Hidden Merit In Vogue

There is turbulence in the murky waters of our handicapping, most of which you would be unaware of unless you happen to be caught in the cross-currents.

An innocuous press release was issued by the NHRA which in 5 pitiful sentences it concluded that an appeal by FORT VOGUE against his new Merit Rating of (112) had been unanimously upheld in that the handicapping panel had chosen the completely wrong line horse.

It’s amazing how such big news and drama in our world can simply slip by, because this is a bit like the 20% gains of the best shares on the JSE suddenly being wiped off a week later.

Now I’m not going to debate the merits of the case, because we simply don’t have access to what they are. What we do know is that the handicapping panel had chosen FABIANI (who on the 5th Feb was MR (111)) as their line horse. This means that all the top finishers would have their ratings adjusted to the rating of FABIANI in relation to the weight they carried and their proximity to him at the finish line. So FABIANI’s run was chosen as the most honest reproduction of his previous form out of all of them.

This would all make sense if FABIANI was indeed rated (111), but the race card definitively has FABIANI a (108) out of the Queen’s Plate. Mike Bass must have taken one look at FORT VOGUE’s new rating and wondered just how beating the line horse (108) by 1 length at level weights gets him to (112).

Poor SMART BANKER (7th) and BIG CITY LIFE (9th) would also be running lifetime best ratings and each have to go up a point. Lets say no more here.

I can only assume that when FABIANI dead-heated BIG CITY LIFE (111) in the Queen’s Plate, and with his proximity to POCKET POWER and KAPIL at level weights, that the handicapping panel suspected that FABIANI might really be a (111). When FABIANI ran a (111) in The Met they were happy he had confirmed his rating and they cracked on in a righteous fever.

So here’s the rub then: if we can’t rely on the ratings we see when we enter into races, how are we supposed to know if our horses have been rated correctly. If FORT VOUGUE had not appealed his rating, of the 10 best horses in South Africa some would be penalized between 2kg and 6kg.

Plate rules force the handicappers to keep a double set of books. Hidden ratings leave trainers vulnerable as any horse who runs against a horse like FABIANI with a pencil rating waiting in the wings would be liable to trapped. How are trainers expected to know whether they should appeal a rating, when any horse around them could be carrying a loaded but unexposed ratings?

I would argue that no rating should be allowed to effect new ratings unless it was available at the time of acceptances, even if the that race is not a handicap as with The Met.