Balloting out in Handicaps

Good piece aft,and i agree it would be nice to see the 3yo get a chance to run in some of the big handicaps,but don't hold your breath on that system being introduced  here,it makes too much sense

I remember a debate in the RP a few years ago involving Willo and Phil Smith putting forward the arguments for and against discriminating against 3yos in the balloting rules for all age handicaps such as the Ebor . My recollection is that Willougby won all ends down in arguing against the current BHA policies in this department but no change likely in GB for the foreseeable future

A 3yo rated 106 couldn't get a run in the Ebor last year but was also too highly rated for the Melrose, the same thing could happen this year, that can't be right.

I agree with adamski's point, that cannot be right.

However just looking at the flip side, it wouldn't be right for 3yo to get in the race and then carry their full wfa. It would only lead to better horses showing their hands later and the results being dominated by the younger horses. The older horses' handicap marks are naturally more likely to be closer to the accurate figure and so there is every reason to believe that on on the whole the best horses are competing in the race

nah, for me races like the Ebor are supposed to be real puzzles and reward for the late-maturing horse that missed out on all the big prizes at 3....worst thing that could happen to the race would be for Aidan O'Brien to mop it up with thrice-raced Montjeu/Galileos that were just under Derby standard and kept back for the race, killing the ante-post market and going off 100/30 on the day

That is precisely the point : That currently A OB's (and other's) 3yos which are 'just under Derby standard' are the ONLY 3yos that can avoid getting balloted out.

And from your perspective, why is it important that the 3yos can get in?. Looking at this year's entries for the Ebor, cannot see anything that would be add to the quality of the race personally.

It is of no consequence whatever to me and I am sure that the owners of such disadvantaged horses are well able to present their own case to the authorities. I just find it wholely irrational that the rules should (for no obvious reason) discriminate against younger horses. If this is to achieve a desired objective then fair enough, but I believe that it is rather just an unintended consequence of an antiquated system. I simply would wish to challenge the general principle and have made no reference to any specific race. Others have referred to the Ebor because it serves well to illustate the anomolous effects.

They don't discriminate against 3-y-os.  That's the point.

Why should a 3-y-o get in a race at the expense of an older, better horse?

Headmaster- In championship races such as the King George or the Arc , the best horse wins the race by common consent whether he or she is a four year old or older or a three year old who would be getting a wfa (immaturity) allowance . So if there is a dead heat in the race , the younger and older horse will each get the same rating even though the 3yo will be getting around 12lbs off the older horse in the King George and 8lbs or so in the Arc. But if you have a younger and older horse both rated 100 in a BHA handicap like the Ebor , the older horse gets a run and the younger horse does not even though they are regarded by the Handicapper as the same horse ability wise ( having allowed for the immaturity allowance ). Now that is discrimination ! The older horse is only better if you ignore the wfa allowance and race them off level weights. But if you did this , surely logic would dictate that you run championship races between the generations off level weights with no immaturity allowance . So there is a fundamental contradiction between how the BHA structure their championship races and how they ballot handicap races.

Thank you Stellar for that succinct clarification. The confusion arises around the perception of the term 'better' horse. For all official/entry/handicap purposes, the 'better' horse is regarded as that which would prevail when the younger horses are carrying lesser weights (as determined by wfa scale to reflect their immaturity), but Headmaster may justifiably contend that (in simple terms) the 'better' horse on the day is that which would prevail at level weights even though such superiority may arise entirely from the relative immaturity of the younger horses.

I agree to an extent with Headmaster's assertion. If we look at the example that stellar gives then they may get the same rating because of an assumption based on wfa of where the younger horse will be in a year's time. As you say aft on the day the older horse is the better horse though long term he may have less ability. In that sense handicaps being balloted that way is indeed fair.

If you say that 3yos are discriminated against, then by the same argument you can say that older horses are discriminated in championship events.

In simple terms I think it is better that the higher quality 3yos are aimed at the pattern races though part of the problem is that some of the better heritage handicaps offer significantly more prize money

It is most interesting to hear the several disparate views, although I find this a subject area where it is difficult not to fall into somewhat muddled thinking. There seems to be a laudible underlying sentiment that the interest of older horses needs to be protected from their lower weighted (and probably less exposed) younger rivals. I think it is important to keep in mind that the primary purpose of the wfa provisions is to continuously INCREASE the weight to be carried by younger immature horses in competition with their elders. Such mature horses would indeed have reason for complaint if they where to be pitched against younger horses, returning after a lengthy lay off on unaltered terms, when the maturing rivals would be expected to have improved by up to a stone or more!

It is disappointing that once again not a single 3yo 'made the cut' to run in the Ebor.

Not one horse that ran in the Melrose would have got in the Ebor on their ratings.

So please name the 3yos that were ballotted out that perhaps should have got a run

Your reference to the Melrose is apposite as the proximity of the two races highlights the insanity of the current arrangement. As you say, none of the runners in the Melrose would have got into the Ebor. Indeed 'adamski' has already noted that to qualify for the Melrose a horse must be rated no more than 105 whereas only those rated above 107 would have got into the Ebor. What madness! If sensible arrangements where in place then horses of the  ilk of Gospel Choir / Sir Graham Wade / Guarantee would be able to run, but as things stand their trainers do not bother to enter them, knowing that they are not within ten pounds of making 'the cut'. To survive the ballot a 3yo needs to be rated at least 108 (the top weight in the Melrose was rated 98) and thus all of the great majority of young horses who are below 'Group class' are excluded, which is racings loss.

I remember one Fergal Lynch steering home a 3yo in the ebor in Prince Khalids silks, how did that get in !?! Have the rules been changed or are there just alot more horses arond the 100 mark being aimed at these 'Heritage' hcaps ? Honolulu finished 2nd in 2007 off 111 as a 3yo, so i don't think the 3yo is being discriminated against in the absolute and though the weights of this race are framed quite early (probably to prevent what Duncan allude to earlier) it is possible for 3yr olds to be very competitive.

Fergal steered Clerkenwell home for Sheikh Mo, it was Tuning i was thinking of ridden by Fallon for HRAC ! Lets not forget Mediterranean also won it as a 3yo, u gotta love Wiki P

I agreed at the time about horses rated 106-108 - but this year what horses fell into that category?

You mention three horses, 2 of which would not have got in even if you used their current marks so they would not have been able to run. Indeed Sir Graham Wade would have fallen well short due to his rating increasing significantly after the weights were released. Perhaps delaying the weights would help but that would change the whole character of the race.

Gospel Choir would have got in but as it turns out would not have taken his place for whatever reason.

So again I ask the question, what horses rated 98-107 entered failed to make the cut and were denied a run? Your opening post is that some younger horses are denied runs in more valuable handicaps. And that is why the Melrose worth £50k to the winner is a damn good alternative - I bet plenty of owners with a 4yo rated 85-95 would love to run in that but they are victimised for being too old!

Yes Liam - Clerkenwell won back in 1996 off a mark of 95 when the bottom weight was 7-10 (82) and Tuning won in 1998. It is astonishing to note that there has been not one 3yo winner of the Ebor in the last ten years, but in the preceding 11 years there were no less than six!  I do not know if the balloting rules have altered over recent years, but I suspect not  - I think the trend is probably (as you suggest) a result of entries increasing in number and quality, thus raising the threshold. Perhaps someone more knowledgable can advise us? I have never suggested that 3yos could not be competitive, but just that many are denied the opportunity to compete in these major handicaps.          For whatever the reason back in the 1990s the bottom weight was often down at 7-7 (75) and such as Sanmartino could get in comfortably off a mark of 91, whereas now he would not get in off 107!

Hi roobuck - I am sorry that I am not sufficiently knowledgable of the current 3yo scene to be able to offer names to you, but I believe that there would have been at least several (95-107) 3yos entered if the balloting system was more rational. Of course these were not 'balloted out' because they were never entered (as there was no point if they were below the threshold). As I have stressed earlier my concern is the general principle and equity of the current provisions and it is others who have introduced specific races/horses by way of illustration and I have tried to respond sensibly. I take your point about the handicap marks of the horses mentioned, but I would note that I was very careful not to be specific and referred only to horses of their ilk (ie of similar level of ability). I fear you may feel that I have 'an axe to grind' but I can assure you that it would not bother me if all handicaps were restricted to 4yos and upwards! My complaint is only that the current system is perverse and irrational and that the impact is likely to be negative for those marketing the sport we love.

aft - I never doubted your thoughts on this. I started off simply playing devil's advocate in the name of debate but the more I have thought about it, I am comfortable in truly believing in what I wrote.

I simply think that 3yos need to earn the right to run in all aged handicaps such as the Ebor rather than perhaps hide their ability to protect their mark. Whilst Tuning would not have been able to run this year, at least she had proved her ability in pattern races prior to the race. It simply means that there are more higher rated horses in training to prevent 3yos getting as easily and that in itself is good isn't it?

Although obviously the wfa is different because of the distance, the big mile handicap at Goodwood was won by a 3yo who had been fairly highly tried by his trainer meaning that the handicapper had a chance to better assess his chance. As it was he had enough improvement in him to win.

Guarantee if allowed a run would most probably easily have won the Ebor he was so far ahead of his mark. So would it be fair to get to a system that encouraged trainers to perhaps hold back so that they had a better chance in such a valuable handicap? As it was Guarantee was able to target a still valuable handicap as part of his career progression.

I actually think the majority hold your viewpoint and I can see your argument, no worries at all. It will be interesting to see how many get in the Autumn double races

Phil Smiths handicapping techniques might also be a factor in the last 10 yr stats for 3yos in comparison to the 80s & 90s which 4 the record i concur with ! I dont have any stats prior to 1980 but would be interested to know if it's a similar story.

roobuck - I very much appreciate your point. Like you I hate to see exposed older handicappers being 'run ragged' by unexposed 3yos who have 'beaten the handicapper'. I can see that the (still irrational) more restricted access for 3yos to all-aged handicaps reduces the likelihood of such occurences and may be seen to (albeit accidentally) provide a welcome compromise, short of excluding 3yos completely. Perhaps the current system isn't so bad after all - I think I am almost converted! (I don't think we can 'blame' Phil Smith for the recent trends!)