- This topic has 16 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’m surprised nobody else has started a thread on this. For us investors its great news, and for bookmakers too. The places taken by various stakeholders on the spectrum of reaction is exactly what could have been predicted.
The Horseracing Bettors’ Forum and Ladbroke Coral are enthusiastic. So should be the traditional press and online media. The more certainty there is that virtually every declared horse will run the greater the reward for investing time and money in form study, predicting how a race will unfold, attaining and retaining good odds, offering a market that will remain untainted as a product, producing written comments/tips about how a race and each horse in it will go.
The Professional Jockeys Association is broadly supportive, less wasted and costly journeys for its members.
The National Trainers Federation gives guarded support. The new measures will expose those of its members currently exploiting the system. Yes, whether the going will actually be what it says on the tin is a valid issue.
The Racehorse Owners Association have blasted the reform package. It will cost owners money per jockeys fees, this will be most felt by the small owners who are the majority. Owners will probably feel forced to run horses on somewhat unsuitable ground.
My feeling is that the crackdown is for the greater good. I can understand why owners have an “its my horse I’ll do what I want with it” attitude. It may cost the game some owners, however, they are likely to be replaced by new owners who will enter into the sport fully cognisant of the new rules. Most owners, I suspect, go on the advice of their trainers. Trainers will be wary. The one problem I can foresee is less declarations and marginally smaller field sizes for a spell because trainers will be less willing to commit a horse to run when there is doubt about something for fear of falling foul of the new rules and of costing their owners more money in jockeys fees for nothing. On the other hand they will be saving money by not transporting horses to meetings when there is a reasonable chance they won’t run. And if I’m correct and there are less runners that means less work and pay for jockeys. For punters and bookies, perhaps the BHA could have gone further – probably it will in time – but its overwhelmingly positive, no wonder Simon Clare is almost frothing at the mouth with delight!
As long as accurate going stick readings are provided on the morning declarations are scheduled to be made, I don’t see any problem with this development. After declarations, the only circumstances under which a horse should be allowed to be withdrawn scot-free are either with a vet’s certificate or with a substantial change in the going, say one of two points or more on the old penetrometer.
The BHA mention traines who are taking the mickey of the current rules, is there any way to find out this information?
A bit of an OTT response to the news for me including from you GM, was Clare really delirious with excitement?
48 hour decs are the biggest culprit with regards to all the non runners.
How much has British racing lost from punters backing all the non runners over the years?Don’t tell me the impotent HBF are trying claiming any credit for anything. The non runner situation has been highlighted for years by punters on this forum and many others including flatstats.
48 hour decs are the biggest culprit with regards to all the non runners.
How much has British racing lost from punters backing all the non runners over the years?Wasn’t the whole raison d’être behind 48-hour declarations that they would make life easier for punters?
OTT? I don’t think so Yeats. I feel its an extremely important initiative from the BHA and your report that the NR issue has produced much verbiage on forums over the years only deepens my surprise at the underwhelming response on TRF. I’m glad I added to it by starting a discussion. As for Simon Clare, I was poking fun at him based on his generally upbeat and enthusiastic persona (a good quality). Also, its hard for me to take Ladbroke Coral too seriously with its COO, Andy Hornby, having been CEO of HBOS when it ran out of money causing great hardship to many.
I have no view on the effectiveness of the HBF but I didn’t say it was taking credit, although it raised the NR issue shortly after it was created with the BHA, merely reporting its reaction to the news and surely its better to have a body representing bettors than not?
Seven Towers, I don’t think the current data is publicly available so, unless one is prepared to undertake meticulous research oneself, we will have to wait at least three, possibly twelve, months for the first BHA table showing individual trainer NR rates.
I agree with you regarding going Gladiateur. The BHA says if its new measures do not initially produce a sufficient decline in the number of going-related NRs it may introduce a scale of going changes and allow a horse to be withdrawn (purely for going reasons) only when there has been a significant (as opposed to marginal) change. However, the BHA refer to ‘going description’ rather than going stick readings so I can see this becoming contentious at times. I say this because, having introduced the going stick, the BHA have been operating with two systems for several years. The problem is that a value on the going stick is not uniform, the same measured reading means different things when comparing Flat with Jumps, course with course, and one meeting at a course to another. Therefore, the BHA have continued with clerks’ descriptions alongside and these, whilst informed and based on the stick measurements, are human interpretations not scientific measurements and thus open to debate. If wanting to implement a scale it would be better for the BHA to iron out going stick inconsistencies, if such is possible, beforehand and base it upon readings not descriptions.
As for 48 hour declarations, its inherent that the longer the period between declaration and race the higher the percentage of NRs there will be. 48 hour decs were introduced primarily to enable broadcasters to sell coverage to overseas, the system also helps media and bookies with promotion. I don’t think it was to make life easier for punters. Trainers were not too keen so were appeased by being allowed to self-certificate. Some trainers abuse that privilege. The result is the BHA crackdown, part of which will lead to those trainers with a NR rate in the BHA table higher than the permitted threshold being suspended from self-certificating for twelve months. And some trainers’ rates may be skewed by NRs occurring when the actual going is a matter of dispute! (Personally, I would do away with both 48 hour decs and self-certs).
Horse racing is one of our largest industries and horses among our best-loved creatures. Pleasing all the stakeholders while promoting the sport and helping the industry become bigger and more profitable is not an easy job of governance. In taking an overview, however, is not the crackdown the latest act in the intriguing saga of racing as a sport and industry, a tale which the BHA is endeavouring to author but in which it continually finds the chapters running out of control and requiring a rewrite? What I mean is an initiative here (benefits from selling rights overseas) leads to a change there (48 hour decs) generating a concession (self-certs) causing an issue (NRs) exacerbated by something else (our weather/two ways of assessing going/unfairness of draw at some courses) resulting in another initiative (the crackdown) which will itself produce a range of side effects, I suggested temporarily smaller field sizes in my first post (which would have bearing on the BHA’s initiatives to boost them!), some probably unconsidered and requiring further action…!!! :)
The Going Stick itself is consistent.
The soil make up of every track changes around the track and reading depend on the sub-soil which can be clay, sandy loams or chalk. This is why the readings are as BHA states – only to be be taken for that track.The Clerks were allowed to over-rule the Going Stick readings from day one as BHA thought they were the experts. Sedgefield is even allowed not to have a going stick for readings required by BHA’s own rules of racing. They have been allowed to wait for the mark 2 going stick which may or may not ever arrive.
Going Maps (data already collected but not published at most courses) should also be essential evidence as some races are run entirely on a different going than others at the course and some have dramatic changes of going over the race distance.
Clerks even over-rule their own official goings by changing the going after the first race quite often. BHA should put a stop to that as the Clerks cannot have it both ways and the official going changes the form book beaten length values. When you look at the Racing Post going corrections they indicate not only that the official going is way out but the changes after the first race onwards are even more the wrong way.Horses can race safely over a wide range of going. If declared and fit they should run or not be allowed to race for 2 months – no self certs only course vet certificates. It is a bit bizarre that a horse declared on good going can be withdrawn as the official going on the day is Soft but the race-times indicate that it is Good going. The horse declared because it is Soft have actually run on Good going without any harm or the trainers even noticing. Bizarrely, if they had known it was Good they would have withdrawn the horses.
Any initiative to reduce the number of non-runners, late ones in particular are certainly welcome from a punting perspective, in these quarters anyway. I try to get my business done by midday at the latest these days, and I’d certainly be having more bets around a re-formed tissue if I knew the non runners in time, which frequently I dont.
Well played Simon Rowlands and his team at the HBF, they lobbied for improvement in the area of non-runners for the betterment of punters, and deserve credit for their input into the anticipated progress that now should be forthcoming.
As a ballpark I’d estimate around ten per cent of declared horses end up as non runners, around nine thousand runners per annum. If lets say half of those are scratched for going related reasons I can see plenty of arguments and subsequent work for the BHA, who will only have the subjective opinion of one man/woman to fall back on.
I recall tweeting a trainer some time ago, inquiring why he had scratched his runner fifteen minutes before post time due to going, at Chepstow I think it was, given there had been no change to the official going all day. He replied, stating the going although officially reported as good, was riding much firmer and he didn’t want to race his horse on firmer going, as he knew the horse would hate it. He had driven the box to Chepstow himself, a six hour round trip for nothing. As far I remember Timeform reported the going as good to firm in their results.
Its an illustration of how tricky an area this will be to operate in for the BHA imo.
OTT? I don’t think so Yeats. I feel its an extremely important initiative from the BHA and your report that the NR issue has produced much verbiage on forums over the years only deepens my surprise at the underwhelming response on TRF. I’m glad I added to it by starting a discussion. As for Simon Clare, I was poking fun at him based on his
It didn’t surprise me GM which is why I decided not to start a thread on the subject prior to you. I’d call it more disappointing and doubt very much anyone would have bothered if you hadn’t. What comment has there been about the new minimum rating introduced for Group 1 races?
As it is, “you” have managed to extract a response from some on the subject haven’t “we”
To get back to the main issue I think the solutions suggested are far too complicated with tables of trainers and precentages of this and that and far too many grey areas. Doubt how the grey area of the ground will be resolved to much effect when combined with 48 hour decs.
Why only a 2 day ban for a “vets” when it’s 6 for a “self”?
I’d simplify matters right down by letting connections withdraw for any reason apart from manipulating the handicap etc but if they do withdraw they are not allowed to run for the following 6 days. Everyone would know where they stood and it would help focus the mind for some who withdraw willy nilly.As there is more racing than ever next year with not more horses I still think there will be plenty of small field races. There’s no doubt even though the measures introduced leave a lot to be desired, there will be a decline in actual non runners but it would be very difficult for that not to happen from the present farcical situation.
This is a post that could have fitted in many threads on TRF over the years. It is about the relative importance of punters and owners, and the financial contributions that each make to the horseracing
According to the latest HBLB report the levy will contribute about £70 million to horseracing’s benefit this year, of which about £50 million goes to the prize fund. This money will come from punters’ pockets via the bookmakers’ accounts. I think the story is something like: “Here’s £100 pounds, return £80 to me later, keep some for yourself, and give the rest to the HBLB.”
According to data gleaned from Tattersalls Sales Office and the ROA survey on training fees, the owners will contribute, at the very minimum £614 million this year. The true figure is well north of £700 million, because there are some data to which I do not have access, eg owner/breeders costs.
The BHA has always been in an indecisive tizzy about whether it is a custodian of a sport or an adjunct to the betting industry. I am a punter but totally biased in thinking they they should concentrate on their core business: horseracing. I love horseracing. From a business perspective, continually downplaying the relationship with, and the wishes of, the horse owners (providing 90% of the money), in order to placate bookmakers and punters (providing 10% of the money) is not a great business prospect for the sport.
On this particular issue: at the time of the introduction of 48 hour declarations, the owners and trainers were very vociferous about it leading to exactly this problem, and that the benefits were not worth it. For the BHA to now say “It is all your fault, and we will punish you for it”, makes them sound like a pompous organization from the 1950s, rather than a modern sporting custodian. Blaming someone else for self inflicted problems is hardly the height of leadership.
An interesting post MV. I’m not business-oriented and don’t necessarily disagree with your points and conclusion but, playing devil’s advocate, how about this?
Horse racing originated when (rich) men who owned horses challenged each other to a race, having a private wager.
Very soon this activity developed into a sport and just as quickly matches/races generated enough interest that those not directly involved wished to bet on them.
Immediately this occurred what had been a private affair became a public matter and from that point owners would never again receive consideration equal to their contribution.
However, having lost control of the pastime they still choose to participate.There are many, many times more punters than owners. Perhaps that’s why the industry leans heavily towards the wishes of the far greater number of human beings in a roughly totally inverse way to the percentage of money provided by each group.
But, if the £70m from the levy (i.e. bookies/punters) is, say, 10% of the amount bet then punters are responsible for the input of £700m turnover into the game.
And of the £700m the owners provide how much of that do they receive back in prize money or other benefits?Viewed from the above perspectives one can begin to understand why the balance of policy is tilted towards punters/bookies. They drive the industry, owners merely provide the sport!! The tail wags the dog?
Re your last para, you are omitting that owners/trainers were trusted to self-certificate and its the abuse of that privilege which has led to punishment being threatened!
“But, if the £70m from the levy (i.e. bookies/punters) is, say, 10% of the amount bet then punters are responsible for the input of £700m turnover into the game. And of the £700m the owners provide how much of that do they receive back in prize money or other benefits?“
Whatever the figure may be of how much money is bet by punters with bookmakers, none of that money goes into the game (horseracing) except the bit that goes to the levy. The turnover is solely with the bookmakers. Of their betting turnover, the bookmakers return some of the money to punters in winnings, they pay the expenses of running the business, they pay the levy, and their shareholders receive the rest.
Prize money in the UK is about £140 million each year. Owners contribute some of that in entry fees, and there are standard deductions from winnings that go to trainers, jockeys and stable staff. Sponsors contribute, and so do race courses from their profits on data rights, bookmaker pitches and racegoer entry fees and catering.
Do we know who receives the money from the “International Reveneues” and how great these revenues would be with a clause stipulating 24 hour declaration or a clause stipulating 48 hour declaration? With the advances in computer and internet technology, one would have thought that reducing the timeframes compared to a decade ago would have been preferrential, which would be likely to reduce the number of non-runners after declaration, and obviate the need for more bashing of the serfs for misbehaving. This seems like going backwards in time prior to instant worldwide communication. Why do the BHA want something that is slower and more uncertain? I cannot see how that helps marketing UK horseracing abroad. It is handy that the BHA is not a commercial business, or the activist investors would be swarming around to make them do a better job.
I get your point re levy/turnover, I was trying to intimate that because the turnover is such a huge figure (compared to what goes to the levy) the authorities let that influence their bias (towards punters/bookies) on the basis that the more individual human beings that can be attracted to and invest in the game the bigger and bigger the industry/business will grow, with a knock on trickle down effect. The BHA probably see pound signs and think: what if we can double the current number of punters!
Apart from the £140m prize money what about money generated from breeding and selling. Oh, I suppose this passes from one owner/breeder to another!
Regarding international revenues all I can find is this, it doesn’t seem like very much, certainly not worth sticking to 48 hour decs and the ensuing muddle for:
https://www.roa.co.uk/en/news/index.cfm/rmg-media-rightsGood news this – farce that trainers are allowed, for example, to pull out horses en masse at places like Chester when badly drawn.
Regarding HBF – yes this issue has been highlighted for years by punters but it is telling, I think, that action on some of these issues is now happening. The HBF may not be the perfect solution (and what is) but in terms of an effective punter’s lobby it is probably the most effective vehicle there has been to date. They seem to have the BHA’s ear. More power to them.
I’d be interested to hear from some of those that have left the forum (some changes recently) on how it has been to be part of. One or two TRF’ers on there although not regulars on here these days.
Cormack
Good news this – farce that trainers are allowed, for example, to pull out horses en masse at places like Chester when badly drawn.
Regarding HBF – yes this issue has been highlighted for years by punters but it is telling, I think, that action on some of these issues is now happening. The HBF may not be the perfect solution (and what is) but in terms of an effective punter’s lobby it is probably the most effective vehicle there has been to date. They seem to have the BHA’s ear. More power to them.
I’d be interested to hear from some of those that have left the forum (some changes recently) on how it has been to be part of. One or two TRF’ers on there although not regulars on here these days.
Cormack
Come off it cormack, the HBF is nothing less than a smokescreen initiated by the BHA to make it look as though they are listening to punters. What are people who work for bookmakers doing on the panel? Will they have no conflict of interest?
The BHA are in bed with bookmakers, the more punters lose the more the BHA receive. Their aim is to extract as much as possible from punters, they have no interest in their welfare.
Are you really saying nothing would have been done about the non runner situation without the HBF? It’s the BHA’s job, they should have done something years ago. Why haven’t they done something previously? Incompetence? Inept?
How much money has British racing lost over the years from punters backing the hundreds of non runners every week?As how effective these current measures will be remains to be seen, they seem unnecessarily complicated to me and I’m sure trainers will spot any loopholes. Amazingly on the Opening Show yesterday Eve Johnson Houghton blamed punters for the current non runner farce, thought I was hearing things at first.
The appearance money introduced by Chester will also help to alleviate the problem there you refer to there.
They can well afford to do that there with their rip off ChesterBet ripping punters off every meeting but that’s another story.Well, the BHA has released its first set of figures:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/news/non-runners/303049
Just looking at the Jumps trainers, I would never have guessed Mark Gillard as the worst offender (Alan Jones maybe!) and I’m surprised to see Kerry Lee so high up. However, the most striking point, as the article mentions, is how low the percentage of NRs is for the big, top yards whereas those on the list are all relatively smaller stables. I haven’t thought about it in depth but I suppose the less ammunition a trainer has the more careful he/she is inclined to be in choosing the absolute optimum target (i.e. all factors as perfect for a horse as possible) at which to aim bullets. Another possible factor might be that a trainer is over fussy by nature, perhaps T.Symonds, N.King, R.Dickin?
Not sure you could call King and Dickin over-fussy – neither particularly shy about running their horses in blatantly wrong conditions!
I had to laugh at the witty remark from Alan Bailey on TV a few years ago. He’d pulled out one of his sprinters at Chester, unwilling to run from the widest draw. The official reason given was ‘unsuitable ground’ although the horse had won four times on good-to-soft. Bailey’s explanation: “The ground outside stall 8 is unsuitable for any horse at this place.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.