Racing Post - Utter Shitbox

There's a sort of precedent with median auction races. Admittedly it isn't the same thing being described, but its a nudge in the direction of looking for an alternative
 
EC1 said:
i have no idea how it could be implimented but it would make fiddling the mark down less profitable..which has to be a good thing.

At the moment..you can have a trainer running his horses on their merits..gets top weight..another "shrewd" trainer...[there is fook all shrewd about getting horses beat and then getting them ready for the big one by the way]..the merit trainer then gets beat by a "shrewd" trainer who has a horse that is 10lb better than current mark due to the fact its been running not on its true merits.

Most punters think the shrewd trainer is great...he gets plaudits for the great plot a 5 year old could have organised..straight trainer loses for being honest. Getting a horse's mark down by running not 100%..wrong trip etc... is akin to being really good at your job 20% of the time when it wins..but purposely being sh1t at it for 80% of the time..then people patting you on the back for the days you are sh1t at it.

To me..if punters think shrewd trainer is the way to go..then leave it the same..but lets face it..its not clever and the best trainer and horse get punished under the current system.

When Cheltenham comes round..watch the plaudits come in for the trainer of the horse with 000 in front of its name when it nails a 1234 form hoss. Its not really a good system is it?

Lets say we didn't have the current system...would you vote to change to the current one knowing that in future 50% of hosses will turn up in races not trying but waiting for glory day..when only those in the know will be on..and you the punter will get bent over and sh@gged up arris.

I think if we had a different system..very few people would vote the current one in knowing they will be that far down the foodchain re info..that they will be excluded from backing shrewdie on the right day..at those big early prices those near to the horse will be on at anyway...the best johnie kept in dark can do is get short bad value price..thats after backing the hoss 4 times before when it weren't trying

current system don't look too tasty to me..it don't bother me personally..i'm happy with edge i've got..are new people going to stick round long enough to try and find an edge??.....i doubt it.....but if we want new people from other sports to take an interest..then the current system is probably the worse one for bringing them in.

Racing needs a new system of reward for being good at your job..ie training horses to win races..not reward for training them to lose most of em.
Click to expand...

True story.
 
This is all pie-in-the-sky what-ifery, and appears to her based on the premise that a) every handicap is bent, and b) anything is better than the current arrangement.

Fair enough, let's assume that is the case.

How would you practically implement Bruce Simpletons suggestion?

Lets use today's opening Class4 handicap hurdle at Wincanton as our working example, as it's probably fairly representative of your average handicap hurdle in a season. There is £5K guaranteed fund, and 16 runners.

The framework for the distribution of prize-money is topweight-most and bottom-weight least, as per Millington's proposal. Whichever way you carve it up, the bottom-weight will very likely be running for prize-money that will barely cover the cost of the tank-of-fuel which got him to the track......which would render the journey completely pointless.

I acknowledge the flaws in the current system, but this fanciful rubbish from Millington is utterly unworkable without decimating handicap field-sizes, and betrays his complete lack of knowledge about the game. As options for fixing the problems with handicaps go (and the paranoia here about moody trainers and plot-jobs is being wholly over-blown anyway), this drivel from the 'Editor in Chief' should be ignored for the risible garbage that it is.
 
Last edited:
Surely anyone can see that for example Wicklow Brave was not campaigned honestly last season? He was mullered race after race and then wins half the length of the track in the County hurdle!
 
Last edited:
That's not the point of contention, tiggers - it's Millington's prize-money-distribution idea that is being questioned.
 
i did say i wouldn't know how you could implement it...would need to give it some thought..maybe:)

one thing is for certain..if we want new people to come to the game...something does need doing.

imagine trying to explain to someone new to the game who says.."well i like horse racing but when i see results where horse with 0000 form wins a race and one with 2211 form loses..i need to be able to explain that to myself to keep remotely interested in the game"

well the answer is.."many horses are only trying to win 10% or less of the races they run in so they can maintain a handicap mark they can win off ..if they win all the time until their mark is through the roof...they will have to wait 18 months for their handicap mark to drop again....the fun we hardened race fans get is trying to unravel firstly best horse in race..and then which ones are trying..we love it"

newcomer response then is.."f00k that,,i thought horses were actually trying to win races..i'll stick to football"
 
Last edited:
Tiggers point is relevant to this argument though. If Mullins wanted a bigger chunk of the prize at Cheltenham he'd have ensured Wicklow Brave was not so far ahead of the handicapper, therefore running more honest races throughout the season.

I understand your opposition to the idea since it's probably one that popped into his head whilst sitting on the bog, but it's very easy to naysay without coming up with solutions. Do you believe something needs doing or are you happy with the current situation?
 
Exactly Bear, another one that will no doubt hose up in the JLT would be Minella Rocco, running like a pig all season but come the festival will be sure to be bang on.
I'm with EC on this, something needs to change, a lot of non racing folk think the game is bent and Racing needs to be doing it's utmost to attract new blood.
 
Exactly Bear, another one that will no doubt hose up in the JLT would be Minella Rocco (runs in the Reynoldstown today i think), running like a pig all season but come the festival will be sure to be bang on.
I'm with EC on this, something needs to change, a lot of non racing folk think the game is bent and Racing needs to be doing it's utmost to attract new blood.
 
Last edited:
This may be the most basic question ever asked on this forum and EC is probably the one to answer it. Does 1lb really equate to 1 length or is it the biggest myth in racing?

The reason I bring this question up is because one solution may be to just scrap the handicap system completely. I know how much 1lb weighs, I know how much 1 stone weighs and I find it bloody difficult to believe it has a massive effect on a 500kg animal. If Mo Farah was told he had to wear a backpack containing half a stone in weight would it really affect the result? I doubt it and he only weighs about 60kg!

Maybe I'm being a little flippant but weight is banded around as the biggest reason a horse may win or not when I'd say there are many other factors which have a bigger impact on the result. Why not just have say 5 or 6 classes of race, if you win you go up and if you're last you go down. The higher the class the higher the prize money so there's absolutely no incentive for not trying.

This is incredibly simplistic I know but if someone was creating this sport from scratch I'm sure that would be the result rather than some convoluted handicapping system which probably has little impact on the final result.
 
Last edited:
You pair are talking about something completely different. You are talking about plot-jobs and general abuse of the handicap system, whereas I am only talking about Millington's suggestion re prize-money distribution in handicaps.

TheBear, I am not compelled to come up with "solutions" to anything. But if someone else proposes something that is clearly unworkable, I will reserve the right to point out the flaws where they area evident.

Let's look at this another way. Would the advocates of Millington's solution, please tell me how it would work on a practical level. Maybe I'm missing something.*

* I'm not, but feel free have a bash anyway.
 
Last edited:
What we are saying though is if that system was introduced it may stop people abusing the handicap system and surely that is a good thing?
 
Grasshopper said:
You pair are talking about something completely different. You arer talking about plot-jobs in handicaps, and I am talking about Millington's suggestion re prize-money distribution in handicaps.

TheBear, I am not compelled to come up with "solutions" to anything. But if someone else does so, I will reserve the right to point out the flaws where they area evident.

Let's look at this another way. Would the advocates of Millington's solution, please tell me how it would work on a practical level. Maybe I'm missing something.*

* I'm not, but feel free have a bash anyway.
Click to expand...

its not really plot jobs as in every now and then i mean though Grass..its just generally how a handicapper in general is campaigned. If you have a horse that you know can win a certain grade of race..you will get a win..then you might get another..if it keeps you against similar grade..its the point where you know your horse will struggle when it goes up a grade due to its rising mark that needs to be avoided..so you need its mark getting back to keep it in winning grade for the future. This is day to day life for many horses..the handicap system doesn't reward winning many races in one go..obviously thats not every handicapper..but a lot fall under that umbrella. Its trying to explain that to a newcomer that is going to put people off..its too complicated to be arsed with for many people.

I'm not advocating millingtons idea as it is..but what he is doing is saying the current system isn't that great..which is right. Just nailing him on his idea is being a bit harsh..he brings up the whole handicapping farce..that farce may or may not be acceptable to us already obsessed with the game..but its not one i think would appeal much to newcomers.

Its about bringing people in..if we are bothered..personally it don't worry me..i am used to it..i work with it..as do most currtent punters...is it appealing in 2016 though when you have other gambling sports that look far easier to get into? that don't look like an unsolvable puzzle
 
Last edited:
Very very well said EC. I don't think many of us are saying Millington's idea is the solution Grassy but it does open the wider discussion about whether the game needs changing or not. My opinion is that it does for all the reasons EC has given.
 
Millington hasn't done anything to open up the discussion, Bear - you, Simmo and EC1 have done that.

Millington's very specific idea on prize-money-split is garbage - fact - but I'm open to suggestion in how handicaps can be improved, from people that have vastly more nous about racing, than the RP's charlatan Editor in Chief.
 
i'd say his idea of £ split is a hard one to implement yes...the handicap system does need change..in fact if it could be changed..we might move into the 21 st century and be able to compete with other sports...if it don't change we are talking about a sport where people won't come in

look at the game now..folk have walked into betting shops for 10 years..snubbed racing and sat at machines a 5 year old would ignore after 5 minutes and voted for the machine over racing. A f00kin machine has beaten our sport..so what chance does racing have against other sports when a brain doner machine hammers it into a cocked hat?

It won't affect me personally..i'll be in the ground with stopwatch lashed to chest by then,,but we have to smarten it up..the days of.....i know a bit of info and if you don't you are a mug ..died in the 1960s in reality..modern youth won't accept that sort of game..there is too much oppo now.
 
Last edited:
Well I don't claim to have anything like the knowledge required but the option I outlined on the previous page is how it probably works in some parallel universe. It'll never happen in this one because the people who have the power would never allow it.

Their argument would be that it would make the sport less competitive & less exciting when what they really mean is less revenue. I'd say they're wrong on both counts. If the only way to make more money was to get your horse upped in class you'd see horses turned out more often & running to their genuine ability most, if not all the time. It just isn't as simple as saying the handicap system levels the playing field as an argument to keeping it.

If you have horses of similar ability running against each other at level weights people are still going to form differing opinions of the winner for a multitude of reasons. Just look at the Gold Cup thread.

Another argument would be that the top trainers would be even more powerful. Well yes but that's how it works with other far more successful sports. The single biggest obstacle to attracting people into racing is the handicap system. Anyone looking from the outside would say get rid of it whilst those with the knowledge & power would cling on to it for dear life.
 
when you look at it..in 20 years time people will look back and say..what happened to racing?..and they will monitor its decline by TV interest..oh yes it was on BBC1 and ITV in its heyday..then it went to lesser C4 and a bit BBC 1..then it slipped away to ITV 1+3...then it slipped to ITV 3 ..then it slipped off terrestial TV altogether..a steady decline over 30 years until invisible to mainstreams sports viewers

without a complete revamp..horse racing in the 2020's will be the snooker of the 1950's re interest imo

maybe its just impossible to stop the rot..i don't know the answer...people will always go racing..on big days..but the sport needs to be more appealing in some way
 
Last edited:
TheBear said:
This may be the most basic question ever asked on this forum and EC is probably the one to answer it. Does 1lb really equate to 1 length or is it the biggest myth in racing?
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure it's a myth. Does anyone rely on it?

Weight affects lengths at different distances. Strictly speaking the going and course topography does to if you wanted to drill down into greater detail. But if you're relying on 1Ib = 1L then you're almost certainly batting on a sticky wicket and will draw incorrect conclusions (albeit you might get away with them)
 
tiggers1972 said:
Surely anyone can see that for example Wicklow Brave was not campaigned honestly last season? He was mullered race after race and then wins half the length of the track in the County hurdle!
Click to expand...

He was sent off well fancied for the Betfair the race previous. This a bigger prize fund than the County Hurdle, which would cause you to conclude that prize money isn't necessarily going to be enough to persuade a trainer against the prestige of a festival winner (that prestige has a market value too as fees rise and new owners flock to a yard).
 
TheBear said:
The single biggest obstacle to attracting people into racing is the handicap system. Anyone looking from the outside would say get rid of it whilst those with the knowledge & power would cling on to it for dear life.
Click to expand...

They have very few handicaps in the States, but it's far from the Nirvana you imagine.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
The framework for the distribution of prize-money is topweight-most and bottom-weight least, as per Millington's proposal.
Click to expand...

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal is betrayed here. Bottom-weight does not get the least prize money. The horses that finish out of the money get least prize money. If the bottom-weight wins, they would get a proportion of the £5k commensurate with their position in the handicap relative to the other horses in the prize money.
 
simmo said:
Your fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal is betrayed here. Bottom-weight does not get the least prize money. The horses that finish out of the money get least prize money. If the bottom-weight wins, they would get a proportion of the £5k commensurate with their position in the handicap relative to the other horses in the prize money.
Click to expand...

It's semantics as far as I'm concerned, but I'm always happy to get an education.

So.....tell me......how you would distribute the £5K prize-money in yesterday's Wincanton race, in your Brave New World? I expect to hear about specific £numbers or percentages, and not just general flannel about "proportions" - because in the absence of specifics, you will have failed to demonstrate that it's workable.

You can pick any horses you like as your placers.
 
Last edited:
Whilst you are considering the above, Simmo, consider this too.

Putting aside the fact that it has the potential to compromise field-sizes, under Millington's scheme, you would need to have multiple prize-money scenarios covering every possible outcome combination. Using our Wincanton race, it would no longer be 'Winner gets £3k" - you would need to publish 16 different 'Winner Values', and the same again with the Placed horses.......all of which would need to be adminstered by the BHA.

Even if you created an algorithm to break this down, how would you go about managing this in a way which made it clear to an Owner, how much he was potentially running for? And how would you account for non-runners, without running the risk if the system being bucked even more than it is today?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top