- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
John Singleton has my every sympathy in his war against the Waterhouse clan. Despite how much those of us who love racing are passionate about the sport, no-one can deny the murky history and shady characters that have always inhabited it.
Never have smoke and fire been so closely associated than in the horse racing game.
Racing doesn’t lend itself to win-win-win scenarios.
For every winner, be it jockey, trainer, punter or bookie, there have to be many, many losers. The lure of the punt is strong.
Everybody wants a sure thing, a banker, a no-risk way to make their cash.
And in these situations, greed will rise to the top, and legal boundaries will be pushed, tested and broken to search for that edge.
How many jockeys have been suspended for betting unlawfully, especially in races they’ve been involved in? How many trainers have been caught circumnavigating the clear rules of racing when it comes to treating their horses?
And how many have protested their innocence, as Gai and Tom Waterhouse are doing now, but are later found to be guilty?
Under these circumstances, it’s widely acknowledged that the general punter at his local TAB is at the bottom of the food chain.
The owner who pays the bills is sadly only one rung above, if at all. John Singleton certainly feels this to be the case with the way he was treated by Gai Waterhouse over the More Joyous saga.
I wonder how often a trainer with a horse in a winnable race gets the best odds when they come out, and only then deigns to tell his or her owners that the time is now.
I’ve been involved in a few horses in my time.
All of them reached the track and most of them turned out to be winners; some were only at provincial level, but they still pay odds no matter where they salute!
The best horse was the first. He’d shown something without winning as a two year old, but an original owner needed to sell out, so a few of us got our opportunity.
In his first preparation for us, he recorded two city wins, two placings at listed level, and made it all the way to race in a Group 1. How easy was this!
In fact, the first 18 months with that horse were some of the best times I’ve had in racing.
Spelling after running in the Group 1, he won another city race upon resumption before heading interstate to twice more ‘run a drum’. His next prep saw a five length win and three more placings.
The preparation after all of this quality racing, he didn’t come up. After being such a tough, honest galloper, it was clear something wasn’t right.
That was okay, these things happen with horses, and he’d only had one spell, for eighteen weeks, in a year and a half with us, so might have been on the tired side. He was certainly racing like it.
But from that point on, things began to turn sour.
The next two campaigns, which were inconsistently and bizarrely planned, saw more poor results. Not a single placing from ten starts, the last of which was backing up in seven days and dropping this dead-set 2000m horse from 1800m to 1400m.
A drop in form was understandable, but we didn’t feel the horse was being given his best chance to succeed.
While it was okay when things were going well to overlook communication that was haphazard at best, and an appalling treatment of owners at worst, when it came time for a genuine plan, and answers to important questions, there were none of either to be had.
The mates and I who were in the horse walked away, but because of the flying start with our first horse, we were invested, albeit as minority shareholders, in a few others as well, the last of which ended in amazing circumstances.
This horse was another honest trier, but with much more limited ability. Still, he cracked his maiden, and followed it up with an unlucky third in a 0-68 three weeks later.
Nine days later, we received an email out of the blue asking us to sign out of the horse.
Not only did we not know he had been sold, we didn’t even know he was on the market!
The stable was less than politely informed that, despite their kind offer, we wouldn’t in fact be reinvesting our money from the sale into any horses connected with that yard.
So Singo, I hear you. It’s not a pleasant experience to have information withheld, and as an owner, you get to know your horses very, very well. You know when they’re right, and when they’re not, and you know when there’s a questionable stench surrounding an iffy situation.
No one can accuse Singleton of sour grapes either. He was as up-front and loud pre-race as he usually is after it.
Was it mere coincidence that More Joyous put in a career worst run, and we later heard phrases like “heat found in her neck” and “treated with an antibiotic”, news that the owner was allegedly unaware of?
I personally don’t often believe in coincidences when it comes to the murky aspects of racing any more, and no-one who is exposed to the game for long enough would either. But the burden to prove guilt is on that of John Singleton, and his time will come next Monday where he has to ‘put up or shut up’ as we say in this country.
Conflicts of interest are rife in Australian sport, so it’s no surprise they exist in racing. Tom Waterhouse is an easy target as the most visible bookmaker in the country.
He has put himself in that position with aggressive marketing, and he’ll have to cop the whacks and complaints about over-exposure that come his way.
You’d have to think everything Tom has done is helping his bottom line, because bookies aren’t known for continuing down a losing path.
For all of the promotions from corporate bookmakers, they are not a charitable lot. They only give back so they can take more away.
So how will the Singleton/Waterhouse/More Joyous story end? That’s anybody’s guess.
But what we know for sure is that while it will be the latest sordid tale in the history of Australian racing, it sure as hell won’t be the last.