Handicapping model corrupt ?

[Midget 4,489]

It's hard not to have sympathy with the owners of Bloodstream.

He has to be the most glaring example of how corrupt the NZ handicapping model currently is, and arguably the application of the corrupt model is equally to blame.

What a farce when a horse who's only just useful, and was a maidener at the start of this campaign, is now second top weight in the Wellington Cup after one single start in open company, and one at SW&P, for a single third placing.

This male horse is one win away from being forced into retirement because if he wins the Wellington Cup he'll be top of all handicaps, unfairly so, but he's not good enough for WFA racing.

What a disastrous and completely corrupted handicapping model we've got in this country, a model fashioned by an unemployed Australian handicapper and implemented by anyone and everyone from Petone, and apparently designed to force middle of the range male horses into retirement, or a forced sale abroad.

Can they not see what they're doing to these average male horses ?, it's a crime.

[We're Doomed 4,865]

I do agree, I said much the same thing a week or so ago. Hard to know what the perfect answer is. I think the SI is especially affected as open horses down there don't get much chance to drop back in the ratings. Perhaps we need to drop rating 85 races altogether so open races are a bit fuller. I know midget thinks the males are unfairly advantaged, but if the system is changed to rectify this then we may find the mares being retired earlier thus affecting field sizes. All some owners of mares want to do is get a listed placing somewhere and then retire them. Which brings us to the question whether we have too many group and listed races. All very complex.

[Midget 4,489]

I just think the model is corrupt in the sense that it's not relevant to NZ racing, we don't have hundreds of good horses who compress handicaps and so the useful animals like Bloodstream get harshly treated far too early in their careers.

It's also a concern that NZTR now just uses anyone to do the handicapping, as distinct from career handicappers, and that leads to two things, firstly a strict formula based application ( disadvantages SI horses and those who win poor races ) and secondly, and this is a contradiction, it means the application of the model by unskilled members of staff makes it extremely vulnerable to manipulation by influential individuals ( something I've been guilty of, but it's unfair ).

[Leggy 4,085]

I'm not sure corrupt is a good word to describe it Midget. Consult your lexicon. Maybe fooked? I agree there is a problem if horse connections can ring up and directly influence the handicapper. There should be a rule preventing direct contact between the handicapper and connections while still a process for connections to challenge and have handicapping decisions reviewed, Our integrity staff seem to simply turn a blind eye to the process.

[Midget 4,489]

See 2. Leggy

 

corrupt

kəˈrʌpt/

verb

past tense: corrupted; past participle: corrupted

1. 

cause to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

"there is a continuing fear of firms corrupting politicians in the search for contracts"

synonyms:bribe, suborn, buy, buy off, pay off; More

2. 

change or debase by making errors or unintentional alterations.

"a backup copy will be needed if the original copy becomes corrupted"

synonyms:alter, falsify, manipulate, tamper with, interfere with, tinker with, doctor, distort; More

[Leggy 4,085]

I still think fooked is a better and more all encompassing description.

Anyway, if you are correct, it is a serious racing offence under the rules but the authorities turn a blind eye. Viz:

(s) either by himself or in conjunction with any other person:
(i) does or permits or suffers to be done any act which a Judicial Committee deems fraudulent, corrupt or detrimental to the interests of racing;

I assume the handicapper's phone records are regularly checked by RIU investigators to ensure that no corrupt or detrimental activities are occurring in this regard.

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

I am hot on this subject. The 60kg topweight must have, has a hell of a lot to answer for.

In my opinion 60kg in a 1200m race is not the same handicap as 60kg in a 3200m race. ie: the further the distance the more the weight becomes a handicap. Now who can remember horses carrying 9 1/2 stone in 2 mile cup races on a regular basis?

I would recommend the weights be based on the following topweights with bottomweights reducing in accordance.

1200m and less - 60kg

1200 - 1400m -59kg

1400 - 1600m - 58kg

1600 - 2000m - 57kg

2000m + - 56kg

[Varro 244]

the rating system is cooked. 

Additionally working on there is a difference between Saturday fields and midweek.  With all respect there is a difference in quality between north island racing and south island, and then you have the mudlarks going round in winter in both north and south, the rating system does not fairly work.

I think the old class system worked better.

Having handicappers made calls which often is in dispute over the amount of points a horse gets for its win, it has been creating to much confusion about how the system works. 

Midget is right, WTF is the handicapper thinking and how has it come to this that a horse like blood stream is at such a rating yet hasn't even won a open handicap.

[Midget 4,489]

It's a bit of a vicious circle too Varro.

Old males are in short supply because of the model they're using ( well that's one reason ) so in the absence of any decent old male horses the good average animals rocket up the ratings scale, and in the handicap obviously, so they in turn get forced out of the game which depletes stock and means the anomaly is exacerbated.

It won't be long and the R80-85 horses will top every handicap.

[uneasy 497]

Personally I don't see what you are all on about

The Wellington Cup is a very poor field I wish I had a horse fit and capable I would like to be lining up with 60kg it would mean I had the best horse, the race is a glorified rating 85. Racing for $250k. Maybe it should have been left as a 2400m event, I am certain the field would have been better

not the handicappers fault the race has no class if the Trentham Stakes was run as a handicap Bloodstream was rated 17 points=8.5 kgs less than Authentic Paddy and 2kg less than Sampson

If you compare BS to Revelatory in any South Island open handicap  Revelatory would get 60kg and BS  gets only 55kg on Saturdays rating,

hell my 10 yr old No Emotion couldn't beat Bloodstream at level weights and he is rated 5 points = 2.5kg higher maybe we should be dropped behind BS in the ratings

[Varro 244]

however I have to give credit to Mr Pittman with El Chico, what a marvel.

but yes its shit.  We adopted a model similar to Australia but it doesn't work for us.

and for these horses who are weighted out of hadnicaps, there is not enough WFA races for mid quality horses to compete rendering them nearly useless, unless they can jump.

 

[Varro 244]

2 minutes ago, uneasy said:

Personally I don't see what you are all on about

The Wellington Cup is a very poor field I wish I had a horse fit and capable I would live to be lining up with 60kg it would mean I had the best horse, the race is a glorified rating 85. Racing for $250k. Maybe it should have been left as a 2400m event, I am certain the field would have been better

not the handicappers fault the race has no class if the Trentham Stakes was run as a handicap Bloodstream was rated 17 points=8.5 kgs less than Authentic Paddy and 2kg less than Sampson

If you compare BS to Revelatory in any South Island open handicap  Revelatory would get 60kg and BS  gets only 55kg on Saturdays rating

How does it make sense that Bloodstream, (yet to win a open handicap) is on level weights with Mr Impatience, group winner, and winner of this race last year. defies logic.  Alinko Prince stakes winner and open handicap winner has less weight.

I agree with the sentiment of you point, however it is very inconsistent and makes little sense

[Varro 244]

Just now, Varro said:

How does it make sense that Bloodstream, (yet to win a open handicap) is on level weights with Mr Impatience, group winner, and winner of this race last year. defies logic.  Alinko Prince stakes winner and open handicap winner has less weight.

I agree with the sentiment of you point, however it is very inconsistent and makes little sense

I refer to ratings being inconsistent and making little sense, just to clarify

[uneasy 497]

Alinko Prince won a penalty free race so beats the handicap by 5 points or 2.5 kg (well placed) Sampson would not have been penalised for his Saturday win either

Mr Impatience has not placed in 4 starts since last years Wgtn Cup yet still goes up 4.5 kg because this is a very average Wgtn Cup field!! I would love to have a starter this year but whoever wins it will be a deserved winner and good luck to all who manage to have a runner

[Southland 91]

Can anyone offer any thoughts on re-rating in WFA events.

I struggle with the inconsistency that appears to prevail. By way on an example three WFA races run in Dec 2016.

3 Dec Captain Cook Stakes (G1), horses finishing 9-13^th received 1 rating point pnt relief and the 14^th horse -2 pnts.

18 Dec Manawatu Challenge Stakes Stakes (G3), horses finishing 6-11th -1 pnt (with one runner -2 pnts)

26 Dec Zabeel Classic (G1) – No relief to any runner despite 3 horses being beaten by more than 10L. Infact only horse to receive an adjustment was the winner (Consensus +9).

How does that work!

 

[Varro 244]

ok fair point about alinko prince.

The point is Bloodstream is a victim of an absolute shitter of a wellington cup field.  And should he manage to run a good race, and/or place, he will be a top weight or near top weight in future handicap races

[uneasy 497]

No he won't, not when he races Revelator. BS will only be top weight in a race if he is the highest rated horse, as he should be.

If he wins this, and he can, I would think he will still get at least 2kg off Revelator

 

[Midget 4,489]

30 minutes ago, uneasy said:

No he won't, not when he races Revelator. BS will only be top weight in a race if he is the highest rated horse, as he should be.

If he wins this, and he can, I would think he will still get at least 2kg off Revelator

 

Now you're being a dick Pitty, and oddly enough you're using the same logic the handicappers use when challenged.

Blodstream should never be rated on whether he might or might not meet horse A or B ( you use Revelator if you wish), he should be handicapped o what he's done. He's had two starts in open company, he's had one third placing. That's what he should be rated on.

And that's our point, he's done nothing significant but he's been harshly treated.

Yet another flaw in the application of the current model is that it punishes males who're consistent and trained by good honest trainers, clearly you're able to manipulate the system because you don't fit into that category  

Pitty your horse No Emotion, his last four wins all incurred 4 point penalties, that's 16 or 8kg in total.

Bloodstream has had 5, 7, 5 & 5, or 22 points for his last four wins, 11 kgs total.

How do you get to win better races champ but incur far less penalty ? That's a huge difference and maybe the Bloodstream people need to get some advice off you  

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

1 hour ago, uneasy said:

 

If you compare BS to Revelatory in any South Island open handicap  Revelatory would get 60kg and BS  gets only 55kg on Saturdays rating

and based on Saturdays ratings add Nashville to the same race and he would get 58.5kg - as he was rated 91 ( won 10 races and earned $826k )

Revelator was rated 96 after winning 9 races and only $183k

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

now while we are discussing weights can anyone tell me why in the Wellington Cup these weights are different

Pop n Scotch rated 78 6yo entire gets 54.5kg

Antonio rated 78 also 7yo G gets 55kg

[Varro 244]

21 minutes ago, von Smallhaussen said:

now while we are discussing weights can anyone tell me why in the Wellington Cup these weights are different

Pop n Scotch rated 78 6yo entire gets 54.5kg

Antonio rated 78 also 7yo G gets 55kg

this is part of the issue, and makes it very difficult to understand the rating system and its discrepancies

[uneasy 497]

Antonio has dropped a rating point since weights declared was rated 79

Nashville has won one race in its last 30 starts since April 2014 it deserves to drop rating points

According to LJM if you are out of form and dropping points you are manipulating if you are winning races and going up you are hard done by, tuff game!

So Leo is No Emotion badly rated being 5 points higher than BS which he couldn't beat at level weights on Saturday

 

[Midget 4,489]

6 minutes ago, uneasy said:

Antonio has dropped a rating point since weights declared was rated 79

Nashville has won one race in its last 30 starts since April 2014 it deserves to drop rating points

According to LJM if you are out of form and dropping points you are manipulating if you are winning races and going up you are hard done by, tuff game!

So Leo is No Emotion badly rated being 5 points higher than BS which he couldn't beat at level weights on Saturday

 

I'm teasing you because you decided to contribute and support the current model,

The whole industry knows you're "on very good terms" with the handicappers, I merely made it public using one isolated example.

I don't have any thoughts on No Emotion sorry, other than that you've done well to keep him going so long.

[Varro 244]

and El Chico for that matter.  Quite simply an amazing feat what you have done with that bloke, and hope there may be another win or two in him left.  Awesome to see a horse at 12 still being competitive.

The challenge here is that its one shitter of a cup field.

The actual top weight should really beat Jack Star, and would have to say he is the horse to beat in that field.  I cant make sense how he has half a kilo less that blood stream.

The interesting thing out of this race is say one of the lesser favourite runners wins, how many points they get for the win.

[.... 226]

Jacksstar has less weight than Bloodstream as Bloodstream is a victim of being consistent and therefore doesn't lose rating points

Jacksstar in the last 12 months amongst his wins (His only Open Class win was in a Group 3 as a rating 76 horse and he got penalised 7 points for it) has had his rating dropped by a total of 8 points as he throws in bad races, in the same time Bloodstream has lost just one point amongst all of his wins.

As has been mentioned the current system penalises "Consistent" horses and Bloodstream fits this boat