Simon Rowlands 
/ Simon Rowlands / 17 February 2011 / 2 Comments 
Imperial Commander: No good reason to think he will be significantly worse as a ten-year-old than he was just a year ago
"The point about such statistics which seems to be lost on many who promulgate them is that “trends” are often relevant only when more specific information is unavailable."
Our blogger argues that those in charge of racing need to reconsider their relationship with the punter, while scrutiny of age stats comes up with some interesting figures for the Cheltenham Gold Cup.
After much posturing, rhetoric and deliberation, the Levy which horseracing in the UK needs to run its affairs in 2011/12 has been finalised. That is the end of the story in many respects, but some related matters still seem very far from clear.
It must be wondered how racing's rulers can square a settlement of £73.7m to £80.8m with their oft-stated belief that only a minimum of £130m would be "reasonable". It must also be wondered how one of the chief architects of that case, Paul Roy, can continue to cling to his position like racing's version of Hosni Mubarak, seemingly convinced that he is the answer not the problem.
Roy would probably be a fan of Michelangelo's quote: "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." That mindset certainly seems to have informed his part in the negotiation process which broke down and led to the Levy settlement having to be referred to government.
But if "aiming too high" involves being quixotic in the extreme it is likely to do more harm than good, to both racing's reputation and to Roy's in this instance. It will be difficult in future to tell whether the man at the top of racing is being serious or is merely dissembling.
If Roy stays, one of his responsibilities may be to decide what becomes of the money that "Racing" gets from the imminent sale of the Tote. This may be a much bigger, and potentially divisive, issue than many realise. Roy has made it clear that he sees "Racing" as essentially a faction of owners, trainers, racecourses and breeders. No room for punters there.
It should also be remembered that "Racing" saw fit to plug a hole in the BHA pension scheme to the tune of £9.4m as recently as in 2008. What's to say that "Racing's money" from the sale of the Tote won't go the same sort of way?
Fortunately, not all of those at High Holborn come across as misguided or untrustworthy. Speaking with remarkable vision as well as candour, the BHA's Head of Communications, Paul Struthers, suggested on Twitter "...some sort of punters' charter..." and a future in which "...racing does not benefit solely through punters losing..." The Guardian's Greg Wood weighed in with a plea that "...owners need to be seen as customers, not dictators...punters are customers too..."
Amen to that. Is it too much to ask that those in charge of "Racing" - whatever that might be - at the very least take the time to consider some of the wise words that they have so far ignored?
...
Satire can be a powerful weapon in the writer's arsenal, but you need to be careful where you point it if you are to avoid shooting yourself, or those on your side, in the foot. I was reminded of this by reading Peter Thomas' column in the Racing Post this week.
Essentially, Thomas used "stats" to show that NO horse could win the Cheltenham Gold Cup, other than, possibly, Imperial Commander. But that was only if you ignored some of the stats.
This might have made for uncomfortable reading for some of those at his paper who have placed much store by the kind of approach, involving consideration of just winners and crude filtering, that Thomas was lampooning.
For those interested, the results of the Cheltenham Gold Cup this century do imply the possibility of some sort of age bias, though even the more sophisticated approach I described in my previous blog runs into the problem of small samples.
The percentage of rivals beaten by age for the last 10 Cheltenham Gold Cups (with fallers etc stripped out and pulled-ups treated as joint-last for this purpose) are as follows: 6yo 53.3% (1 case); 7yo 54.3% (20); 8yo 55.9% (39); 9yo 55.2% (32); 10yo 45.7% (28); 11yo 28.0% (13); 12yo 39.1% (3); 13yo 27.8% (2).
Make of that what you will. The point about such statistics which seems to be lost on many who promulgate them is that "trends" are often relevant only when more specific information is unavailable. Long Run won't suddenly become incapable of winning the Cheltenham Gold Cup as a six-year-old despite having been able to win The King George VI Chase as one. And there is no good reason to think that the lightly-raced Imperial Commander will be significantly worse as a ten-year-old than he was just a year ago.
As another Twitterer said recently: "just find the best horse, best suited to the race, at the best odds". He may have had a point.
Our blogger argues that those in charge of racing need to reconsider their relationship with the punter, while scrutiny of age stats comes up with some interesting figures for the Cheltenham Gold Cup....
Our resident blogger Simon Rowlands points out the shortcomings of some types of conventional trends analysis......
Menorah and Hurricane Fly look vulnerable, while Lingfield stewards let us all down......
No comments:
Post a Comment