MR Appeal Over Turned

now we look forward to DHABYAAN's rating, he beat KING OF THE DELTA (now rated 71) by 2L. If KING OF THE DELTA is the line horse DHABYAAN will also get a 77....another appeal ahead.

De Kock MR Appeal – They Must Be Joking!

'The press release came across as a futile attempt to embarrass Mike de Kock' - Robert Bloomberg

UPDATED ON NOVEMBER 13, 2017

The recent unsuccesful appeal by trainer Mike de Kock for a higher merit rating for debut winner Pietro Mascagni has evoked some puzzlement amongst the connections. We asked an expert for his opinion.

Mike de Kock – appeal for high rating failed

Whilst every Appeal Board is entitled to their own opinion, it is quite frankly beyond me how they could overrule the De Kock appeal and which I will amplify on, writes Robert Bloomberg.

Read the Pietro Mascagni press release

The guidelines ‘cap’ a 3yo Maiden winner in a major centre at an MR78, but that is a nett not a gross rating. The winner and subject of the appeal, Pietro Mascagni, won on 31 October 2017 over 1160m which afforded him a WFA allowance of 11lbs. Accordingly, he had a maximum allowable “cap” of MR89 gross (78 + 11).

The 4th horse, King of the Delta, which I believe should have been used as the line horse, had a rating of MR77.

He was beaten by 9L (18lbs). If you use him solely as the criteria, then you have the winner running to a 95. Even if you use him off his subsequently reduced rating of 71, he runs to an 89. Whichever way you look at the race, he should have been rated either an 89 in my opinion, or an 88 as internationally renowned handicapper Mike Wanklin and handicapping expert, Tony Mincione, both believe. The 2nd horse, Square the Circle and 3rd placed, Star of Joburg, are much better than the handicappers believe.

King Of Delta ran again on Saturday conclusively proving the incorrect decision of the handicappers and the panel. I say this because he now raced off his adjusted rating of 71 and ran 2nd beaten 2.1L by a very good debutante, Dhabyaan, also trained by De Kock with the 3rd horse beaten 5.4L. Due to the folly of not using him as the line horse when Pietro Mascagni won, they should only have made Dhabyaan a 76 instead of an 82 which he should be.

However, the handicappers stunningly, promptly upped King of the Delta to a 74 (77-71-74 in 12 days) on his run to Yamoto 4 runs ago on the 5th September (I’m not sure how you can do that, but anyway) and made Dhabyaan an 81. The handicappers know full well that Dhabyaan is no 76 and had to find a way out to raise him, but in so doing have compounded their error and contradicted their rating of Pietro Mascagni and made the appeal panel look like proper Charlie’s.

Robert Bloomberg – slams NHA

I ask you this – if Dhabyaan is an MR81 having beaten King of the Delta by just over 2L, what should Pietro Mascagni be having beaten the same horse by 9L?

Not an MR79 I can promise you that! He is unbelievably rated 2lbs inferior to his fellow inmate! In simple mathematical terms, Pietro Mascagni ran to a 95 (77 + 18). He beat King of the Delta by 7L (14lbs) further than Dhabyaan, now an official MR81. Pietro Mascagni should therefore be rated 14lbs superior (81 + 14 = 95) which is what he ran to.

Having said that, clearly in reality there cannot be that much between them in true ability, but then Dhabyaan is obviously much better than his rating given. To those that punt, I would strongly suggest you follow Pietro Mascagni next time you see him in a handicap off a 79 rating (and Dhabyaan as well off an 81 for that matter). I know a few appeal panel members who will be wagering the rent money!

Justin Vermaak who sat on the appeal, has openly stated that De Kock had “hidden agendas.”

Is that seriously what you call a trainer who is asking for a higher rating – not lower – based purely on what the horse achieved and should actually be rating wise – merely because he wanted run the horse in the Dingaans as that he is how highly he rates him?

Perhaps it’s actually members of the appeal panel that should be asked whether they in fact are the ones with “hidden agendas!”

Taking a step back for a moment, I had a few weeks ago sat on an appeal brought by trainer Eric Sands. The handicappers had made the horse, The Sun Also Rises, an MR83 on one run even though he had twice run to a 72.

We erred on the side of caution and went 77 even though we believed him to be a 72 as we did not want to do the opposite to what the handicappers had done by giving him his lowest rating as opposed to them rating him on his highest rating.

The horse ran on Thursday finishing 2nd and ran to a 72 again. After the Sands appeal and when asked by Arnold Hyde who convened the hearing whether we should issue a press release and whether I could assist in the drafting thereof, I stated that I did not believe it necessary as firstly these matters were not of real interest and with respect, understanding to the majority of the public and secondly that there was no need to embarrass the handicappers with press releases relating to any merit rating appeals.

The panel which included Vermaak concurred with my sentiments.

However, the NHA couldn’t wait to send out a disingenuous and opportunistic press release after overruling the De Kock appeal using this as a means to falsely and wrongly criticise the guidelines to justify their, in my opinion, flawed and deplorable decision.

The appeal panel has the winner running to a 68 nett (79 – 11). What has that crazy rating have to do with the guidelines I ask you with tears in my eyes!
The press release also came across as a futile attempt to embarrass de Kock and to laud the handicappers for their unfortunate decision brought about by the “terrible” guidelines that were unfairly handcuffing them.

Believe me, I know full well who was behind the drafting/wording of that press release – and so does he – and it wasn’t Arnold Hyde.

Sporting Post NOVEMBER 13, 2017Robert Bloomberg

Is it too late for Mike to run this horse again to up his rating before the Dingaans?

Handicapping is a central part of our racing. It is really concerning if the people responsible for executing this get it so wrong and, to add insult to injury, can't see the errors of their ways when it is brought to their attention.

Big egos at play there as well, it seems.

so all the handicappers and the appeal panel members (big names) are convinced these ratings should stand???

Lionel wrote: Handicapping is a central part of our racing. It is really concerning if the people responsible for executing this get it so wrong and, to add insult to injury, can't see the errors of their ways when it is brought to their attention.

Big egos at play there as well, it seems.

Pasop broer you may become a klippie in someones skoen.

Merit Rating has many examples of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and plain stupidity. Dont tell the ja broers this though, soupmeat need to be "competitive". It is amusing to see the lack of response to Robert Bloombergs article, I would have thought at least two individuals on here would have been firing away defending this bastard system.

Ok I will byte ....

The case for MR vs RF has absolutely nothing to do with this issue (the rating of the de Kock horse). We should not confuse the merits of a system with the application of that system.

Regarding this particular example , RB of course makes a compelling argument and I agree that the handicappers most likely got it wrong - just one small point that should be considered (and was obviously taken into account by the handicappers) is that it seems quite likely that King of the Delta put in a below par effort in his run behind Pietro Mascagni - but still even using Karioke Kelly as the line horse, puts PM at around 86 - so it looks like there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the handicappers (and the 'review' panel) got it wrong in this particular case.

I have never maintained that MR is always 100% accurate and and I totally agree that there are (and due to its nature, will always be) 'inconsistencies' and 'inaccuracies' and sometimes even 'plain stupidity' in the application of the MR system - but imo these cases are the exceptions and not the norm, so the handicappers (and those that make up the handicapping rules) should strive to be more consistent and accurate when applying MR in order to minimize cases like this one.

The point on which I differ with the dinosaurs, are that even with its flaws, in principle MR is a much fairer handicapping system than RF could ever be.

Frodo what you are in essence saying here is that although the system has its flaws, you support it because "MR is a much fairer handicapping system than RF could ever be". You dont say who it is fairer to, I am presuming that you mean it is fairer to owners of moderate horses? It definitely is not fairer to owners of better horses, to trainers of these horses, and in general to the punters who now struggle to find stand out winners in races.

As a side note - if our MR is so "fair" why is it that some international jurisdictions do not accept our ratings, and why is it that our top horses often struggle to reproduce these ratings when racing overseas?

Again, with respect, lets agree to disagree. I cant have this as the best that we can do.

the problem with MR faults is that it's same group of individuals that create and solve the problem....

Vermaak responds to appeal criticism


From greenstreetbloodstock.co.za/vermaak-resp...-to-appeal-critcism/



I generally find public spats quite juvenile and leave them to waste away in the recycle bin of life, but I feel in this case that the public should be afforded a more rounded view of the Pietro Mascagni merit rating appeal (I was one of three members sitting on the Appeal Board) as covered on the Sporting Post website and not the one sided barrage afforded to them currently.

Unfortunately what is written/typed in print is often taken as fact without any type of fact checking done, one would hope the media house concerned would be taking care of this but drama is obviously higher up on the list, more clicks.

FACTS ARE IMPORTANT:
The recent article claims the proposed line horse KING OF THE DELTA was beaten 9 lengths or 18lbs. This would be true if the race in question was run over 1600m, which it was not, it was run over 1160m which means KING OF THE DELTA was beaten 21lbs, this in turn affects the levels achieved more severely. Mr Bloomberg is one of the most versed experts in this field so this could be nothing more than an oversight but one would hope fact checking would be done to avoid misleading the public in any way. In fact every mathematical measurement for the rest of his article is a false representation as the wrong margins are used as examples.

THE RACE IN QUESTION:
The whole level of the race revolves around the proposed line horse KING OF THE DELTA. According to Mr Bloomberg and others, he should have been used off his MR77 as the horse to evaluate the race of concern.

Using the correct margins and not the ones used in the recent article/piece this means the handicappers and subsequently the panel had to choose between the following two options of line horses:

1) KING OF THE DELTA to MR77: In his last start (6 weeks before) he was not persevered with and the jockey reported he was not striding out, he achieved his MR77 when 2nd only 2.10 lengths behind YAMOTO. Is he running that same mark now finishing 9 lengths behind PIETRO MASCAGNI?

This selection leaves the first three running as follows:

PIETRO MASCAGNI MR98
SQUARE THE CIRCLE MR98
STAR OF JOBURG MR91

Record levels for a maiden plate it must be said, guidelines and limits apart this level can simply not be right.

2) STAR OF JOBURG to MR70: He achieved this on debut in 3rd 1.65 behind THE TIN MAN, where he was heavily supported and was expected to run a very good race. He now runs 3rd again now 3.25 lengths behind PIETRO MASCAGNI. On paper and face value a very similar run.

This selection leaves the first three running as follows:

PIETRO MASCAGNI MR77
SQUARE THE CIRCLE MR77
STAR OF JOBURG MR70

Now here is the problem with this particular race, the first bunch of horses are relatively unexposed and the rest are beaten a long way, it is severely lacking another appropriate line horse to try and raise the level, it is likely that STAR OF JOBURG has improved, but has he improved 21 pounds to be running a MR91? The handicappers have identified this and despite PIETRO MASCAGNI achieving MR77, they have allocated him an extra kilo and rated him a MR79.

As well, plenty has been made of KING OF THE DELTA when recently running second, this seems to be a classic case of “selective retention” but conveniently nobody is referring to BRAVE GITANO. Behind PIETRO MASCAGNI, KING OF THE DELTA defeats BRAVE GITANO by only ONE length, in the latest run he defeats BRAVE GITANO by NINE lengths. Further indication KING OF THE DELTA has run below his high of MR77 behind PIETRO MASCAGNI.

BRAVE GITANO was 5th beaten 10.25 behind PIETRO MASCAGNI and 7th beaten 11.25 behind DHABYAAN, two very similar runs.

Contrary to popular belief, the handicappers and the appeal members are not vegetables, I think it is very obvious to see that PIETRO MASCAGNI and the placed runners are above there ratings in true ability, but this was one of those races that didn’t throw up an alternative line horse that could have made the race a better “fit” unless of course you believe the front three are running 98/98/91 in a Maiden Plate!

Unfortunately PIETRO MASCAGNI has come out low and is a “victim” of the circumstances of the race and he will no doubt go on to prove a higher rating against higher quality of opposition later on.

As mentioned earlier, the handicappers have identified this and given the horse an extra two pounds, the panel also identified this in the press release which gives a fair understanding. To imply that the handicappers and panel believe the horses are moderate because of their current ratings is wrong.

With regard to this point , it is important to add for perspective of the matter that over the last 12 months the handicappers have been strongly encouraged to “err on the side of caution” by the handicapping committee when rating young horses and afford them opportunity to “win through the divisions” to the point where Mr Bloomberg correctly stated that an appeal was upheld against them a fortnight ago for rating The Sun Also Rises MR83 for not doing so.

It is amazing to see the sudden turnaround in this opinion from some of the committee members who sent me what can only be described as hate mail, after the appeal (no this does not include Mr De Kock).

I am sure if the handicappers had the horses running to 98/98/91 and another connection objected they would have been mocked from all corners for giving maidens such high ratings (guideline or limits irrelevant) and the objection was upheld.

I think the above presents a rounded view on the matter and I hope PIETRO MASCAGNI and the runners up go on to do well for their connections. This is my final say on the matter, using all the information at hand. I don’t think it is necessary to respond to any quite frankly pathetic allegations from anyone.

PS: As for the personal insults and comments from various people post appeal, even someone as young, arrogant and with as much to learn as me left that behind in the sandpit in primary school.

I believe that the appeal result has been appealed again and is to be heard in due course. If the result is changed and seen in a different light by another panel, so be it.

I think Pietro has been given too low a rating, but as Justin is states, there is no real evidence
- apart from taking Karioke Kelly's rating at face value (which is based on his runs in July 2016) -
to support this; so the handicapper (and the panel) was left with using the rating obtained by Star of Johburg in his first run, to arrive a Pietro's rating

Now we can all have opinions as to what we think Pietro's rating should be, but based on the available evidence, one can't really fault the handicapper (or the panel) - and anyway to resort to personal insults to anyone connected with this, is surely not on :ohmy:

Frodo contrary to popular opinion, as much as I dislike the MR system, I understand the logic behind it. The problem as highlighted earlier, is opinions cause huge swings in the ratings as is shown is this example. So the opinion of what the line horse should be affects the ratings by massive numbers. Clearly this is something that needs to be addressed.

One suggestion that I would make in situations like this - let the handicappers allow the connections to take a different line horse and allow them to accept the higher rating. This higher rating would need to be kept for a period of time regardless of what subsequent form indicates. So if MdK got his way and the horse ran a poor race in the Dingaans, then that horse would have to live with the elevated rating for a period of time after the Dingaans.

Not ideal, but certainly better than the current scenario imvho

RF no hassle here boet and you put the lights out on the 2nd and 3rd in the next MP :0