A handicap or a benefit? Is the European handicapping system fit for purpose?
/
By Lissa Oliver
Contrary to the populist view that horseracing is elitist, it is actually one of the few sports built upon equality. Fillies can race against colts, women can compete against men. We even have a handicap system designed to ensure a level playing field for all, providing an equal chance for the horse of little ability competing against the horse of greater ability. All is fair in love, war and on the racecourse.
Except… When did you last see a 10-way dead-heat? Even outside of the handicap system, in the truly level competition of a Gp1, the weak receive an allowance against the strong. The elders are penalised to assist their youngers. The fillies are compensated against the colts. Inexperienced jockeys receive allowances based upon, not exactly experience, but wins. In some jurisdictions, women riders receive weight allowances, too.
It might be equal, although results usually prove otherwise; but is it fair? Racing is the only sport in which winners are penalised and losers are rewarded. Is it any wonder another populist view of racing is one of deceit and cheating?
“Are the jockey clubs looking for equality or equity?” asks renowned handicap expert Mark Cramer. “There's a difference. I think it's a noble effort to have some sort of handicap system, but I'm not sure how equitable it is.”
Cramer is the author of “Thoroughbred Cycles – How The Form Factor Affects Handicapping,” which is considered the definitive work on the subject of thoroughbred form in the USA. “The system makes it that races labelled as handicaps are the hardest to decipher for the studious horseplayer. Furthermore, the whole weight factor may be overrated. A horse carrying two pounds extra is like me running with an envelope in my back pocket,” he points out. “The handicap system favours one type of horse, for example in the Arc, it's the three-year-olds who get a weight edge. I think the harness race industry does a better job with handicaps, simply making a high earner who's above the earnings limit start the race 25 metres behind the field.”
An earnings-based system rather than one based simply on wins alone is a suggestion put forward by more than one industry expert, but the current system of handicapping has been in place for 170 years, introduced by Admiral Rous in 1851. Rous was appointed the first official handicapper in Britain in 1855 and devised the Weight-For-Age scale, which in theory should afford horses of different ages an equal chance of winning.
Tellingly, it says a lot about our sport that he is still remembered anecdotally for the remark, “I have just gone through the next race and have discovered that I have handicapped each horse so well that not one of them can possibly win.”
We could argue that if it isn’t broken, why fix it? Certainly, many trainers have no issue with the system, other than its interpretation by the various official handicappers in relation to their own horse.
“There has to be a process in place, and if we didn’t have handicaps, a lot of horses couldn’t compete and would fall out of training,” says Michael Grassick, CEO Irish Racehorse Trainers Association (IRTA). “I personally believe that handicaps serve a purpose. Many do feel that in Ireland the handicapper is too severe. After a period of time horses will run to a certain rating and when they go above that rating, they will no longer be as competitive until returning to that rating. The Irish handicapper is felt to be very slow in moving a horse who has gone up through the handicap back down the ratings; we feel that in the UK horses are lowered a bit quicker. While in the lower grades of 45-60, the horses seem to drop quite quickly and drop through the floor and out of the system.
“I always feel the system is unfair on a horse who has run and placed,” Grassick observes. “The horse goes up two pounds, runs again and gets placed second again and goes up another two pounds. That horse will find it extremely hard to win and is not being rewarded for consistency. Personally, I don’t think a horse should be put up in the handicap until it has won.”
Grassick makes a valid point, underlined by the research and figures gathered by owner John Dance, an investment manager and CEO of stockbroker company Vertem, based on every Flat horse in Britain with an official rating. In March 2019, Dance tweeted his findings that 2.6% of Flat horses were Class 1; 5% were Class 2; 9.5% were Class 3; 16.6% were Class 4; 20.7% were Class 5; and 45.6% were Class 6 or lower. 83% of Flat horses, he noted, were Class 4 or lower.
Recently retired trainer Milton Bradley.
Recently, trainer Milton Bradley retired after a career of more than 50 years. He cited the growing lack of opportunities for the lower-rated horse in his decision to finally retire, saying, “The current state of the sport is making me feel despondent when it comes to horses being allowed to race and the cost of participating in the sport. Handicappers haven't been giving opportunities to lower-rated horses in weeks. It's frustrating to see people buying horses for over £100,000 only to compete for £2,000 prizes because that's all they qualify for. It's a sad day. I didn’t want to give up, but there’s no future in racing the way it is.”
Even if we agree with the system in place, the given ratings—based on the personal opinion of the handicapper—are often going to be contentious. Retired UK trainer Bill O’Gorman explains, “Handicaps are a reasonable way of ensuring competition between ordinary horses, much as in golf. As in golf, there needs to be a degree of trust. The most obvious solution is to award a rating only upon quantifiable form rather than upon the lack of it.
“The system that we had for nurseries should be revived for all handicaps; only those with a first four placing should be eligible. To get away from the prevailing culture of ‘defensive’ non-triers, I have suggested that maiden races ought to be streamed by valuation. Provincial maidens ought to be restricted to horses bought below the yearling median, to horses of any yearling price or to homebreds of any pedigree entered to be claimed for that amount. With that done, horses that are incapable of placing in a restricted maiden should not have a lucrative career in handicaps gifted to them.”
Like many, O’Gorman believes there are too many handicaps, and they should revert to 45% of all UK races from the present high of 65%. “They ought to be partly replaced with condition races, like the time-limited maiden-at-closing of old. Optional claiming races ought to be introduced so that horses whose connections feel them to be badly handicapped can face an easier task and be instantly re-assessed on one run, as long as they risk being claimed for the deemed value of horses eligible under the race conditions.
“For example, running in a race of level weights for horses rated 75 or less, or of any rating entered to be claimed for the last horses-in-training sales average for a 75-rated horse, would get a 90 horse dropped to 75—unless he won easily, in which case he’d be claimed anyway! If expensive horses were ineligible for every maiden, there would be less runners trying not to finish close up.”
O’Gorman also believes giving potentially top class horses the option of going into the handicap system as All-Weather winners is ludicrous. “The heritage handicaps have too much money and take horses away from the Pattern. If heritage handicaps were restricted to horses that have, say, run six times at entry they would not be such an attractive easy benefit for big stables,” he argues. “Tightening up the system would be universally unpopular in the same way that the 11-plus exam or reducing social security would be. Everyone likes a bad system as long as they can milk it; and it only creates underachievers—equine and human.”
Whether for or against the existing handicap system, there is a prevailing preference among industry professionals for alternative options, including those suggested by Cramer and O’Gorman. Paddock judge and racing historian Peter Corbett is unequivocal on the subject: “The handicapping system operating in Great Britain is not fit for purpose.”
He muses, “It seems incredible that nearly 200 years later racing in Britain still uses this method. One myth is that it is designed to give each horse in the race an equal chance. This is self-evidently not the case. The idea that any individual, or collections of individuals, however learned in the art of handicapping horses, can do so and equal the chances of all the runners in a race is ridiculous.
“Another rather silly expression when at the finish of a handicap, half a dozen runners are close together is to say ‘that was a triumph for the handicapper’. Rubbish! That was simply happenstance; if the race were to be run a couple of weeks later under the same conditions, the result would probably be completely different. Some trainers and owners are certain that the system is designed to prevent progressive horses from winning.
“Some horses can become almost valueless because they are euphemistically described as ‘in the grip of the handicapper’. I have never read or heard anyone prominent in racing describe this situation as ridiculous, which it surely is.”
A horse badly handicapped after its first couple of runs and allotted too high a mark can indeed have its chances of winning a handicap for the foreseeable future severely compromised. Corbett reminds us, “On the Flat, horses that are good enough to compete in Pattern races may never run in a handicap, and any handicap mark is likely to be irrelevant. However, for those horses that are below this level, the mark it is allotted will dictate its future career. …
