NHA:Goosen Guilty

louisg Wrote:

---

> One thing about you Jack, is your consistency ....
> you will NEVER let the truth spoil a good
> story......

I can't ALWAYS be their fault.....

Actually LG, don't take this too personally. I think we can all hear the frustration you having. It is just unfair to hammer at the handicappers in such a personal way, you know after your call the next trainer is calling them with the exact opposite of what you just said to them. Its a thankless position where nearly everyone is unhappy almost all of the time. Only the winners are happy, and then only for an instant.

JD if it is a thankless job then why do they do it? Can they not get other jobs?

oscar Wrote:

---

> JD if it is a thankless job then why do they do
> it? Can they not get other jobs?

I meant everyone wants a handicap rating which makes it look like their horse can win it's next start. Clearly only one horse can win a race. Most of the time everyone would like there horse to carry a bit less. They will NEVER be a queue to say thank you to a handicapper.

People, like L.G., should appreciate that when he gets his way, that everyone ELSE has to be unhappy. Given that the handicappers job is to make everyone happy, and thats never going to happen, they have to come to terms that the next best things is if EVERYONE is unhappy.

So it is a tough job. My opinion is that all dealings between the Handicapper and the Players should be on a formal basis. They can't be friends, they shouldn't entertain vip trainers or owners, or bullies or loudmouths or whingers. It should be like a referee on a pitch, and they should be given the benefit of the doubt most of the time to preserve the integrity. Every change that benefits one will disadvantage many, obviously.

One thing should be obvious, that if a judge or a referee is questioned at every turn then they cannot function properly. It is imperative that the players either respect the ref or the game becomes unmanageable. We know its a hard job to make sense of horses and its impossible to get everything right. But if handicaps are competitive, if there are long priced favorites and if fields finish close together and horses don't win many races in succession, the chances are the handicappers are getting it more right than wrong.

Jack Dash I like your post ... What you sat is true

Just train the horse to beat the handicapper

JD thanks I agree para 3 and 4 yes however I think LG is more often correct than not.

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> oscar Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > JD if it is a thankless job then why do they do
> > it? Can they not get other jobs?
>
> I meant everyone wants a handicap rating which
> makes it look like their horse can win it's next
> start. Clearly only one horse can win a race.
> Most of the time everyone would like there horse
> to carry a bit less. They will NEVER be a queue
> to say thank you to a handicapper.
>
> People, like L.G., should appreciate that when he
> gets his way, that everyone ELSE has to be
> unhappy. Given that the handicappers job is to
> make everyone happy, and thats never going to
> happen, they have to come to terms that the next
> best things is if EVERYONE is unhappy.
>
> So it is a tough job. My opinion is that all
> dealings between the Handicapper and the Players
> should be on a formal basis. They can't be
> friends, they shouldn't entertain vip trainers or
> owners, or bullies or loudmouths or whingers. It
> should be like a referee on a pitch, and they
> should be given the benefit of the doubt most of
> the time to preserve the integrity. Every change
> that benefits one will disadvantage many,
> obviously.
>
> One thing should be obvious, that if a judge or a
> referee is questioned at every turn then they
> cannot function properly. It is imperative that
> the players either respect the ref or the game
> becomes unmanageable. We know its a hard job to
> make sense of horses and its impossible to get
> everything right. But if handicaps are
> competitive, if there are long priced favorites
> and if fields finish close together and horses
> don't win many races in succession, the chances
> are the handicappers are getting it more right
> than wrong.

My only question is who controls the ref when mistakes are made...

I will say it again.............................bring back the race figure system please!!!

Jack, you are twisting the whole issue. I have debated and written my views on the whole application of the handicapping system over and over again on ABC.
PLEASE, read my posts again. Please read my last post on the handicapping debate thread, the sticky at the ttop of the forum list. THEN tell me that I am fighting the poor hapless handicappers who can't please everyone, blah blah bleeding heart.
I am really going to battle to take you seriously when you ignore the very crux of my argument. Over and over I refer to the application of the handicapping system, to the principles. This is NOT me calling for better ratings just for MY horses.

Yes, I do use my horses as examples, which is only fair, as I train them and l review their ratings and those around them regularly. But you ignore other Trainers horses which I mention. The bottom line is that in your single minded defence of the handicappers, you have missed the vital points.

Now, I would like to list the facts in terms of the difference between myself and the handicappers -
1)My salary is not guaranteed , I have to earn it. In order to do that, I must retain my existing Owners and also work hard to find new Owners, which is my responsibility as a trainer.
2)The only way that I can achieve the above, is by producing results, earning stakes.
3)I do not get paid for attending and participating on various committees. Quite a few hundred hours of service, in fact, including the handicapping Forum, in which we agreed to relax certain restrictions on the handicappers about 2 years ago. I did this because of my love for Racing and the majestic beauty of the thoroughbred in full stretch. I did not do "a job" and get paid at month end.

Moving on, I understand punters a bit more than you may think. One thing that I do know is that when racing becomes a lottery, punters will move on to easier forms of betting. Whilst all punters look for the roughie, they also rely on the consistent ones, the good ones, the honest horses worth following. It's about a balance. And when the good things are far and few between, turnover will decrease, as it has been doing.
I dont know your racing background, but if you love the current system, then maybe you are a bookie ?
Anyway, please get the facts right. Go and read what I believe to be the problem, before you insist that I am worried only about my own horses at the expense of others.

Or else, simply continue by not letting the facts and the truth spoil your story.

Good points by both JD and LG; I am with JD in the sense that 'the handicapper' has a thankless job in having to 'follow the rules' when some of the rules are clearly not right - but I am also with LG in the sense that he is trying to point out which of these rules (in his opinion) need changing.

I think it is human nature to always 'attack' those things that affect us personally - for me I feel that my horse is going to race next week against two runners rated between 15 and 18 points too low, as a result of the '8 point capping rule'. Of course it also affects every other horse in the race - to me this is grossly unfair is one 'rule' that definitely needs changing.

oscar Wrote:

---

> Louis I cannot believe this at all..its ridiculous
> and absurd..how many other industries in the world
> control what people say..is it constitutional?


And Reid has horses with Louis.... Negev being one.... So is this perhaps a case of continued harrasment? Punishment by association?