I don't think there is as much fiddling in the handicaps as rudebwoy is saying. Yes it does go on from time to time, especially when there's mega money up for grabs, but it isn't as widespread as people think. If you actually look through the form of every race you can usually see a good enough reason for each winner winning. As I've always said, bet with what you know. You will only end up skint if your looking for coups as 95% of the time there aren't any to find. When I used to have the time to go through the form religiously, pretty much every horse I used to pick out in the morning would shorten up in the market quite abit. Most people who are to lazy to go through the form would put this down to some sort of coup being planned by connections of the horse. But I could always see the reason why the horse had shortened up as other people who have also taken the time to asses the form have picked out the horse aswell, and the money has come for it. So for me most big moves in the market, aren't necessarily down to any sort of coup being planned on the horse, they are just down to your every day punter picking the horse out and backing it
Horses love jumping though Smokey--hence after getting rid of a jockey they carry on jumping -I know they're herd animals but if they didn't like it they would pull up -so it could be argued it would be cruel to deny them fun!!! Like you Smokey -I tend to make my own selections -it's the only way really -but this forum is the best for intelligent treatment of racing -bar none -as you say, there is a wealth of knowledge and it's shared freely -long may it continue!
K S -I'm not saying that most handicaps are fiddled -but how else do you reduce a horse's mark to enable it to win again? They all can't keep improving for ever! Often the market is wrong-hence only one in three favs win on average -we all know there are plenty of false favs -and too much can be made of market movers -any way just back Flintham at Aintree to complete the family treble!
In handicaps, especially races full of exposed horses, there is generally very little between them all. So you would take into account things like ground, distance, course, draw, how many days rest the horse has had? does the horse run well off a long break? Etc etc. once these exposed horses get to a certain level, there handicap mark will yoyo up and down depending on all the variables being in the horses favour or against it. Obviously if everything is always in a horses favour eventually the handicapper will get the better of the horse, but this is very unlikely to happen, as everything can't always be in a horses favour. So when things aren't in the horses favour it's handicap mark will drop, and when they are it will rise. I find as a punter it is really all about going through the form and spotting when all the variables are in a horses favour and backing it. Like you say there are some trainers that fiddle, but there are plenty of honest trainers out there that still win plenty of big races. It is usually the lesser skilled trainers that need to resort to fiddling. Paul Nicholls is for me the best jumps trainer around, and he wins a lot of the big handicaps, and I've never known him to pull off any obvious coups. He even won the National with Neptune Collonge without any fiddling. Which is normally a race where fiddling goes on due to the obscene prize money involved
Those tight handicaps. ,where a horse having a crap removes six pound off its weight! Mark Johnson called for horses weight to be declared, so you would know if it was at at racing weight-not 40 kilos over!
Small things like that probably do make a difference I think it would be to much of an effort for them to weigh every horse. To slow a Greyhound up they used to fill it up with food and water beforehand
Johnson said it would be easy, just do it 48 hrs with final decs ,yards use this to determine it's fitness, like boxers......... A horses weight is surely crucial in handicap calculations -makes me laugh when people go on about a few extra pounds -the beast weighs half a ton -and fluctuates 50 kilos around its racing weight!
Another advantage the long distance traveller has is the amount of waste matter it excretes on the journey
Very true, this is why a lot of people just back the horse they believe has the most ability rather than the best handicapped. If you really have the best part of a few hours to go through a race, you can even take into account the weight carried, rather than just looking at a horses handicap mark. A horse running off 140 could carry 12 stone in a lower grade race, but then only carry 10 stone in a stronger race. He may be running off the same handicap mark but some horses are better suited to conceding weight to inferior horses than being at the bottom of the weights to superior ones, and vice versa. I'd imagine a larger naturally heavier horse may be better suited to coping with the heavier weight. Myself and Ron have had these conversations in the past, and it's fairly obvious that handicapping horses with a combination of ratings and weight is far from an accurate way of doing things. They'd be better off having staggered stalls like they do in Greyhound racing
Lots of variables at play -its not an exact science --what mood is the beast in? All part of the fun -still rate stable form as the strongest factor!-without it the best can't win -but with it the worst can!
I only normally take notice of stable form if it's really bad, which could indicate some sort of virus in the stable. I don't normally take to much notice if a yard is having winner after winner, as I see it as a minor variable, as each horse is an individual. Just because a stable mate has won, I don't see how it improves other horses from the yards chances that much. But each to their own
The only proviso I would have Shergs is that if a stable is in form and has a winner in a good race and a stable mate has been running it close in training and is running in a smaller race, it could be considered to be pounds in. Inside knowledge required I guess.
I agree Ron, but your average punter doesn't get that sort of information. And even if I did get that sort of info I'd only take it seriously if I witnessed it myself. So many trainers spout hot air about various horses running 9 second furlongs on the gallops
Funny how when some trainers outwit the handicapper they're tactical geniuses whereas others who do it are cheating gits. That is not aimed at anybody here but you hear it in pubs and bookies all the time and it's usually the same characters being discussed. Not mentioning names but I am sure you can guess!
A lot depends how they out whit the handicapper though Dan, if they are running the horse over the wrong trip to get its mark down then I have no issue with that, as it's their for all punters to see. It's when they are deliberately running an unfit horse, or a horse that isn't trying that I have a problem with. It's not as easy to get away with nowadays, as the stewards will want to know why a horse has suddenly improved 10 pounds
No trainer with any sense is going to expose a handicapper's potential before it's handicapped, or necessarily after if it's being aimed at a particular race.
Excellent and insightful comment. Spot on as well. As I’ve said before there have been 3 trainers in my lifetime who have been particularly adept at getting horses remarkably well handicapped. One is widely perceived to be a terrible old rogue but the other 2 are deemed pillars of the sport and widely respected! The end result though is the 3 of them all achieve the same thing!
I'll give a prime example Barney. A hugely successful Irish trainer sent a horse to the Imperial Cup and it ran like a hairy pig with rheumatism. 6 days later it wins the county Hurdle in one of the most impressive performance of the week. Nobody really batted an eyelid and everyone just got on with it. I have been hugely critical of Nicky Henderson on here but it has to be said that if he had trained that horse to the same results he would have been hammered. I can also think of another trainer on the same side of the Irish Sea as the one I've already alluded to who would have probably faced calls for a ban. Now it may well be that there was nothing wrong with what happened but there is no way others would have been given the benefit of the doubt so readily.
