Throughout this week Cameron Rose and I have detailed how we would change Australian racing’s Group 1 calendar.
Concerned by declining mainstream interest in racing, which has been partnered in the last few years by falls in carnival crowds, a spike in the number of Group 1 races, and a diluted racing calendar, we decided it was time to show how Australian racing’s Group 1 calendar should look.
The main idea was that we were going to strip away state rivalries and all barriers to change in order to produce a truly national approach to Australian Group 1 racing.
The focus would be a better racing product and the benefactor would be the sport, its participants, punters and fans.
The response was varied, but largely positive I would say. We generated massive interest through the week, and we thank our loyal readers who chimed in with valuable ideas and improvements.
Cam got the ball rolling on this project, and we wanted every racing person to have a say if they wanted to. To see so many people get involved was pleasing.
The conversation exploded on Tuesday afternoon, when the debate turned to Twitter and some administrative heavyweights from Victoria joined in. There was encouragement from racing’s administrators and some criticism too – that’s not surprising when one considers where the main barriers to change lie.
In the end, we got the number of Group 1 races down to 41 but more importantly we created a calendar that we believe has a largely national focus, flows seamlessly and, crucially, was balanced.
The early autumn and spring were cleaned up, carnivals in Adelaide and Brisbane were given more direction, and the pendulum that swings from Sydney to Melbourne in October and then back to Sydney from Melbourne in March was re-tuned.
Overall, for such a big project, we were very happy with the result. But the thing is, while fixing racing’s calendar is going to do plenty for Australian racing, there is still a lot more the sport can do to improve its health.
The obvious thing would be to set up a national body that has the power to run racing for racing’s benefit, free from any state or club bias. Every racing fan dreams of that and one day we hope it is comes to fruition. We may be waiting a long time though and in that time there is a lot more change that can help racing get stronger.
The first area of change I would like to focus on is breeding. It is well known that the breeding industry has a stranglehold on racing. The way breeding currently influences racing is the best example of the tail wagging the dog I have ever seen in any sport.
The breeders hold the money and power in racing. And the way racing works at the moment, to get the most money out of the game, you have to play to the breeders’ rules.
Those rules? Race a colt, win a Group 1 and retire to stud with a large service fee. Then that colt becomes a stallion and that stallion’s job is to produce more stallions. How? By breeding Group 1 winners.
So what’s the problem? The problem is that racing is playing the game too by upgrading, for instance, races like the Golden Rose and Coolmore Stud to Group 1 in recent years, thereby offering breeders a pair of feature three-year-old stallion-making races. These races are won by colts most years and history shows that those colts will probably stand at stud less than 12 months after winning those races.
We tried to fix some of that this week. And, to be fair, we’ve done a good job to make the game fairer for racing. We took away the Golden Rose as a Group 1. We also took away the Randwick Guineas and a series of sprint races like the William Reid, the Galaxy and the BTC Cup as Group 1s.
It is maybe a radical idea but I’ve always enjoyed the thought of imposing a rule that means a stallion cannot stand at stud until the age of five. That would keep all fit and healthy entires on the track until the end of their four-year-old season. Unfortunately, getting a law like that passed would be very difficult.
An alternate solution, and this is something I’ve written about before, is introducing a four-year-old championship race at the start of the season to give the owners of valuable three-year-old colts a carrot to keep racing their horses as four-year-olds.
Ideally, the race would be held in early October, or late September, and the prize money on offer would be about $2-3 million. The specific conditions of the race, like the distance, would be open for debate.
This is an idea worth pursuing in any climate but especially one where Group 1 races are significantly reduced in number because the amount of colts searching for that elusive Group 1 would be enough to make the race a real goer.
Racing is different to many sports because it funds itself via gambling turnover. The rise of the corporate bookmaker posed a problem to the health of the sport some time ago, but due to the passing of race fields legislation, the sport now receives its fair share of the pie.
And, Racing Victoria, for example, rode to a $50 million profit last financial year on the back of earnings from race fields legislation.
Yet there is still plenty of work to be done in the gambling sector. With turnover so important to the sport, how there is not a national tote pool in operation is beyond belief. Currently there are three Australian totalisators. Ridiculous!
Any serious punter who has ever bet the tote knows the more money in the pool, the more confidence one can have to bet. So, the first thing racing can do to help itself, is establish a national tote pool.
Turnover on the tote would increase significantly with a national pool and that would bring more money directly into the sport, to make ownership cheaper, prize money bigger and racetrack facilities more modern. It’s a no-brainer and a real bone of contention for the punter.
The final area that racing needs to address quickly is its media rights. After the demise of TVN, Racing Victoria made the bold decision to turn their back on Sky Channel and open up their own free-to-air racing channel, Racing.com.
A marvellous decision, there is no doubt that the future of racing in Victoria is secure for the foreseeable future just on the back of this move alone. Kudos to the Vics!
But this project is about making Australian racing thrive. And, while the Victorians are sitting pretty, the rest of the country is withering out in the desert, hoping to get a bone or just a lick of water from Sky Channel.
Sky Channel are owned by TabCorp and while their main interest is in driving gambling turnover (a percentage of which will go back into racing), they’ve forgotten to nurture the product that feeds their hungry shareholders.
So, here is what Cam and I would like to see happen.
Racing.com’s website is a great tool – free replays, form guides, live broadcasts, and so on. What would benefit Australian racing most if the website was made national.
All race replays and extended form for each Australian horse and race would be accessible to everyone on one easy-to-navigate website for free. Fantastic stuff!
Next, Racing.com would become a national channel. Instead of just focusing on Victorian racing, it would broadcast racing from all around the country, as well as the major meetings from around the world like Dubai World Cup night and Royal Ascot.
But – not like Sky Channel. No, on any given day the feature meeting in Australia, from anywhere in the country, would be shown on free-to-air television, with complete mounting yard coverage and analysis alongside the second-most important Australian meeting.
That would extend to the weekend. So, in the late autumn carnival, the focus would be on The Championships at Randwick, but there would still be coverage of Morphettville, where the Adelaide carnival is warming up.
On that famous Monday in July, the broadcast would focus on the Darwin Cup with support coverage of the feature meeting from the rest of Australia, say at Warrnambool. In the middle of October, Caulfield Guineas Day would be broadcast alongside the Spring Champion meeting at Randwick.
You get the picture. The idea is that the sport as a whole is being viewed nationally, as one, all the time, by everyone and anyone. Now we are talking!
Meanwhile, what isn’t picked up by Racing.com, will still be shown on the betting channels of Sky, with some semblance of focus, hopefully, given to the more prominent meetings (not already shown on Racing.com) on Sky Thoroughbred Central.
Now, the way I see it, with a reduction in Group 1s to 41, a four-year-old championship race, a national tote pool and better media coverage, Australian racing is poised to show its best.
The old girl would be back standing on her own two feet again. Sounds good to me. What do you reckon?
sheek
Roar Guru
George/Glen Innes, I am going to combine you here because my responses cover both your assertions. Firstly, a bit of history which you both probably know better than me. Thoroughbreds trace their ancestry to just three horses - the Byerley Turk, the Darley Arabian & the Godolphin Arabian. During the Crusades, starting in the late 11th century, the Europeans quickly admired the extraordinary speed & stamina of Saracen/Muslim horses, which provided a severe contrast to the stoutly bred European horses designed to carry heavy loads. However, it wasn't until Robert Bayerley brought his Turk back to England 1690, that the first concerted move was made to produce thoroughbreds. Bayerley was followed by Thomas Darley's Arabian in 1704 & finally Lord Godolphin's Arabian in 1728. From these three thoroughbreds, all mated with local mares, the modern thoroughbred racing as we know, began to formulate. As a further reference point, the first of the English classics, the St. Leger was inaugurated in 1776, followed by the Oaks in 1779 & the Derby in 1780. That's the bare bones of the history. I suppose we could cease all argument & discussion right here by observing & acknowledging that the breeders manipulated the whole thing to their advantage right there in the early 18th century. George, I know you're trying to be fair to all parties which is honourable & Glen, I know you've used the argument previously that breeders are giving prospective owners what they want. But the way Australian racing is being structured, so wonderfully articulated by Cameron & Justin, provides a lie to this. Australian racing appears to be in the control of prominent breeders & they are manipulating the racing industry to serve their own purposes. Which primarily is designed to ensure a regular flow of massive revenue into the hands of the few. The manipulation of some races as Group 1s has been well explained I believe, by Cam & Justin. I would also argue what percentage of prospective owners really know the industry while how many come along with more money than sense when looking for a thoroughbred? As for early maturing types that also drift off the radar early, well, that's been happening I would be sure for over 300 years, as the history above demonstrates how long thoroughbred breeding has been in existence. Whatever way you cut it, the designation of Group Ones today is largely determined by the breeding needs of the breeders. Most prospective owners don't worry about the different grades of G1s. Any Group 1 is a Group 1 to them, I suppose. The breeder pockets his hefty stud price, & the owners go away with their dream, in the majority of cases, to be very soon crushed. Unless I'm very wrong, & I concede I probably am, one of the principle attractions of thoroughbred racing as I'm sure people like Robert Bayerley, Thomas Darley & Lord Godolphin & later Anthony St. Leger, Earl of Derby & Sir Charles Bunbury envisaged, was a bunch of outstanding horses at each age, racing each other at different distances & under same & different weight conditions, for several years, much to the enjoyment of the attending public. Yes, once the horses had ceased their racing career after a few years, those that hadn't been gelded, would return to stud to start the whole breeding process over again. But one would hope a majority of horses didn't disappear to stud as they do today, but would continue racing for many more years. The breeders are cleaning up, but the genuine horse lover & racing aficionado is being short-changed.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Not really Sheek.The breeders supply what the customers want, they just respond to demand.Racing is a strange business,owners need punters, punters need owners (and most owners are punters) but owners are the enemy of *non owning" ie the vast majority) of punters because they have different and conflicting priorities For eg punters like big fields, as an owner if you could run your horse in a field of five or a field of twelve where do you go all things being equal.? Owners want small fields;Owners want horses that can give them a quick return on their money and breeders breed them, what else can they do, breed horses they can't sell.?
Jack
Guest
Yes imagine any other sport where the most talented get taken away from the arena before they've even reached peak. It's madness.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
Tote mergers won't happen. Both tabcorp and Tatts have been told it won't get past the ACCC, especially if they merge as enitites There has been talk of the Tabcorp-Tatts merger. Doubtful it will happen as equals. The whispers I'm hearing is a large international is looking at both of them, with the eye to buying one
George
Guest
I'm not going to defend the breeders, but there is a point about the early retirement of our best colts that people have missed. For the last 30 years, at least, we have been breeding early maturing sprinter milers. This is not necessarily an evil breeders conspiracy, it's what the cashed up buyers and the syndicators want. At the Easter Yearling sales everyone wants to buy the next Sebring or Pierro. It' simply a fact of life. The thing about early maturing types is that they are early maturing in every way. Many of these sprinting colts, by the time they get to their Spring 4 year old season are just too big, too heavy and far far too coltish to be much good on a racetrack. They were lucky to get an Autumn 3 year old campaign out of All Too Hard for example from what I've been told. Not the colts fault, they were bred that way.
Mark Haywood
Roar Pro
Good points re human consensus Allthanus, though I think there’s one crucial point with racing – it doesn’t exist in a microcosm any more. It’s ripe for the picking by a throng of external competitors. So while the strongest folk in racing itself may be getting their way at the moment, it really isn’t in their long-term interests either – the sport suffers, there’ll be less money in it for everybody. There’ll be no buyers for the breeders’ products. Racing owned the gambling sphere – it certainly doesn’t any more. Despite the protestations, online in-play sports betting is already here and will only expand. It’s inevitable, you can’t piss against a tide. I think sports wagering in Aust is now around 30% “non-traditional” betting sports, and the racing codes 70%. Overseas where all bet types are legal, it’s closer to the opposite. That’s the future for racing. It will largely die if it doesn’t shape up and get fight-fit, because it’s in a battle whether it wants to acknowledge it or not (at the moment it certainly doesn’t). You have to get people involved and that means giving them what the other sports do – simple access, convenient scheduling, the best possible contests. The sport will largely die (at least as we know it) within a generation otherwise. It’s selfishness and bloody short-sightedness.
sheek
Roar Guru
Justin/Cam, 'The breeders hold the money and power in racing. And the way racing works at the moment, to get the most money out of the game, you have to play by the breeders' rules. Those rules? Race a colt to win a Group 1 and retire to stud with a large service fee. Then that colt becomes a stallion and that stallion's job is to produce more stallions. How? By breeding Group 1 winners." Oh, oh, oh how so true this is. Meanwhile, the genuine horse lover is denied seeing a bunch of good horses, maybe 3-6 of them, continue to race each other in key races at ages four, five & even as six year olds. The racing public is given short shift while the breeders grow fat from their thoroughbred gerrymandering (for want of a better word).
Haradasun
Guest
Thanks for putting together the articles. Interesting to read. Scheduling and the fractured state based approach is just one of many issues facing the sport right now but you're right it all stems from the long arm of the breeders. (Sorry ill get my coat)
peeeko
Guest
well done guys, make a lot of sense
Jim
Guest
Interesting, we may be seeing some movement towards a national tote - reading the paper earlier, seems to be significant whisperings again of a TABCORP - Tatts merger being back on the cards. Surely if that was to happen, co mingling of their pools, and the basic framework for a national tote would be a follow through outcome.
Justin Cinque
Expert
Good point Sheek. Thanks for your valued contributions through the week. I had hoped you would get involved so it was nice to see.
Justin Cinque
Expert
Great point Nathan! It is something that Cam and I actually spoke about privately the other day.
Justin Cinque
Expert
The early retirement of our stars annoys me more than just about anything. It rips racing of its soul.
Justin Cinque
Expert
Thanks Allanthus. Glad you enjoyed it. Good luck tonight too!
Justin Cinque
Expert
Absolutely Cam. That article was a disappointment. The four days at Flemington are not the only thing that happens in racing. As I said on Monday, anyone who isn't embarrassed by the situation tomorrow is either motivated by self interest or doesn't care enough.
sheek
Roar Guru
Cameron/Justin, Great stuff, well done! You know you have hit the mark when you ruffle some official feathers.....
kv joef
Roar Guru
kv joef churchill ... that's me! when the separation of the racing dynasties occurred ONLY one year ago, there were a few possible outcome of these corporate strategies. Most fell into standard business corporate-speak. Havard Business school and all that ... BUT ... Ultimately there are only two outcomes - 1) they had devised separate strategies and to hell with cosiness OR 2) they had quietly decided to have an initial splinter causing a separation of the vested interests into 2 supporting bodies ... then eventually Vic and NSW would come together to begin exercising authority and control over the in industry's destiny and putting the vested corporate interests in their place (a very Sun Tsu option). after a year of watching this mess, get worse every month - who knows what their strategies were? ... I figure they have the winter to sort it out.
Jack
Guest
Great work guys. I've really enjoyed reading your take on it all and seeing you going in depth on the issue. I just hope their can be change at some point. That thing you mentioned about a colt winning a G1 and then rushing off to stud is what annoys me most. It seems to happen more and more.
Cameron Rose
Expert
A sober dose of reality from you there Rob. Haha, FIFA probably look like boy scouts compared to what goes on behind closed doors in the racing game. I start off with the assumption that everyone in racing is dodgy, and then lower my opinion from there.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Interesting take Nath. We wanted to tackle the calendar because we could see improvement, using the Guineas clash this week as the basis. But there are obviously issues everywhere, and breeders is arguably number one.