What do breeders want from racing, and what do punters want?

By Tristan Rayner / Editor

In racing, while most owners, breeders, and wider connections are punters, not all punters are owners, breeders, or anything like a connection.

So how would a breeder run an industry, as compared to a punter?

There a number of aspects of racing which all stakeholders want to see maintained or improved – with integrity one of those. Ensuring a level playing field at all times is crucial for all players.

There’s general agreement that big crowds are good for racing. The more at the track, the more for everyone it would seem. Bigger pools for punters, for revenue for clubs, and less costs for owners – in theory.

But there are a number of areas that differ, drastically.

Breeders are, generally, far more interested in horse flesh and bloodstock than a punter. In consultation with industry types, this is how things could be.

What breeders want:

More prizemoney
There’s no doubt money on the table attracts people to sport.

Riches are exciting and a huge lure, no matter the odds of actually winning. That’s why lotteries work despite the likelihoods.

Black type racing and more racing at Group-level
The term ‘Black type racing’ refers to races being given listed or better status, based on race ratings (more on this later).

A horse that is able to collect black-type is inherently more valuable. Even if the horse is a gelding, that result flows up the ladder to the sire and broodmare, giving their progeny not just winning status but winning status at the highest levels.

Restricted black type
Restricted black type races (restricted based on age or sex) square up the ledger.

One argument would say that creates a best amongst equals performance.

Another argument would point at it being an easier way for fillies and mares to collect less meaningful black type.

Incentives for owners
There’s no question that owners deserve a certain status in racing. Some bookmakers offer better odds to owners.

Victorian owners are given an owners ‘gold card’ providing a range of complimentary privileges and VIP treatments. Giving owners preferred treatment is great for keeping owners involved and incentivising new owners.

Prioritise two-year old and three-old racing
While the grandest of Australian racing is at open level – the Melbourne Cup, Cox Plate, Caulfield Cup – huge amounts of money are poured into two-year old racing. The 2016 Magic Millions raceday will be worth $10 million across nine races, with $2 million each for a restricted two-year old and three-year old race. No race is longer than 1800 metres.

A quality two or three year old is retired once the potential stallion fee exceeds earning potential on the track – racing for prestige and thrill of competition is rarely considered where businesses are concerned. Racegoers and punters aren’t considered.

Shorter distances
On the theme of younger racing comes shorter distances. Australia’s racing rarely extends beyond 2400 metres. The only other time Flemington races to the Melbourne Cup 3200-metre distance is in late May, when the Andrew Ramsden is run.

Australia thrives on sprint races, with the 1600m or mile distance as far as most young horses are pushed. Internationally, our sprinters are feared. Our best stayers don’t come anywhere near the quality of European or Japanese horses, where a Group 2 winner like the unfortunate Admire Rakti can avoid the best of Japan’s horses and come and win one of Australia’s best staying races.

Keeping stallion fees high
Stallion fees are as high as they are able to be. Simple economics suggest that sale prices for yearlings, which are a function of demand, prizemoney and ongoing fees decide the cost of a stallion service fee. Fastnet Rock demands the highest stallion fee in Australia – so high that stud owner Coolmore don’t publish a price. In 2014, that fee was $275,000 and is rumoured to be around $300,000, with some negotiation depending on the quality of broodmare.

That fee was raised to stratospheric levels due to the sales of his progeny – with 38 sold for an average of over $300,000 at Inglis Yearling Sales in Sydney in 2013.

This year, 352 yearlings from all comers from were sold in a single Inglis session at an average of $290,881 – while the 47 Fastnet Rock progeny sold at the leading average price of $476,809.

What punters want:

Information, education and analysis
There’s no secrets here – the more data, the more timely, the more accurate, and the more freely available, the better.

A form guide that included a trainer comment for each horse would surely elevate it and provide more context for the run of a horse – answering questions around a race being a cobweb clearer, or noting if a horse wants a wet or dry track.

Above all else, punters need accurate and timely racing information.

While a loaded formguide full of acronyms and jargon is often a barrier to entry for less committed punters, racing bodies need to provide data for every level of punter.

Data that goes as far as accurate sectionals and veterinary information, timed barrier trial results and stewards reports are not just useful but for considered punters, essential. Results need to be published in full.

In-race sectional times displayed on video footage and referenced on radio calls are essential.

The worst discrepancy exists for maiden racehorses in Victoria, where there are no official jumpouts for first-time runners. Punters that don’t realise this is a poor betting proposition are disadvantaged.

Even quality tipping that offers an educational basis would go a long way.

Are broadcast and regular tipsters help to any sort of long term benchmarks, quality of their tips, and overall profitability? While Sky Channel is devoted towards encourage punters to make a bet, and not necessarily help them win every time, the quality of certain regular tippers leaves plenty to be desired.

One tipster infamously told listeners recently a horse “looks well enough, should run well” – yet it was scratched and not in the yard at all! You have to wonder.

Tipping the favourites in order is occasionally unavoidable, but anything more that occasional doesn’t bode well for finding value.

Affording more air time for education would be a long-term win.

Easier ways to watch and improved coverage
Without attempting to again dissect the TVN/Sky Racing/free-to-air TV and Racing NSW vs Racing Victoria, the punter really only wants two basic things.

The first is obvious: a reliable, free way to watch the horses they want to invest in, that doesn’t require a high level of digital knowledge

Second, a channel that is properly dedicated to feature racing and can offer discussions with trainers, jockeys and real analysis of how they present in the yard.

Protection: Punting that’s fair
While no one expects bookmakers to offer a free ride, too often punters are offered one thing and then given another. Corporates had their hand forced by Racing NSW and the NSW Government to accept certain bet minimums on large races, but closing accounts remains an issue.

One current promotion for new accounts is regularly advertised, but isn’t open to those anywhere but the Northern Territory, ACT, or Tasmania, representing a small minority of the population.

A more technical argument to be made is one that requires markets to be framed only to a limit, where that limit cannot exceed 125 per cent.

Another technical argument could be made for rebates on betting – a system Hong Kong made popular and actually boosted wagering.

On course: Cheap entry, drinks, food
Getting people to the track remains a key for clubs. Punters will pay a fair cost for fair amenities, but the question must be asked: why does Hong Kong charge less than $2 for entry, while Australian tracks charge many times more?

Beer and food must not be allowed to be priced at unreasonable levels, with the AFL correctly reducing costs in recent times. While clubs are always attempting to be profitable, food and drink at a basic level should be priced to encourage visitors, while higher-end services are open to those willing to enjoy more premium comforts.

Horses they know and love running
As mentioned, while breeders want to get their stallions to win enough and then into the breeding barn, punters want to see them race.

No one vested in racing first could be happy to read the list of this year’s retired (or soon to be retired) crop which includes Dissident, Hallowed Crown, Hampton Court, Sacred Falls, Shooting To Win, Adelaide, Brazen Beau, and Wandjina.

At least Frankel beat everything by so much that it was obvious he was the best in a very long time. Black Caviar was very fairly raced around Australia by Peter Moody and owners.

We saw all too little of So You Think, Pierro, All Too Hard, and Adelaide, in no particular order.

One of the reasons geldings are celebrated by punters is that they’re much more likely to there again next year – the incentive is on the track only!

Punters would ban thee-year old retirements if they could. There’s a middle ground.

Ensuring that Group 1s remain true Group 1s
Group 1s must remain the pinnacle of the sport. The best meeting the very best.

There are currently 72 Group 1 races in Australia. And while some may wax and wane in quality depending on the season and some unique circumstances, not all Group 1s are considered equal.

In 2011, Australia agreed to be bound by the Asian Pattern Committee rules, known as Ground Rules. Those rules establish that races that are run at a Pattern Race Rating of 115 or higher can become Group 1s (with some other parameters for certain races, such as lower ratings required for female horse only races).

The number of races attaining Group 1 status has led to a push both internationally and locally for a higher ‘Super Group 1’ tier to emerge.

It remains a controversial but generally supported issue. 60 per cent of Asian Racing Conference delegates voted in favour of the creation of Super Group 1s back in May, 2014.

The International Federation of Horse Racing Authorities (IFHA) haven’t made a move on this idea, nor considered publicly raising the bar further for Group 1 racing.

Roar writer Alfred Chan listed five races in 2014 that could be dropped back to Group 2 status which generated much discussion at the time. However, these races qualified according to the rules because of the rating of horses running.

Some suggest that we should celebrate that Australia has such a high quality of horse. In 2013 146,649 Flat races were run worldwide, and just 459 were considered Group/Grade 1 races. Australia is fortunate enough to have around 16% of the world’s Group 1 racing.

How many of these Group 1s races would qualify as Super Group 1s? Australia has 26 of the top 100 races, but our best race was only 22nd – the Queen Elizabeth Stakes (2000m), while our best sprint was 27th in the Lightning.

The Melbourne Cup could miss Super Group 1 status, if only the top 25 or 50 were given Super Group 1 status, as it ranks just 69th on the world scale.

***

Racing is simple: the fastest horse wins. But racing’s complexities are what create more than just fans – punters, owners, trainers, historians, judges, stewards, and so many more.

Much can happen politically, off the track, and behind the scenes. But when the gates crash back on the stalls, everyone is an equal at that moment of pure competitiveness.

This list doesn’t attempt to cover all aspects of racing at the forefront of a breeder’s or a punter’s mind. It’s just a taste of the litany of demands from each side of racing.

Ensuring that some are not more equal than others is the key to ensuring racing continues for everyone.

The Crowd Says:

2015-06-06T06:05:36+00:00

Bondy

Guest


Sky channels coverage of racing is sickening , worming their way around shoving meetings down peoples throats ...

AUTHOR

2015-05-26T00:32:41+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Hi Adam - fair enough. I welcome your thoughts! I was trying to boil it all down to the fact that at the most basic level, it's a race and the fastest horse wins (with a huge asterisk on that point). But just like any race, it's far, far more complex across all levels.

AUTHOR

2015-05-26T00:26:52+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Interesting Andrew. I actually haven't heard too many public issues with this point, but it definitely is a problem that everyone's experienced at some time or another.

2015-05-25T10:17:51+00:00

andrew

Guest


ok, here is my beef. i have 5 different on line wagering accounts. i spread the love around and shop around. but i am totally flumoxxed by the the different deductions they apply when there is a scr. betstar are very dodgy and continually have the higher deduction rate. the tab aren't too bad. sportsbet and unitbet pretty reasonable. in my view, we should atleast have some consistency and transparency for deduction amounts. when there is a late scr at the gates, the stewards declare what the deduction will be, but if its a sat morn scr - the bookies are a law unto themself. i have seen several instances in recent times when there is a dual acceptor and its odds are grossly compressed to what is true price will be in order to 'get the hook' for when it is scr. the same trick is applies when quoting emergencies, who are really $30 chances, but being posted as $15 shots in early markets. its a total rort. it should be regulated. i think all providers offering fixed odds should be forced to display what their market % is. unitbet used to do this, but dont any more. none do. you can work it out on a calculator. you can go to punters.com for the odds comparison that shows it. why not just be transparent and show it. some actually bet reasonable % - they should be highlighting this. whilst there are some hard and big fix issues (ie, breeders, group 1, etc...) this is a simple fix. and can be done with a very simple flick of a switch and adjustment to some algorhythm on any computer. i can only this is read by someone 'inside' the industry.

2015-05-25T09:51:39+00:00

Bondy

Guest


adam Can Najoom win the Stradbroke ? .

2015-05-25T08:56:10+00:00

adam crittenden

Guest


A nice well written article but i'm not sure that i would agree with ur statement that "racing is simple....the fastest horse wins" i think it would be more accurate to say that racing is extremely complex and in my experience the fastest horse often does not win. Eg kermadec getting beaten by wandjina, dissident gettinh beat at 1.55 first up with some 40-1 pop winning the race, najoom being beaten by an ant in a maiden at hawkesbury. There are so many factors that can see a race being won by the horse that is not necessarily the fastest. I thought that was a rather disapointing way to conclude what was otherwise an excellent article.

2015-05-21T09:30:48+00:00

Dino

Guest


Tristan - more enquiries by stewards would only be a small step but would be a start to alert trainers and jockeys that they are accountable. It would allow stewards to also build up a bit of historical data on what may influence good or poor performances (eg an elevated white blood cell count prior to racing, or a certain approved treatment within so many days of racing etc) and whether certain factors should be notified to punters. Trainers and jockeys would feel pressured not to continually make the same excuse for performance variation. I think other changes could also help, for instance field size should be say min 8 and max 14 in most cases. For changes in performance, I'd suggest that this is even more of a problem when the prize money for a race is relatively small compared to the potential profits that a good odds winner could return from punting (by the trainer / connections), but even in the Melb Cup there are often runners that are trying to win without disclosing their true form or potential.

AUTHOR

2015-05-21T09:22:54+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Cheers KV. Far too kind. Thanks to whomever emailed you too!

2015-05-21T08:46:30+00:00

kv joef

Roar Guru


Brilliant Tristan. Here i was was ... a hibernating chihuahua enjoying American Pharoah and someone emails me this. Best i've read in a long, long time. Lets hope someone(s) who matters is listening - they should be ... cheers

AUTHOR

2015-05-21T07:47:51+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Dino - it's one approach. Explanations are always interesting. Do you think the Stewards Report is enough? I know Hong Kong's is far tougher.

2015-05-21T05:03:37+00:00

Bondy

Guest


If there were anomalies with horses winning at large odds to often why should we assume they're on gear , I'd be looking at who rides what when ...

2015-05-21T04:40:31+00:00

Dino

Guest


Tristan - I think you could start with a fairly low cast approach. I think trainers now are required to keep records of treatment (and supplements?) given to horses and they mostly do regular blood test of cell counts etc. In any say 10 horse field it is easy to spot several horses that didn't run to the form their odds (or form) had suggested. I would like to see Stewards ask for an "Explanation of performance" from Trainer and or Jockey which included all treatments and blood count information leading up to the race. Just a small step like this would put everyone on notice that the performances are being monitored. What do you think?

AUTHOR

2015-05-21T04:07:38+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Dino - I'd be interested in long term data to figure out if something is variance, or something else. We all have very high expectations of what we want from stewards and those enforcing integrity, but it's an expensive task. I recall (not well, so bear with me a little) a story in Britain where the horse racing board took advice if they should approach the levels of an Olympics Games type arrangement for drug testing. A professor advised they could indeed - full rigorous tests. But to pay for it, there could not be prizemoney paid in year 1, and the expense would be so great that by year 2, the entire industry in Britain would be bankrupt!

2015-05-21T02:59:08+00:00

Dino

Guest


Yes, noted Tristan you did make a reference to Integrity. My worry is that there seems no real push for any improvements in this area. Also when anything of note happens (QLD political inquiry, inquiry into jockey emails in WA are two that come to my mind) it usually ends up with a "Move along, nothing to see here" at the end and nothing changes. A few years ago I did a rough assessment of how many winners paid $10 or more at Sat metrop. meetings (using distorted logic you could say that you'd expect 1-2 per meeting). Over about 6 months this figure was very close to 23% for Syd, Melb, Adel & Perth but over 30% for Bris. This was around the time that Michael Sullivan stopped fielding on Bris races and the govt opened an inquiry. Once the inquiry was announced the 30% figure dropped to around the other states and stayed there until several months after the inquiry found nothing to look at, at which stage it crept up to a higher percentage again. Similarly, changes in results seemed to happen when WA stewards had an enquiry into some suspicious emails between some top jockeys. But I'm sure this was probably just coincidental in both these cases.

AUTHOR

2015-05-21T01:44:51+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Hi Peeko - thanks for the thoughts. Ultimately, the only way to cut Group 1s with the regulations the way they are is to increase the ratings that are required - but that has global implications.

AUTHOR

2015-05-21T01:41:59+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Hi Dino - fair point. Integrity is absolutely key - I mentioned at the top of the article the following: "There a number of aspects of racing which all stakeholders want to see maintained or improved – with integrity one of those. Ensuring a level playing field at all times is crucial for all players." Maybe I didn't go far enough given the absolute necessity here. Thanks for the comment.

2015-05-21T00:26:27+00:00

peeeko

Roar Guru


from a punters point of view (as i believe the whole ownership breeding side is a rort for people with too much money -Australian stallion prices are astronomical on a global level) i would say instead of making super group ones we need to cut the number of group 1 races.

2015-05-20T23:51:45+00:00

Dino

Guest


Good Discussion starter and you mentioned "Punting that's Fair", but I think you've missed a key element that punters want, and the industry needs to progress - Racing that Fair. It doesn't matter how much form and statistical information you have access to if form bears no indication to the actual results. The integrity of the whole industry needs more scrutiny and more work needs to be done by stewards to ensure fair and consistent racing.

2015-05-20T22:50:51+00:00

Bondy

Guest


Nice read Tristan. Everybody's self interest and there are plenty holds the sport back...

Read more at The Roar