What a complete clown. You're the biggest joke on this forum. Very funny though

Is she a better horse than last year?

Bit like Yeats you mean? He didn't train on from 5-8 did he.

I actually definitely dont think this year was a waker arc then last, i think this one of the strongest arcs in recent years, and the horses werent much closer to her this year then they were last year.

Well, that's irrelevant as the term 'training on' refers to the horse to improving in line with the WFA scale, so that their rating as a four year old is at least the same as at 3, so obviously failing to train on means their rating is lower at 4 than three. Given the period you refer to is outside the WFA scale, it's completely irrelevant. If you're going to mock what I say and proclaim yourself to be the bastion of all knowledge at least make sure you understand what you're talking about first.

Encore!! So if Treve isn't as good at 5 what is the term for that?

If a top 2yo doesn't do very well at 3, what is the term for that? It isn't "hasn't trained on" as I previously thought. Could you tell me please?

When did you write the "Horse Racing Terms Encyclopaedia" and can I buy a copy?

Anyone can clearly see Treve hasn't rained on from 3 to 4. Anyone

Every single horse is different every one
you cant put them into cubby holes and say this one trained on this one did not

clearly Treve had issues this year which had nothing to do with her core ability
The real Treve is the one we saw on Arc day and that was a very strong arc time will prove that

I think you can say there are a lot of 2yo's which aren't anywhere near as good at 3. I thought this meant they "hadn't trained on", but by Ubar's definition this isn't the correct term.

God Im stupid. All bow down to the mighty Ubar, who will try to prove he's right, even when he isn't! Which is quite often.........

Treve hadn't trained on in the POW and Vermeille, but had done by the time she got to the Arc! Cant everyone see that?

When did I say it didn't apply to 2yos? 2yos are inside the WFA scale so the same applies, given that I said it refers to horses inside the WFA scale. I was just talking about why the term wouldn't apply to Yeats. Paul, you say every horse is different, but the nature of WFA means we try to standardise all of them. Therefore, to say she hasn't trained on in line with the WFA scale, as the WFA curve predicts, which is what I'm saying, is perfectly valid. She clearly underperformed in the Vermeille, but had got back to where she should be for the Arc, and if you look at her official rating for the Arc, 125, this is 5lb lower than last year. Therefore, on ratings she hasn't improved this year, and since this has coincided with having to carry more weight, its fair to say that in that sense she hasn't trained on. Paul, you are confusing what I am saying, which is that she hasn't improved in line with WFA, to me saying she has got worse in her core ability. The fact is, due to the nature of WFA, a horse's core ability can improve, and yet its rating can decrease from 3 to 4, as we have seen Treve's do, because it hasn't increased sufficiently to meet the change in weight. Treve carried 10lb more this year, and is rated 5lb lower. Therefore, in her cre ability she is 5lb better than last year. However, because this is not as much as is required to meet the changes in WFA, she hasn't trained on. Saying this doesn't mean she is a bad horse, just that she hasn't improved. I doubt her problems that she had had during the season would have affected her last Sunday, looking at her style, and lets be honest, what's a better performance- beating Orfevre by 5l or Flintshire by 2?

So a top 2yo who isn't as good at 3 is still running against the same age horses so WFA is irrelevant as there isn't any.

Good thread this.

The horse's absolute ability hasn't got any worse, in fact it may have improved, its just that other horse's relative abilities have improved and said horse hasn't improved along the lines dictated by WFA, and so yes, this horse hasn't trained on. The same still applies- when the fficial ratings are compiled, they factor WFA in, so this is why you can have a 2yo rated 130. Take Sigy, winner of 1978 Prix de l'abbaye. She as a 2yo recieved 18lb that day plus fillies allowance, and at the end of the year was rated 132 by timeform. The next year she was rated 119 by Timeform. This is a drop of 13lb, so clearly she must have improved by 5lb in absolute terms, even though because she was carrying much more weight she didnt perform as well and so didnt attain so high a rating the next year. I dont know what youre disagreeing with that Im saying? Treve hasn't trained on as some would have hoped- she's 5lb worse on ratings than last year, and if you look at ruler of the world for a year to year comparison, last year he was 11l behind, this year only 5l, and he's hardly lit up the track this year either. Do you understand the WFA scale?

Amazing. Look Treve hasn't trained on. Everyone in racing can see that.

I rest my case

When she got beaten by CDA, nothing was wrong. On her rating from last year against his at the time, she should have beaten him by lengths. She got beat. She hasn't produced a performance within 5lb of last years best. Yes she did win te arc, I'm not disputing that, but it's possible for a horse to win races and not have trained on at the same time- Frankel could have not trained on and still won all the races he did at 4.

She wasn't race fit. You will just clutch at anything to make yourself right. It's hilarious.

What does a race from 40 years ago have to do with horses not training on from 2 to 3? My question was does WFA count for horses running solely against their own age group at 2 and 3? To simplify a 2yo runs against 2yo's only in it's 2yo season and only against 3yo's in its 3yo season.

Obviously you aren't actually saying Frankel wasn't better at 4? So then why have you mentioned that?

Did Kauto Star train on each year?

I was using Frankel as an example to say that a horse could not train on, i.e its rating could not be as good as the previous year, yet it could still win top races. Just because she has won the Arc, doesn't mean she hasn't trained on.

Why do you keep mentioning older horses? The term training on is only applicable that are in the years where they are still maturing ie 2 to 4.

I was using Sigy as an example, that is easier to visualize as she actually raced under the WFA system.

Ok, on RPR CDA was rated 126 for his Ganay win. Last year Treve was rated 130. Are you saying being race fit she'd have beaten him by the best part of 3l? Add in the fact CDA beat Flintshire by the same margin at Epsom as Treve beat him at Longchamp. Flintshire himself was 10l closer this year than last.