Diamond Geezer
Gone But Not Forgotten
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,884
A blogger's view of how the current National Hunt program and the handicapping of hurdlers serves to promote plots
Everyone loves a gamble. Well, this is not quite true, as the reaction of social media to the defeat of the heavily backed Royal Trooper at Worcester on Wednesday will testify. Just why do punts like this create such antipathy amongst many of racing's cynical day-to-day professionals, and is it justified?
Let's look at three of the most striking gambles on handicap hurdling debutants this summer, Planetoid, the aforementioned Royal Trooper and Church Field. The first two named come from the Sussex stable of Jim Best, the latter from Jonjo O'Neill's Jackdaws Castle operation.
After being bought last summer for £20k by Best, useful Flat performer Planetoid was subject to one of the more amusing games of cat and mouse between handicapper and connections through the winter. Rather than the requisite three runs usually required to allot a mark, the BHA boffins refused to rate Planetoid until after his sixth run. I can't find an occurrence of a horse having more than six runs without getting a mark, so Planetoid was a record breaker before even lining up for his first handicap.
Initially, one would feel the reluctance of the handicapper to rate Planetoid was understandable - in his six hurdles runs he fell once, was beaten more than 100 lengths on three further occasions, and never finished with 41 lengths of the winner. As such there was precious little hard evidence for him to award a mark on.
However, Planetoid is one of any number of horses with a similar profile, and there is certainly no consistency from the handicapper as to which horses who have shown nothing get marks and which don't. O'Neill's Billing and Church Field (more of whom later) had both shown as little or less in their three UK novice hurdles runs, but both were given marks immediately.
This is a difficult area for the handicapper. By denying connections a mark, you are costing them money and time. If the raceday stewards see nothing wrong with a run, why shouldn't it count towards a mark? If those that police the sport are content a horse has run on its merits, should the handicapper continually ask for more evidence before allowing a horse to run in the correct grade?
Similarly, in the case of Planetoid, was the handicapper assessing his horse's connections when denying a mark? If this is the case, he was being unfair. While public perception is that the yard love to plot up these ex-ferrets all year long, the statistics don't really back this up. It is a yard with a better strike rate in both novice hurdles and selling hurdles than handicaps and, while there can be no doubt they 'know the time of day' when backing their own horses, well, so do plenty of yards who attract less attention.
To be fair to the assessor, the recent handicapping of Best's Ramona Chase (an 82-rated Flat horse handed a hurdles mark of 59 after three unsighted hurdles, who could be the first horse to go off odds on for a handicap from a stone wrong) gives weight to the argument he takes each case on its merits, although appears to also confirm some unfathomable inconsistency in the awarding of marks.
Eventually, Planetoid was handed a lowly mark of 85 (marginally above his Flat rating of 83) and, much to general amusement and faux outrage, he won with his head in his chest on handicap hurdling debut having been backed from 5/2 to 5/6. A late jockey change, with AP McCoy replacing Mattie Batchelor, was either the cherry on top or the fly on coiled turd, depending on your viewpoint.
It was deja vu all over again just six weeks later, with those Best boys having another roll of the dice. This time it was Royal Trooper, heavily punted into odds on on his handicap hurdling debut, having not finished closer than 44 lengths in five previous twig-hopping starts.
Everything went to plan for those that joined in the punt for most of the race, only for unconsidered and inconsiderate rag Naledi somehow having the temerity to pass the bemused champion jockey late on, and not before Royal Trooper had traded at 1/20 on the exchanges.
Schadenfreude abounded in the Twittersphere (an unattractive quality, but one that sadly did not prove above me), as if somehow justice were done. However, it is easy to argue that very nature of National Hunt prize-money and opportunities makes the campaigning of horses like Royal Trooper not just likely, but perhaps even inevitable.
We have somehow arrived at a situation where a moderate horse can win as much money landing a northern handicap hurdle in July as the winner of the Grade One Tolworth Hurdle in the heart of the NH season. What kind of simpleton would expose his hand early with a half-decent novice when the prizes for handicaps are so much richer in comparison, and the opportunities more abundant? This brings us neatly to Church Field.
Jonjo O'Neill's five year made his British debut six months ago in a Ludlow novice hurdle, and didn't beat any of his 15 rivals. He did slightly better next time at Towcester, beating one of the 11 finishers. His final run in a novice hurdle was hugely impressive in comparison, finishing 10th of 18 at Kempton.
A properly bred National Hunt type, this half-brother to Calgary Bay clearly did some serious maturing between that April 13th outing and his handicap debut three weeks later at Newton Abbot. Well supported approaching the off, he justified favouritim on the bridle to improve on his novice hurdle runs by between 25lbs and 30lbs, depending on your reading of the form.
He has subsequently been extremely well placed by connections, culminating in a third straight victory at Cartmel on Saturday off 113, and has now earned owner JP McManus a handy £27,676 in two months. This is more than the runner-up in the Supreme Novice Hurdle pocketed. And the fun has only just begun; there seems no reason why he won't continue to feature in valuable handicaps off his new mark. No wonder so many young NH horses are campaigned to keep their talent on the down-low during those crucial mark-qualifying runs.
It should be noted that here there is a serious financial difference between the jumps and the Flat. Should you be lucky enough to own a decent young Flat horse, the rewards for showing your hand early are obvious - there are decent prizes to be won and, more importantly, an inflated rating will greatly increase resale price. If you own a horse you think is a 90+ performer, it is in your interests to get there as quickly as possible, as a world of riches can open up, in terms of both race opportunities and bloodstock valuation.
Conversely, if you have a novice hurdler you think is capable of getting to 150, you can do it by winning a couple of early season Cheltenham races by 20L, pocketing £16k, and then being beaten by better handicapped horses for two years, or.... Well. Or you don't. If you make the rewards at the top end effectively lower than the bottom end, don't be surprised if people want to paddle in the shallows and fill their boots.
So, for me the problem is two-pronged. The inconsistency in handicapping out-the-back novice hurdlers which puts too much pressure on handicappers to guess, and the greater reward for low-grade achievements than high grade achievements.
Solutions then. Well, one is obvious. Jack up prize money and, if necessary, Levy Board contributions to Graded novice hurdles and novice chases, making them the place to run for any novice over 130. Better than handicaps, better than series finals. It motivates everyone to play a straight bat. The big handicaps are big enough, they fill all day every day, emphasis needs to be switched to encouraging our best youngsters to show their best.
A situation where a Tolworth and a Challow are worth as much as an effective summer 0-135 at Cartmel really isn't advisable. Well done for Cartmel for pumping up their money, and it isn't that they are offering too much - it is that the Grade One tracks are offering too little for non-handicaps. No doubt this is driven by bookmakers, sponsorship and issues of competitiveness, but while focusing mainly on ultra-competitive handicaps we risk eroding the honesty of the sport in novice hurdles.
Secondly, define some firm black and white rules for the handicapping of tailed-off Charlies. If you don't finish within 40 lengths of the winner, the run doesn't count. No excuses, no exceptions. If that means you need to go up north and run in a three miler at Hexham, so be it. If it means you need to wait for better ground, then wait for better ground. If it forces you to school the horse at least once before it sees the racetrack, hard lines.
If you have a horse that isn't capable of getting with 40 lengths of the winner in three novice hurdles - and bear in mind here the standard of some of the weaker novice hurdles - then off to the PTP field or back on the Flat with you.
This wouldn't elimate quiet ones round the back totally, of course, but it would require every horse to be a bit more competitive, as well as demystifying the dark art of when a run counts for handicapping, and when it doesn't.
If you couple this with more professional and efficient stewarding, as highlighted here in a previous blog, we might get to a point where the current anything goes attitude to novice hurdles is fundamentally undermined.
There will always be Planetoids and Church Fields, and indeed Royal Troopers. But correct incentives at the top end and a tightening up of process at the handicapping stage might mean they become rarer and more fathomable. Who knows, we might even start shouting them home.
Everyone loves a gamble. Well, this is not quite true, as the reaction of social media to the defeat of the heavily backed Royal Trooper at Worcester on Wednesday will testify. Just why do punts like this create such antipathy amongst many of racing's cynical day-to-day professionals, and is it justified?
Let's look at three of the most striking gambles on handicap hurdling debutants this summer, Planetoid, the aforementioned Royal Trooper and Church Field. The first two named come from the Sussex stable of Jim Best, the latter from Jonjo O'Neill's Jackdaws Castle operation.
After being bought last summer for £20k by Best, useful Flat performer Planetoid was subject to one of the more amusing games of cat and mouse between handicapper and connections through the winter. Rather than the requisite three runs usually required to allot a mark, the BHA boffins refused to rate Planetoid until after his sixth run. I can't find an occurrence of a horse having more than six runs without getting a mark, so Planetoid was a record breaker before even lining up for his first handicap.
Initially, one would feel the reluctance of the handicapper to rate Planetoid was understandable - in his six hurdles runs he fell once, was beaten more than 100 lengths on three further occasions, and never finished with 41 lengths of the winner. As such there was precious little hard evidence for him to award a mark on.
However, Planetoid is one of any number of horses with a similar profile, and there is certainly no consistency from the handicapper as to which horses who have shown nothing get marks and which don't. O'Neill's Billing and Church Field (more of whom later) had both shown as little or less in their three UK novice hurdles runs, but both were given marks immediately.
This is a difficult area for the handicapper. By denying connections a mark, you are costing them money and time. If the raceday stewards see nothing wrong with a run, why shouldn't it count towards a mark? If those that police the sport are content a horse has run on its merits, should the handicapper continually ask for more evidence before allowing a horse to run in the correct grade?
Similarly, in the case of Planetoid, was the handicapper assessing his horse's connections when denying a mark? If this is the case, he was being unfair. While public perception is that the yard love to plot up these ex-ferrets all year long, the statistics don't really back this up. It is a yard with a better strike rate in both novice hurdles and selling hurdles than handicaps and, while there can be no doubt they 'know the time of day' when backing their own horses, well, so do plenty of yards who attract less attention.
To be fair to the assessor, the recent handicapping of Best's Ramona Chase (an 82-rated Flat horse handed a hurdles mark of 59 after three unsighted hurdles, who could be the first horse to go off odds on for a handicap from a stone wrong) gives weight to the argument he takes each case on its merits, although appears to also confirm some unfathomable inconsistency in the awarding of marks.
Eventually, Planetoid was handed a lowly mark of 85 (marginally above his Flat rating of 83) and, much to general amusement and faux outrage, he won with his head in his chest on handicap hurdling debut having been backed from 5/2 to 5/6. A late jockey change, with AP McCoy replacing Mattie Batchelor, was either the cherry on top or the fly on coiled turd, depending on your viewpoint.
It was deja vu all over again just six weeks later, with those Best boys having another roll of the dice. This time it was Royal Trooper, heavily punted into odds on on his handicap hurdling debut, having not finished closer than 44 lengths in five previous twig-hopping starts.
Everything went to plan for those that joined in the punt for most of the race, only for unconsidered and inconsiderate rag Naledi somehow having the temerity to pass the bemused champion jockey late on, and not before Royal Trooper had traded at 1/20 on the exchanges.
Schadenfreude abounded in the Twittersphere (an unattractive quality, but one that sadly did not prove above me), as if somehow justice were done. However, it is easy to argue that very nature of National Hunt prize-money and opportunities makes the campaigning of horses like Royal Trooper not just likely, but perhaps even inevitable.
We have somehow arrived at a situation where a moderate horse can win as much money landing a northern handicap hurdle in July as the winner of the Grade One Tolworth Hurdle in the heart of the NH season. What kind of simpleton would expose his hand early with a half-decent novice when the prizes for handicaps are so much richer in comparison, and the opportunities more abundant? This brings us neatly to Church Field.
Jonjo O'Neill's five year made his British debut six months ago in a Ludlow novice hurdle, and didn't beat any of his 15 rivals. He did slightly better next time at Towcester, beating one of the 11 finishers. His final run in a novice hurdle was hugely impressive in comparison, finishing 10th of 18 at Kempton.
A properly bred National Hunt type, this half-brother to Calgary Bay clearly did some serious maturing between that April 13th outing and his handicap debut three weeks later at Newton Abbot. Well supported approaching the off, he justified favouritim on the bridle to improve on his novice hurdle runs by between 25lbs and 30lbs, depending on your reading of the form.
He has subsequently been extremely well placed by connections, culminating in a third straight victory at Cartmel on Saturday off 113, and has now earned owner JP McManus a handy £27,676 in two months. This is more than the runner-up in the Supreme Novice Hurdle pocketed. And the fun has only just begun; there seems no reason why he won't continue to feature in valuable handicaps off his new mark. No wonder so many young NH horses are campaigned to keep their talent on the down-low during those crucial mark-qualifying runs.
It should be noted that here there is a serious financial difference between the jumps and the Flat. Should you be lucky enough to own a decent young Flat horse, the rewards for showing your hand early are obvious - there are decent prizes to be won and, more importantly, an inflated rating will greatly increase resale price. If you own a horse you think is a 90+ performer, it is in your interests to get there as quickly as possible, as a world of riches can open up, in terms of both race opportunities and bloodstock valuation.
Conversely, if you have a novice hurdler you think is capable of getting to 150, you can do it by winning a couple of early season Cheltenham races by 20L, pocketing £16k, and then being beaten by better handicapped horses for two years, or.... Well. Or you don't. If you make the rewards at the top end effectively lower than the bottom end, don't be surprised if people want to paddle in the shallows and fill their boots.
So, for me the problem is two-pronged. The inconsistency in handicapping out-the-back novice hurdlers which puts too much pressure on handicappers to guess, and the greater reward for low-grade achievements than high grade achievements.
Solutions then. Well, one is obvious. Jack up prize money and, if necessary, Levy Board contributions to Graded novice hurdles and novice chases, making them the place to run for any novice over 130. Better than handicaps, better than series finals. It motivates everyone to play a straight bat. The big handicaps are big enough, they fill all day every day, emphasis needs to be switched to encouraging our best youngsters to show their best.
A situation where a Tolworth and a Challow are worth as much as an effective summer 0-135 at Cartmel really isn't advisable. Well done for Cartmel for pumping up their money, and it isn't that they are offering too much - it is that the Grade One tracks are offering too little for non-handicaps. No doubt this is driven by bookmakers, sponsorship and issues of competitiveness, but while focusing mainly on ultra-competitive handicaps we risk eroding the honesty of the sport in novice hurdles.
Secondly, define some firm black and white rules for the handicapping of tailed-off Charlies. If you don't finish within 40 lengths of the winner, the run doesn't count. No excuses, no exceptions. If that means you need to go up north and run in a three miler at Hexham, so be it. If it means you need to wait for better ground, then wait for better ground. If it forces you to school the horse at least once before it sees the racetrack, hard lines.
If you have a horse that isn't capable of getting with 40 lengths of the winner in three novice hurdles - and bear in mind here the standard of some of the weaker novice hurdles - then off to the PTP field or back on the Flat with you.
This wouldn't elimate quiet ones round the back totally, of course, but it would require every horse to be a bit more competitive, as well as demystifying the dark art of when a run counts for handicapping, and when it doesn't.
If you couple this with more professional and efficient stewarding, as highlighted here in a previous blog, we might get to a point where the current anything goes attitude to novice hurdles is fundamentally undermined.
There will always be Planetoids and Church Fields, and indeed Royal Troopers. But correct incentives at the top end and a tightening up of process at the handicapping stage might mean they become rarer and more fathomable. Who knows, we might even start shouting them home.