Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Conflict, not really, but certainly plenty of discussion. At the outset we still had the scale slanted too far towards Euros. I think there was some bias towards the UK horses on the other side of the pond. 
It actually worked great as shippers kept coming over and would have 10+ point edges. The good news was they kept winning, the bad news was it was obviously too much of a spread. They weren't that much better. We adjusted a few times over that first year and got it where it should be. It is something we monitor constantly. I've found as turf racing has grown in importance here the gap has narrowed.
The two sticking points are the weight for age part of the ratings and Lasix in my opinion. We take the weight for age out of the Timeform ratings so as to be similar to our scale. Lasix is the wild card. I rarely ever use horses shipping in that don't get Lasix. Get burned every once in a while, but it has paid dividends with shorter priced horses over the years. |
Interesting, cj, and this may be just due to looking at too small a sample, but I find that the Timeform ratings for Euro races tend to be significantly lower than the TimeformUS ratings for the same horses that run in the US. This may be due to the Lasix effect but it seems to go beyond it. I know the ratings are on the same global scale but I'm wondering whether there is a difference in what the equivalent base ratings are. Has anyone else noticed this?
