The use of Discretionery balloting powers in setting final fields in major races came to a head last weak when prepost $10 chance Almohad was left languishing as 1st emergency and missed a start in WA's most famous race - the Group 2 Perth Cup at Ascot Jan 1st.

Almohad's Trainer Lou Luciani labelled the handicapping department as "weak bastards" in a post race interview when the horse was a comprehensive winner in a minor event over 1800m on the same day as the Cup. That comment subsequently drew a stewards enquiry in which Mr Luciani who had already submitted a written apology was fined $2000.

Chief WA Handicapper David Hunter was interviewed on Racing Radio today to clarify the situation and the circumstances as to which Colour Correct had been elevated into the Group 1 Railway Stakes field in November but the same courtesy was not afforded to Almohad.

Colour Correct came thru the traditional lead up races to the Railway and whilst not passing the ballot by winning was runner-up in the Northerly Stakes and RJ Peters Stakes and as such the handicapper could directly compare its form against rivals. Lambton Castle who it replaced in the Railway had performed only moderately in the lead ups and there was no real surprise when it was left out.

Almohad however had been restricted to the lower class races with Luciani no doubt trying to maximise the horses stakemoney earnings leading up to the Perth Cup. By not competing in the traditional lead ups Mr Hunter expressed that handicappers had no sustained evidence on its ability directly against rivals. So despite its impressive winning form which included a 4 length victory over 2200m they could not elevate it ahead of any other runner despite several having poor or unproven form over the 2400m.

So the question remains - what is the purpose of Discretionery Balloting?

By any sense of logic and common sense one would think the purpose would be to compile the strongest possible field for any major race.

There is no doubt that Almohad had superior form to many runners and would have added to the overall strength of the race, the simple fact he was priced so strongly in the market by bookmakers across Australia was testamount to that. The reasoning behind the handicappers decision in the Almohad case seems more of a cop out rather than what could have been a sensibly applied use of the discretionery powers to make the race better. Mr Luciani comments may been out of line but there is no doubt the handicappers took the soft option in this instance.

The ambiguity of discretionery powers is now in an area that really needs to be cleared up or decided whether they are worth using at all.

If handicappers are looking for horses to come thru the traditonal lead ups then perhaps they should clarify that within the conditions of the race. There is no doubt Mr Luciani was relying on the discretionery powers if he didn't gain direct entry and whether or not they were applied correctly there was a lack of understanding there from someone with over 30 years in the industry. That begs the question how would anyone else have understood there use?

Given the popularity of pre-post all-in betting many punters would have lost money on that runner and given future uncertainity with the use of discretionery powers there may be many punters unwilling to invest on such races until final fields become set.

The clearer the situation becomes heading forward the better it will be for all concerned - owners, trainers and punters.