royal zulu warrior

RZW is an exceptional case - which means that those horses (and hence owners) who have to take him on are being murdered in a race they are supposed to have an equal chance of winning. Some owners and trainers still moan that their horse's MR is too high when the horse is standing in the winner's box after a handicap, so pardon me if I don't take their complaints seriously.

How many do you want?

Rules cannot address every specific instance that may happen, so they have to be built on a principle. In a game of rugby, it's more important that the ref blew the game fairly than who wins or loses in the end. If you lose but you were cheated, that can cause a riot because it's the principle of the matter.

Unfortunately, this rule is just a subsidy, or a hand-out. It's unfair in principle. If Ant can't see that, then further debate pointless. Once again, it has nothing to do specifically with RZW except that it illustrates the flaw.

Antsinner does raise an interesting point and that is,that if this rule is that concerning,why are there not dozens of horses at any time 'cheating' and stealing races,utilising this very loophole?
There must have been some logic for even proposing this situation,never mind implementing it.
Rules,of any nature, tend to cater for general situations and that inevitably leads to exceptions....is this not an exception,no matter how how arse-burning, rather than a danger to the whole system?


(My particular arse-burn is the allowance for rested horses.I thought it was an ability rating,rather than a fitness one!)

Thinking more about this situation,there are obviously other cases of "conditions" or rules gifting races to horses (Pocket power ,Hear the Drums etc etc)
The common denominator is "above average ability"!!!!!!
RZW is probably not the only horse to have been subject to the rule that is causing such concern,but the others have caused no fuss or even comment.....so whats the difference? any chance it could be that he has "above average ability"(It surely follows that he wouldn't be underrated if he didn't have at least above average ability)
Should we not be careful not to change a rule just to ensure an above average horse doesn't take advantage of his ability,and stay ahead of the game?
Another example of the exception is Oceans Away who won a race off 72 on the 22/09/09(got 10 points for that) and won 7 more hdcp races in his next 10 starts before reaching a rating of 105.......that is very unusual but a case of a horse finding that extra ability which keeps him ahead of the handicapper.No reason to change the rules or fire the handicapper.....salute the horse?

Pinnacle plates or whatever races were "gifted" to Pocket Power and Hear The Drums have nothing to do with a debate about handicapping. Plated races are fundamentally designed to favour some horses over others, handicaps are supposed to be the exact opposite. Yet, to all intents and purposes, the barrage of rules and regulations which have crept into our MR system have managed to turn at least some handicaps into non-handicaps. RZW is an extreme case, as I keep saying, but he highlights where these MR limits etc. can take us.

I know what you guys are saying and don't disagree Magic,but they not likely to perfect the system and if the odd" very good horse" falls through the cracks,I can live with that .
Better than reducing maiden races to handicaps!

I agree that you can't cover all the bases satisfactorily and that a RZW scenario only comes along once in a while, but there are other caps and rules that apply to the system that are helping to destroy the very principle which it is supposed to stand for.

Oh well, never mind. Those who like betting on 1/5 shots can have their fun once in a while.

Campo de santana won by 12 lenghts today .

By rights the handicapper must penalize him at least 25 points but he could even give him a larger penalty.

If it where not for the "capping" rule , could anybody see this horse being competitive at a rating of minimum 90 i for one could not .

Thanks to the cap rule the connections dont have to hopelesly race this horse for another two years before he becomes competitive again .

I think the handicappers have the sense to take conditions into account, which in the case of Campo's race were so bad that they cancelled the rest of the card.

However, you again miss the point: if Campo does indeed deserve (.i.e.earned) a 25 pound penalty, as you put it, then the connections of those horses who race against him in a handicap next time are farked. With all due respect, you don't seem to grasp that this wonderful protection that you are so in favour of always comes at the expense of someone else.

Magic yes you are right the handicappers would consider the conditions and act accordingly , i narrowmindedly overlooked that . Yes Campo could have the edge in a handicap next time out . If indeed he does then its an extra paycheque for an owner/'s thats been patient with a horse that they've kept in training for three years for a return of R100k odd in stakes incuding todays win . Shyte they deserve a medal for keeping a horse in taining at a rate say of + R3000 a month .

Today Campo may have benifited tomorrow it will be horse X and so on and so on most of the horse population can benifit .

Imo Magic as iv'e said before , these rules apply to all horses . I've seen a number of horses get penalized for one off performances which just make it difficult for them to compete in their careers .

I cannot oppose your arguments on true hadicapping , i just feel there is a place for these exceptions here.

I agree that there are many instances where the handicappers could be quicker to drop horses' ratings, but that is a different debate. If it is the same debate, then we are saying that the handicapping system needs protection from the very people who apply it, which would be a sad (and frankly ludicrous) state of affairs.

I'm not exactly sure why you feel that connections of a horse who suddenly runs out of his skin on a soggy track deserve a medal for perseverance, but good luck to them anyway. At least, thanks to the dual ratings system (something I approve of 100%). Campo's sand MR cannot be touched no matter how big a jump his grass rating got even if there was no cap, and as up to today he has done best at Flamingo they would still have a career for their boy even if he could get a 25 pound penalty. But he can't - so let's see what happens when he runs again in a turf handicap, preferably not on a rotten day like today.

Yes i am looking at the whole picture . I mentioned earlier on this thread that If the handicappers could drop ratings a little more rapidly then we don't need these additional rules .
I have read that generaly most horses race at their peak as 4 yos and iv'e seen too many miss this year of racing because the handicapper stubornly insists on keeping these animals at ridiculously uncompetitive high handicap marks .

Howmany "upset" results have been mentioned on this forum and others of plate races , where in theory certain horses are at an advantage to othres ?

Back to real bussines now Magic , what is the weather like for clairwood tomorrow ?

I would ask East but he is mia!