G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 27 Non Members

Inconsistencies With Ratings Again!

West Australian Racing
LooksLikeTroubleLooksLikeTrouble    88 posts
edited January 2014 West Australian Racing

We purchased a horse in August that had had 5 starts and was rated a 60.  He hadn't raced for 10 months, took 3 months to get ready and the day I nominated him to race he had been dropped 2 ratings to a 58.  I called the handicapper to query why he had dropped when nominated after 13 months and was told "a horse can be dropped any time".  His last race before a spell he was unplaced at Collie after winning previously at Moora.  Apparently horses are not dropped in rating the start after a win but this horse was.  The day he won at Moora two other winners from that day were unplaced at their next starts and their ratings stayed the same, yet our newly purchased horse dropped 2 ratings, 13 months later.  That's consistent!   At the time I was talking to the handicapper about Collie track I was amazed when he said "to tell you the truth I didn't know that Collie was a dirt track".   Are you kidding me?  That's his job!!  The horse has finished within 5 lengths of the winner at Bunbury in two of the five starts he has had for us, one of those after sitting 3 deep for 1700m and has dropped 8 ratings since I brought him.  We have a first time owner in this horse who is totally confused about how he can drop 2 rating points before we raced and is now struggling to get a start.  Now that he is a 52 rated horse he has been balloted at Geraldton, Pinjarra and Mt Barker the last three times he has been nominated.  Those 2 points would come in handy in gaining a start.  I called DH and asked the reasoning for dropping this horse 2 ratings each time he had started for me only to be told that he "didn't think the horse was much good and wouldn't win a race, and if it were up to him he would be rated lower".  (Nice!)  I asked about the other horses that had raced in the same races as this horse and finished behind him and never dropped any ratings (but mine did)  and he said "I don't know those horses".  I then asked about my other horse who dropped a rating when he started first up over 1000m midweek in town which apparently doesn't happen and was told "why would you complain about going from a 59 to a 58". I only asked why as that 1 point could be the difference in getting a start or not.  He then said "I'm too busy for this" to which I replied "Yeh, your too busy to do the job that you are very well paid for. Goodbye" and hung up the phone.  Lovely bloke (Not)!! 



  • TheFunksterTheFunkster    3,840 posts
    All you need to know is that there are 2 words in the handicapping policy that take precedence everything else; "handicappers discretion". The rest is worthless since it is not applied uniformly.
  • BrubakerBrubaker    219 posts
    Its time someone with authority pulled David Hunter and his underlings into line. They are handicapping (sorry rating) every horse in this state as if they know how each horse raced at every start and they do not. A couple of years ago when we queried why our unplaced horse was not dropping in the the ratings we were told "we think he will win soon", which he didn't. Time to revert to the original intention of the rating system. A set system of X amount of points for finishing in a certain place in a race, with MINOR allowance for discretion from the handicapper. Anyone got the balls to right a major wrong in WA racing. We are the laughing stock of the country!

    TheFunkster likes this post.

  • careycarey    6,247 posts
    it won't happen brubaker, because who is there to performance rate him where it matters(rwwa)???
    there is nobody, so he will continue to ruin your races for as long as he desires i guess.

    rightly or wrongly i have long held the opinion that rwwa is more interested in self serving, than serving the industry, and is a boy's club that once you are in, you are there forever.
    just my opinion mind you, but if i were a betting man then......

    the templates are worse than they have ever been.
    they are harder to understand than before, when there was not even a template for public perusal, because his template does not provide for the openness that it was supposed to.
    for instance where is the rationalising of the metro country centric nonsense?
    there is none that i can find and i have looked and looked and looked.

    TheFunkster likes this post.

  • trojanhorsetrojanhorse    345 posts
    Looks like trouble - I think you missed that your horse was rated C60 after Collie bad run - then was rated M58 when you started at Northam and then poor poor performances mean its rating has to be dropped - now m52 /c52  -  maybe the handicapper is correct in what he says .

  • careycarey    6,247 posts
    trojan can't you see that m52/c52 is ridiculous?
    the horse is racing in stronger provincial "a" class, and yet its country rating is dropping the same as the metro one is.
    metro and country are completely different as far as class go.
    so having the same rating is not the problem, over classing country racing is the problem.
    the race it won at collie was probably 5 lengths or more weaker than the ratings say it was.
    absolute nonsense, is what it is, and it's completely unjustifiable.
    it's a perfect example of why handicapping in wa is a shambles.

    TheFunkster likes this post.

  • I never got an answer as to why this horse dropped 2 ratings after his win at Moora which apparently doesn't happen the start after a win, and why my other horse dropped a rating first up when they don't apparently drop ratings first up. Just to have these questions answered was all I was after. Does that mean if I nominate for the country I jump to a 54? 
  • BrubakerBrubaker    219 posts
    While we are on the issue of ratings another issue arises. Jockeys not riding out their mounts to the line. I don't mean flogging a dead horse so to speak but this dropping the hands and easing just before the post (and in some cases a lot earlier) is costing owners money (they pay down to 6th now) and the horse rating points. If the handicapper sees 10th instead of 5th even though it might only be a length difference, I'm sure the horse will get an extra point knocked off. Have a look through the photo finishes and see how many hoops have both their hands on the reins on the line, even when there are 3 or 4 crossing together. They don't seem to care that there is stake money down to 5th or 6th. My horse was going to run 5th at Bunbury the other day and run 7th. There was less than 1/2 length between 5th and 8th and jockeys are easing. To emphasise my point on Perth day I was checking the photo finishes and I got a surprise. There was a jock with the whip still in the forehand position when 1/2 length from the winner. I checked to see who it was..... oh! D Oliver, that explained it. Same race B Parnham has put the whip away finishing 4th, half head from 3rd.~X(
  • trojanhorsetrojanhorse    345 posts
    ...but this is what i was trying to tell Looks like trouble -
    at Moora  his horse was rated at 53 and won and goes to 60 - runs off c60 at collie  and runs bad race then next time is at Northam where it is rated m58 - this seems ok - why make complaint when it is dropped  2 pounds ?
  • The handicapper has told me that horses do NOT drop ratings at their next start after winning. This happened 13 months after the horse had last raced and spelled and was purchased by me. We purchased him as a 60 rated horse 10 months after his Collie start. Why did it take so long to drop this horses rating when they are normally done within a couple of days of racing and not 13 months later. It's not right when you purchase a horse with a certain rating and it's dropped 2 ratings the day you nominate 13 months later. Those 2 points would help in gaining a start at the moment.

  • careycarey    6,247 posts
    edited January 2014

    you are only right if the rating was 58 AFTER the moora race, and BEFORE it is entered again.
    if that was the case and i don't know if it was or not, then it's right but only right in the way they now operate, which is wrong.
    hope you understood that trojan! :))

    but if it was 60 and then when entered for the prov "a" race its rating was dropped, then it's wrong.

    but the main thing wrong is that a 52-64(for example) at prov "a" venues is stronger than those at prov "b" venues, so that ratings earned at those place and weaker are nonsensical in the main, and those races should be run at a lower base than those at prov "a" venues.

    in other words the moora rating should never have been 60 to begin with..
Sign In or Register to comment.