Grounds for Concern..

[stodge]

I was interested by a piece in the Racing Post considering why, in spite of the incredibly wet autumn and early winter, so few meetings had been lost and suggsting that racing was taking place on conditions which would have been deemed unsuitable a few years back.

Further, it was argued that the example of Ireland where in the past couple of years, we’ve seen horses apparently safely splashing through waterlogged ground has persuaded many clerks that wet ground is ok to race on.

I’m slightly more dubious – I wonder if there are commercial factors at work here. Watching the racing at Ffos Las, Fontwell and Towcester on Boxing Day was far from edifying unless you enjoy watching horses walking home at long intervals. Yet I suspect all these meetings were big money-spinners for the tracks and of course they are getting paid by the off-course bookmakers to race.

I’m NOT suggesting any clerk has compromised safety but the point at which the sport ceases to be a spectacle (and is absent of much genuine competition and that is the sense in which it is a sport) is for me becoming blurred. Is it justifiable to race simply because you can as distinct from whether there is a point at which the essence of the sport is lost?

When you get hurdles with four jumps or chases with six, are we surely not moving too far from what is, supposedly, jump racing?

Yet racecourses are businesses and losing meetings such as the Boxing Day fixture must have a commercial impact. In addition, bookmakers are paying courses to race – as long as the fields hold up, does it matter how competitive the racing is?

There’s also the not unreasonable point that, these races notwithstanding, when the ground dries up, the form of these races will likely amount to very little.

Some courses are better equipped to handle soft ground then others and much depends on the frequency of use and availability of spare ground. Limerick were able to race four days in a row by moving rails to provide fresh ground. Other tracks don’t have that flexibility and are forced either into creating near-chicanes or omitting obstacles.

The rationale for summer racing was that courses would be able to proviude decent ground in June, July and August but in the case of Uttoxeter and some others, these are effectively all-round venues. How can the ground recover if it is used so frequently?

I’m not sure there’s a right or wrong to this – should racing occur whatever and however as long as it is safe? I suppose that’s the bottom line (both ethically and commercially). I’m comfortable with that in theory but in practice I sense there is huge pressure to race if at all possible – commercial pressure but also from within the industry (trainers, owners, jockeys all looking to earn a crust).

As I say, I’m not in a position to argue whether any single meeting should or should not have gone ahead – I will argue that the concept of competitive sport has been compromised if conditions are so extreme as to mitigate against that competition. Horses winning by distances or chases with one or two finishers may be justifiable in terms of safety but are they justifiable as a sporting spectacle?

[Gingertipster]

It has occured to me Stodge, that racecourses are racing on heavier ground than previously. Although I’ve also noticed ravecourses moving more rails. For example a few years ago while walking accross Fontwell before racing – it was a bog. Nowadays the rails (at least in the home straight) are often moved to produce a more equal surface. As long as punters know about any extra distance – moving rails is a good thing.

It may well be racecourses in the past have abandoned prematurely. As long as turf can recover by the next meeting – heavy (or even softer) going is not (imo) a problem to health and safety, with one exception… Extreme distances. Usually jockeys just go slower, so in most races it is not a problem. It may not look that nice for horses to finish tired or most of the field pulled up… but this ground is safer than good or good-firm going. Firm ground means when horses fall they’re going faster, a faster impact on harder ground means more injuries and fatalities. I myself would be in favour of banning jump racing in the heart of Summer.

At extreme distances on "almost" unraceably heavy ground – if jockeys get the pace wrong it can look awful and exhaustion could be a factor. I remember (think it was a couple of years ago) Eider runners barely getting over the last and finishing at little more than a walk. Don’t think any runners came to any harm that day, but exhaustion could prove a problem. Hope Chepstow is ok this weekend…

Otherwise the "sporting spectacle" is fine.

As far as form goes, heavy ground (or softer) form does "work out", it just needs the horses to race on similar going to do so. Just as a firm surface would need similar ground to "work out". It’s no reason not to race on it.

Value Is Everything

[Author]

Posts