Racing Post - Utter Shitbox

you could say for example..as now..1st 5000..2nd 1500..3rd 800 = 11.10 or more weight.

Then for every lb below top weight the prize reduces by 2% for evey lb less carried. So a horse on 10 stone would win 24 X 2% of 5k = 24*£100 in this example..so if winner carries 10.00 it wins = £2600

So its same as now..but 2% loss per lb of prize for every lb below 11.10

Any prize money left over could go to whatever we wanted it to in racing

So there is then an incentive to get the correct weight a horse can win off to take part in races...you can still run a horse to reduce its weight..but it costs you

I haven't thought of any negatives here..which i am sure there many..just throwing a bit of a working model at you so we can see what the negatives are.

I'm not sure why non runners would affect it..its just a simple 2% reduction per lb of the current prize money
 
It's probably worth taking this to a fresh thread, as it is an interesting topic (improving/replacing the handicap system) and worthy of better than being buried in an 'RP is a sh*it-box' thread (which I contend is still 100% accurate, despite the mild support in some quarters for Millington's proposal).

That being the case, probably my last word on this, but to do you the courtesy of a reply.....

For consistency, lets continue to use the Wincanton race, with it's £5K prize-fund. It's not really on to just arbitrarily add to it, to make the prize-fund figures more attractive.

OK, so let's say the split for our races is £3000/£1300/£700 between 1st, 2nd and 3rd. This throws out a figure of £1440 for the winner off 10-stone. Let's say the second was carrying 10-2 (£572), and the third was carrying 10-8 (£224).

From your £5K prize-fund, you are now only doling-out £2236, or less than half.

You suggest the rest goes back to racing to do whatever they wish with it? Well, one of the principal gripes in racing is lack of prize-money, and there has to be a fair chance that at least part of this slush, would simply be redistributed as prize-money, and most likely up-cycled into better class races. In effect, the entry fees in low-grade races would become a tax on the small owner, to the benefit of the bigger owner.

Let's remember that the vast, vast majority of horses-in-training are moderate, and owned almost exclusively by people who - whilst being in it for fun - at least want the prospect of landing a win to offset against their training-fees. If you remove that incentive, small owners simply won't invest in the sport, the horses-in-training population (and by extension, low-grade field sizes and revenue) will drop, and smaller trainers will go to the wall, because they can no longer fill their boxes.

And that's before we even look at the administrative nightmare (and increased cost) associated with trying to track all of this at BHA towers. If the suggestion is that the 'slush' money could be used to fund such a system, then - again - it is tantamount to a tax on small owners.

Improving the handicap system is worth exploring, but Millington's proposal will do nothing to help.

I'm also of the opinion that the 'bent' aspect is being given far too much credence in this debate. Whilst handicap manipulation undoubtedly goes on, it does not happen in anything like the volume being inferred here. Winning handicappers eventually get to a mark they cannot physically win from. They are eventually dropped to a mark they can again win from, and then they go in. This does not necessarily mean that they have been non-triers in every losing outing in between - which is what appears to be being suggested here.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
It's probably worth taking this to a fresh thread, as it is an interesting topic (improving/replacing the handicap system) and worthy of better than being buried in an 'RP is a sh*it-box' thread (which I contend is still 100% accurate, despite the mild support in some quarters for Millington's proposal).

That being the case, probably my last word on this, but to do you the courtesy of a reply.....

For consistency, lets continue to use the Wincanton race, with it's £5K prize-fund. It's not really on to just arbitrarily add to it, to make the prize-fund figures more attractive.

OK, so let's say the split for our races is £3000/£1300/£700 between 1st, 2nd and 3rd. This throws out a figure of £1440 for the winner off 10-stone. Let's say the second was carrying 10-2 (£572), and the third was carrying 10-8 (£224).

From your £5K prize-fund, you are now only doling-out £2236, or less than half.

You suggest the rest goes back to racing to do whatever they wish with it? Well, one of the principal gripes in racing is lack of prize-money, and there has to be a fair chance that at least part of this slush, would simply be redistributed as prize-money, and most likely up-cycled into better class races. In effect, the entry fees in low-grade races would become a tax on the small owner, to the benefit of the bigger owner.

Let's remember that the vast, vast majority of horses-in-training are moderate, and owned almost exclusively by people who - whilst being in it for fun - at least want the prospect of landing a win to offset against their training-fees. If you remove that incentive, small owners simply won't invest in the sport, the horses-in-training population (and by extension, low-grade field sizes and revenue) will drop, and smaller trainers will go to the wall, because they can no longer fill their boxes.

And that's before we even look at the administrative nightmare (and increased cost) associated with trying to track all of this at BHA towers. If the suggestion is that the 'slush' money could be used to fund such a system, then - again - it is tantamount to a tax on small owners.

Improving the handicap system is worth exploring, but Millington's proposal will do nothing to help.

I'm also of the opinion that the 'bent' aspect is being given far too much credence in this debate. Whilst handicap manipulation undoubtedly goes on, it does not happen in anything like the volume being inferred here. Winning handicappers eventually get to a mark they cannot physically win from. They are eventually dropped to a mark they can again win from, and then they go in. This does not necessarily mean that they have been non-triers in every losing outing in between - which is what appears to be being suggested here.
Click to expand...

There are many races for lower class horses though Grass..if you look at the other way..there is loads of prize money that good horses can't run for every day..they are excluded because they are too good.

Like i said..its not a solution.. i was just throwing a few shapes really.

i'm not saying every handicap hoss is bent...but its obvious that if you have a horse that can only win up to a certain ceiling...you going to spread those wins out a bit aren't you?..if you as a trainer let a horse win until can't any more..you then have to turn to owners and say..thats it for 18 months if we run it to its best..because if i run to its best its mark will stay static..ie high..can't win...so it has to be got back down..wrong trip..gallop short runs. Its far better to win a race..go up a little..then it not win for a couple..mark back down..win again..that way you might get two or thre wins a season spread out...owner gets a win every couple of months.

Just throwing ideas around really..probably not workable..then again..current system isn't simple.
 
I've missed all this fun while I've been away but surely Duckworth Lewis will fix it. :whistle:

For what it's worth Millington is addressing an important point, just in a moronic way.

I'd suggest there's a slightly different way of fixing it, and that's to have much tighter class handicap bands, and therefore more classes of race to compete in with a fixed sliding scale of prizemoney according to the band. I haven't had time to work it through completely but I would also suggest that the idea of horses being handicapped to a band rather than a specific mark and competing at level weights wouldn't be a backwards step.

A quick example would be:

Below 90
90-100
101-110
111-120
121-130
131-140
141-150
151+

Each band has a fixed amount of prizemoney allocated potentially with a top-up from each racecourse as happens now. The bands are also tight enough to mean every horse should be competitive and the distribution of prizemoney from the BHA for each band is fixed. I'm sure there are better variations to the theme, but do you guys see anything wrong with the principle?

Also for clarity I wouldn't change too much with novice and juvenile races, although I would take away the novice handicaps.

I would increase the number of selling races though, with increased prizemoney under a similar banding system but with maybe only 75% of the prizemoney allocation for the equivalent band.

It's not a complete fix for cheating, because there's no such thing, but it addresses the combination of prizemoney and handicap mark, and also gives an alternative more valuable selling system for horses on the downgrade, and young horses being able to be moved on.
 
As Tommy Doc said to one of his players (the one with the university degree - the name escapes me):

See you... the trouble wi' you is... a' yer brains ur in yer heid!
 
Thanks Roger. I've been a way for just over a week and not looked in so I'm having a catch-up. I hadn't seen the other thread.
 
Festival Handicap entries are out, Mullins has provided updates on his Gold Cup horses and Douvan, but 'Newmarket Monopoly' and Keiran Fox and his whip ban, take precedence on the RP website.

Utter fu*cking shi*tbox.
 
Last edited:
RP Twitter feed last night was advertising that "Ruby Walsh answers all the big questions" in today's paper. Presumably, therefore, he will be confirming his Gold Cup ride, given it is the biggest question of all.

If any of you good people have stooped low enough to pick-up a copy today, an update would be appreciated. I'm more interested to know if this particular "big question" has even been asked/answered, because I obviously know the answer already.
 
Last edited:
As I thinks e all expected, DG.

What were the "big questions" that Ruby answered in today's Post then?

His hat-size? His favourite song? The colour of his bleedin' socks?

#shitbox
 
Was a farce Grass.

One horse he'd like supplemented (Annie aside) and he jokes Big Buck's
Strongest festival fancy : I don''t have one but I'd like my wife's horse to win (Clondaw Warrior) who he says himself is no good thing and not even guaranteed to get in.
Thinks Zubayr would have a chance in the Triumph.
No time for bumper horses and has no opinion.

Only semi-meaningful thing he said was that he'd have a headache choosing which one between Nichols Canyon and Annie Power if she's supplemented.

Gold Cup doesn't even get a mention.
 
Last edited:
wilsonl said:
Was a farce Grass.

One horse he'd like supplemented (Annie aside) and he jokes Big Buck's
Strongest festival fancy : I don''t have one but I'd like my wife's horse to win (Clondaw Warrior) who he says himself is no good thing and not even guaranteed to get in.
Thinks Zubayr would have a chance in the Triumph.
No time for bumper horses and has no opinion.

Only semi-meaningful thing he said was that he'd have a headache choosing which one between Nichols Canyon and Annie Power if she's supplemented.

Gold Cup doesn't even get a mention.
Click to expand...

But were did Pendo finish in this weeks PtPs? :lol::lol::lol:
 
Would be funny if it wasn't true Digger. A whole page dedicated to Andy Stewart's pledge of continued support.

Which is nice...
 
wilsonl said:
Was a farce Grass.

One horse he'd like supplemented (Annie aside) and he jokes Big Buck's
Strongest festival fancy : I don''t have one but I'd like my wife's horse to win (Clondaw Warrior) who he says himself is no good thing and not even guaranteed to get in.
Thinks Zubayr would have a chance in the Triumph.
No time for bumper horses and has no opinion.

Only semi-meaningful thing he said was that he'd have a headache choosing which one between Nichols Canyon and Annie Power if she's supplemented.

Gold Cup doesn't even get a mention.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Lee.

How does this rag manage to stay in circulation?
 
D7OLi9U.png


2pm?!?! :lol:
 
Back
Top