTER the race, it isn't a dead/heat so you look at the outcome and create a "best fit"

So if a horse wins by 5 L, and 2-3-4-5 are short heads, you are more likely to say 2-3-4-5 all ran as they should with regards to each other, and the winner carried his weight 5 lengths better than rated, rather than say, there are 4 horses who ALL ran 5 lengths below their normal.

The daily news for eg is interesting, the top 5 makes some sense all 1.6 L between them at levels and the rated 102, 106, 109,109 and rake at 90, clearly not a 90. The balance beaten 3.90 to 15 lengths rated 91,91,92,95,95,100 and 100 (As You like and Whistle Stop 11.55 lengths behind and clearly not themselves). So here it's like the horses clumped in Gr1's and Other.

The handicapper must make sense of perhaps a false pace race with the best two sitting last and 2nd last for half the race. They might make Captain America the line horse as a best fit. If so, then top 3 ran 109 108 106. But Top Jet (95 runs 102), Everest (91 runs 102) , Atomic Rush (92 runs 102), beaten 3.9, 4.0 and 4.05.

I probably will NOT be betting on those 90 horses to all of a sudden all be running 100+'s as if they suddenly all upped in ability because they happen to get close up in a slow race.

Given 109!!!

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> When you rate race after race you will often find
> the line horse isn't the winner.
>
> BEFORE a race, the handicapper uses the merit
> rating to set the weights horses will carry, to
> create a dead/heat.
>
> AFTER the race, it isn't a dead/heat so you look
> at the outcome and create a "best fit"
>
> So if a horse wins by 5 L, and 2-3-4-5 are short
> heads, you are more likely to say 2-3-4-5 all ran
> as they should with regards to each other, and the
> winner carried his weight 5 lengths better than
> rated, rather than say, there are 4 horses who ALL
> ran 5 lengths below their normal.
>
> The daily news for eg is interesting, the top 5
> makes some sense all 1.6 L between them at levels
> and the rated 102, 106, 109,109 and rake at 90,
> clearly not a 90. The balance beaten 3.90 to 15
> lengths rated 91,91,92,95,95,100 and 100 (As You
> like and Whistle Stop 11.55 lengths behind and
> clearly not themselves). So here it's like the
> horses clumped in Gr1's and Other.
>
> The handicapper must make sense of perhaps a false
> pace race with the best two sitting last and 2nd
> last for half the race. They might make Captain
> America the line horse as a best fit. If so, then
> top 3 ran 109 108 106. But Top Jet (95 runs 102),
> Everest (91 runs 102) , Atomic Rush (92 runs 102),
> beaten 3.9, 4.0 and 4.05.
>
> I probably will NOT be betting on those 90 horses
> to all of a sudden all be running 100+'s as if
> they suddenly all upped in ability because they
> happen to get close up in a slow race.


I mostly agree on your view of the DN - see my comment in the 'Handicapping Debate' thread (tu)

Legislate 110
Rake's Chestnut 109
Louis the King 109
Captain America 106

Official