The effect of weight - science dispelling myths

[curious]

5 hours ago, SLB2.0 said:

Interesting - thanks for that Curious.

Do you guys factor in weight of a jockey vs. lead bag weight?

I've been told it's a factor, but unsure how significant.

I personally don't factor in weight in my assessment at all. That's dead or live.

[All The Aces]

2 hours ago, curious said:

I personally don't factor in weight in my assessment at all. That's dead or live.

? Unbelievable!!   A 10kg difference in weight for example you would never factor in at all. 

[curious]

31 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

? Unbelievable!!   A 10kg difference in weight for example you would never factor in at all. 

I might look at it if I were betting on races with that kind of weight spread but I don't.

[Thomass]

3 hours ago, curious said:

I'm quite sure that I have never said that weight makes no difference. That's not where you and I disagree. The point of difference is that you seem to think it makes a much larger difference than I do even though you haven't produced a sod of solid data supporting your view.

Yep..almost no diff....1Kg = 0.1L...

....yet you wanted the Female allowance changed back 0.5kg = 0.05L....

...due to the massive unfair advantage...causing the horse population to move offshore...correct?

...how embarrassing for you...

I'm with ALL Australian and Brit Handicappers who tell us...1Kg = 3/4L

Anyway here's some bedtime reading for you...real scientific stuff..so don ya White Lab Coat and ENJOY...

Probably one of the most asked questions in horse racing is:  What effect does a jockey’s weight have on a horse’s performance?  If a horse picks up five pounds from his last race, what effect in lengths, time, Beyer numbers, or any other rating system might we expect?  Is a pound extra more critical at sprints or routes?  These are just a few of the questions handicappers ask themselves daily trying to decipher the information in their past performance whether the Daily Racing Form, Equibase Program, or any of the many online past performance services provided on the internet.  Over the next few pages I will give you some incite in how weight carried effects the performance of a horse during a race and how to decide if you need to consider weight as a handicapping factor.  Racing secretaries try to set race conditions using weight as a means to even out a race.  Handicap races for older horses can have a significant range of weights sometimes over 20 pounds between the top weight horse and other members of the race.  Horses like Forgo, Kelso, and Dr. Fager carried weights in the 130 plus range throughout their careers.  Did they have weight limits?

 

I will show two different analyses for the impact of weight carried by a horse.  The first will be using Newton’s second law where force equals mass times acceleration otherwise know as F=ma.  The second analysis will used actual exercise physiology results.  Each analysis is based on dead weight at the center of gravity of the horse.  Later I will discuss live weight and location of weight.  Dead weight can be considered the same as weight due to extra body fat.

 

The force function of the above equation can be modeled analytically so that the function can be integrated to get velocity and then displacement.  I won’t go into the equation in detail, however it has an exponential term (constant * exp (-t/tau)) with a time constant (tau).  The following table shows the results for analytically solution.  The table has the fractional times of a race for two different horses.  Total weight of horse and riders is 1190 and 1210 pounds with a horse weight of 1080 pounds.  Times shown in the table are in seconds.  The race that is simulated has a gate run-up of 65 feet.  There are five additional rows shown in the table.  The second row (delta, seconds) is the time difference between the two horses.  The next row is the seconds per pound of weight.  The sec/5 lbs. row is how many seconds for five extra pounds.  The lbs/fifth sec row is for how many pounds required to increase running time one fifth of a second (.20 seconds).  The last row is from another part of the analysis that calculated the number of pounds required to cost a horse one length (10 feet).

Table 1:

Weight, lbs.	2f	4f	6f	8f	10f
Horse 1 - 1190	24.02	47.69	71.56	95.65	121.06
Horse 2 - 1210	24.41	48.48	72.77	97.27	123.13
delta, sec	(0.391)	(0.794)	(1.205)	(1.622)	(2.068)
sec/lb	0.020	0.040	0.060	0.081	0.103
sec/5lbs.	0.098	0.198	0.301	0.406	0.517
lbs/fifth sec	10.24	5.04	3.32	2.47	1.93
lbs/10ft	9.3	4.58	3.05	2.3	1.8

 

If you want to convert to Beyer Speed Figure (BSF) we can use the following from “Beyer on Speed” page 20.  At 6f one length = 2.4 points or 1-fifth sec =2.8 points and at 8f one length = 1.8 points.  Beyer also says on page 106-107 that a kilogram (2.2 pounds) equals one point in his system at all distances or a pound is worth 0.45 points.   From the above analysis we have 3.05 pounds equals one length at 6f.  This makes each pound worth 0.80 points and about the same at 8f.  It appears that Beyer number is a little low.   As a rough rule of thumb we could use one half to one point for each pound of weight shift at all distances or one to two pounds for each point.   Beyer developed his rules from actual horse race results where a horse fitness level changes.  The analytical analysis is based on a fixed fitness level.  Sheet players use a weight shift of five pounds as one point.

 

The second analysis is based on data collected by researchers from the exercise physiology and experimental biology fields.  Some of this information will be based on actual thoroughbred (TB) horses, some on other mammals, and humans.  I will give references for the academia type of handicappers if they would like to do their own research.  In some cases I might offer some opinions on how to use this information.  I will try to keep the technical terms to a minimum or give a related term.

 

C.R. Taylor (1970) showed that the energy cost of running in all animals from a mouse to an elephant is directly related to the running speed.  He also showed that larger animals have a lower energy cost on a per pound basis.  Energy is determined based on the amount of oxygen the animal uses while running.  Laboratory test results show that the oxygen consumption for a dog and a horse are linear (straight line) as running speed increases with the smaller animal having a steeper increase (slope) in oxygen consumption, Figure 1.  Eaton (1988) showed that from laboratory test that a horse has an outstanding capability to consume oxygen almost twice what the top human runners.   Oxygen consumption is measured by milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute with a horse having a maximum oxygen consumption (Vo2max) range from 104 to 170 ml/kg/min on the average.  You can think of the oxygen term as horsepower per body weight or a measure of class.  Higher oxygen consumption the more horsepower generated the better the horse (higher class).  This concept will be the basis for showing how weight carried effects the performance.   Taylor (1980) showed that when rats, dogs, horses, and humans carry an extra load that the oxygen consumption increased in direct proportion to the added load.  For example if the load was 10 percent of body mass, the oxygen consumption was increased by 10 percent, and so on, as shown in Figure 2.  Thus a larger horse would carry less percentage then a smaller horse when carrying the same weight.

 

 

Potard (1998) measured the oxygen consumption during laboratory test on TB showing a maximum oxygen consumption peaking at 136 ml/kg/min at around 12-13 meters per second  (m/sec) or 36 to 40 feet per second  (ft/sec) while running with the equivalent of 10 percent of body weight as a draft load.  These test results were measured on horizontal motorized treadmills and usually without the wind component being simulated.  In addition, a treadmill does not simulate an actual track.  Lejeune (1998) measured humans running in sand and shown that the cost of running increases between 1.2-1.6 times that of running on a treadmill.  In this discussion I will use a value of 1.2 for the additional cost of running in sand to simulate the track.

 

The term Vo2max represents the highest level of oxygen consumption the individual horse can obtain.  The energy supplied to run at higher speed comes from energy stored in the muscles.  At high speeds above Vo2max the horse is running with what is known as an oxygen debt.  Oxygen debt is measured by the amount of lactic acid that is accumulated in the muscles and/or blood.  Each TB has their own limits of lactic acid based on training and genetics.  In the following example I will use a baseline Vo2max value of 136 ml/kg/min to show how weight effects performance.  Table 2 shows the velocity versus oxygen consumption for a TB horse.  Column one is the horse speed (feet per second, ft/sec) on the treadmill, column two through five are the oxygen consumption values (ml/kg/min) on the treadmill, column three for running on sand (simulate the race track), column four is for a jockey weight of 130 pounds and the last column for a jockey of 110 pounds.  The table shows that at a constant speed the oxygen required increases as the load condition increases running in sand or carrying weight.

 

Table 2:

Velocity                Oxygen                 Running          Jockey           Jockey

                         Consumption in Sand           Weight           Weight

Vel, ft/sec	O2, ml/kg/min	1.2	130	110
5	15.5	18.6	20.84	20.49
10	26	31.2	34.96	34.38
15	36.5	43.8	49.07	48.26
20	47	56.4	63.19	62.14
25	57.5	69	77.31	76.03
30	68	81.6	91.42	89.91
35	78.5	94.2	105.54	103.79
40	89	106.8	119.66	117.68
45	99.5	119.4	133.77	131.56
50	110	132	147.89	145.44
55	120.5	144.6	162.01	159.33
60	131	157.2	176.12	173.21
65	141.5	169.8	190.24	187.09
70	152	182.4	204.36	200.98
75	162.5	195	218.47	214.86
80	173	207.6	232.59	228.74
85	183.5	220.2	246.71	242.63

 

 

In our example we said our horse had a maximum oxygen consumption of 136 ml/kg/min, which occurs at a velocity just over 50 ft/sec on the racetrack without a rider.  Add a rider and the speed at maximum oxygen consumption occurs at around 45 ft/sec at 130 pounds and about 47 ft/sec for 110 pounds.  Table 2 shows the oxygen values for speeds up to 85 ft/sec even though maximum speed for a horse is only in the 70 plus ft/sec range without a rider.

 

We will use the above table to calculate the velocity for each rider at a constant oxygen consumption level giving a velocity difference.  Using the velocity difference and time we can then calculate the distance difference for the two riders.  Eaton (1995) showed that a horse running at a velocity corresponding to 105 percent of Vo2max can run at that speed for about 165 seconds, at 115 percent for only 98 seconds and finally at 125 percent for only 57 seconds.   Using these time values and the information from Table 2 we get the results shown in Table 3.  Table 3 shows that at each value of oxygen consumption level and at each time value the amount of weight which would cost a horse 10 feet (one standard horse length) and one fifth of a second of time.

 

 

Table 3:

Time> sec.	57		98		165
O2, ml/kg*min	lb/10ft	lb/.20 sec	lb/10ft	lb/.20 sec	lb/10ft	lb/.20 sec
15.5	38.03	2.40	22.12	1.40	13.14	0.83
26	22.67	3.13	13.19	1.82	7.83	1.08
36.5	16.15	3.44	9.39	2.00	5.58	1.19
47	12.54	3.61	7.29	2.10	4.33	1.25
57.5	10.25	3.72	5.96	2.17	3.54	1.29
68	8.67	3.80	5.04	2.21	2.99	1.31
78.5	7.51	3.85	4.37	2.24	2.59	1.33
89	6.62	3.90	3.85	2.27	2.29	1.35
99.5	5.92	3.93	3.45	2.28	2.05	1.36
110	5.36	3.96	3.12	2.30	1.85	1.37
120.5	4.89	3.98	2.85	2.31	1.69	1.37
131	4.50	4.00	2.62	2.32	1.55	1.38
141.5	4.17	4.01	2.42	2.33	1.44	1.39
152	3.88	4.03	2.26	2.34	1.34	1.39
162.5	3.63	4.04	2.11	2.35	1.25	1.39
173	3.41	4.05	1.98	2.35	1.18	1.40
183.5	3.21	4.06	1.87	2.36	1.11	1.40

 

 

 

Based on Table 2 we see that racing speeds occur at oxygen consumption levels in the 145-160 ml/kg/min.   Lets take a closer look at the values for oxygen consumption of 152 ml/kg/min a middle value.  We’ll make an assumption that each one of the time values corresponds to a race distance so we can compare it to Table 1.  We’ll say 57 seconds is 5f, 98 seconds is 8f, and 165 seconds is 12f race distances.

 

From Table 3:

Time> sec.	57		98		165
O2, ml/kg*min	lb/10ft	lb/.20 sec	lb/10ft	lb/.20 sec	lb/10ft	lb/.20 sec

 

152

3.88

4.03

2.26

2.34

1.34

1.39

 

Our results show that at 57 seconds that 3.88 pounds is required for each horse length.  Table 1 showed that at 4f,  4.58 pounds was required and at 6f, 3.05 pounds.  Splitting the difference to get 5f puts us at 3.81 pounds.  At 98 seconds we had 2.26 pounds per length and 2.3 pounds for 8f.  So from two different methods one analytical and one based on exercise physiology test of the oxygen consumption of a TB, basically give us the same answer.  This analysis was for dead weight located at the center of gravity of the horse

 

Now a jockey position is at a location above the center of gravity on the horse.  The natural question to ask is there any positive or negative effect because of the jockey as live weight?  Unfortunately I could not locate any research data of oxygen consumption with riders versus dead weight.

 

The effect of weight at other locations other then the center of gravity can have a significant impact on oxygen consumption levels.  Myers (1985) found that the cost of adding a given mass to the limbs is significantly greater than adding it to the center of mass and that this effect becomes more pronounced as the limb loads are moved distally (towards the foot).  Miller (1987) showed a 0.8% increase in oxygen consumption for ankle weights of 100 grams on human runners.  A 600-gram weight at the center of gravity would result in the same increase of oxygen consumption.  Relative to horse racing, any increase in extra weight carried along the leg and at the hoof could impact on a horse’s performance.  For example on a muddy or sloppy day a large horse (large hoof) could end up carrying extra dirt in it’s hoof relative to a smaller horse (smaller hoof).  Also the come from behind type of runner could have additional weight along the legs from mud being thrown back from horse’s in front.  This extra weight could be enough to cost a win.  

 

In summary I’ve shown that weight carried impacts a horses performance and this impact changes as the distance of the race changes.  The impact of weight along the legs and at the hoof has more impact then weight at the center of gravity.  Relative to handicapping we can adjust Beyer Speed Figures (BSF) for a weight shift using from one to two pounds being worth one point in BSF.  We can also see that horses could have a limit on the amount to their weight carrying ability.  Weight carrying ability is based on their size and their maximum oxygen consumption level.

 

 

 

 

[curious]

Nice theories but both wrong if you look at results data.

[Chief Stipe]

Exactly Curious - this article is purely theoretical using OTHER data to develop a hypothesis that hasn't been tested experimentantly.  Aside from the writer being a poor speller - incite vs insight!

Of course one would expect some difference when you put 15% extra weight on a horse i.e. a jockey and saddle.  However the article incorrectly extrapolates this out to infer that an extra 5lbs will make a significant difference.  With no proof I might add.

It is obvious Thomaas studied classical art and literature as opposed to science!

[curious]

1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said:

It is obvious Thomaas studied classical art and literature as opposed to science!

It's not obvious to me that he studied anything.

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, curious said:

It's not obvious to me that he studied anything.

Fiction?

[SLB2.0]

If weight really doesn't make a difference, the criticism of handicappers is somewhat unwarranted?

Some trainers constantly complain about their runners getting big weights, but whether they carry 59kg or 54kg, it doesn't matter?

[Chief Stipe]

My personal opinion is that the weight spread isn't enough to achieve the handicappers objective of equalising chance.  The female allowance further hampers the handicapper from achieving that objective.

Trainers always find something to complain about be it "holding vs loose" or "too much weight" - very few look at themselves and their actions with regard to their horses performance.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between trainers who complain about other factors and their success rate.

[Thomass]

16 hours ago, curious said:

I personally don't factor in weight in my assessment at all. That's dead or live.

Maybe that's why you priced VERRY FLASH at 35's with the 3kg allowance when winning at 7's??

next

[Thomass]

7 hours ago, curious said:

Nice theories but both wrong if you look at results data.

It's a real shame your devotion to being a Sultan of Sophistry doesn't allow you to recognise theory from a scientific study...

Even your 'study' found a different set of Stats for wet tracks!

Where you studied wet tracks for App. allowances and came to the conclusion they were worse than Firm stats...

...or was that your fellow Sultan?

..doesn't really matter as you always agree with your fellow alma mater don't you?

[Thomass]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

My personal opinion is that the weight spread isn't enough to achieve the handicappers objective of equalising chance.  The female allowance further hampers the handicapper from achieving that objective.

Trainers always find something to complain about be it "holding vs loose" or "too much weight" - very few look at themselves and their actions with regard to their horses performance.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between trainers who complain about other factors and their success rate.

The problem with 'personal opinions' is they should be judged on an overall basis...

...which will be enable readers to come to a conclusion on a scale of veracity over b/s

One of yours..."there's nothing to see in 'loose v holding'

next

[Thomass]

8 hours ago, curious said:

Nice theories but both wrong if you look at results data.

Funny you should mention 'results data'

These are from the actual BHA Handicappers in consultation with their European partners...65,000 Handicap starts over 6 years...then some WFA stuffjz

In case you can't read or haven't the time to take off the Sultancy gig...

They came to the conclusion 3yo's winning margins were @ 0.5L further than older neddys over 2000M and change...

..so they gave them a pound extra to even things up

Lets see...yep that's about what I use and the Industry Standard....those with GRAVITAS in the Industry...

1kg = 3/4L

Here...peruse this...Then don't get back to me

• Adjustments to Flat Weight-For-Age Scale to be implemented across Europe from 2017
• BHA carried out year-long consultation and analysis of over 90,000 runners over six years as integral part of decision-making process

The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has today moved to outline the importance of the alterations to the Weight-For-Age Scale – which were announced by the European Pattern Committee (EPC) earlier this morning – and to publish key elements of the data which informed the decision.

As part of the research, BHA Head of Handicapping Phil Smith, alongside the BHA’s Racing Department, carried out an extensive data analysis which compared the strike rate for three-year-olds against older horses over a period of six years. It looked at the differences between each year, month and by distance across a sample of over 89,000 runners in handicaps and 5,000 runners in Weight-For-Age races, comparing finishing position, rivals beaten, average winning distance and more.

The key findings of the BHA data analysis can be found by clicking on the below image:

As a consequence of the data analysis, which also included research by other European nations that corroborated the BHA’s findings, alterations have been made to the Weight-For-Age Scale from the second half of June over 10 furlongs and above. The adjustments are designed to remove a clear advantage which the data showed the existing Scale was conferring on three-year-old horses over middle and longer distances in the second half of the year.

 

The alterations to the Scale range in size from 1lb at 10, 11 and 12 furlongs to a maximum decrease of 3lb over longer distances where the advantage afforded to three-year-olds was shown to be the most acute. The new Scale, and an illustration of the alterations made to the Scale, can be found here.

Phil Smith, Head of Handicapping for the BHA, said:

“When we started the process of reviewing the Weight-For-Age data, well over a year ago, I suspected that the statistics might show a bias towards three-year-olds over longer distances in the second half of the season. The data has borne that out.

“The key findings of the data were that three-year-olds have a higher strike rate than older horses, which is particularly noticeable from July onwards, and that as distance increases, so does the strike rate of three-year-olds, and their average winning margin. This is because three-year-olds are on average improving at a faster rate than the Weight-For-Age scale currently dictates.

“The alterations made to the Scale should help to create a more level playing field for older horses competing against three-year-olds across Europe. At first the alterations will be seen as a trial and all the data will be kept under review for a number of years, to ensure that the alterations are having the desired, and necessary, effect.”

Ruth Quinn, Director of International Racing and Racing Development for the BHA, said:

“Alongside the process of compiling and analysing extensive and relevant data, we carried out a lengthy consultation with stakeholders. In the light of the stakeholder feedback, achieving a uniform scale throughout Europe has been a key priority for all involved. As such, we are delighted that the EPC and its member countries have formally endorsed the proposal.

“The scale is obviously designed to compensate younger horses for their lack of physical maturity. It was never designed to provide an advantage to one particular age group at the expense of another. There is extensive evidence to indicate that the scale needs amending to more accurately reflect the physical development rate of today’s average racehorse.

“It was the firm belief of the EPC that no horse should be knowingly advantaged by a concept which was originally designed to provide a level playing field. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that the environment within which horses compete is as equitable as possible.

“I would like to thank everyone who gave their time to this important project.”

Rupert Arnold, Chief Executive of the National Trainers Federation (NTF), said:

“Our Flat Committee was at first sceptical of the argument that a change was needed to the Weight For Age scale, which in their opinion had stood the test of time. All credit to the BHA Racing Department for the depth of evidential data they produced to demonstrate that in the current era, the scale marginally favours three-year-olds at certain times of year over longer distances.

“The NTF endorsed the changes subject to them being applied throughout Europe so we are pleased that the other European Pattern Committee members have come on board.”

Notes to editors:

1. The revised Weight-For-Age Scale and full data pack can be found here.

2. Alterations to the Weight For Age Scale – Questions and Answers can be found here.

3. c. 6,200 races fall under the Weight-For-Age Scale in Britain, of which approximately 800 (13%) will be affected by the changes to the scale in 2017.

4. As a consequence of the amendments to the scale, there will also be changes made to the scale of allowances given to Southern Hemisphere bred horses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Thomass

[curious]

I'm quite familiar with that study Thommo. Take a closer look with your critical hat on. I've already told you that the BHA handicappers are dead wrong and it's crap like this that proves why. If any student of mine presented such rubbish and drew the conclusions that they have it's at best an instant D. That's D for DUMB. It looks like they got someone like you who failed to progress from primary school maths to do the study though I suspect it's politically and commercially motivated by those who want to see the better horses have an advantage in handicaps.

To give you a starting point, they have used strike rate as a measure. Compared to what expected strike rate? They've failed to exclude horses out of the handicap or otherwise not carrying their rated weight. Etc., etc....

I've never seen any rigorous study or data analysis that even comes close to suggesting that 1kg might have an impact anywhere close to 3/4 length.

[Thomass]

Oh wow....so now the EXPERTS with GRAVITAS are...

....CORRUPT??

I've heard about 'intellectual' jealousy but I've never seen this in action before in the Thoroughbred Industry...

You should email Phil at BHA and tell him about your findings...Im sure  PHIL and the rest of his fellow Europeans will be super impressed and rush off to alter all of their findings...

yea na

Oh and you still haven't addressed the ELEPHANT in the tea room...

You and your fellow Sultan of Sophistry's advice to NZTR to reduce the Fillies allowance by 0.5kg...which in your world is

0.05L

Oh dear

No wonder they dismissed you and yours OUTRIGHT...when you surely told them what effect it would have?

Clearly the treadmill research is the ultimate scientific tool to remove ALL variables...

And what about the confirmation that extra weight carried around the pins...produces even more of an oxygen debt..

...which directly correlates with my research re weight...especially App allowances on H 11 tracks in NZ

 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Thomass said:

Clearly the treadmill research is the ultimate scientific tool to remove ALL variables...

 And what about the confirmation that extra weight carried around the pins...produces even more of an oxygen debt..

 

Thomaas can you elucidate a bit more on your findings based on the treadmill results posted.  I like you to translate those findings to the real world handicapping scenario.  I'll give you a hint - the difference in weight between the two jockeys used was 20lbs or 9kg's.  Interesting that there was no statistical significant difference between the readings.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Thomaas can you elucidate a bit more on your findings based on the treadmill results posted.  I like you to translate those findings to the real world handicapping scenario.  I'll give you a hint - the difference in weight between the two jockeys used was 20lbs or 9kg's.  Interesting that there was no statstical significant difference between the readings.

Yeah. So that evidence is gold in support of race day effects of 3/4l per kg.? Nah.

[Thomass]

25 minutes ago, curious said:

Yeah. So that evidence is gold in support of race day effects of 3/4l per kg.? Nah.

You're brill at FAT ELEPHANT avoidance mate...

What about the Mammouth contention of you two Sultans?

That 30% of ALL races are won by < 0.3L?...which is plain shit stats right there...anyway if it was

Being an EXACTING form analyst...including 'wide without cover' and my time allowance for variables such as that...which incidentally is @ 0.35 SECS...depending on the length of time without cover..

And of course which you and your fellow Sultans simply ignore...

...then I'd take 30% change ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!!!

A third of the time the previous winner is going to get beat because my analysis says it'll be reversed after your weight difference is applied...

...which is 1kg = 0.1L...

and I've got Ashvin claiming 3 kgs this time...after being unlucky the time before without him

This news is f in GOLD!!

 

 

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, Thomass said:

You're brill at FAT ELEPHANT avoidance mate...

 

Pot kettle.  You post a heap of pseudo-science and the moment someone points out to you that the interpretation of the data is false you introduce avoidance tactics.

So to reiterate:

Thomaas can you elucidate a bit more on your findings based on the treadmill results posted.  I like you to translate those findings to the real world handicapping scenario.  I'll give you a hint - the difference in weight between the two jockeys used was 20lbs or 9kg's.  Interesting that there was no statistical significant difference between the readings.

[curious]

7 hours ago, Thomass said:

Oh wow....so now the EXPERTS with GRAVITAS are...

....CORRUPT??

I've heard about 'intellectual' jealousy but I've never seen this in action before in the Thoroughbred Industry...

You should email Phil at BHA and tell him about your findings...Im sure  PHIL and the rest of his fellow Europeans will be super impressed and rush off to alter all of their findings...

yea na

Oh and you still haven't addressed the ELEPHANT in the tea room...

You and your fellow Sultan of Sophistry's advice to NZTR to reduce the Fillies allowance by 0.5kg...which in your world is

0.05L

Oh dear

No wonder they dismissed you and yours OUTRIGHT...when you surely told them what effect it would have?

Clearly the treadmill research is the ultimate scientific tool to remove ALL variables...

And what about the confirmation that extra weight carried around the pins...produces even more of an oxygen debt..

...which directly correlates with my research re weight...especially App allowances on H 11 tracks in NZ

 

All good Thommo. You continue to believe the "EXPERTS with GRAVITAS" and encourage as many others to believe you as you can. I'll stick with what the data says thanks.

I'm curious about your "research re weight...especially App allowances on H 11 tracks in NZ".  Care to elaborate on that?

[Chief Stipe]

Yeah na Thomaas runs when it gets too challenging.

[Thomass]

Pray tell moi...

When the scientific study says they used Newtons 2nd law of F= ma

Did yous fellas use F= me instead?

Thats the only thing I can see that may have got you two totally confused?

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, Thomass said:

Pray tell moi...

When the scientific study says they used Newtons 2nd law of F= ma

Did yous fellas use F= me instead?

Thats the only thing I can see that may have got you two totally confused?

LOL - stick to Arts and Literature Tomasina.  It will take longer for the heavier horse to slow according to F=ma

[Thomass]

On 16/08/2019 at 5:37 PM, curious said:

All good Thommo. You continue to believe the "EXPERTS with GRAVITAS" and encourage as many others to believe you as you can. I'll stick with what the data says thanks.

I'm curious about your "research re weight...especially App allowances on H 11 tracks in NZ".  Care to elaborate on that?

Yea sure...

I look at moi's punting accounts and say...

" f yea...how f in good am I at this"

You however...insisted that NZTR indulge you and the other Sultans phantasy Stats of Fillies being advantaged by 0.5kgs...

...where you forgot to tell them that equates to 0.05L..in your world

Perhaps they realised you were gay pretenders and were too polite to tell yous fellas to F off?