JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, August 10, 2025

New rating system–miracle cure?

by

20101201

It is said that in the quest for the Holy Grail, the hero must prove him­self wor­thy to be in its pres­ence.As a re­sult, though many have tried, none have been suc­cess­ful. In horse rac­ing in T&T, we have what could be likened to our Holy Grail. It is called the pro­posed rat­ing sys­tem. The in­tro­duc­tion of this new rat­ing-based-hand­i­cap­ping sys­tem has been de­signed to pro­duce com­pet­i­tive rac­ing and there­by reignite flail­ing in­ter­est in the in­dus­try, which is at its low­est ever. The guide­lines to this sys­tem were re­cent­ly pub­lished by the Ari­ma Race Club (ARC) and we will ex­am­ine these guide­lines and as­sess the abil­i­ty of the new sys­tem to achieve its ob­jec­tives, de­spite the ob­vi­ous op­po­si­tion from with­in the ARC.

As with the in­tro­duc­tion of any new sys­tem, we have to be­gin by ask­ing the ques­tion as to whether the prob­lem has been ad­e­quate­ly di­ag­nosed. In the ear­ly 1990s, the claim­ing sys­tem was in­tro­duced to pro­duce com­pet­i­tive rac­ing. It was felt that the old class-based-hand­i­cap­ping sys­tem was sub­ject to ma­nip­u­la­tion by own­ers/train­ers who would race their hors­es in a man­ner which re­sult­ed in their de­mo­tion so as to se­cure low­er weights and sub­se­quent­ly land a gam­ble (win a race at a large price like 16-1 or 25-1 and walk away with thou­sands of dol­lars). It was felt that by al­low­ing the own­ers/train­ers to hand­i­cap their own hors­es, more com­pet­i­tive rac­ing would re­sult (com­pet­i­tive be­ing de­fined as hors­es rac­ing each oth­er on their re­spec­tive mer­it). The re­luc­tance of some con­nec­tions to race their hors­es for a Claim re­sult­ed in the dual sys­tem of op­tion­al claim­ing races be­ing de­signed-these races had stan­dard en­try cri­te­ria. Along­side the claim­ing and op­tion­al claim­ing races, there were re­strict­ed hand­i­cap, starter al­lowance, al­lowance, stakes and hand­i­caps.

The lat­ter in­volved sub­jec­tive as­sess­ments of hors­es-al­though the en­try con­di­tions for the var­i­ous hand­i­caps tend­ed to mir­ror op­tion­al claim­ing races to which they could be di­rect­ly cor­re­lat­ed. The re­al­i­ty is that the qual­i­ty of the races was and is poor. The claim­ing sys­tem did not work be­cause there were very few own­ers par­tic­i­pat­ing in the claim­ing game es­pe­cial­ly with the in­crease in claim­ing costs charged by the Ari­ma Race Club and so an own­er could safe­ly "take the chance" of rac­ing their horse for a claim at a lev­el well be­low its ca­pa­bil­i­ties (as is hap­pen­ing cur­rent­ly). The con­di­tions for the op­tion­al claim­ing and starter al­lowance and hand­i­caps were con­fus­ing and did not noth­ing to pre­vent the abus­es that were present in the old sys­tem. There can be lit­tle ar­gu­ment that the cur­rent sys­tem is not work­ing and in its present form will nev­er work to de­vel­op and save horserac­ing. Where the dis­putes be­gin, is whether the new sys­tem rep­re­sents the Holy Grail.

The guide­line be­gins by iden­ti­fy­ing the var­i­ous coun­tries in which the sys­tem is used-most no­tably the Unit­ed King­dom, many of its ex-colonies, and Eu­ro­pean coun­tries such as France and Ger­many.

One thing all of these coun­tries have in com­mon is their rac­ing sur­face-turf. In con­trast, the US, a coun­try whose rac­ing is based on dirt/ar­ti­fi­cial sur­faces, us­es the sys­tem now be­ing cast aside by the lo­cal au­thor­i­ties. The ob­vi­ous ques­tion there­fore is whether there is po­ten­tial­ly a sur­face bias to the re­li­a­bil­i­ty of this sys­tem? On the sur­face, no pun in­tend­ed, there is no ob­vi­ous rea­son why there should be any im­pli­ca­tions but, as in life, it of­ten pays to dig a lit­tle deep­er. Rac­ing on dirt is much more de­mand­ing than turf where the race ac­tu­al­ly un­folds to­wards the end. On dirt, the ac­tion tends to be more con­sis­tent through­out. As a con­se­quence, dis­tances be­tween fin­ish­ers on the dirt tend to be more ex­ag­ger­at­ed than dis­tances be­tween fin­ish­ers on the turf. If you are, there­fore, go­ing to use mar­gins be­tween fin­ish­ers as a ba­sis for re­vis­ing rat­ings, you could end up over-stat­ing the dif­fer­en­tial on dirt vs turf.

The guide­lines state that a num­ber of fac­tors will be used to re-as­sess an an­i­mal "in­clud­ing but not lim­it­ed to, pre­vi­ous form, ease of the win, strength of the field, go­ing con­di­tions, the win­ning mar­gin and the sur­face."This reads like some­thing tak­en out of the UK hand­i­cap­ping book be­cause go­ing con­di­tions re­al­ly on­ly af­fect turf. The chal­lenge is that the guide­line does not state ex­act­ly how these fac­tors will be in­ter­pret­ed which ob­vi­ous­ly means that there will re­main a sig­nif­i­cant el­e­ment of sub­jec­tiv­i­ty on the part of the "hand­i­cap­pers" in de­cid­ing how to re­vise a horse's rat­ing. Not that it would ever be ad­vis­able to be too pre­cise be­cause the more pre­ci­sion you pro­vide, the greater the risk of ma­nip­u­la­tion. The guide­line iden­ti­fies min­i­mum and max­i­mum amounts for changes (up or down) in the rat­ing of most hors­es (ex­cept for the win­ners of the high­est rat­ed hand­i­caps). While this is good in the­o­ry, one of our chal­lenges is that sev­er­al hors­es will be rac­ing "out of the hand­i­cap" be­cause most of our jock­eys are un­able to catch light weights.

The guide­line states that the over­weight will be fac­tored in­to the re­vised rat­ing of the horse. In fact, "the rat­ing as­sess­ment if over­weight is car­ried is in ad­di­tion to the max­i­mum and min­i­mum in­creas­es in rat­ing points." This could be a recipe for con­fu­sion when the hand­i­cap­pers have to de­cide on rat­ing re­vi­sions and would prob­a­bly mean a whole new crop of math­e­mat­i­cal mind­ed hand­i­cap­pers with an­a­lyt­i­cal ca­pa­bil­i­ty. In all of this, let us care­ful­ly un­der­stand that we have one of the hand­i­cap­pers al­so em­ployed as rac­ing sec­re­tary and there­fore in­volved in the fram­ing of rac­ing, and if this is al­lowed to con­tin­ue, there is a def­i­nite con­flict of in­ter­est. But alas, con­flict of in­ter­est is the or­der of the day in the ARC, be­cause as it stands, one of the lead­ing train­ers in the coun­try John O'Brien who is a mem­ber of the ARC man­age­ment team is re­port­ed­ly against the rat­ings sys­tem, if in­deed this re­port is ac­cu­rate, then clear­ly, there are di­vi­sions in the ARC, and the rat­ings sys­tem will not re­ceive a fair tri­al.

If O'Brien has been wrong­ful­ly ac­cused, he must clear the air.

An­oth­er con­cern has to be the role of the Irish con­sul­tant in all of this and how much will he cost? Im­por­tant ques­tions that have to be ad­dressed as well along­side the fact that he will have to based his opin­ions in a lot of cas­es on what oth­ers tell him, hav­ing not been able to wit­ness the events in T&T. Of course a pro ac­tive ARC can en­sure via com­put­er tech­nol­o­gy that the dai­ly Sat­ur­day rac­ing is sent to him elec­tron­i­cal­ly by Sun­day.

Again, this would pre sup­pose that the ARC is ful­ly sup­port­ing this ini­tia­tive. The more any­one reads of this new sys­tem, the more is seems anal­o­gous to the old grad­ing sys­tem that was re­placed in the 1990s. A to G class­es have been re­placed by Class­es 1 to 6. Own­ers have the op­tion of run­ning their hors­es for a claim in a hand­i­cap but that is un­like­ly to be ap­peal­ing to any ex­cept the own­ers of an­i­mals with is­sues hop­ing to un­load the horse on some­one less in the know. The nu­ances of the fac­tors to be used to re­vise rat­ings will re­sult in some mys­ter­ies when the hand­i­cap­pers put out their new rat­ings on a week­ly ba­sis-no dif­fer­ent to the mys­ter­ies that sur­round­ed move­ments with­in the A to G class­es. The suc­cess or fail­ure of this re­vised sys­tem will boil down to the hu­man fac­tor-the skill, judge­ment and in­tegri­ty of the hand­i­cap­pers and the in­ten­tions of the ad­min­is­tra­tors/own­ers/train­ers. Some­how, I don't think we have any he­roes among this horserac­ing lot.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored