Lady in Black merit rating post paddock stakes

Poor horse.

two [paddocks stakes runs 2nd in both years. total of 20 points penalty. not my query

Please explain the difference between Woolhavington june 2018 and paddock January 2019

june race 2000 meters grade 1
Level weights Oh susanna wins by 0.75 lenghts off 121 rating. LIB runs off 111. after race OS stays at 121 and LIB drops 3 points to 108
Jan 2019 1800 meters grade 1
Level weights OS wins by 0.50 lengths off 121 rating. LIB runs off 108. after race OS stays at 121 but LIB increased to 117.
Why???

Makes no difference to Met race day but seems very inconsistent. to much human intervention in rating system

should be fully automated and only the exceptions dealt with by comittee

Well said, Rainbow Bridge must have a big chance.

Sylvester wrote: Poor horse.

two [paddocks stakes runs 2nd in both years. total of 20 points penalty. not my query

Please explain the difference between Woolhavington june 2018 and paddock January 2019

june race 2000 meters grade 1
Level weights Oh susanna wins by 0.75 lenghts off 121 rating. LIB runs off 111. after race OS stays at 121 and LIB drops 3 points to 108
Jan 2019 1800 meters grade 1
Level weights OS wins by 0.50 lengths off 121 rating. LIB runs off 108. after race OS stays at 121 but LIB increased to 117.
Why???

Makes no difference to Met race day but seems very inconsistent. to much human intervention in rating system

should be fully automated and only the exceptions dealt with by comittee

Sylvester wrote: Poor horse.

two [paddocks stakes runs 2nd in both years. total of 20 points penalty. not my query

Please explain the difference between Woolhavington june 2018 and paddock January 2019

june race 2000 meters grade 1
Level weights Oh susanna wins by 0.75 lenghts off 121 rating. LIB runs off 111. after race OS stays at 121 and LIB drops 3 points to 108
Jan 2019 1800 meters grade 1
Level weights OS wins by 0.50 lengths off 121 rating. LIB runs off 108. after race OS stays at 121 but LIB increased to 117.
Why???

Makes no difference to Met race day but seems very inconsistent. to much human intervention in rating system

should be fully automated and only the exceptions dealt with by comittee

Got to agree - but how would you 'fully automate' ...... got to be some human intervention as factors like pace, etc has an effect on a horse's performance in a particuar race; I have always maintained that OS is nowhere near 121 - in the Met last year, imo the highest that she could have run to was 111 - if she did run to 121, it would mean that Marinaresco ran to 124 and African Night Sky (remember him ?) to 123 - and Last Winter to 125; so then when Lady on Black (again) ran close to her the other day, they had to increase LiB's rating ....

I have them as follows in the Paddock Stakes .....

Oh Susanna - 109
Lady in Black - 108
Fresnaye - 102
Second Request - 100

Interestingly, if you do give LiB 117, it would mean that Second Request ran to 109 ... :ohmy:

Is that not plausible that Second Request did run closer to thge 109 as she was having just her second run in the Cape WORLD SPORTS BETTING FILLIES GUINEAS .50 behind Clouds Unfold (106) over a distance we agree to be too short for her

mydada wrote: Is that not plausible that Second Request did run closer to thge 109 as she was having just her second run in the Cape WORLD SPORTS BETTING FILLIES GUINEAS .50 behind Clouds Unfold (106) over a distance we agree to be too short for her

Imo not 'plausible' but certainly possible - but that would mean that Fresnaye suddenly improved to run to 111 - and of course that would strengthen my case about Second Request in the Derby

You can't just look at 2 horses- you have to look at the rest of the field. The Woolhavington was a slow run, false pace race, with Fiorella (currently 106) 2nd and Lady in Black 3rd, and a length separating the first 3. Some moderate fillies were quite close to these three. Hence, Oh Susanna ran nowhere near her rating on that occasion, while still winning. You can't drop her rating , but you also can't use her as the line horse. I also wouldn't have dropped LIB on that race performance.
In the Paddock, Oh S and LIB pulled 4 L clear of decent opposition in a truer run race. I personally don't think that the line horse Cascapedia ran to her full rating, so LIB somewhat harshly treated, but she needed to go up at least to 113 or higher in my book.

PeterD wrote: You can't just look at 2 horses- you have to look at the rest of the field. The Woolhavington was a slow run, false pace race, with Fiorella (currently 106) 2nd and Lady in Black 3rd, and a length separating the first 3. Some moderate fillies were quite close to these three. Hence, Oh Susanna ran nowhere near her rating on that occasion, while still winning. You can't drop her rating , but you also can't use her as the line horse. I also wouldn't have dropped LIB on that race performance.
In the Paddock, Oh S and LIB pulled 4 L clear of decent opposition in a truer run race. I personally don't think that the line horse Cascapedia ran to her full rating, so LIB somewhat harshly treated, but she needed to go up at least to 113 or higher in my book.

Oh Susanna's rating is based on last year's Met - and if she is 121, then by all means Lady in Black is 117 - which makes Second Request 109 - so I would be very happy it that proves to be correct; however I have my doubts