Happily, I can change my mind (from my earlier post above)
On reflection this is what I think of Red Mist's elimination in a hcp...
racingandbreedingsa.blogspot.com/2010/03...nate-discretion.html
"One of the great things about racing is that something will always come up to surprise you. Here’s a situation that is so obvious that I’m shocked it never occurred to me before. Although it apparently hasn’t occurred to the handicapper either so I’m in good company.
On ABC some whiner complained that his horse (with diabolical form) was eliminated from a handicap race while horses with lower ratings ran in his place. I looked up the race
www.gallop.co.za/cgi-bin/fgresult?20100309:18:6:1
and the horse (Red Mist) has a rating of (93) and was carded as the 2nd reserve runner and 3 horses in a field of twelve had ratings of 91, 88 and 87.
The rules for eliminations in a handicap race are “7.2.4.1 From the lowest net merit rating upwards.” but if the handicap is a feature race then “At the Handicapper's discretion” would come into effect. As it happens the race was a non black type feature and the handicappers invoked the discretion rule to overrule their own Merit Rating with a “form” consideration. It’s a side issue that I can’t find the definition of a “Feature”.
Now I have to apologize to the ‘whiner’ because he has every right to complain. Merit Ratings are by definition separate from form. If the handicapper uses ‘form’ to override ratings, he admits that his rating is incorrect. A current rating is a measure of expectation, and if he puts an (87) horse in before a (93) using ‘discretionary’ powers, he says loud and clear that he expects that this (93) horse is not competitive with even the lowest rated horse in the race.
It stands to reason then that the handicapper should immediately bring the rating of the (93) horse (he eliminated) to the rating of the lowest horse he put in front of it, in this case (87). Red Mist would have had to carry 56.5kg to Ryan’s A Lion’s 53.5kg and if the handicapper eliminates Red Mist in favour of Ryan’s A Lion, all reason and common sense tells us the rating of the eliminated horse should be set to equal to or lower than the lowest horse that was accepted.
Many trainers have argued ‘form’ when discussing the ratings of their horses with the Handicapper only to be swatted down with a counter argument of how the horse ‘rated’ against its peers and how form is therefore meaningless. The handicapper has argued that ratings (as we use them) is NOT an expression of maximum ability as may be applied elsewhere, but a working handicap figure. This they argue is why our ratings are so fluid from race to race. To see the same handicapper now apply form above their handicap figure is stunning to say the least.
How can Red Mist have an official figure, that does not get him into a race which that figure qualifies him to?
If I were the owner, I would immediately initiate an objection to Red Mist’s rating of (93). Eliminating the horse is an acknowledgement that the horse is not competitive off its rating, and this is an official opinion, in print! It’s a double jeopardy to have the horse rated too high AND not allowed to run off the rating. I would love to see them insist on the 93 when they themselves have just made the case against."
Topic Author
