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.
Bernie Dowling
Guest
This is good. I have been posting about my blog coverage of the affair on my Facebook page and whose ad should come up at the side of my page: Tom Waterhouse. I did return the favour on Tom's Twitter account when he tweeted he was talking to his lawyers. I asked him if he told them Singo's joke that all lawyers and rugby league wingers should be drowned at birth.
Bernie Dowling
Guest
Kellini looked a certainty but the lack of speed beat it. My point is there are lots of ways to lose on the punt without any dirty deeds behind them.
Bernie Dowling
Guest
I agree totally, Will. There is no percentage in it for Waterhouse to sue, even though on the face of it, he would seem to have good prospects of winning.
Bernie Dowling
Guest
Singo's vet cleared the horse on Thursday. Surely he told Singo this.
Bernie Dowling
Guest
When you say ex-fraudster are you referring to Robbie W. losing his bookie licence because he had "prior knowledge" of the Fine Cotton ring-in? He was not convicted of fraud over that. A lot of people, including myself, thought More Joyous would not win after her previous defeat at odds-on. I am running a series on the story at my blog http://bentbananabooks.blogspot.com.au It is a bit different from what you are reading elsewhere.
Richard
Guest
Honestly, apart from what I saw on television and read in the papers i don't know who is in the right or wrong. What I do know is that no one including the racing industry as a whole will come out of this smelling like roses. Perception is an important thing and the optics of it all don't look good, not good at all.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Everyone connected with the Waterhouse side of this sordid tale is lying, surely we all know it, even if we don't "know it" because of the burden of proof, etc. I keep reading reports that seem to dismiss the notion of Singo raising all of this pre-race. This was not a case of sour grapes or cracking the sad's. There is truth beneath the ranting, it's just a matter of whether it will ever all come out. I guarantee that after the hearing, we still won't know everything that happened, because people will be lying some more. I expect Tom to have covered his tracks very well.
The Barry
Roar Guru
This has become even murkier with Johns now changing what he said on Sundays footy show that Tom told him MJ was 'off' and that he got his words mixed up. That's a pretty flimsy defence for a full-time media commentator (I use the term loosely). Either way on Thursday Tom told Joey that for whatever reason he was going to lay MJ, as of saturday morning he was backing her to the tune of $300k. Nothing adds up here.
WoobliesFan
Guest
Excellent point, but don't blame me - it's not the post I posted.....half of its missing. I'd rather they just have removed it, not that it was anything wrong anyway....weird.
catcat
Guest
it's a mugs game through and through....."sport of kings" pffffft
Goondiwindi Grey
Guest
Good article. Not too worried about the conflict of interest thing.A bookie and trainer can easily get in cahoots, they don't need to be related. if you want a real conflict of interest ask how the Chairman of Racing NSW can also be one the biggest breeders in the country, and an owner and the father of a trainer.not saying he's done anything wrong but conflict of interest is about appearance and perception as much as reality.Racing Nsw controls prize money, programming, employs the stewards, the handicappers etc. etc. I have owned a few horses with different trainers and agree, lots of trainers treat owners like bill paying mushrooms to be kept in the dark.... There's also quite a few who understand the good sense of looking after their customers and treat you well and communicate well. I'd say they are in the minority however. The owner is often looked upon as a poor simpleton with too much money who is more to be pitied than listened to.
Cameron Rose
Expert
You're right Chivasdude, you wonder if this was always a scandal waiting to happen. Although it has to be said, if you cut out everyone who's ever had a dodgy connection within the horse racing industry, you wouldn't be left with anything!! Singo obviously felt that while there was a potential conflict of interest, it had never directly affected him. Clearly, this time he thought enough was enough, because More Joyous is his most treasured horse.
chivasdude
Guest
I also enjoyed the article and agree with the overall sentiment. While I am sympathetic towards Singo, I think it should be said that it is not like he was not aware of the potential for conflict. I mean, it is not like we all suddenly discovered that a leading trainer was married to a leading bookmaker with their son the Next Big Thing in bookmaking. So, is this not a problem of Singo's making? Or is this only a problem now because his horse is under-performing and/or he did not get the inside scoop? Is the AJC culpable for allowing the potential for conflict? I never thought that Robbie's license should have been reinstated in the first place. I mean, a sport like this has to be based on integrity otherwise, what hope does the punter have? So, while a tough call, Fine Cotton should have been a life sentence for Robbie. As for Tom, he certainly (in my view) blurs the distinction between commentator and bookie and undoubtedly trades of Mum's name. Was this an accident that was always going to happen at some point?
Bondy
Will. Tom's only a newcomer when it comes to modern online corporate bookmaking ,generally most corporates have everyones business by now, I have 3 accounts the 2 Darwin sports corps and the exchange betfai, I don't hold an account with Waterhouse " simply no need in modern times " and haven't bet with the tab for 20 years. In Tom's new edged 21'st century aggressive approach to corporate bookmaking, he's alienated and ostracised himself to the punting public in this case, and also to the mums and dads at home watching the footy on Friday nights ,back to the drawing board Tom.
Sausages
Guest
Great article Cam. Really articulates the situation well, as well as the all to common plight of the 10% owner, which I know all too well. It seems like a common thread that doing your homework on a trainer is the way only way to go. You play a dangerous game by merely following someone in blindly. Don't know anyone with a Tom Waterhouse account but would have liked one when a protest hasn't been in my favour!! Saus.
ausi
Guest
This whole saga is about credibility and the truth (it is still in there somewhere in the mix). It seems pretty obvious that Singo had a bee in his bonnet BEFORE the race - given the info he claims / or maybe he just looked at the horse - she looked bad - light, dull, listless - in fact FLAT. The infection (heat in the neck) plus antibiotics would explain this, or she may have just had enough - the combination will almost guarantee a poor performance. Think about it - you dont win a gold medal against Jusain Bolt if 48 hours before you have an infection and are on antibiotics.. Responsibility - whatever else it is the trainers resposibility ARR 140 (a) to report anything amiss to the stewards - apparently this was not done - why? Credibility - the Waterhouse family are unusual - think of the oft repeated statement of Toms that Balck Caviar was better than Pharlap according to grandpa Bill who saw Pharlap win the 1930 Melbourne Cup. Bill was 8 years old in 1930 - typical of the nonsense that is trotted out to the gullible public.
sheek
Roar Guru
Will/Cam/Allanthus, Obviously you don't bet with Tom because you all know what Tom wants - he wants your money! ;-)
Uncle Collo
Guest
People should realise in horse racing there are people on the inside that know stuff(why do you think they are loaded?) and there is the rest that are just chucking darts at a dart board with blindfolds on.
Cameron Rose
Expert
I daresay we'd all like the money to mix in those circles though!
Cameron Rose
Expert
There is a problem with Tom's over-exposure, and I think his smugness behind a wholesomeness (clean cut, always talking about 'mum') that people perhaps don't buy. People don't like him, there's no doubt about that, because he represents what people feel is the evil of gamblilng infiltrating their lives and affecting their children. But it is up to specific sporting codes and governments to put the brakes on, he is simply running his business as he sees fit. I personally don't believe he's telling the whole truth, but that's because when it comes to everyone involved in racing, if I see their lips moving, I assume they're lying.