3.45 Fake - One thing wrong with UK racing

I appreciate that it looks like that - BUT ...

RYE HOUSE was NOT, "put up 7lbs for finishing 9 lengths second last time"

It was put up the 7lbs for finishing 2nd on it's previous outing - when beaten just three-quarters of a length by Grams And Ounces.

LAST Time ...

Rye House had his chance and appeared to run his race despite the fairly quick reappearance, but he was officially 7lb ahead of his mark so this was a decent opportunity missed.

Based on the 9 length Winner being raised 12 lbs - and the 3rd being raised by 2lb - RYE HOUSE would be deemed to have run 3lbs higher than the 96 that it ran off LAST Time.

Leaving the 3rd horse on the 100 that it ran off - rather than raising it by 2 lbs -  would have been more appropriate.

Rye House was well in today until the rain put an end to his chances.

irrespective of the finer details onlooker - my post was spontaneous - my point is horses are still being raised unfair amounts for not winning. There are even many cases of horses being put up after falling.

Far from supporting the integrity of the sport this is deterring trainers and owners from running their horses to win every time. I believe that there should be an absolute limit to how many pounds a horse can be raised if it doesn´t win.

^ and I agree

The nearly 10 lengths 3rd being raised by 2lbs - inherently to get the 9 length winner up by 12lbs - being a prime example.

What would you do if an 84 rated Maiden finished second in the Derby?  Assume everything else ran crap and hope for the best?

(to TiptheOdds)

Same sort of thing happened with that horse owned by someone on here, the twisler. Everyone said what a toby ruining your handicap mark in a Listed race at R.Ascot,,,

The idea of handicapping is to give every participant, theoretically, an equal chance. How can that objective be achieved if an arbitrary  hike limitation is placed on beaten horses?

To often the concept that in advantaging one horse others are disadvantaged is overlooked.....

Indeed TheFear, that didn't work out too bad did it?!

In my very humble I'm not convinced it matters if we have the most unjust, unsympathetic, illogical or downright wrong handicap system in the world.

The important thing is that the unjust, unsympathetic, illogical and downright wrong handicap system is applied equally and fairly to all horses no matter where they're based or who they're trained by, which I think is largely the case.

Reminds me slightly of the slippage days when every Jump horse was cranked up 10lb in the Summer, despite being out at grass, to account for the file slipping by 10lb as Mordaunt did his Winner up by 5lb, second up by 2lb, 3rd stays where it is, drop the rest routine during the season.

You STILL had trainers kicking off that 'my horse has gone up 10lbs for standing in a field"

I think they have an impossible job but I think can be too lenient on narrow winners of very hot races and too harsh on wide margin winners of uncompetitive affairs. But I thought he took The Twisler's R.Ascot run too literally so what do I know :p

Apparently Nebula Storm (previously 1 from 16 over hurdles) had been put up 5lb for finishing 4th in a claimer - absolutely bolted up off his revised mark today!

Though some may suggest the change of the stable and employment of the latest conditional sensation had as much to do with it!

The fact that the handicapper never drops a horse for winning a race shows how flawed his thinking is.

There are plenty of bad races where something has to win and they are duly greeted with the requisite hike by the handicapper when he should of course be doing no such thing. Trainers (Venetia Williams for one) are frightened to death of winning a jump race (when faced by invariably much poorer standard of opposition) in the summer at the risk of jeopardising any chance of winning a race in the winter.

I can still remember a nice middle distance horse of Mark Johnston´s I liked called William Blake, a horse who always tried his best and couldn´t run a bad race. In his first season as a 3-y-o in 2008 he made the mistake of winning his first three races, a Southwell maiden followed by two small handicaps at Lingfield and Beverley, but never won another race in the UK in 21 tries.

He was raised to 88 as a result of his first three wins and though he got dropped to 83 for three of his subsequent 21 runs the results were:  11,10,3,2, 5,6, 8, 4,9,4, 3,6,2, 4, 4, 11, 3, 3, 2, 6, 7 eventually ending his UK career off a mark of 88 - a mark it was clear he could not win off.

Now had he not been owned by Maktoum and trained by Johnston this is a horse who could only have won if the trainer had fiddled a few races to get his mark down - something I believe at least 50% of trainers would have done, and perhaps justifiably so because of the unfairness of the handicapping system.

George, the reason Nebula Storm went up 5 lb from 92 was because he was beaten only 2 lengths receiving 16 lb from a 119 horse and only 2 1/2 lengths receiving 12 lbs from a 118 horse, the rise being perfectly justified.

I didn't say it wasn't justified, jmdc, just in line with the theme of the thread I was merely giving an example of a horse that had gone UP in the weights for a defeat and had apparently proved the handicapper right.

I must admit I don't follow the jumps that closely, so presume from your post that those 2 horses rated 119 and 118 would be competitive off those marks in handicaps and were running in a claimer for other reasons?

The fact that the handicapper never drops a horse for winning a race shows how flawed his thinking is.

Totally agree, Faux-Heen, although I strongly suspect the handicappers would agree also. I don't know about you but I'd need balls of steel to leave one on its mark that had just won a handicap....if it went in again next time it would be a feeding frenzy, no?

I've owned one (Salute) that was dropped after winning - went down 2lbs after scrambling home in a claimer over a trip too short and on ground too fast for him in Sept 2007.

And the same horse was left on an unchanged mark after winning a class 3 handicap at Kempton in July 2008, which I assumed at the time was because he beat two horses that were running from out of the handicap. I certainly wasn't going to ask the handicappers why in case they changed their mind!