Harris Tweed - Ebor

Again, i'm trying not to get involved too much here as i'm still kind of on the fence but the Nunthorpe today is fascinating in relation to this discussion. Let's take 2 of the runners and theoretically say that they met in a handicap today:

Starspangledbanner OR 121

Stone Of Folca     OR 101

WFA over 5F is 24lbs.

So, moving on, if they met in a handicap surely the weights should be something like :

Starspangledbanner 10st

Stone Of Folca     6st 12lb

Stone Of Folca is officially rated 20lbs inferior to SSB, add on the WFA allowance and he would be getting 44lbs from SSB so surely his 102 can't be "artificially inflated"?

Of course, i may have got this completely wrong as my modus operandi isnt really handicaps and most of my betting is done on US racing, which doesnt really use WFA anyway.

Over to u guys.

Stop trying not to get involved (if that makes sense), gg!  The more the merrier.

It is artifically inflated, although in your example it looks a scary difference because we're comparing the leading all-aged sprinter against a 2-y-o maiden (albeit a good one).

Think of it this way, if the rating wasn't inflated and Stone Of Folca made normal improvement, what would he be rated for the 2012 Nunthrope as a 4-y-o?  The wfa scale says he'll make 24lbs worth of improvement so that means the handicapper reckons he's going to be a 125 rated horse!  Today's fav is only on 121 and he's knocked off a July Cup and a Golden Jubilee.

I'm still not getting involved, just wanted to throw that one out there!

If you believe the wfa is accurate and the rating of 101 doesn't underestimate him then basically his real ability at this age suggests he would dead-heat with a 77 rated older horse off level weights.

the rating is just an estimate, most molecomb stakes placed horses generally go on to be around 100-105 older horses but if you think it was a particularly good renewal of the molcomb stakes and the wfa is advantageous to 2yos then SOF could be worth a bet.

ffs Headmaster the wfa scale doesn't suggest Folca would make 24lb improvement,your crackpot theory does.

The wfa scale and the handicappers rating of him suggests he's a 101 horse rated 24 lb behind Starspangledbanner.

Every time you post you are trying to twist things to suit your argument.

Your maths are correct ,Stevie.

Good work Stevie.

The naysayers appear to be having a day off!

The wfa scale says he'll make 24lbs worth of improvement so that means the handicapper reckons he's going to be a 125 rated horse!  Today's fav is only on 121 and he's knocked off a July Cup and a Golden Jubilee.


Agree with most of what you say but that's rubbish, sorry.

The handicapper thinks he'll be a 101 horse when older but he's effectively a 77 horse against the older ones.

still no mail in my inbox, suprise

I think you misunderstood me, ben.  I was using that as an example if wfa was not built into ratings.

Thoroughly agree with your closing sentence mate.

Am I detecting a gradual shift in numbers during this debate? 

Fair enough, sorry about that

Don't let him confuse you ,Ben.
He was saying exactly what you thought he was saying.
WFA is not built into the ratings therefore SOF is rated a 101 horse.

Have a day off, flyingbolt.

Why would Harris Tweed have been balloted out of the Ebor earlier than Hanoverian Baron, even though Harris Tweed has a higher Official Rating

This must be getting embarrassing for you flyingbolt!!!

^ we appear to have gone full circle

I'm never embarrassed to be right,YDC

As for the Ebor question you are beginning to sound retarded.

listen, you can't have a wfa allowance in a handicao unless the wfa is already built in to the rating. If Harris Tweed's rating was a true reflection of his ability at the current time then he would not need an allowance.

head in hands man

Stevie

Sea The Stars mark left unchanged after Arc

BY DAVID BAXTER12.28PM 5 OCT 2009

SEA THE STARS'S official rating remains unchanged at 135 after his superb victory in the Qatar Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe on Sunday.
The BHA's head of handicapping, Phil Smith, revealed that the mark had been left unaltered as it was deemed that the colt had run to a mark of 131 in the Arc, 4lb below his best effort in the Irish Champion Stakes.
Speaking on At The Races, Smith said: "You don't get horses winning six Group 1s in six consecutive months - he's an absoultely tip-top horse.
"If you look at the Arc there were two solid yardsticks,Youmzain and Conduit, and we had them both performing to 125. We called the winning distance more than two lengths so we have given Sea The Stars 6lb and a mark of 131, although if something had come and challenged then he would have probably gone further away."
To put the mark into perspective, last season's acclaimed Arc winner Zarkava was given a mark of 128 with her 3lb sex allowance, while Dancing Brave, legendary winner of the Arc in 1986, was awarded a mark of 141.
Racing Post handicapper Paul Curtis was also of the opinion thatSea The Stars had put up his best performance in the Irish Champion Stakes, awarding the horse a Racing Post Rating of 132 for the Arc, compared to 138 for the Irish Champion Stakes.
He said: "Youmzain is a key horse, as he's pretty solid with his previous two Arc placings. If you took the result as just the first five or six then he would be better than the rating, but the form of the horses further back is not as good."
There is a chance that Sea The Stars's official rating could improve before the end of the season, with Rip Van Winkle, who has been beaten by Sea The Stars on three occasions already this term, set to head for the Breeders' Cup Classic.
Smith said: "If Rip Van Winkle goes higher in America there's no reason when we [the BHA handicappers] meet up again in Hong Kong that he can't go up again if the form keeps working out."
================================================================
So in the above example, Sea The Stars received 8lb from Conduit and beat him 2 ½ lengths, which Phil Smith evaluated was worth 6lb.

If STS had carried the same weight as Conduit (9-5), then he would probably have just been beaten due to having to carry 8lb more than he did.

So do we really think under that scenario, since Conduit is rated 125, then STS would therefore be rated 123?

No of course not, he would be rated on the basis of his underlying performance (123) plus the WFA / “expected progression to maturity factor” call it what you may, of 8, to get back up to his Official Rating of 131.

I'd give it up if I were you,Stake.

You are obviously totally incapable of grasping the concept of wfa that has been around for over 200 years.

I assume you are willing to step up to the plate and put your money where you mouth is then?

Pointless exercise. You will never admit you are wrong.

I'm willing to accept the view of the BHA Handicapping Department - whichever way it goes...

But, based on the points in their e-mail below, why do you dispute it?

1 - Harris Tweed has an Official Rating 103 and Hanoverian Baron an Official Rating 92
2 – For the Ebor, Harris Tweed gets 12lb Weight For Age (WFA) allowance, the WFA factoring in the average maturity of a 3YO at that time of year and that distance
3 - Therefore, in reality, at this time of year at that trip he is a 91 rated horse
4 - Were they to run off level weights, HB is theoretically a 1lb better horse at this stage of HTs development (but based on the fact that HT is average, which of course he might not be)

That explains why Harris Tweed was, and in our view should be, eliminated before Hanoverian Baron because he is a 1lb inferior horse.

Isn't this the point that is being debated?

I have another example here

This time it is a 1 mile maiden stakes run on August 1st

Horse A (4yo colt) Rating 100
Horse B (3yo Filly)

WFA is 7lb and the filly gets a 3lb allowance as well

So Horse A carries 9st and Horse B carries 8st 4lb

They dead heat fot 1st place and Horse A is deemed to have run to form

So what will the handicapper rate Horse B?

100 - 10 = 90

Now do we need to add back on the sex allowance?

No as there is no sex allowance in handicaps so she is still 90.

Do we need to add on the wfa projection?

Yes because there is a wfa allowance in handicaps
so we add back on the 7lb and she is rated 97.

Stevie you are out of your depth I'm afraid to say.

Both horses would be rated 100.

Sorry Stevie you are right.The filly would be rated 97.

Why is this thread still continuing. The definition has been confirmed and agreed upon. Hasn't it ?

im off out for the day now but there is an article on this website that might be worth a read

http://www.b2yor.co.uk/05_articles/08_005_1_B2yoR_Estimates_Background.html

That seems to be a good article Stevie on first reading.

It even uses the term "inflated" when referring to the Official Rating. It seems to support our view, or at least I think! [smiley:crazy]

Thanks ,Stevie. Very interesting.

The sentence "There is an acknowledged WFA scale which the handicapper is unable to take account of " was particularly enlightening.

Stakey, i read the inflated OR in the context of its early maturity and lack of scope in this example

...but doesn't the handicapper have to factor in some sort of "age progression" element into the rating? Hence the argument being put forward in the article, that the ratings can often prove to eventually be over/understated, depending on the precocity of the horse in question?

The article was about 2yo's in their own age group though and the effect in Nursery races where a youngster who matured earlier with less scope would struggle off his mark against a horse with more ability who had taken longer to progress.

Its the scope thing that over the years has led me to have hardly any bets on juvenile races

flyingbolt     21 Aug 10 11:26 
Thanks ,Stevie. Very interesting.

The sentence "There is an acknowledged WFA scale which the handicapper is unable to take account of " was particularly enlightening.

Could it be that that quote refers to the case where a two year old foaled 1 January for instance, has to be treated in the same way as one foaled 1 April? i.e. the handicapper cannot apply the real age factor into the Rating given based on the WFA scale (the horse is really 3 months younger), instead, he has to use a linear average development rate for all 2 year olds.

Just a possible interpretation? Or am I going down a blind alley there?

I don't think anyone will ever agree, but if the headmaster asked Phil Smith's permission to cut and paste his entire email we would at least have the view from the top.

No idea why he persists in not doing this

Good luck today lads, I will leave it now until we get the definitive statement on the PS blog.

Phil's still trying to Re Rate Arkle's form.................

one last post on the subject for me.

2yo (receiving 24lb) dead heats 5th in Nunthorpe with a 110 older horse.

Flyingbolt says the handicapper will rate him 110 as the horse should be getting 24lb as per the weight for age scale and therefore he is the equal of the 4yo.

Now that is correct he will be given a rating of 110 however this is an inflated or projected rating as the headmaster says. You can't have 'should have received' when rating a horses current ability. So in reality the 2yo is currently an 86 horse as he was gettong 24lb.

Of course if they used 86 as the official rating then you'd have to raise the horse and every other 2yo and 3yo up by a few llbs each month until they reach maturity whether they run or not. So instead they inflate the rating to what the horse would be as a 4yo given average improvement, which is 110 and this will be his rating until he next runs whether that be in a weeks time or a years time. 

That's the way I see it anyway unless someone can convince me otherwise?

12 days and over 300 posts on this subject - and STILL there is no definitive statement !!

Why, if what is said is true, over the years have we worshipped false gods then??

If we accept that the Headmaster and others have said is correct, then NO horse can be acclaimed a champion on ratings unless it has reached full maturity because its rating is PURELY A PROJECTION of its ability

I suppose zilzal it would be something similar to seeing the top  junior athlete getting a 10m headstart over 100m at the olympics, claiming gold and breaking the record.

I think Sea The Stars would have proven himself a great as a 4yo but I would I like to see what the finished article can do, like Harbinger in the KG.

Spot on Stevie.  It's a question I ask myself, zil, and one of the major dividing lines between Flat and Jump racing imo.  Sea-Bird v Ribot?  Ribot everytime.

Ive been thinking about this a bit and talking to other people, this is a extract from Pauls reply


1 - Harris Tweed has an Official Rating 103 and Hanoverian Baron an Official Rating 92
2 – For the Ebor, Harris Tweed gets 12lb Weight For Age (WFA) allowance, the WFA factoring in the average maturity of a 3YO at that time of year and that distance
3 - Therefore, in reality, at this time of year at that trip he is a 91 rated horse
4 - Were they to run off level weights, HB is theoretically a 1lb better horse at this stage of HTs development (but based on the fact that HT is average, which of course he might not be)

That explains why Harris Tweed was, and in our view should be, eliminated before Hanoverian Baron because he is a 1lb inferior horse.


Why i thought in ABSOLUTE terms that the rating attributed to the horse must be its official mark is that if there had been a race over 10f the same day then the position of the horses would be reversed with the 3yo being 1lb higher, is this not iyo a PRODUCT of the wfa scale and not the handicap mark being inflated?? as there is after all, only ONE rating for horses and the WFA scale adjusting??

There are after all several factions within racing who dont agree with the scale of the WFA system and even allowance in handicapping for how to treat beaten horses(5f being a case where i have heard a scale of 3-5lb per length)

If you didn't inflate the rating zilzal and just rated the horse purely on what he achieved then say a horse recorded a 65 rating at 7f with no wfa projection added on and was then running in a 12f hcap a week later, you'd have to put him on 60 for that race to take into account the wfa allowance is more over 12f.

So it makes sense to inflate the rating first and then have the wfa scale in place to take the weight off depending on what time of year and what distance the horse is running over.

so yes Harris Tweed would get in over Hanoverian Baron over 10f

Not long to go now  [:(]

Great thread!! I have only just read it today, as an ex handicapper myself its been fun to see all the confusion but I think you all have it correct now whereas at the start only the headmaster understood what was going on.

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/head_of_handicapping.asp

Head of Handicapping's Blog:

WHY WE ELIMINATE BY WEIGHT NOT RATING IN HANDICAPS
25th August 2010

There has been much discussion over the last week about the elimination of three year olds from the Tote Ebor Handicap at York. Perhaps I should again explain why we eliminate as we do at present.

I will again use the example of the John Smith’s Cup also run at York earlier in the year.

The core reason is the weight for age scale and how horses are allocated ratings. In early April over 10 furlongs a 3 year old receives 19lbs from an older horse. If they dead heat and the older horse is rated 95, the 3 year old is rated 95 but is intrinsically a 19lbs inferior animal. He has been given the weight for age to compensate him for a lack of maturity, experience and ability.

If they were then both entered for the John Smith’s Cup in early July at York the 3 year old would only receive 11lbs because of the assumption that he has made “normal” improvement of 8lbs in the intervening time. However, the older horse is still his superior by 11lbs.

If the 95 rated 3 year old was given priority over say a 94 rated older horse then you would be including a horse that was 10lbs inferior to the older horse.

The only way that this could change would be if the connections of the 3 year olds were happy to carry 11lbs more. They cannot have it both ways, on the one hand to be given a weight allowance and on the other to get priority into the race.

Owners and trainers of 3 year olds complained for many years that they didn’t want to take on older horses early in the year as they (incorrectly) considered the weight for age scale didn’t compensate them enough against the older horses.

As a result BHB (BHA) introduced a raft of three year old only handicaps early in the year. Surely a quid pro quo of changing the system of elimination in big handicaps in July and August would be to take away 3 year old only handicaps early in the year. Very few owners and trainers would buy into that.

A further way of ensuring a 3 year old gets into races like the John Smith’s Cup and the Ebor would be if connections campaigned them more aggressively and got their ratings up. This would be in accordance with the BHA principle of meritocracy. There is no reason why a 3 year old rated 106+ couldn’t have entered last week’s Ebor and got a run.

The reality, of course, is that some people want to give the three year olds an advantage either because they own them, train them or find them easier to select if they wish to back in the race. However from a competitive racing point of view the current system should remain.

One of the strengths of British racing over the last five years has been that more and more older horses are being kept in training, particularly fillies. If we changed the system then what incentive would there be for the connections of the older horses to take on unexposed, progressive 3 year olds AND give them weight for age?

Some pundits have said that in the Ebor there was "cluttering up of the weights by exposed older horses”. This could be rephrased to say “high quality older horses honestly campaigned and fairly handicapped made the race as hugely competitive as usual”.

However, I admit that finding the winner would, for a punter, have involved hours of study comparing form lines, assessing going and trip requirements. The inclusion of an improving unexposed three year old would have made selecting the winner a lot easier.

Owing to the popularity of the big handicaps there has to be an elimination process and there will be winners and losers whatever the process might be. It is the view of the BHA and their Handicapping team that the current system is the correct one.


Flyingbolt?  You there lad???

Good afternoon, Headmaster.

Thanks for posting that.

Unfortunately I have understood how the weight for age scale works since 1963 so haven't really learnt anything new from it.

You however seem quite excited by it.

think we all agreed on that part anyway headmaster?

You may want to read this paragraph again:

The core reason is the weight for age scale and how horses are allocated ratings. In early April over 10 furlongs a 3 year old receives 19lbs from an older horse. If they dead heat and the older horse is rated 95, the 3 year old is rated 95 but is intrinsically a 19lbs inferior animal. He has been given the weight for age to compensate him for a lack of maturity, experience and ability.

If you still don't feel like holding your hands up, read it again.....and again, and again, and....

Its all been about wording imo

The opening Salvo by the Headmaster in that "WFA IS BUILT INTO A RATING" is impossible imo as you would have to have several different ratings depending upon distance, however the rating IT RUNS OFF IS totally different and depends on the time of the year and the distance of the race

zilzal,

It says:
"He has been given the weight for age to compensate him for a lack of maturity, experience and ability."

???

Yes but he hasnt been given the"Compensation" in a numerical mark?? only the MARK he runs off, it would be a totally different mark if he ran in a 10f race, a 8f race or a 5f race so his original mark bears no compensation because it would have to be different each time to be artificial, Surely??

Its all in the wording

Headmaster

Win only, Zilzal and myself have never disputed the wfa or the reason it is there.

As I've stated before, I've no particular axe to grind and was of the view at the start of this debates that The Headmaster was wrong, however, his opening statement was thus:-

The Headmaster
Joined: 14 Nov 01
Replies: 336 11 Aug 10 12:26   
He's only rated higher because he's 3 and the wfa is built into his rating, wospo.  The older horses are the better, higher-rated horses in real terms so should get in first.

And the Handicapper has put it like this:-

In early April over 10 furlongs a 3 year old receives 19lbs from an older horse. If they dead heat and the older horse is rated 95, the 3 year old is rated 95 but is intrinsically a 19lbs inferior animal.

It seems to me that he was right, its a rating not just a mark that it runs off, although I also suspect that you're all right to a certain extent and as Zilzal says, it's all in how you have chosen to express it.

Win only - Sp only Joined: 30 Oct 08
Replies: 2776 11 Aug 10 13:29   


With respect Headmaster, thats utter rubbish. Of course WFA is not built into a 3yr olds rating.


ok if we just look back at some of the things said.
This statement was clearly wrong.
are we agreed?

Stevie, its all in the wording

I would agree with "All horses are rated as being mature" but i cant agree with WFA being built in

Because its on a scale and would give different numerical figures on the same day over a different distance, so the rating is ABSOLUTE and the COMPENSATION is different, if WFA was built in its handicap mark would change accordingly.

The MARK it runs off is a different matter

In the wording, imo

zilzal, maybe you are thinking the headmaster was saying wfa allowance was built in rather than wfa.

Think thats the crux of it Stevie

ok so you agree with the rating being a projection of where the horse will be when fully mature?

See 17.05 Steve

Another Point i would make is that one i made earlier about weight and distance

I work to around 6lb per length over 5f races and it would take a lot for me to back a horse that had a pull just for the reason of weight alone, and i dont back 3yos in handicaps until about July.

Until we weigh horses, the issue still is cloudy

Some people think a horse's rating is a pure reflection of its form and wfa is deducted off it's back when the weights are set.  Madness, I know!

Other people think, and I'll risk repeating this, that wfa is added into a rating to start with and it is then taken back off when the weights are set. Bleedin' obvious really.

This is most definitely not about wording, zilzal.  The people in the second group understand the system completely while the people in the first group would have 3-y-os up and down the country **** up everytime they met their elders.

The only bit you seem to be struggling with is how much wfa is added into a rating, zil. The answer is down to the distance of which ever race you're rating.  If the form's over a mile - the 3-y-o gets the mile boost in his RATING. If he then races over 1m 4f, he'll get the 1m 4f wfa deducted off his WEIGHT

I've just re-read this thread from start to finish, and am staggered that certain individuals (who will remain nameless [:x] ) have not offered an apology to The Headmaster who has been 100% consistent in his point of view from DAY 1, and has been conclusively supported by the Official Handicapping body.

It's a funny old game, Saint

Some people think a horse's rating is a pure reflection of its form and wfa is deducted off it's back when the weights are set.  Madness, I know!

Other people think, and I'll risk repeating this, that wfa is added into a rating to start with and it is then taken back off when the weights are set. Bleedin' obvious really.

This is a well worded post on a topic i never fully understood, well done.

This topic seems to have gone in a few different directions, and quotes are being used out of context and to support arguments that they don't/

To summarise this "argument"  - hopefully I am not speaking for anyone incorrectly here.

One camp  (lets call it camp one)- Headmaster, Stake, Gerrard etc say.... That a three years old handicap mark is artifically boosted to account for what level of form the horse will show at 4, and that the Weight for Age scale balances the books in all age races

Camp Two - Myself, Zilzal, Flyingbolt say that a three year olds handicap mark is his handicap mark and it shows his current level of form in the eyes of the handicapper- "We" think that the Weight for Age scale merly irons out an unfair advantage that older horses have over 3 year olds.


Camp two find three fundamental flaws with Camp ones view

1. How can the handicapper boost a rating without knowing what trip the horse will be running over?
2. If a three year old rated 70 runs in May, then waits till November to run again, why is his rating not altered?
3. Why do horses that retire at 3 keep the rating given?

I also find it strange that despite several requests, the mysterious email from Phil Smith has never been forwarded onto me.

I have also just realised that "camp one" sounds a bit gay, but I will run with it anyhow....

Perp

1. How can the handicapper boost a rating without knowing what trip the horse will be running over?
2. If a three year old rated 70 runs in May, then waits till November to run again, why is his rating not altered?
3. Why do horses that retire at 3 keep the rating given?


My god, even after it has all been explained umpteen times you still don't get it wospo. You must be completely and utterly thick. I've wasted enough time on this thread

Sorry I am very thick yes, can you explain again you genius.

From the Betfair blog preview of the King George

Timeform's Flat Editor Jamie Lynch confirmed: "Harbinger has proved unstoppable so far this season, now ready and able for the next challenge of a Group 1. His Timeform rating of 131+ from the Hardwicke would be good enough for him to win an average King George, but this is shaping up to be no ordinary renewal, with his year-younger stable-companion Workforce rated as an exceptional Derby winner at 132p.

"Even after weight-for-age is factored in, Workforce comes out only 1lb ahead of Harbinger on Timeform's adjusted ratings.

Round one to camp one i reckon ?

Taken from the Timeform website, regarding timefigures, but their form figures are calculated on the same basis.

Immaturity & Improvement
One further point should be understood. The fact that timefigures are calculated at weight-for-age has important consequences

With respect Figgis, timeform timefigures are nothing to do with this

Very important Figgis!  As stated, 'Camp Two' would have 3-y-os bolting up left, right and centre if they ran racing.

Don't blame you Stevie, but I'll have another go!

1. How can the handicapper boost a rating without knowing what trip the horse will be running over?
The handicapper doesn't set the weights so doesn't need to know future running plans.  What he does do is set ratings, which he does by rating individual performances in individual races.  He therefore knows exactly what wfa to use as the distance of the race he's rating will hopefully be included in the form somewhere. Now, when that horse goes on to contest his next race, the weight he is alloted will be calculated by taking the rating of the horse and then adjusting it downwards using the wfa scale of the distance of that particular race.  Example (and I'll dip into the one the Head Of Handicapping has used on his blog): It is early April and a 3-y-o and 4-y-o run in a Maiden over 10 furlongs. The weights are set in line with the wfa scale - 3-y-o has 8-08 and the 4-y-o carries 9-13 (Leicester, 08/04, Maxim Gorky, for instance). In other words, the 3-y-o is receiving 19lbs.  One of the older horses consistently runs to a mark of 95 and dead-heats with the 3-y-o.  Will the 3-y-o get a mark of 76 (95, the rating of the older horse, minus 19, the weight the 3-y-o received....which would be an accurate interpretation of the form allowing nothing for age)? No. The 3 year old is rated 95, because the wfa is added in, although he's intrinsically a 19lbs inferior animal at that stage. He has been given the weight for age to compensate him for a lack of maturity, experience and ability.
Let's say the horse, having got a rating of 95, then steps up in trip and runs the next week against that older horse (who carries 10st) in a handicap over 1m 4f. This time the wfa is 21lb and the 3-y-o races off 8-07.  So you see, the handicapper does not need to guess where the horse goes next.   
   
2. If a three year old rated 70 runs in May, then waits till November to run again, why is his rating not altered? Because he's already got the age boost in his rating.  He is maturing at the same rate the wfa allowance comes down, so everything is balanced nicely and his rating stays the same.  If there was no initial boost a 70 rated 3-y-o would not still be rated 70 in November because the wfa scale says the horse must have improved even if he's standing in his box.

3. Why do horses that retire at 3 keep the rating given It's a good question and one zilzal touched on with his 'false gods' post.  I'd imagine a few of us thinks it's all a bit of a nonsense. Olympic Gold Medals aren't dished out at Junior level based on a projection of where the kid will be in five year's time. Others will disagree with me on that one, though.

To be fair to wospo, I've detected a shift in stance from him.  He's certainly stoppped hurling the insults and seems to want to engage.

Flyingbolt still seems keen to dish it out though.  You about fb??? 

AFTER A STEWARDS ENQUIRY, WEIGHED IN WEIGHED IN


GO COLLECT, THE HEADMASTER

What a pointless comment stake, at least the headmaster and Gerrard made salient points to back up their cases, you however, have come across as a clueless butt licker. Well done

I have posted plenty of examples to support the case - clearly you never bothered to read them....

...and on the point of "clueless"...oh the irony :-)

ROFLMAO

You bought nothing to the table stake, apart from agreeing with the Headmaster. This thread had died a natural death on the 26th August, and then a c0ck posted this...

Stake & Chips     31 Aug 10 20:25 
AFTER A STEWARDS ENQUIRY, WEIGHED IN WEIGHED IN


GO COLLECT, THE HEADMASTER

Fawning idiot.

Not sure there has been a "natural death" to it yet, as you have not agreed that you were completely wrong yet....

Exactly Stake.  This thread will NEVER DIE. [smiley:crazy]
Not until flyingbolt comes on and admits he's a numpty, anyway)

Wospo, would you not say Stake was very brave piping up because at the time I was fighting a very lone battle against a heavy onslaught? All this sidekick, butlicker nonsense does you no favours...especially as it's been proved he was right all along?

Little nudge for bolty...who'll be reading this very soon, I'm sure.

What a confusing read [smiley:crazy]

headmaster appears to have absolutley hacked up in this thread

Anyone think Harris Tweed might hack up tomorrow at Chester

Ty William..

It did LOL

.

Would have gone close if he'd made the cut I reckon

He has hacked up again

Bump

(for masc)

(and I have no wish to start this debate again, btw )

Just in case we get into the definitive Oxford version of the word inclusive

I'll never get back the three weeks of my life this thread took up in the Summer of 2010, zil....and to be honest I don't want them back either!  Happy days

"Saxon Farm" seems keen to learn flyingbolt's lesson again.

It's a painful one, as you can see.... 

HM enjoyed the read!

Right or wrong you will insist on having the final say.

I would love to hear you and flyingbolt discussing racing partaking in excellent port.

I'll bring the cheese! 

(although I should say I've made my fair share of 'graceful' retreats so don't assume the final say is mine...)