syndeis wrote:I understand your points. We do things to gain a competitive advantage within the rules of the sport being played.
And "Every little bit helps" whether it's been proven to actually BE an edge or not. Witness the number of horses who've NEVER bled on salix and how quick everyone was to move to those nasal strips after Lukas won the BC races.
Like I said in the very beginning, IMO and from what I've seen a 5lbs or less weight
spread is negligible.
Horses do not lose races because they are carrying 125lbs. They lose because EVERYONE ELSE is carrying 110lbs.
GENERALLY speaking (which means NOT ALWAYS), I do not see a noticeable difference in performance until the weight
spread reaches 6lbs. Anything under that, the spread doesn't seem to make much of difference. The same horse that loses under 115lb and giving 5lbs manages to win under 115lbs giving 5lbs against the same horses a month later.
If it were as easy as the lightest impost wins, the field lightweight would always be the betting favourite and there'd be no reason to play this BS games with 2-5lbs in the first place.
And THAT is why I think the whole thing is antiquated BS. Personally, I prefer a nice flat weight for age scale and screw all this "no race in X weeks allowed 2lbs" crap. Let the ability of the horses separate where they belong.
If the track handicappers weren't so busy kissing the top trainers' asses by assigning the lightest weight possible in order to hopefully draw them to their 'big race', I might give the system more respect because we'd see these horses dealing with a REAL weight
spread that might actually affect the outcome. Instead we have pussies like Frankel the Pimp WHINING about a horse -- arguable the #2 older horse in the country -- being assigned 124lbs and co-weight with, arguably, the #1 older horse in the country because "if he wins under this now, who knows what they'll ask him to carry later in the year."
