HANDICAPPING TROTTERS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 324, 9 April 1928, Page 7

HANDICAPPING TROTTERS

let } er 0,1 the subject of ' l <f ndica PP™a of trotters has been reIrTpfJ' ‘Abaydos.” It is published with JT>. Geo. Pauls reply.

As numerous criticisms have appeared in the Press during the current season (as in the past) there appears an instance at the recent Thames meeting that entitles horse owners and the public generally to an explanation, for as one intimately connected with the sport for over 20 years, I have no record of a similar case. Bingen Star was handicapped on 4.40 in the Cup and 4.51 in the trotters’ race and accepted in both races.

This horse was a pacer up till the Thames meeting last year, when he was handicapped on 4.39, but after that meeting he was converted to the trotting gait. Now by what system of reasoning does a handicapper estimate that this (or any other horse) is llsec slower as a trotter? Would it not be fair to assume that he was equally fast at either gait, otherwise why convert him? Again had, Mr. Paul any knowledge that this horse would not have trotted (had he started in the Cup) when framing his handicaps?

Assuming, for arguments sake, that a double-gaited horse who had a pacing record was entitled to a let-up of llsec when trotting, would a similar horse with a trotting record be tightened up llsec when paced? I cordially invite Mr. Paul’s explanation, as possibly my criticism is quite undeserved. I will not attempt to deal with the numerous inconsistencies at the meeting, but will quote one to illustrate the point I wish to make. Ohapi was 36yds behind last Thames meeting and on the limit this time — that is, let up Ssec. These cases open up the question of the discretionary power exercised by handicappers. It must be generally admitted that the actual time trotted by horses together with the limit of the race, become the basis on which a handicap is framed. However, in every race there may be horses whose records have been made under different track conditions, and also their record may be for a win or a placed performance dnly. It should be known whether the race was made from the limit or from behind a field of horses. Again the period that has elapsed since his record was made, and yet another instance, that of a horse that has not started for, say, two or three years, and not forgetting the double-gaited horse—these are all points that a handicapper has to weigh when making his adjustments. All these things are simplified, if records have been accurately kept by card index or otherwise, and revised as each day’s racing is concluded, and I suggest that if a handicapper has a complete tabulated list of all his horses’ records, together with his estimated mark for handicapping purposes; and having framed a handicap thereon he should have the courage of his convictions and keep all horses on their respective marks until such time as they better them. He would then be in a position to reply to any criticism that the horse in question either actually did the time, or else he did the equivalent under different conditions.

As things are at present w'e find horses let up, 1,2 or 3sec in a very short time, while the others are still on their marks, which is an admission that any such horse is now, or was in the other two instances wrongly handicapped. There can surely be no doubt that if any one horse is let out, say, 2sec, the rest of the field are penalised to that extent, or, in other words, the limit of the race has been shortened by 2sec, hence the necessity of keeping a horse on his mark. It may be that all the horses in a race have not improved their records for a long time, and therefore should be entitled to a let-up on account of many failures. If that were so, then all those on the limit are penalised to the extent of the let-up, and as there are generally several giving away a few seconds to start at all, they are doubly penalised by the letup, hence the unfairness. This discretionary power is a very delicate question and it is not easy to fix exactly the point at which it deviates into carelessness, incomplete records, or lack of confidence in their own previous work. Any student of handicapping will have noticed that criticism regarding what might be termed a discretionary case is invariably amended at the earliest opportunity, and the other kind that is a let-up is invariably allowed to stand. The reason is fairly obvious and the result in either case is generally very unsatisfactory. Of course, there always has been criticism and always will be, until a handicapper can be brought to realise that on his own showing he has a system by which he equitably adjusts, say, 90 per cent, of his horses and that he only requires to use the same system in regard to the balance of them to give universal satisfaction.

I do not suggest that if a horse is let-up that he will necessarily win a race, as, for instance, Lord Minto (2.12) now on 2.i9, just a question of 7sec in a mile. It appears to me that a handicapper’s is the one and only profession in which a series of errors of judgment can be committed without incurring a penalty of any kind. e. F. GIESEN. Mr. Paul's Reply Interviewed by The Sun on the questions dealt with by our correspondent, the handicapper, Mr. Geo. Paul, said: I am, and have always been, willing to explain to horse owners my treatment of their horses or the treatment of the horses they are set to meet. If Mr. Giesen has any direct or indirect financial interest in the horses he has mentioned, or the horses they met, this offer is, of course, open to him. too, and I can always be found through the Auckland Trotting Club’s office, Durham Street East, City.