- This topic has 35 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Silvoir does his stuff again, admirably:
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … 04341/top/
His analysis pinpoints how the Horseman’s Group‘s activities has merely resulted in the downgrading of many Class 3-4 races to Class 5-6. This is a good example of how such single-interest, unilateral actions spell disaster for the future UK Racing.
Short-term, greedy and stupid. That’s the Horseman’s Group.
To be fair, it’s also driven by declining Levy too, but undoubtedly tariffs have contributed. It’s why ‘heritage’ has been dropped from a number of handicaps this year – same race without "Heritage Handicap" in the title – tariff for an open handicap more than 50% lower than if it were "heritage".
Grades and names are irrelevant if you’re racing for a pittance.
Ooh luvly jubly, a grade 3 maiden worth £2.5k, much better than a grade 5 maiden worth £2.5k, or is it?
Why would any owner care about "heritage" in the race title? It means nothing. Most of the races that have dropped the "heritage" were worth more than the tariff for a heritage previously.
"Prize-money for Class 3 and below will rely on the Horsemen’s Group tariffs coming into operation, and we hope their ability to introduce the tariff will help the situation." – Ruth Quinn,
BHA
racing director, November 2010.
Calling the Horsemans Group greedy and stupid might be taking it a bit far Pinza, but only a "bit". They should certainly think again.
Value Is EverythingIs it the case that the racecourses have simply downgraded the grades of races in order not to meet the tariffs for the higher grades? For example have they just downgraded a class 4 to a class 5 so that they can keep the prizemoney the same and meet the tariff? If that’s the case then it sounds like They are being obstinate and if they are allowed to dictate the class of individual races as they please then the BHA would seem toothless. At what point are they not allowed to do this ? Can Ascot knock the Champion Stakes back to a class C £15 grand stakes race ? The horsemans group do not seem in the least bit as you’ve described them Pinza – the tariffs make sense and are well intentioned for the good of racing . However if the racecourses can behave as they choose , it would seem they need regulating more strictly.
Like it or not, the vast majority of horses that race in this country fall into the class 5 and 6 bracket. I know the purists on here like to belittle that racing as ‘dross’ and ‘bookie fodder’ but the fact is that the racing industry relies on putting on races for moderate horses to survive.
The casual racegoer wants to see a competitive race where an each way bet results in a return if his horse finishes in the first three. He or she by and large is oblivious to the class of the race. The driver for the racecourses must be to produce fields with more than 8 runners both from the picture rights point of view but also to make the racing more enjoyable for the casual punter.
In fact the only practical difference tends to be that you tend to get a higher penalty for winning a higher class race. From an owner’s perspective, I would rather the race be downgraded in class as my horse isn’t penalised as heavily for winning.
The fundamental issue is that the racing calendar should reflect the quality of the horse population. As it stands, class 5 and 6 races are much more likely to oversubscribed than class 3 or 4 so logically there should be an increase in class 5 and 6 races and a reduction in class 3 and 4 irrespective of whether it is driven by the tariff or not.
- Total Posts 17716
Tuffers
, one problem is that there is so little racing left for horses in the 80s-90s bracket. Plenty for the best, plenty for the worst, nothing in the middle. That can’t be healthy.
Second, the more you cater for dross, the harder it is for owners to upgrade the horses they can afford. If there’s no racing for middle-range animals, why pay that bit more in hope you’ll get one? Dross breeds dross, too. So gradually the result will be a weakening of the quality across the board, from the breeding perspective.
So…
Horseman’s Group = short-term self-inflicted foot injury
. The rest I won’t repeat!
Tuffers , racing got what it asked for , by giving the bookies loads of fodder races to take bets on , now the legacy lingers
It will sort itself though , Market forces will win the day , owners cannot go on paying and racing for very little return
The Horsemen meant well , but the real power lies with the racecourses , they can do what they like , deal directly with whom they chose …that’s the current crux … nobody can break that..it would appear
Good luck with that project Rachel …..
Sun to Thurs low grade fodder
Friday …slightly better fodder
Saturday , ,loads and loads of quality , mega competitive hcaps , all packed into a single day ….
Could you make it up ???
Ricky
Ah, the old less quality racing and weakening of the breed spin so favored by the Gosden/Hood axis.
Its all bollox of course. A slew of monster clockers these recent years have Timeform on overtime and the 80-100 horses have never run more…
Year Runners rated 80-100 UK Turf
2008 6422
2009 6969
2010 7147
2011 5150, on target to beat last year.There’s
more
low end racing, not
less
high end racing. I dont have the will to repeat all that’s good about low end racing for the umpteenth time.
Whats also amazing is that to a man almost every jumps trainer worth mentioning broke the tariff in its first fortnight, nobody said boo. The jumps people run for the same dross prizemoney every day, but the consensus is that National Hunt Racing has never been healthier. The jumps program is almost entirely concentrated around Saturdays and everyone just loves it! Do they all live in ignorance is bliss land with Mr Henderson, I wonder?…cause you never them complaining (except Charlie Mann, and see how far he got)
Target priority, Gosden/Hood axis, Pinza. Rodders is Father Christmas. I know your a Guardian lover, Lydia Hislop did a fine piece on the subject a few weeks ago.
The fundamental issue is that the racing calendar should reflect the quality of the horse population. As it stands, class 5 and 6 races are much more likely to oversubscribed than class 3 or 4 so logically there should be an increase in class 5 and 6 races and a reduction in class 3 and 4 irrespective of whether it is driven by the tariff or not.
Amazing, the solution to low quality racing with dire prize money is to have more of the same. No wonder there is surfeit of mediocrity wanting to race with whats on offer here. Surely the idea should be to try and improve the quality of racing not the opposite.
- Total Posts 17716
Target priority, Gosden/Hood axis, Pinza. Rodders is Father Christmas. I know your a Guardian lover, Lydia Hislop did a fine piece on the subject a few weeks ago.
Thanks,
Cav
– truly excellent analysis by Hislop. What a pity they don’t employ her more often. Puts Grauniad Wood to shame.
It does beg the question: why doesn’t BHA come down harder on the racecourses? Compared with the sleek ruffians of the
RCA
, the
Horsemen’s Group
are bungling amateurs who’ve irritated them as a mosquito might irritate a tiger. They’ve quickly made matters worse.
Tuffers
, one problem is that there is so little racing left for horses in the 80s-90s bracket. Plenty for the best, plenty for the worst, nothing in the middle. That can’t be healthy.
Second, the more you cater for dross, the harder it is for owners to upgrade the horses they can afford. If there’s no racing for middle-range animals, why pay that bit more in hope you’ll get one? Dross breeds dross, too. So gradually the result will be a weakening of the quality across the board, from the breeding perspective.
So…
Horseman’s Group = short-term self-inflicted foot injury
. The rest I won’t repeat!
I believe the reverse is true, Pinza. Our only hope of buying a better class of horse is for the sale prices of such horses to fall at the sales. Lower prizemoney and less opportunities, as you rightly point out, will reduce the price of such horses.
I’m sure many owners are thinking like us and the net result will be over time a rebalancing of the horse population towards a lower number of better horses. The current racing calendar should reflect the current horse population both as to numbers and quality though.
As for dross breeding dross, I’m afraid I must again beg to differ. The one significant result of the slump in the bloodstock industry is that people aren’t breeding from poor mares. The result of that is fewer foals but it is reasonable to assume that the average quality of the foals actually produced has risen as a result.
- Total Posts 17716
Well,
Tuffers
, here’s a stuck oar from Harry Herbert. What you do think of his line here?
Well,
Tuffers
, here’s a stuck oar from Harry Herbert. What you do think of his line here?
He seems to be bemoaning the fact that Group class horses are being denied the opportunity to mop up uncompetitive conditions races on their way to the top. I can’t say I have any sympathy whatsoever for that point of view.
- Total Posts 17716
Well, that is one way to spin it!
Herbert, who recently sold Dominant to connections in Hong Kong, said it was "a certainty" the BHA would be proved right in fearing that horses of Group potential will be sold overseas in increasing numbers if the trend is maintained.
Whether or not you sympathise with his plight, do you think he’s right? And if so, what are the implications for UK Racing?
Well, that is one way to spin it!
Herbert, who recently sold Dominant to connections in Hong Kong, said it was "a certainty" the BHA would be proved right in fearing that horses of Group potential will be sold overseas in increasing numbers if the trend is maintained.
Whether or not you sympathise with his plight, do you think he’s right? And if so, what are the implications for UK Racing?
I don’t think he’s right. He is trying to preserve the status quo as it favours the sort of animal his syndicate owns not because it is ‘good for racing’.
He is suggesting that an owner of a potential group horse will now sell it overseas because there are fewer races to run in as it progresses to group class. That doesn’t make any sense. An owner of a group horse doesn’t sell that horse because of fewer class 2 to 4 races, he sells that horse because of fewer group races.
As I said in my earlier post, the racing programme must reflect the reality of the horse population now. There’s no point framing races for horses that don’t exist. The quality of the racehorse population is a function of the which stallions and mares are used for breeding purposes. Bearing in mind that no horse without black type would ever stand as a stallion and the fact that there has been a massive reduction in the number of poorer mares being covered, I can’t see how the number of class 2 to 4 races has any effect whatsoever on the quality of the horses entering the racing population.
As the horse population rebalances in the coming years it may well be appropriate to decrease the number of class 5 and 6 races and increase the numbers of class 2 to 4 races but to suggest that reducing the number of class 2 to 4 races somehow will affect the quality of the stallions and mares which will be producing the foals of the future strikes me as complete nonsense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.