PPM – PERFORMANCE
AND RECOVERY - Ken Blake
Probably my most pleasurable pastime, would
be an afternoon at the track with fellow racing enthusiasts, exchanging views
on the day’s racing and discussing the merit of one another’s selections,
naturally of course over the odd cleansing ale or two. Apart from the focus on
the day at hand, these gatherings over the years have also become somewhat of a
sounding board for a number of racing and punting theories proffered by members
of the group. The credibility of many of these theories that would supposedly
navigate us a path to the riches of the punt, have ranged from the ridiculous
and bizarre to ideas which, ostensibly appear to have great merit. The problem
is, that nobody, until now has been able to substantiate any of these ideas
with solid statistical evidence through rigorous examination. I also vaguely
suspect that proponents of many of these perceptions are guilty of selective
memory, raising the issue when things fall into place and noticeably silent
when they don’t, which in most cases forms the greater portion of the pie.
Needless to say I’ve had more than my share
of theories myself over the years, some which I’ve been quite excited about in
the embryonic stage, only to be reduced to a state of mortification when
ensuing results missed the set objectives by significant margins.
There has however, been one observation of
mine that seems to have held its consistency over an extended number of years.
I named my theory based on those observations ‘The Replication Theory’ and the
time had finally come to find out whether I too was in the selective memory
brigade or whether in fact these observances held any real weight. It had been
noted over many years that horse’s that put in an astonishing performance to
win a race were invariably beaten at their next start. What I needed to do now
was to ascertain if there was any relevance to these observations, and, if
there was, why this occurrence happened and finally whether as a punter I could
glean anything positive from it.
Let’s start by defining what I mean by an
astonishing run, I have basically categorized this into four areas (a) Horses
that run track records (b) Horses that produce huge finishing bursts to win
from the rear of large fields (c) Horses that are forced to cover an enormous
amount of extra ground in the run, but still come away to win (d) Horses that
overcome severe interference to go on and win. In each of these cases the
horses are competing against animals of their own class. At this point, perhaps
the word astonishing is a little too flamboyant, and should be replaced with
the word taxing, which is probably more appropriate. Performances as such in
these listed areas would have to have a far greater taxing effect than normal
on a horse’s energy reserve.
I started to examine these areas in a
little more detail and was somewhat taken aback by the results of the first
area. I surveyed horses that had run track records over the last ten years at
all the major tracks in this country. Horses that were spelled after their
record breaking runs were not included. This left 117 horses who continued to
race on, of those 117 horses only 17 won
at their subsequent start! By comparison, this area was relatively easy to
interrogate, horses in the other categories were more a product of recollection
than anything else, but from a person who has witnessed literally thousands of
races, there were numerous entries in each area. Again, checking the subsequent runs of all
the horses I had recalled, most had been beaten at their next start.
The big question now, was why were the
majority of these runners beaten next time out after producing stunning wins?
My personal slant on this is, if a horse produces one
of the aforementioned categorized runs, then there seems to be almost a gross
underestimation of the taxing effect these types of runs have on an animal. Gut
busting runs as such almost certainly retard the recovery process to the point
where extra rest time is require to offset fatigue at the horses next run.
Horses not afforded this extra time seem to suffer from a residual fatigue
syndrome which prevents optimum performance and hence the animal is beaten.
Recovery time for racehorses can vary
considerably between animals; some horses can lose more than 25kg in a single
race, which equates to roughly 5% of their body weight. A thoroughbred at peak
fitness should put the weight back on within 3-4 days if all remains well with
them. In an effort to establish recovery time for individual racehorses I have formulated
something I call horses Recovery Index Figure, which is the average number of
days a horse has been rested before producing winning form. I examined a
runner’s career wins, ignoring first up wins then looked at the number of days
rest before each winning performance, the total rest
days were then divided by the career wins to give the Recovery Index Figure. If
for instance, at his career point now, Weekend Hussler
has had a total of 76 days rest between his 5 career wins which would give him
a R.I.F. of 15.2 days. Incidentally he was a beaten short priced favourite in the Emirates mile on the last day of the
carnival coming off a 7day break. After his guineas win he dropped back to
1200m against older horses then jumped back to the mile at open group one
company when he was unplaced. I think there at least is some sort of case as to
the taxing effect of the last runs of his campaign.
Now comes the part where this all starts to
gel. If we can accurately assess a horse’s performance to fit into one of the
four categories of taxing runs, and at its next start its rest period is not longer than its .R.I.F. Then this galloper is a distinct liability
irrespective of price. The greatest
sprinting mare of all time in this nation, Miss Andretti ran a track record at
Ascot over 1200m in November 05 and also ran a track record at
Most form students look at days between
runs from a fitness angle, not a recovery perspective. Who could forget Belle Du Jour’s incredible win in the 2000 Golden Slipper when
she totally blew the start and almost bucked the rider off, twice in her career
she won off a 5 and 7 day back up, but that slipper performance was so taxing
that 14 days rest was insufficient. She was beaten next start. The great Super
Impose who won the Epsom –
When horses produce a ‘wow, what a run’,
performance they are not missed by the nation’s punting fraternity who heavily
wager on these animals to replicate that performance at their next start, but
most don’t, because they cannot produce optimum performance because of the
residual fatigue effect that these types of runs generate.
I have used some better credentialed horses
as case studies here, and they are certainly not isolated cases employed to
bolster some questionable supposition, this has been happening for as long as I
can remember and as far as my research goes is now validated by strong
statistical evidence. Hopefully for many this article is the unveiling of one
of racing’s most unseen pitfalls. Although I have categorized four areas as set
criteria for taxing performances beyond the normal, punters could also pay
attention to the pattern of the number of runs in a horse’s preparation, and
when they show signs of training off. Again in this scenario the animal may
need added time beyond its normal R.I.F.
The most important aspect to remember for
those wishing to put this into practice, is a horses last start winning performance
must genuinely fall into one of the four listed categories. If it does and we
have established the subsequent run falls outside the horse’s recovery rate
pattern, then what we have is a bona fide liability. Naturally there will
always be the odd exception to the rule, but I firmly believe this is a very
powerful filter or culling tool, if we can regularly remove 2.50 and 2.00 favourites out of the equation, then we are left with very
seductive markets, which from a punting context, as they say in that well known
beer ad ‘It’s all good’