[Morgans]

Think its the performance was worth 123, but you subtract the WFA and allowances to get the horses master rating. (Its adjusted to the highest weight in the race, I can ask a few people for the most precise info)

Excelebration is value for a 7l beating off her off levels. 10lbs + 2l. If Elusive Kate OR is 123, then Excelebration's rating should be something like 123 + 14 = 137.

But you are right, Elusive Kate is not a 123 rated horse.

[tryfix]

I came across the BHA handicappers blog on the Marois.

Excelebration ran to 125 in first place.

Cityscape ran to 122 in second, his 124 OR was for running over 1m 1f and 122 is a career high for him over a mile.

Elusive Kate ran to 119 in third, she was beaten 1 1/2l at 2lb a length which is a 3lb beating by a 125 horse which would give her 122 but she is deducted 3lb for the fillies and mare allowance, which brings her back to the 119 rating she achieved in winning the Prix Rothschild.

Moonlight Cloud in fourth OR 121 was judged to have had bad luck in running and was expected to have finished within 1/2l of Excelebration. which would have been a 124 run minus the 3 lb mares allowance.

Caspar Netscher in fifth was given a rating of 121 for being beaten 2l at 2lb a length.

So it seems the wage for weight allowance in GP1 s doesn't affect a horses official rating but the fillies and mares 3lb allowance has to be deducted when calculating the relative performances

http://www.racingpost.com/blog/horse...e-way/1098411/

[ArmaniJeanss]

Yep, weight-for-age allowance is always ignored for ratings purposes. Theoretically the wfa allowance is turning it into a true level weights contest, so the winner is by definition 'better', even if in receipt of a big wfa.