The new handicapping changes have further reduced the handicapper’s ability to handicap purely and points to the difficulty in applying the merit rating system in a country with a relatively small thoroughbred population.

In England trainers find it relatively easy to keep the brilliant, the good and the mediocre apart virtually from day one of their careers and can plan their careers accordingly.

In South Africa trainers have far less options and horses of varying ability will be clashing from day one.
Consequently, the merit rating system looks on evidence to have been unfair on decent horses precocious and sound enough to have been able to make their debuts early.

As an example, two horses with exactly the same innate ability, three-year-old “Horse A” and four-year-old “Horse B”, win two separate maidens at a major course over 1600m in the month of October.

If Horse A won by a length, Horse B, if facing the exact same strength of field, would have to win its race by 6,5 lengths to perform to the same level, because three-year-olds will only be receiving 2kg from four-year-olds whereas in a weight for age event at that time of year they would be receiving 7,5kg.

However, jockeys riding a favourite set out to have enough fuel in the tank in the final stages merely to win, so Horse B duly wins by only a length, albeit comfortably.

Based on the pure result, Horse “A” will be merit rated eleven points higher than horse “B” and if they faced each other in a handicap next time out they would run at level weights despite having the same ability and a weight for age difference of 5,5kg.

Horse “A” therefore has a problem, especially considering the lack of three-year-old handicaps in SA. It might end up battling and by the time it gets down to a competitive mark its heart might have been broken. The owners will be similarly demoralised, especially considering the trainer had told them they had a nice horse.

The above analogy might explain why there are a myriad examples since the merit rating system was introduced in SA in the late 1990s of young horses winning early in their careers and then never winning again.

Looking at results from October 2007, at which stage the system had less restrictions imposed upon it than it now does, two examples can be found from the first two major centre meetings of the month.
Electrocase won a maiden third time out, was accorded an 84 merit rating and did not earn one more cent in eleven further races; Master’s Edge won on debut, was given an 82 merit rating and took a further ten races to land his first post maiden place.

The latest measures to address this issue are contained in the handicapper no longer being allowed to use a “special circumstances” clause to rate a three-year-old maiden winner higher than the benchmark nett 78 in a major centre. Furthermore, general principles are to be applied to horses not making the anticipated WFA improvement within 2 and 3 runs respectively.

At the other end of the scale, a clause whereby three-year-old maiden winners in a major centre cannot have a MR of less than a nett 64, provided the maiden win takes place within the first 8 starts, prevents young maiden winners from being handicapped too leniently.

Another problem in South Africa is the lack of horses filling the gap between the best horses and the low grade handicappers.

This manifests in some horses being left in “no man’s land”.

There are a lack of high grade handicaps for horses who are just below the best, so they have little choice but to compete against the best. When they are then handicapped against the best they are left in an even worse situation.

The latest changes will reportedly be accompanied by new measures to improve the programming of races, which might help the above band of horses.

Furthermore, there are also various new restrictions placed on penalising placed horses in Gr 2 and Gr 3 races as well as winners and runner ups in Listed races. Also, line horses can’t be further back than fourth in Gr 2 and Gr 3 races and fifth in Gr 1 races (they can’t be further back than third in minor handicaps and Listed races).

Another new clause is “Where a horse (especially an older horse) runs out of sync to its normal profile, the Handicappers should rather err on the side of caution and impose half the normal penalty and let the said horse prove the higher rating at its subsequent start.”

An extreme recent example could perhaps be provided by the three-year-old Le Clos.

Being owned by one of the country’s leading owners this horse could afford to be risked in a Gr 3 on the Turffontein Inside track after running above his merit rating in a Progress Plate.

The latter track is tight and can yield some odd results if the pace is false and when Le Clos ran third off his 74 merit rating beating 107 merit rated New Predator at level weights by three lengths, the alarm bells were ringing.

He was raised 25 points to a 99 merit rating and in three subsequent events in a Gr 2, a Gr 1 and a Progress Plate respectively has proven to not be up to the mark.

The new changes have been criticised by some of the best unofficial handicappers in the country and by some of the best punters.

It is admirable of the latter to voice their opinion as the more restrictions in place the better the edge they will have over the rest of the more ignorant betting population. However, only time will tell if they new changes bring some stability.

Trainers will help the situation by adapting to the system as some still appear to be stuck in the race figure system of the distant past.

By David Thiselton