Trip Tease :S

I agree with Louis .....it is agreed that sand and turf earn different ratings -I see it exactly opposite to PeterD - different ratings unless it is clear that a horse IS of equal ability on both surfaces-there is no such evidence in the case of Trip Tease, in fact enough turf runs to show 5 lengths inferior , at this stage.
Anything else is speculation and the most controversial issues in racing are wherever " discretion" is a factor,and should be avoided as much as possible!

rob faux Wrote:

---

> I agree with Louis .....it is agreed that sand and
> turf earn different ratings -I see it exactly
> opposite to PeterD - different ratings unless it
> is clear that a horse IS of equal ability on both
> surfaces-there is no such evidence in the case of
> Trip Tease, in fact enough turf runs to show 5
> lengths inferior , at this stage.
> Anything else is speculation and the most
> controversial issues in racing are wherever "
> discretion" is a factor,and should be avoided as
> much as possible!

I agree wholeheartedly...should not require a degree in law...

Trip Tease is now 112 on both turf and sand.
It would seem that the handicapper was correct in his treatment of this horse a few months ago when his turf rating was raised to 99 in tandem with and following his good sand performances, and the officials were not deserving of the harsh criticism at the time.

PeterD wrote: Trip Tease is now 112 on both turf and sand.
It would seem that the handicapper was correct in his treatment of this horse a few months ago when his turf rating was raised to 99 in tandem with and following his good sand performances, and the officials were not deserving of the harsh criticism at the time.

Peter,my criticism is generally with the rules ...........the handicappers mostly do a good job within those rules IMO!
The generally accepted principle is that sand and turf racing are different(hence 2 ratings) and when connections are smart or lucky enough to find that rare horse that is very good on both ,why should they be deprived of 2 good careers and why not let the horse earn its ratings on both surfaces. To "guess" that improvement on one surface will convert to the other seems to punish a shrewd purchase and is not consistent as only certain horses are treated as such. In my book,the fact that they guessed right,doesn't make it right!!!
Just my idea of justice I guess!

The principle is that a second rating is only required when there is evidence of different performance on the second surface. All the evidence for TT is that he is equally effective on both. It would then have been patently unfair on the other contestants to ignore his improvement and to give him two bites at the cherry.
I guess we will just have to agree to differ.

PeterD wrote: The principle is that a second rating is only required when there is evidence of different performance on the second surface. All the evidence for TT is that he is equally effective on both. It would then have been patently unfair on the other contestants to ignore his improvement and to give him two bites at the cherry.
I guess we will just have to agree to differ.

Peter what you say is correct. What I say is there are many examples where this opinion was not exercised by the handicappers. Once again the issue here is CONSISTENCY imvho. It is all good and well that the handicappers have got it right with hindsight, my question is why did they treat this horse differently to others, was it because the trainer of the horse is outspoken and payback was needed?