BROWN STUFF TO HIT THE FAN...JULY WEIGHTS

Why should the weights be different at 'final declaration' than at the time of 'weights published' - seems to me that a balls-up was made - question is will it be corrected, or will the attitude be to stick with the weights as published :S

The conditions read that "no penalties shall be incurred after the publication of the weights"

and it says "Weights Published: Tuesday, 10 June"

All that leaves is whats a "penalty"?

Can horses go down? What is the opposite of penalty, a boon? Does that penalize every one else?

Frodo Wrote:

---

> Why should the weights be different at 'final
> declaration' than at the time of 'weights
> published' - seems to me that a balls-up was made
> - question is will it be corrected, or will the
> attitude be to stick with the weights as published
> :S


I think I have to correct myself - should have checked before I opened my mouth .

From the conditions:

Weights shall be framed by the Handicapper in his sole discretion and without necessarily having regard for
horses’ merit ratings, but subject to the following:
1. The weights to be carried shall not exceed 60kg and shall not be less than 52kg.
2. Minimum weight for 4-year-olds and older: Colts and Geldings 53kg Fillies and Mares 52kg
Maximum weight for 4-year and older
at publication of weights: Colts and Geldings 60kg Fillies and Mares 59kg
3. Minimum weight for 3-year-olds: Colts and Geldings 53kg Fillies 52kg
Maximum weight for 3-year-olds
at publication of weights: Colts and Geldings 57kg Fillies and Mares 56kg
4. No penalties shall be incurred after the publication of weights.
5. Notwithstanding 2 and 3 above, the Handicapper will raise all weights proportionately to 60kg. should the top
weight originally allotted be less than 60kg at final declaration


Have to say point 5 confuses the hell out of me -

Yorker will not be declared a runner at FINAL DECLARATION - so the fact that he was withdrawn after the weights were published, is neither here nor there :S

ALSO

The ' top weight originally allotted' was not less than 60kg's - so are they referring to the 'originally allotted weights' or the weights as at 'final declaration'

My guess is that they will stand by the weights as published

There is no allowance for re
handicapping the race after the
weights have been published.

??????

so wheres the brown stuff?

What about a Grade 1 winner,don't they incur a 2kg penalty for winning a Grade 1 race.Looking at the Rakes Chestnut and Legislate scenario the weights make no sense with Legislate being a Grade 1 winner and Rakes is just 1 time winner and they have a difference of 1 point in there rating.Surely the Daily News run solely cannot justify the merit rating Rakes achieved because the race was full of incidents.According to the Legislate fans if Legislate did not hang and the fact that Fourie eased him near the line he would have won easily by 2l.So which is the line horse did the handicappers use to adjust the merit rating of the above horses.

Liquidity, we are back to the merit rating system and whether it works well.

This is how I see things recently yorkers mission was july so having run third in gold challenge merit rating was not dropped as expected by trainer/owner so now its overseas then rakes chestnut race with legislate, there is no objection as I believe they where trying to protect his merit rating as this is a runner if getting weight from legislate/louis the king, imagine the punter having to figure this out before the race, this is not a easy game

If we are to take the spoken word as gospel ,then there was an expectation of Yorkers rating being dropped(Withdrawn and quarantined due to rating not being reduced).............hard to imagine then that the run was not planned to achieve that!
The reason why ability ratings should not be reduced, willy nilly.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> If we are to take the spoken word as gospel ,then
> there was an expectation of Yorkers rating being
> dropped(Withdrawn and quarantined due to rating
> not being reduced).............hard to imagine
> then that the run was not planned to achieve
> that!
> The reason why ability ratings should not be
> reduced, willy nilly.


at last someone who has the balls to speak out against this and its not his job its the stipes who are sitting on their backsides doing absolutely nothing about it..Yorker won the harry oppenheimer at level weights over a mile and his rating stayed the same at a112 and so did ctnoirs...he then won over 2000m and his rating was increased to 118 so his BEST RATING HAS BEEN ACHIEVED OVER 2000M NOT 1600...he then ran over 1600m at wfa and beat ctn by 2 lengths this time and in my opinion was given a soft ride so why should the handicapers drop him plus the fact that trainer said he wasn't 100 percent and he is better over further these days...the whole situation stinks but puts into the spotlight where south African racing is these days regarding a few people having way to much power (td)

Pirates, I am not with you.... Who has way too much power in the Yorker case ?

>
>
> at last someone who has the balls to speak out
> against this and its not his job its the stipes
> who are sitting on their backsides doing
> absolutely nothing about it..Yorker won the harry
> oppenheimer at level weights over a mile and his
> rating stayed the same at a112 and so did
> ctnoirs...he then won over 2000m and his rating
> was increased to 118 so his BEST RATING HAS BEEN
> ACHIEVED OVER 2000M NOT 1600...he then ran over
> 1600m at wfa and beat ctn by 2 lengths this time
> and in my opinion was given a soft ride so why
> should the handicapers drop him plus the fact that
> trainer said he wasn't 100 percent and he is
> better over further these days...the whole
> situation stinks but puts into the spotlight where
> south African racing is these days regarding a few
> people having way to much power (td)


100%