International Classifications

The IC don't take into account sex allowances etc LBM. They give a pure rating based on the horses best performance ie. Raven's Pass ran to a 129 and for want of a better example Zenyatta to 125
 
Story in the Guardian suggesting that NA didn't run in the Arc because France Galop weren't crazy about letting him be ponied to the start.
 
That figures, the French will always try to protect their home-trained horses (whoever owns them)!

I'm glad New Approach got his due from the assessors; and I think Sheikh was right about the travelling. On the other hand he did get better, and on Champion Stakes day he was impeccable - I was in the PR that day watched him very closely, and there were no signs of temperament (unlike on Juddmonte day when I also got very close to him, and he was very edgy). I'm not so sure it was a matter of learning how to ride him, with NA: more a matter of the horse getting his own head together. And they had their own pacemaker of course. If all had fallen right earlier imo we would have seen an *indistputable* star.

I'm quite certain he was a better horse than Ravens Pass, and without both his own temperament and the muscle injury would have shown it conclusively. Ravens Pass on the other hand did suffer from poor riding tactics until late in the season; but I doubt that was a determining factor (mind you I thought and said the reverse about Excellent Art the previous year, so I may be wrong there!)

As for Curlin, I'm sorry to say I can't take his position in the ranking seriously, since it's based on runs and wins when he was still having his monthly injection of steroids. Once his owner forbade those, he was never sadly the same horse - still a very good horse, mind; but no super-horse
 
Last edited:
"The IC don't take into account sex allowances etc LBM."

Martin, Phil Smith was on one of the racing channels yesterday and the way he explained Zarkava's rating did take into account the three pound sex-allowance.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Story in the Guardian suggesting that NA didn't run in the Arc because France Galop weren't crazy about letting him be ponied to the start.
Click to expand...

They pony the winners back in so that makes no sense! I just don't think Bolger had the balls to take them all on. He would have gone close but he wouldn't have beat Zarkava.
 
As much as Raven's Pass was hamstrung by dodgy tactics at times, he was also improving throughout the season. He would have been a monster this year.
 
Headstrong said:
As for Curlin, I'm sorry to say I can't take his position in the ranking seriously, since it's based on runs and wins when he was still having his monthly injection of steroids. Once his owner forbade those, he was never sadly the same horse - still a very good horse, mind; but no super-horse
Click to expand...
That was Big Brown who was having the monthly injections of steroids HS. His last one was in April 2008 from what I remember.

Curlin has never had those injections nor was he ever likely to have since he wasn't in the care of Rick Dutrow.
 
Irish Stamp said:
That was Big Brown who was having the monthly injections of steroids HS. His last one was in April 2008 from what I remember.

Curlin has never had those injections nor was he ever likely to have since he wasn't in the care of Rick Dutrow.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure Curlin was getting injections too.
 
Winstrol is the magic steroid I believe, unlike over here, where we don't differentiate between our drugs. In the U.S. they do, Winstrol is kind of regarded as legal cheating (Big Brown). Curlin has not been on this gear since his owner discovered that his trainer was using it sometime in late 07 and demanded he stop but you only have to look at him to see he's been on other sauce. His form did seem to start tapering off after he came off the winstrol.
 
Wish the media would treat all trainers the same if that is the case - ie. start slating others besides Dutrow.

Winstrol is/was only legal whilst not on the banned list. They should turn it all on its head and say "these are the drugs you can use, anything else is banned".

His form in Dubai seemed just fine and he was still winning (bar the turf run) prior to encountering a new surface in the BC.
 
Irish Stamp said:
Wish the media would treat all trainers the same if that is the case - ie. start slating others besides Dutrow.

Winstrol is/was only legal whilst not on the banned list. They should turn it all on its head and say "these are the drugs you can use, anything else is banned".

His form in Dubai seemed just fine and he was still winning (bar the turf run) prior to encountering a new surface in the BC.
Click to expand...

He was winning before the BC but was miles below his best form and had struggled to impress.

The effects of months of steroids could well have lasted right through to March.
 
I believe steroids are to banned in The U.S this year but there seems to be confusion as to how it is policed. That only leaves the pain killers, hormones,diuretics and anti-inflammatories to work with.

Some trainers over here seem to run there horses very often without any noticeable affect to there physique..
 
The guy I was thinking of would insist he had done no wrong if he was caught..... if in fact he is guilty. Just doesn't seem to add up.
 
LBM said:
No, they haven´t. Zarkava´s performance in the Arc is the best of the year, not the Champion states. With the 3 pounds allowance, Zarkava would have beaten New Approach in a race (based only in ratings) according to the IC. They consider the filly superior to the son of Galileo.
Click to expand...

The IC ratings are 'absolute'. If they thought the filly was better she would have a higher rating.
 
So Steve, based on IC alone, and in a hyphotetical clash between Zarkava and New Approach in the Arc/Champion St last year, which one would you back?
 
International Classifications are the same of timeform or others

the horse has a figure , but what LBM says is right
any group 1 Zarkava run against New Approach will recive 3 pounds, so if the horse is not better than a fille by 3 pounds it means the fillie will beat him if both horses run to figure
 
LBM said:
So Steve, based on IC alone, and in a hyphotetical clash between Zarkava and New Approach in the Arc/Champion St last year, which one would you back?
Click to expand...


In an actual race in which Zarkava got a fillies' allowance it would obviously be close. I would nevertheless tend to side with New Approach between 10 and 12 furlongs.

With the fillies' allowance stripped out NA would be the clear choice for me.
 
sunybay said:
International Classifications are the same of timeform or others

the horse has a figure , but what LBM says is right
any group 1 Zarkava run against New Approach will recive 3 pounds, so if the horse is not better than a fille by 3 pounds it means the fillie will beat him if both horses run to figure
Click to expand...


He’s not right suny. Timeform have two types of ratings. An ‘adjusted’ rating, which appears on the actual racecerd and an ‘absolute’ rating (with all allowances stripped out) which appears in the Annual. The IC is only concerned with rating pure values (i.e. not those in an actual race). Consequently the IC ratings are absolute and relate to the type of rating that Timeform publishes in its Annual (not the racecard).

The IC is saying that the horse it gives the highest rating to is the best with all allowances and conditions ignored - i.e. if they were to meet on absolute equal terms.

This is an aspect of ratings that many (for some reason) find confusing.

 
But the rating is still the same Steve M. 133 in the annual is the same as 133 on the racecard except on the racecard it is adjusted to the weights carried.
 
The rating on the racecard is adjusted (for the conditions of the race).

The absolute rating is for historical reference (with all allowances stripped out).

This is why a racecard rating can often be a few pounds higher than the absolute rating for a horse that is receiving allowances.
 
Steve, I am not gonna argue about the terms you want to use regarding the ratings. When you say things like "pure values (i.e. not those in an actual race)" and "if they were to meet on absolute equal terms" you are twisting the reality in order to strength your point. We both know in a actual race (we will discuss other types of racing another time) the filly would have beating the colt with those ratings. But anyway, good luck with your bet in that hypothetical race !!
 
Last edited:
I'm not arguing a point, merely explaining the difference between an adjusted and absolute rating. It's up to the IC to rate the horses as it sees fit.

A simple illustration may suffice:

Imagine horses A, B and C all line up in a race. All are considered capable of running to a mark of 120 at level weights at the distance, but A has a 3lb allowance and B has a 5lb allowance.

The adjusted ratings on the racecard would appear:

A 120
B 123
C 125

Let’s also assume that each horse runs exactly to its mark (if only life were like that!), all else being equal the result would be:

1st C
2nd B
3rd A

However, the absolute rating for each horse for historical reference remains 120, assuming no other form contradicts this by the end of the season.

 
Thanks for the unnecessary tutorial Steve.
As I said, in any actual race Zarkava would always be receiving those three pounds from NA and therefore her adjusted ratings would always allow her to beat the colt.
IC gave the edge to the filly even though her absolute rating was inferior.
Anyway, end of the discussion.
Btw, I agree with you and I personaly think NA was better than the filly, although she never had the chance to really show us how good she was, contrary to the colt, who had a perfect scenario in the Champion S.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top