On Monday the Asian Pattern Committee announced it had upgraded three Australian races from Group Two to Group One level, effective at the beginning of the 2013/14 racing season.
The Memsie Stakes (1400m, weight-for-age, Caulfield), Moir Stakes (1200m, weight-for-age, Moonee Valley) and Canterbury Stakes (1300m, weight-for-age, Rosehill) were the three races to receive the boost that not only guarantees top-level status but prize-money of at least $350,000 for each race.
Along with those three races, the Australian Pattern Committee unsuccessfully nominated a further three races for elevation – the Makybe Diva Stakes (1600 metres), Schillaci Stakes (1000 metres) and Apollo Stakes (1400 metres).
Using a criterion that places emphasis on the quality of the placegetters in Group Two races, the aforementioned six are considered to be the strongest second-tier contests in Australia.
But the process is flawed.
By only considering the strongest races for upgrades the Pattern Committee is encouraging the strengths of Australian racing to prosper, while its weaknesses continue to be exposed.
Each of the six races mentioned are sprint or mile races. There is not one middle-distance event, let alone the nomination of a staying race. A race like Geelong Cup (2400 metres, Group Three) – that has produced three winners and four placegetters in the last ten Melbourne Cups – was worthy of consideration.
It continues a trend that, in its extreme, shortened (from 3200 to 2400 metres) and downgraded (from Group One to Group Two) time-honoured races like the Brisbane and Perth Cups.
This trend accurately reflects the current state of Australian racing, where sprint racing has grown to prominence at the expense of staying races, as owners go in search of a quick return on their healthy investments.
And as a result, the racing world has come to view Australian sprinting as top class. But, undoubtedly, at a distance longer than a mile we’re correctly perceived as poor.
Australians are proud of their gun sprinters, but that pride is not dissimilar to a champion T20 cricket team beating its chest to a world that places more importance on Test and 50-over contests.
As it currently stands, there are more than enough Group One sprint races in Australia – 17 races at a distance of less than 1400 metres enjoy the highest status.
Apart from being unnecessary, the upgrades of the Memsie, Moir and Canterbury are encouraging imbalance in Australian racing.
Four of Australia’s five richest races are run over 2000 metres and longer, and quite uniquely, two of those races are handicaps. But many of the support races for the majors are underwhelming in comparison.
A big reason why we have so few quality stayers is because there isn’t a strong staying program, even with important races like the Melbourne Cup. This is something that can be addressed.
The Australian racing industry is built upon handicaps, yet there is not a single Group One 2000-metre handicap on the calendar. There are, however, Group One handicaps run at 1100, 1200, 1400, 1500, 1600, 2400 and 3200 metres.
2000 metres is the perfect distance for a thoroughbred horse race. The mile and a quarter asks questions of a horse’s speed and stamina; brings to the fore its brilliance and its strength. It is the quintessence of the middle distance – the reason why horses like So You Think endear themselves to fans around the world.
Greg Carpenter, the General Manager of Racing at Racing Victoria, told Melbourne radio station RSN on Tuesday that the Australian Pattern Committee will support any race that can fill a gap in the pattern.
As an example, Carpenter mentioned the Naturalism Stakes (2000 metres, handicap). The Naturalism has been run as a Caulfield Cup lead-up since its inauguration in 2000, and in 2009, with the help of the Pattern Committee was upgraded from Listed status to Group Three.
In the 2012 spring, the Naturalism will be the fourth-strongest staying handicap behind the Melbourne, Caulfield and Geelong Cups because the winner is guaranteed a place in what is likely to be, because of an international presence, one of the best Caulfield Cups in years.
The Naturalism experiment shows the 21st-century value of a race that offers ballot exemptions for internationally-contested handicaps.
On Saturday, the first Group One of the season will be run – the Golden Rose. The Golden Rose was only formed in 2003, starting off as a $1m non-graded three-year old race.
Using its prize-money to consistently draw high-quality fields, the Golden Rose quickly developed into one of the best Caulfield Guineas previews each season. And within seven years of formation, the race was promoted to Group One status.
With the Golden Rose and Naturalism templates for success, there is merit in the creation of two $1m 2000-metre handicap races to be run in the Spring and Autumn Carnivals respectively.
Not only would both races fill a void as the only Australian races of their kind, but by offering the first three placegetters automatic entry into the next Caulfield and Melbourne Cups, they can provide necessary drive for Australian staying racing.
For the first time in a few years, Australian stayers would have a definite, clear and realistic path into to Australia’s two biggest handicaps.
The Spring Carnival race can be run on the final day of Flemington Cup Week, giving any horse (Aussie or otherwise) the opportunity to be the first to make the following year’s Cup fields.
It also provides an incentive to keep progressive stayers in work until the end of the Carnival and encourages greater international participation in the spring.
The autumn race can be run at Randwick on Derby Day, serving the dual purpose of a Sydney Cup lead-in and Carnival drawcard.
And if races like the Queen Elizabeth at Flemington and Randwick City Stakes have to make way for these two new races, so what? The Peter Pan Stakes was replaced by the Golden Rose and no-one even noticed.
This week’s news about the upgrading of three Group Two sprints may seem a little perplexing, but perhaps it can be the catalyst for positive change in Australian racing.
CaptainSensible
Guest
You need to realise that there will always be more Grp1 races at the "sprint" & "mile" distances compared to Grp1 races at 2000m+. At times these distances are not in fact regarded as sprint trips, such as 2yo and early 3yo racing. You cannot look at the amount of races at these distancves in isolation but rather break them up into 2yo , 3yo and open class races. A "staying" type of 2yo race, such as the Grp1 Champagne Stks, is run over 1600m rather than 2400m or 3200m. 1600m is the longest 2yo distance on the calendar. A "middle distance" type 3yo race, such as the Grp1 Caulfield Guineas, is run over 1600m in early spring. I'm a firm believer in the VRC Victoria Derby being run at 2000m as 2500m is simply too demanding of an early 3yo. Many who compete simply never go on afterwards. The Kentucky Derby faces the same sort of early season problem and as such it's run at 2000m. The VRC Victoria Derby should also. All the other Derby's should remain at 2400m (the classic distance) as they are held much later in the racing season. So when you talk about the amounts of Grp1's at a particular distance to paint the whole picture the figures need to be dissected and broken up into 2yo, 3yo and open class races to give a true reflection of break up of Grp1 races.
Alfred Chan
Expert
They really need to change some of the international race qualification criteria. I've seen plenty of group 1 and 2 races in Europe which have fields of 8 or less. Running last in a race should not qualify you for the MC!
johnny nevin is a legend
Guest
I believe rich patrons are just as important to the Australian industry, Darley had a 1-2 in the Golden Rose today and John Singelton had another win with More Joyous. These people are important because the best bred horses (which they can afford) should be winning Group 1 races for the most part. Also I don't believe a middle distance horse has to be necessarily maturing in the paddock. In Europe 2 year olds run at 1200-1400m, then as 3 year olds their best distance can be determined. Of course they can get better as 4 year olds but a good 3 year can be competitive at middle distance.
Sh00ter
Roar Pro
Trainers love the idea of WFA preps knowing their horses are exempt...
Justin Cinque
Expert
Here are the official balloting and exemption clauses from RVL for the 2012 Melbourne Cup: BALLOTING CONDITIONS (1) The Directors may in their absolute discretion exclude any horse or horses from the race, whether the safety limit of 24 horses at final acceptance time shall be reached or not, and if such exclusion occurs, and more than 24 final acceptors remain, balloting of surplus horses will continue in the normal manner to its conclusion. The winner of the following, if any should be a nomination and a first, second and final acceptor for the 2012 Emirates Melbourne Cup, shall be exempt from any ballot on this race: - 2012 VRC The Lexus Stakes - 2012 VRC AAMI Victoria Derby - 2012 VRC Mackinnon Stakes - 2012 MVRC Cox Plate - 2012 MRC Caulfield Cup - 2012 Irish St Leger (IRE) - 2012 Tenno Sho (Spring) (JPN) (2) Subject always to the Directors' absolute discretion, as stated, remaining final acceptors in excess of the safety limit of 24 horses shall be eliminated in the following order, until the safety limit is reached: Horses OTHER THAN those that: A) since 1 August 2010 inclusive have won, or been placed 2nd or 3rd in an internationally recognised Group or Graded flat race run over 2300 metres or further; OR B) since 1 August 2010 inclusive have been placed 4th or 5th in an internationally recognised Group 1 or Grade 1 flat race run over 2300 metres or further in which horses older than 3 years old could run, OR C) since 1 August 2010 inclusive have won an internationally recognised Listed flat race run over 2300 metres or further, OR D) since 1 August 2010 inclusive have won or been placed 2nd or 3rd in the York Ebor (UK), Northumberland Plate (UK), Cesarewitch (UK), Champions & Chater Cup (HK) or Queen Mother Memorial Cup (HK), OR E) have been placed 6th, 7th or 8th in the 2012 MRC Caulfield Cup, OR F) have been placed 2nd or 3rd in the 2012 MVRC Cox Plate, OR G) have been placed 2nd or 3rd in the 2012 VRC Mackinnon Stakes, OR H) have won the 2012 VRC Turnbull Stakes Should the number of such horses exceed the number of horses required to be eliminated from the race, then such elimination shall be effected by order of the lowest appended weight figure against the benchmark weight for individual horses, as the case may be. Horses in this clause (2) with the same lowest appended weight figure against the benchmark weight for individual horses, as the case may be, shall be eliminated in order of lowest aggregate prizemoney received in flat races since 1 August 2010 inclusive. Horses equal in both of these respects sha ll be eliminated by lot. (3) If, after Balloting Clause (2) has been exhausted, excess horses remain, then subject to the exercise of the Directors’ discretion, elimination of such horses shall be effected by order of the lowest appended weight figure against the benchmark weight for individual horses, as the case may be. Horses in this clause (3) with the same lowest appended weight figure against the benchmark weight for individual horses, as the case may be, shall be eliminated in order of lowest aggregate prizemoney received in flat races since 1 August 2010 inclusive. Horses equal in both of these respects shall be eliminated by lot. SPECIAL NOTES 1. The Japan Racing Association (JRA) will officially invite the 2012 Emirates Melbourne Cup winner to the 2013 Tenno Sho (Spring), with JRA covering expenses for the invited horse, including round-trip air transportation and other ancillary expenses. 2. A horse that is a final acceptor for this race, and is subsequently balloted from it, is eligible for a $100,000 bonus should it win the 2012 VRC Queen Elizabeth Stakes (2600m) at Flemington on 10 November.
Justin Cinque
Expert
Shooter you are correct. The Bendigo Cup is not a ballot-free race. I thought it was but after doing a bit of research - it's, as you say, a penalty and qualifying race. I still think the CC placegetters should be exempt. (Atm, as far as I can tell, only the CC winner is exempt.) Most years it won't matter but in 2009 Vigor ran third in the CC, didn't run on Derby Day and was 25th in the order when the MC barrier draw was done!
Sh00ter
Roar Pro
Great data Harada. While that 2yo prizepool looks small in comparison to the others I bet it's big relative to Europe and America! Aussies love flogging their 2yos for all the reasons JC has mentioned. If we could shift some of the industry back to staying, we would have more Cup horses. Also that 3yo prizemoney is not evenly spread across middle dist and staying races. perhaps too much at each end (sprints - derbys/oaks').
Sh00ter
Roar Pro
Very well written JC. The Caulfield Cup winner probably should be exempt but as I understand it winners of races like the Bendigo Cup and CC meet the qualifying conditions for the Melbourne Cup and are subject to weight penalties. Their performances dictate whether they are worthy of climbing the ballot and making the field. When good local stayers like Niwot and At First Sight are the only top ten finishes in the Cup it seems the current system is working. Green Moon may have been injured and failed in the Lexus, Southern Speed did not pay up and Mourayan was lame in the Mackinnon. Tanby was not high enough in the ballot which may support your argument (of giving more locals exemption when they win Group handicaps) but personally I think he was a year off. I hope he qualifies this year, either way Lloyd will have a strong team and he will make the best of the system.
Justin Cinque
Expert
Plenty of good points. Just on the amount of g1s - that's 17 between 1000 and 1350. Using haradasun's numbers, a further 22 between 1400 and a mile, so not so heaps between 1800 and two miles. In any case, balance is important. Our racing and breeding industry will do better out of racing that is world class at ALL distances not at the sprints and mile only.
Balanced
Guest
Justin, with the reference to Europe, you've identifed the difference between the two industries. Racing in Europe has relatively low prizemoney, and the good horses are owned by the sheiks, Coolomre, the Aga Khan, the Queen and the like. At that level, they can afford to breed and maintain stayers that can compete in the races that have the tradition - and these are invariably distance races because all horses were stayers when these races were introduced. Australia has a more egalitarian industry, that links directly back to the growth of the TAB model in the 1960's and 1970's, which allowed prizemoney to escalate. Prior to that, our industry was the same as Europe's - dominated by the aristocracy, or by "colorful" characters who relied on the punt. Our industry has evolved over the last 40 years in a way that allows a much wider array of fans to race a horse, or at least share in the ownership. It is for this diverse range of owners that the breeding industry largely caters. The idea that we breed 2yos becasue owners are chasing quick returns rests on the false premise that horses make a profit, and owners "choose" to make a quick profit rather than waiting longer to get a bigger return. The fact is that whether you buy a sprinter or a stayer, the odds are that it won't make you a profit, and at least with the sprinter you find that out much earlier, and therefore before the really big running cost $$$ have racked up. Patience is needed with a stayer, agreed. Again it comes back to needing deep pockets, because a Lloyd willimas can have 50 horses and with volume comes the reality that there's always something running ever week somewhere, and always a new batch ready to come through. By contrast, the average Joe that has a share in one horse wants to see that horse racing, not maturing in a paddock. Re the discussion about the upgrades, you stated (from memory) that 17 of our G1s are at 1400m or less? If my maths is correct, then that leaves 54 G1's that are at 1500m onwards. The incongruity is that the majority of our G1s are at distances that the horse population is no longer bred for. While I agree that the number of G1s is getting to the point where the quality is being tarnished, it does make sense that new ones being added are at less than 1600m, where our depth of competition is.
peeeko
Roar Guru
True that seems to be the pattern. The coolmore used to be the only mares only G1, now there is one in adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane and one more in Sydney.
Justin Cinque
Expert
All three races that were promoted have lured top quality fields in recent years - it was the most important aspect of the selection criteria for upgrade. I think the extra three races wouldn't have raised as many eyebrows if they replaced a few similar races for example like the George Main (1600m G1 WFA) which isn't the strongest G1 around - at least its comparable to its replacement as a WFA race over a similar distance to the Memsie. The problem, from the Pattern Committee's point of view, regarding those races you say should be downgraded is that each of them fill a gap in the pattern as mares specific, fillies specific and 2yo specific races. Listening to Greg Carpenter on Tuesday there appears to be desire for more fillies G1s especially below a mile.
Justin Cinque
Expert
Fair enough balanced. You make a good point. I shouldn't have used "quick returns" because, as you correctly point, it's more about saving money. In my opinion, the patience a stayer requires is another reason why there has been a move away from the stayer in Australia. And when the program begins to dissipate it is another turnoff for any owner. But these factors (patience, saving money on sprinters) hasn't stopped Europe from supporting an industry that has a large percentage of long-distance horses - although their industry, with so many sheiks and so few battlers, is less favourable to what we have here; racing in Australia often for 10x more prizemoney.
peeeko
Roar Guru
nice article Justin, i would have thought that the Makybe diva would have been ahead of the Memsie (also i thought they could have found a better race for the name of makybe diva - she was no miler). i also think that having 2 G1 mares races over the same distance at rosehill (queen of the turf and coolmore) is too much. i can als osee the case for promoting the said races as they are constantly won by top racehorses. the recently promoted adelaide sprint race for mares is also a cakewalk for one mare that often whips a very average field. other races that could be dropped are the SA oaks and the 2yo race in brisbane
Balanced
Guest
Can someone please lay to rest this myth about Australia breeding sprinters because "owners chase quick returns"? Buying a racehorse does not provide "returns" at all. If it was about "returns", everyone would breed and buy stayers, because that is where the big prizemoney is. Between the Cups, the BMW, the cox plate, the derbies and ther oaks' there is WAY more money to be won by a good stayer than a good sprinter. Especially when it is so competitive at the sprinting end and so threadbare at the staying end. Most horses lose money for their owners, so the buyer's preference for sprinters is about loss minimisation. With sprinters you find out at a younger age whether the horse can gallop. With stayers, you can be waiting three and even four years to find out the horse's capability. Not many owners have $100k to splash out over and above the purchase price to find out that their slow maturing stayer is actually just slow. Lloyd Williams is not your average battler; he is indicative of the deep pockets needed to have a stableful of stayers. You could nominate another ten staying races to be worth $1m each, and it will not encourage the breeding of one more stayer. Because of the 18,000 horses bred each year, 17,990 won't win those prizes, and there aren't a lot of people who can afford a $100,000 lottery ticket to have a 1 in 2000 chance of a prize.
Justin Cinque
Expert
Exactly!
Cameron Rose
Expert
Yep, more good points, the most instructive of which is the latter. And 'exciting' is the right word, there's so much that could be done with some progressive thinking, and there'd be no shame in some trial-and-error. One benefit that I do like of exemption races being held in the Autumn or previous Spring is that connections get to plot their path toward the key event without the hassle of trying to qualify, and as you point out, for the progressive stayer, that is all-important so they're not faced with having to run three times in as many weeks later in the carnival.
Justin Cinque
Expert
Cam I agree with just about everything you write there. Just on those 2000m races - I agree, we should have all the races you mention with exemption clauses before any non-Carnival races but that won't happen (and neither will my idea). But I hope with a $1m prize pool and exemption clauses those 2000m races would 1. draw better fields than the Sydney Cup and maybe even the BMW!! 2. would be more accurate Cup trials because they are at a kinder distance (therefore enticing more progressive types like those owned by Lloyd Williams who so rarely come to Sydney in the autumn) and at handicap scale (unlike the BMW, Ranvet, etc) and 3. would provide a boost to the staying calendar and staying racing. I envisage these races would be very much in the Naturalism, Geelong Cup, Lexus mould. But we're dreaming, it won't happen. Ideally, the Naturalism would be the $1m race for the spring. At the end of the day, if the VRC is willing, there are so many exciting options re ballot clauses for the Melbourne Cup.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Some excellent points made here Justin, and one thing i've been very strong on is rewarding in-form horses with a Melbourne Cup berth. To that end, while I agree wholeheartedly with the first three home in the Caulfield Cup being exempt into the Melbourne Cup (to me, it's a no-brainer), I'm not a fan of rewarding horses outside of the current Spring. There's no guarantee that a horse that wins your idea of a 2000m race (not a bad proposal itself by the way) is going to be in form or worthy of a place a year later. There have also been plenty of BMW and Sydney Cup winners that also couldn't back up a few months down the track. I don't mind having the first three in the Caulfield, winners of the MV Cup, Ballarat Cup, Lexus, Mackinnon, and upgrade Geelong Cup to a group two and allow first and second from that. If you happen to get nine different horses in that group, then you know they are all in peak form at the right time of year. By virtue of having those races with exepmtions in the MC, you're drawing strong fields, and most international horses will run in one of them as well for fear of being balloted out. As for the Memsie upgrade, it's not required for what is basically a kick-start race for longer campaigns. The other two are also, as pointed out, unnecessary, and almost redefine the word. And while on all of this, why the hell is the Toorak still an exempt race for the Caulfield Cup? Outdated thinking.
Bondy.
Guest
Haradasun. Its all geared there through prize money to not get your horse bred to run a mile. Of those "stats" three yr old races most of those would be classics trips or ten furlongs and most of the over the mile races category would consist of three yr old classic races Oak's and derbys,interesting. Is that how you read it Haradausn.