As evidenced on Saturday, trainers have such a strong influence on markets that it is only a matter of time before racing’s integrity comes under fire.
In an industry where freedom of information is paramount to how markets are shaped, Peter Moody’s comments leading into the Group 1 Memsie Stakes must be a concern.
After his two Memsie runners, Moment Of Change and Dissident, had their final pieces of work leading into the Memsie, Moody addressed the media.
“Moment Of Change worked super here at Caulfield this morning and he’s trained-on nicely since his first up run,” Moody said on Tuesday.
“He (Moment of Change) is certainly the pick of my two and I’d be disappointed if he’s not in the mix.”
Moody was then asked about his other runner, Dissident.
“He actually got a bit lost working at Caulfield this morning.
“Dissident hasn’t been in the Melbourne direction for a while and he hasn’t really been in Melbourne much since he was a two-year-old so he might take benefit out of the experience.”
Not even a Rhodes Scholar could have interpreted Moody’s comments in any way other than a prediction that Moment Of Change will beat Dissident. It’s why Moment Of Change opened at $6.50 while Dissident was understandably less fancied at $17.
When the gates opened, Moment Of Change had firmed into $5 SP while Dissident came in late to $12 SP.
Dissident comfortably won the Memsie, while Moment Of Change finished stone motherless last.
Two potential explanations are Peter Moody is a shocking judge of trackwork, or he misled the media and subsequently the punters. Considering he has 44 Group 1 wins under his belt, the former is hard to believe.
According to the official stewards report, a post-race veterinary examination of Moment Of Change showed no abnormalities. Rider Luke Nolen could not offer stewards any explanation and Moody was calm and collected in his post-race interview.
Scrutinising trainer comments is a fine line to tread because most trainers are very generous with their time to the media and it’s difficult to believe one would deliberately mislead others for the sake of self gain. While Moody’s Tuesday interview was just one example of wayward comments, his influence on the markets was substantial.
Late mail is the biggest indication of a market move and it is something highlighted across all racing media broadcasters for the sake of market transparency.
While jockeys in Australia cannot bet, there are very lenient guidelines for trainers and stable employees. Persons registered to a certain stable can bet freely so long as they do not lay a horse from their stable.
What made the Memsie even more interesting was that there is a Mr P G Moody listed as the first owner of Dissident among ten others.
Trainers tend to avoid racing their horses against each other because it means there will be at least one unhappy set of connections. His decision to do so had to have been influenced by honest belief of Dissident’s chances.
Generally speaking, one of the greatest benefits of being an owner is having the inside information on a horse. Owners know how the horse has recovered from their last run, how they have worked at trackwork and ultimately, how they will go in their next race.
The best trainers are the honest ones.
Moody can be given a reprieve on this instance because there was no major move in fixed odds betting between Tuesday and Saturday. Any inside information was not leaked until race day but if Moody could influence the market with his comments on Tuesday, there is little stopping other trainers from doing the same and potentially profiting big at the expense of gullible punters.
Although most bookmakers have limits on fixed odds betting, there are still plenty of loopholes due to the amount of bookmakers out there.
Something which could be worth looking into is adopting principles from the New Zealand racing model.
In New Zealand, jockeys can freely bet on their own horses but only if they bet into the tote. This way, any large market movements are accounted for in the final dividend.
If the same rule was applied to trainers and stable employees, the tote dividend would be an even more accurate reflection of a horse’s winning chance than it is already.
The media is not the same placid entity it once was.
Nowadays, it is a whole new beast that produces information at rapid speeds. Comments made by trainers spread through television, radio, internet and print faster than ever before courtesy of social media and Freudian slips become so much more.
Although trainers are in not responsible for decisions made by punters, it has become very clear that their comments are reflected in betting.
The disparity in Moment Of Change and Dissident’s market prices would probably fall on the lower scale of racing’s integrity alarm scale but it is only a matter of time before a much more controversial case arises.
Update – Alfred has since approached Peter Moody, and has offered the following statement:
The purpose of the article was to create discussion around the issue of media accountability and by no means did I maliciously intend to single out any trainer or stable. I acknowledge that Peter Moody should not have been isolated in the context and apologise for any damage caused.
Syd
Guest
Having owned racehorses I know first hand that trainers are the worst judges/tipsters of horse racing around. They make Ken Callander look like a genius and that is almost an impossible feat. In saying that, there is no doubt that many trainers mislead the public on purpose with some of their comments. Some trainers never give their horses a chance while many ( especially Gai Waterhouse ) have never saddled up a runner that they didn't think would win. What punters really need is a Betfair acct and to be privy to the information that Gai gives to her husband and son. How that debacle and insider trading is allowed to happen is an absolute joke and a disgrace.
AC Markets
Guest
The other point that unfortunately was not referred to by the writer was that Peter Moody gave another interview on the Friday to Shane Anderson on RSN. I don't recall the exact words spoken but there was nothing in there to turn punters off Dissident as the article implies. I listened to it and it didn't stop me backing Dissident. It would have been fairer to the trainer involved to refer to all of the comments made to the media that week
Bondy
Guest
I heard Moody on Trackwork this evening he couldn't have been more obliging or honest ..
The Gai Lays
Guest
"Gai Waterhouse usually gives all her horses a chance" Classic comment made by Stevie Wonder
Bondy
Guest
Dontodd I did notice that with Weir on the weekend he had both fav's horses in that race but a decent punter didn't /wouldn't have thought POP was actually his best chance I backed Signoff after his comments Weir suggested POP was the better chance..
Dontodd
Guest
Gai isnt the problem with media comments. She always says they will win, therefore just ignore her. Darren Weir is far more of a concern. Of all his heavily backed winners recently, he has talked them down in the media. Thenon Saturday, he said Our Hand of Faith was his best, and it blew like the absolute proverbial. Questions need to be asked of things like this......but of course they wont be. He also said Prince of Penzance was a better chance than Signoff. Signoff was the one that was backed. I find it hard to believe that huge plunges/drifters can exist without someone inside the stable's knowledge.
Michael Steel
Roar Pro
Good to hear that Alfred basically apologized to Peter Moody. The comments in the article towards Peter Moody came across across as sour grapes.
Colin Smee
Guest
100% correct
The Gai Lays
Guest
Read the Stewards Report of Almalad from Saturday... A post-race veterinary examination of Almalad revealed the gelding to have aggravated superficial abrasions to the off hind cannon. Stable representative Mr M Newnham, when questioned, advised that the healing superficial abrasions to the off hind cannon of Almalad were due to an incident when the gelding was coming off the track some 10 days earlier. "10 DAYS EARLIER"
The Gai Lays
Guest
The Offer avoids big wet https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/24869710/the-offer-avoids-big-wet/
Brent Ford
Roar Guru
She's taking The Offer to Melbourne to follow the same path as Fiorente in last year's spring. Fiorente won the same race that The Offer will be running in on Saturday last year.
The Gai Lays
Guest
I find it funny that Alfred Chan has targeted Peter Moody and has only raise one point, he must have had his money on Moment of Chance. It's no secret which trainer he should really be targeting (Gai Waterhouse) who spreads her misguided information to punters like cancer. Gai is a protected species in the horse racing industry in Australia - no surprise there for most punters. The media are scared to write anything non positive about her in case of losing their jobs. They also continuely have Gai live on air in interviews before the race, in spreading her misguided information. We also learnt last week that Gai is a huge hypocrite. See came out attacking all the other trainers for scratching their horses on wet tracks. Then Gai scrathes two runners just last Saturday because of the wet tracks. She also has taken The Offer to Melbourne to avoid the wet tracks in Sydney. Integrity? There isn't any.
Dave Holland
Guest
It's an interesting one there about the stewards report. The stable has confirmed it is a serious injury which will keep him out until November and you would expect the vet to pick up on it when the horse is trotted in front if them. I would have expected the horse to at least show some lameness or discomfort.
andrew
Guest
Alfred. one more thing. the decision to race dissident in this race against moment of change, was made due to the fact the horse is not that good on wet tracks, and was previously in syd where it was scr, but has come down to melb to get a dryer track. and then there is no 1200m WFA race for it to kick off in, and with it rating they would hardly run it in a hcp with a big weight first up. so, given it had to resume this weekend, or possibly next weekend, what other suitable race was their for it. a 1200m hcp with 62kgs, or first up over a mile in the dato. its a total no-brainer why it ran in the memsie for mine.
andrew
Guest
moment of change did indeed get injured. he had to be, it was a totally uncharacteristic run for an otherwise very consistent horse. the only problem alffed identifies is that this is not shown up in the stewards report. nor should it be, nor could it be. the stewards report is published around 7pm on race day. a lot of injuries take some time to discover. ok, we all know what happened to maldvian on caul cup day, as we could see it, but a muscle tear is something you cannot expect a vet to instantly diagnose on raceday whilst the vet is dealing with 50 others things at the same time. I for one think moody is a very honest and open trainer and calls it entirely how he sees it. further, the fact moment of change got injured is even more shattering, as it probably would have won, if it was working better than dissident.
Margaret Allen
Guest
I think the writer should have realised before he published that his comments were unfair to Peter Moody. He is one of the most straightforward people in the business, and would have no truck with the sort of behaviour implied. I remember that, the day after Black Caviar's narrow win in the Diamond Jubilee he reported that she had injured herself, and conspiracy theories abounded, especially in the UK - talk of cover-ups, etc, etc. All utterly silly - there is no way he would be bothered by such rubbish. Sometimes, I think he is a bit brash, and that offends some people, but he is. quite plainly, utterly honest. You say that trainers should be more accountable for what they say. So, indeed, should writers be.
loverofhorses
Guest
Yes totally agree with you Dave. Gai is the biggest spruiker of her horses than any trainer out there. Everyone of them is a champion and everyone of them is gonna win the race they are in. If She was fined for every time she spruiked her horse to win, and it didn't , then she would be losing money every week. Still remember when she said after the George Ryder that PIerro was the best horse in 50 years.Not saying Pierro wasn't a fantastic horse, and up there with the best of them,but he most certainly was not the best horse in 50 years. The next race he ran in, he got beat by Sacred Falls, and then he was retired to stud. And whilst a trainer may think their horse may win the race or is in with a chance, and give the reasons why. Anything can happen on the day. MOC got injured and thus ran last, Dissident won.. And yes whilst he wasn't the hot fav to win, that doesn't mean Moody should be held accountable for his comments before the race.Had MOC not gotten injured maybe he would of won. Who knows.Then this article wouldn't even of been written.BTW I tipped MOC myself to win and not Dissident. Guess I should fine myself too. :) And good on you Alfred for having the humility,to respond to Moods and admit your mistake in what you wrote, because it was an unfair attack on him. He most certainly is not the only trainer to give an assessment of his horses chances, that got it wrong on the day and he wont be the last. And the comment where you wrote trainers tend to avoid having more than one of their horses in a race is BS to say the least. Most trainers with big stables have to run more than one of their horses in a race, simply because there are not enough races for all to go around in. Moods is not the only trainer out there to have more than 1 runner in a race. Look at Waller and Gai they do it all the time.
Harry
Guest
But why would nothing come up in the Stewards report? It's all a bit suss.
Sammy
Guest
You must feel like a goose now alfred that MOC has been confirmed injured? dissident is a notoriously bad track worker, most "informed" punters would already know that. At the end of the day they are heavily in-breed, wild & highly strung animals who if they are in the mood to win on the day they will...
Todd Baker
Guest
Are we also going to hold tipsters in the paper to account if their tips lose?