The enduring charm of the Bangalore Derby

 Handicapping Rulebook Needs Its Own Handicap

By Sharan Kumar

 

While browsing through Sunday’s race card, one particular entry demands a second look — the eighth race of the day, the 1400 metres Mystic Memory Plate, meant for horses rated 40 to 65. On the surface, it appears like any other handicap race. But dig a little, and you’ll find logic has clearly gone out for a trot. The beaten horse carries a heavier burden, while the victor saunters in with a lighter load. It's a bit like failing an exam and getting promoted anyway — while the topper is asked to repeat the class.

 

The handicapping throws up a textbook example of how racing logic can sometimes be a casualty of systemic rigidity.

 

Two familiar contenders — Zuri and Emphatic — last clashed in the Olympia Tech Park Million at Chennai, a proper handicap race where both carried weights according to their respective ratings. Zuri carried 54 kgs, Emphatic 53. Zuri edged out Emphatic by a short head. End of story? Not quite.

 

Now, as they return to the track in Bangalore, things take a curious turn. Emphatic has been assigned 61.5 kgs, while Zuri will carry 60 kgs. So, the beaten horse carries more weight. Welcome to the Bangalore school of handicapping — where recent form is treated like expired milk and ratings are preserved in amber.

 

The explanation? The Bangalore handicapper claims the ratings were adjusted “based on the local system,” not on what transpired in that inconvenient little race down in Chennai. Apparently, when horses travel out, their exploits become… optional reading.

 

In what world does a horse finish behind another in a handicap race — while carrying less weight — and then return home to be rated higher than the horse that beat it? Only in a system where the term performance-based is more honorary than functional.

 

The core flaw lies in the refusal to synchronize performances across racing centres. When a horse runs in a handicap elsewhere, it should be evaluated based on that performance, not on fossilized numbers from a previous life. But instead, the system seems to:

 

1. Accept another centre’s rating when convenient;
2. Penalize winners selectively;
3. Reset ratings upon return, as if nothing ever happened — a clean slate, minus the credibility.
4.  

This isn’t just unfair — it’s structurally absurd.

 

The rule of thumb in handicapping is simple: Ratings should reflect relative merit. If two horses run together in a handicap, and one finishes ahead — especially while carrying more weight — that horse should be rated higher going forward. This principle doesn’t magically stop at state borders.

 

And yet, here we are. The owner of Emphatic, Mr. Phiroze Vazifdar, has formally protested the anomaly. He writes:

 

“Zuri finished narrowly ahead of Emphatic while carrying more. Their Chennai ratings were Zuri – 70, Emphatic – 67. Even after a uniform 4-point drop, Zuri should still be rated higher. Yet, bizarrely, Emphatic is now rated 3 points above Zuri. This defies both arithmetic and common sense.”

 

He has also called for the Stewards' intervention. Because when systems create inequality under the guise of regulation, it’s no longer a technicality — it’s a structural failing.

 

And this isn’t an isolated incident. This pick-and-choose approach has wider implications. Horses that win at other centres off higher marks are often slipped back into their comfy, pre-travel ratings when they return home — effectively being handed an unfair advantage over local horses who have to earn every point the hard way.

 

This kind of “flexible handicapping” undermines the entire concept of levelling the field. Because let’s be clear — the job of a handicapper is not to preserve outdated impressions but to reflect current form. Handicapping, by design, is meant to ensure fairness based on recent runs. When the system becomes static instead of dynamic, it fails in both purpose and spirit.

 

What Indian racing needs now is consistency across centres, clarity in rating transitions, and transparency in decision-making. In the end, handicapping isn’t just about numbers — it’s about trust. And when the system looks this flawed, perhaps it’s the rulebook that truly needs a handicap.