MR after the Gauteng Male and Fillies Guineas 2026

Male Guineas Line horse madness. Same as the 2025 Guineas. In 2025 they used the 6th place horse who finished 10 lengths behind the winner to punish top 3. In 2026 they have used the 6th place horse in what was a dirty race to punish the the top few horses. 
Split the eights from 97 to 121 . Insanity Now the highest rated 3 year old in South africa. 7 *** correction point clear of the best cape horse, at the end of the cape season???? 
Grand Empire from 108 to 120 . now 2nd highest rated 3 year old in SA.
Trust stays 119
On eye on vegas 106 to 118 
FYI

2025 ratings have not proven successful for SA Racing
Winner unable to win a Graduation plate
Runner Up unable to win at 104 MR. 16 point less than rated
3rd. Takena year and 9 point reduction to win a MR 100 level weak Listed event.

The MR rules are killing SA racing. 



 

2026 Fillies Guineas
Lowveld Lily from CPT used as line horse???
Hazy Dazy 101 to 117 . Highest rated 3 year old filly in SA. Again at the end of the Cape season.
Charge it 104 to 113
Golden Palm unchanged
Lowfeld lily LH
Little miss million 99 to 107
Daisy Jones 99 to 106
Drumnadrocht 91 to 105 ????

The MR system is faulty at best and broken at worst. 3000 odd horses. less than 320 race days a season cannot sustain this system to much longer.

I agree - ratings are much too high - resulting in the horses that competed in these races are rated by up to 10 points too high - with a further result that these horses will be handicapped 'out of it' in handicaps in subsequent starts ....

For what it's worth ... I rated Hazy Dazy at 108 and Splittheights at 111

HANDICAPPING RATINGS UPDATE


TAB GAUTENG GUINEAS (Grade 2)

SPLITTHEEIGHTS has been awarded a revised merit rating of 121, up from 97, following his victory in the Grade 2 TAB Gauteng Guineas over 1600m at the Turffontein Standside track on Saturday. The Handicappers elected to use TIN PAN ALLEY, who finished sixth, as the line horse for assessing this race, leaving his rating unchanged on 117.

In addition to the winner, several other runners received upward adjustments to their merit ratings:

GRAND EMPIRE, the runner‑up, was raised from 108 to 120.
ONE EYE ON VEGAS received an increase from 106 to 118.
YIPPEE KIYAY was lifted from 101 to 117.
Lastly, RADIO STAR received an adjustment, moving from 95 to 97.

The only reduction in the ratings was for GOLDEN WARRIOR, who was adjusted downward from 103 to 100.


WILGERBOSDRIFT GAUTENG FILLIES GUINEAS (Grade 2)

Following her impressive victory in the Grade 2 Wilgerbosdrift Gauteng Fillies Guineas over 1600m, HAZY DAZY’S official merit rating has been raised from 101 to 117. The Handicappers used the ever-consistent LOWVELD LILY (fourth place finisher) as the line horse, leaving her rating unchanged at 109.

To maintain the correct pecking order, several other runners also received increases:

The runner‑up, CHARGE IT, was lifted from 104 to 113.
LITTLEMISSMILLION was raised from 99 to 107.
DAISY JONES increased from 99 to 106.
DRUMNADROCHIT improved from 91 to 105.
PRETTY PERSUASIVE went up from 93 to 99.

There were no merit‑rating reductions in this race.




Enquiries:
The Handicapping Team

I see the handicappers have corrected the MR for the male Guineas.

Split the Eight 121 down to 109
Grand empire 120 to 108


and so on and so on.

Sylvester wrote:

I see the handicappers have corrected the MR for the male Guineas.

Split the Eight 121 down to 109
Grand empire 120 to 108


and so on and so on.

Sanity prevails ..... but I assume the Fillies Guineas would also lead to 'adjustments' (even if no appeals are forthcoming, imo the NHA should pre-empt the ratings and lower them) - as it stands Hazy Dazy is rated 117, so she should easily beat Splittheeights at 109 ..... if this is not 'amended', then I would not be surprised if Charge It (did she go back to KZN ?) is entered in the Classic (the connections of Hazy Dazy has been outspoken that she would win the Triple Tiara, so perhaps she should run in the Fillies Classic ....)

I see Trust's rating has also been adjusted to 107 .... what about the Fillies .... ?

And all good for Ratings being adjusted - but how would the rest of the population be affected .... ? 

I see the NHRA are calling out hall of famers

PRESS RELEASE

The blog published on racehorse trainers Mike and Matthew De Kock's website, contains material factual inaccuracies regarding the convening, composition, and mandate of the Appeal Board that adjudicated the merit rating appeal relating to TRUST arising from the TAB Gauteng Guineas (Gr 2).

For the sake of accuracy and transparency, it is necessary to place the correct facts on record.

In terms of clauses 20.3 and 21.3 of the Constitution of The National Horseracing Authority of Southern Africa, (effective 19 November 2025) the Legal Executive is expressly empowered to act as Convenor of Appeal Boards and to constitute such panels when a valid appeal is lodged. In this matter, a merit rating appeal was formally lodged by the connections of TRUST. Acting strictly within this constitutional mandate, the Legal Executive constituted the Appeal Board, appointed its members, and scheduled the hearing. The documentary record confirms that the Appeal Board was duly constituted by the Legal Executive and not by the Chief Executive, either directly or indirectly.

The Appeal Board comprised Messrs R Bloomberg, C Gordon and D Thistleton, and was convened to adjudicate the specific merit rating appeal relating to TRUST. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules, and the panel was duly authorised to determine the appeal and, where appropriate, adjust the ratings. The outcome of the appeal - including the adjustment of the merit ratings of SPLITTHEEIGHTS, GRAND EMPIRE, ONE EYE ON VEGAS, and YIPPEE KIYAY — was determined by the Appeal Boards acting collectively and within its mandate.

It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest that the Chief Executive convened, selected, or otherwise implemented the appointment of the Appeal Board. The Chief Executive played no role in the constitution of the panel, which was effected strictly through the Legal Executive’s constitutional authority as Convenor.

It is further important to distinguish between editorial commentary published in the media and the formal adjudicative process undertaken by an Appeal Board. While individuals may hold or express views in a personal or editorial capacity, Appeal Board members are appointed institutionally, sit collectively, and determine matters based on the submissions before them, the applicable rules, and the evidence presented at the hearing. Decisions are those of the panel as a whole and not of any single member acting unilaterally.

The NHA remains committed to transparency, procedural fairness, and institutional integrity. However, that commitment must be grounded in accurate representations of governance processes and constitutional mandates. Where public commentary attributes decisions or appointments to office-bearers who were not responsible for them, it is necessary to correct the record in order to preserve confidence in the Authority’s adjudicative systems.



Michael Shackleton
Legal Executive

What a load of hogwash ..... so de Kock got his 'facts' wrong ('factually incorrect to suggest that the Chief Executive convened, selected, or otherwise implemented the appointment of the Appeal Board') - so what - as de Kock intimates in his reply 'If the NHA maintains that no such involvement occurred and that Mr Thistleton’s appointment was free of executive intervention, we invite them to state so clearly and unequivocally'; my opinion of the matter is that the 'Handicapping Committee' erred on the ratings (due to the effect that 'certain limitations' are introduced on specific races - totally inappropriate imo).And again, what about the fillies  ....

What is needed imo, is to scrap the 'limitations' going forward and to re-rate the affected horses (I wouldn't go so far as to say to re-rate the entire 3yr-old crop - but this would in itself lead to further disputes - which horses to re-rate and which not ?)

On a seperate but related topic, the above ratings would affect the 3-yr-olds in the July (as no MAXIMUM weight is to be carried from this year onwards) - I guess that before weights for the July are allocated, this whole story will be re-hashed many times ....