Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Glenn,
you may well be right but my understanding was that although traditional off course bookmakers were losing punters this was more than being compensated by the growth in on course betting punters and the exchange punters.
The reason the levy is falling – I am told – is that whereas racing gets 2 to 2.7% from bookmaker punters(10% of Gross profits) it only gets 0.5% from those who punt on the exchanges. As more punters switch to the exchanges then racing income falls.
As I am led to believe total pounds wagered on horse racing is not falling.
Whilst it is certainly true that the vast majority of owners go into ownership as a hobby with the expectation of a loss it is equally true that this applies to the vast majority of punters because the vast profits of the bookmakers and the exchanges ensure that we are starting odds against. Of course both groups are hoping for the longshot to come in and in the same way that punters dream ofr the life changing "big win" so do owners dream of the horse that makes it big. It is the fascination of the sport that this happens sufficiently often to bring us all back – owners and punters alike – until we run out of money or prefer to place our hard earned shekels elsewhere. Its more fun than dabbling on Lotto even though we know that there is a jackpot winner every week and it could be us.
In the interest of the Sport( that we all enjoy) it is appropriate that the odds are rebalanced from time to time to ensure that the losses are more fairly shared and hence our activities have a better chance of a long term future. It is no more invidious for owners to ask for a decrease in their losses and hold out for a better return than it is for punters to resist any increase in commision rates on the exchanges. We are all aware that the Bookies are the big winners and all resent it but it seems almost impossible to force by law ( eg peter savill’s efforts) or any other means for the bookmakers to return more to racing direct. Neither the owner has to own or the punter to bet but as one who indulges in both I cannot see any reason why extra commission should not be paid by the one to ensure the long term participation by the other. The failure of the non bookmaking non course owning participants in the sport to agree a fair divide of the losses is the major factor that racing could face terminal decline particulalry if the Maktooums and Abdullahs decided to withdraw their masive funding in the UK scene and concentrate more on the USA where they are more successful in terms of big races won and more prize money per earner received.
As regards the desire to reduce the amount of racing by lopping off the low grade end most people are perhaps in favour and the Irish HRM for instance do not frame races for horses with a rating below 45 and effectively we do the same by the shortage of 0 to 60 handicaps and the phasing out of the banded racing experiment. The great difficulty until horses start racing is to know which horses will end up in which grade. The big purchasers ( Coolmore included and their record is pretty good) often spend millions on horses who would be at the tail end of a funeral procession whilst the Cockney Rebels fortunately crop up almost every year. There are certainly some poorly bred specimens that the sales market suggests have not got a prayer and is normally right – but not always and whist the odds are long they are certainly not as long as Lotto affords us. Certainly the handicappers could accelerate the trend of upping the ability ante before a horse can get in a race after its 2y0 season thereby accelerating market forces that the poorest horses make the biggest losses and are thus withdrawn from racing but this is only a trimming exercise as is the debate of sharing losses between participants fairly.
In general I am in favour of letting market forces dictate the future but as with the economy in general we could give it a push and a shove in the "right" direction by a use of the tax system as we expect the Chancellor to do for Great Britain limited and I am hoping the HRA will do for their arrear of authority.
The cheekster,
You may well be right but current veterinary advice is that after firing and the bandages have been removed controlled exercise on a horsewalker is required befor asking Doctor Grass to do his stuff.
I have done it both ways and cannot report a definite difference.
I doubt myself that Brave Inca will come back to anywhere near his best at the age of 11.
I have just returned from the evening meeting at Bath where I have not had a runner for 4 years.
Of interest to me was that there was a high percentage of youngish people – late 20’s to 30’s – both men and women all of whom had made a dress effort being universally in smart casuals with the ladies in particular dressing smartly.
The owners facilities have been improved with a very pleasant tent situated close to the paddock.
All in all the course had made an effort and were rewarded by large and happy crowd.( of course the lovely weather helped)
The prize money for the maidens, however, was comfortably under £3000 compared to a training fee of roughly £35 a day( I won my first maiden race over 40 years ago and thought the £1200 prize then – when training fees were £6 per day was fairly miserly) which got me musing on whom exactly profits from todays Racing.
The bookies certainly do with gross profits exceeding the total prize money fund by a factor of 8. The exchanges do even better.
The courses are certainly benefitting with racecourse attendance being at an all time high and the additional income from franchising catering, drinking aand sales of loosely racing related goods being considerable.
The losers undoubtedly are stable staff who now look after 5 horses on average as opposed to the 2/3 when I first had a horse in training and of course the owners who receive back about 22-23% of their operating costs. This does not seem to stop new owners coming into the sport which is a testament to the cache still attached to the sport (and the fact that they must still enjoy going racing) plus the huge amounts pumped into the sport by the big players.
How long we can continue to tap the apparantly endless supply of owners -who can say?.
I have posted before ( and no one replied) why cannot racing benefit from the huge success story of the betting exchanges? They pay, like bookies 10% of their gross profit but this is only 5% compared to the bookies gross margin of betwen 20 and 27%.
We could remove the anomoly of all of us who use the exchanges acting
as bookies without a licence by requiring Betfair to pay to the Levy Board £80 by way of licence for each punter on their books. They would fund this approximately £20 million- according to the last published profit figures I could find – by raising their commission rates to 6.5% which is surely not too much for punters to stand? and still a heck of a lot better than using bookies.Frankly even if commission rates went to 10% and racing benefitted by an extra 60 million I dont think this would be too much to pay.
Even then owners would still only get back about 30% of their costs but any fair minded person would conceed this is a more even handed split of racings ‘profits’ than the current one
I notice that the Bolgers will still own Teofilo 100%. Perhaps that fact excludes Teofilo standing at Coolmore? or perhaps Darley have promised some pretty good mares to get him started. Anyone got any "insider information"?
Colin,
When did Epsom become a mountain? was it after Galileo ( now the leading 3rd season sire by a mile), or High Chapparral or Hawk Wing.
Steve,
As you can see from above ( + Dylan Thomas) one leading Irish owner/trainer does not agree with you at least. He made a real effort to win it this year too – how many did he run?
Most breeders agree that one defining characteristic of all good race horses is that they are well balanced and it is certainly a characteristic much sought for in yearling buying. Without same you cannot run quickly up and down hills or around bends thereby differentiating the horse from a Camel who runs almost as fast in a straight line
By all means let geldings run in any race – here seems no reason not to.
Irish Stamp has raised very interesting questions on the timing of the Derby and the track and that is much more complex IMO. If the Derby was put back the effect on the current system of pattern races designed to find a true champion capable of running over a variety of distances would be majorally impacted. The Eclipse would be an aged horse only event as would the Juddmonte International since it would clash with the King George. Hence the emergence of a true Champion 3y0 capable of being the best over both 10 and 12f would be lost and racing would become narrowed and more specialised than ever.
Along similar lines I would argue that the use of courses such as Epsom to find a true Champion are also essential. A truly great horse should be able to run both up and downhill and around bends and we should be aiming to breed horses of the balance and conformation capable of doing so. As a breeder I would hate to see the emergence of animals only capable of running in straight lines on a flat track. The conformational deficiency this would allow in horses would lead to unsound animals with a greater degree of breakdowns then the high levels we already endure.
As Peter Allis is fond of saying when professional golfers complain about the set up of chmpionship golf courses " this is todays examination paper -get on with it". If we want proper Champion racehorses then they should be set tough and comprehensive examinations.
I agree completely with Reet especially with the sentiment that the horse is allowed to do its own thing ie does not pull when running behind or if challenged for the lead etc
I do not think that we are now talking about spoilers or that Coolmore did anything wrong. I think that they just chose the wrong tactics for their horses. I think Excellent Art would have been better suited by a slower pace placing more importance on finishing speed. This would have forced Ramonti to go for home even earlier than he did.
I also agree with Reet that a stiffer track would play even more to Ramonti’s strength.
Am I the only one who thinks that for once Coolmore made a tactical error in allowing the other 2 ballydoyle horses to set such a fast pace.
Ramonti has an abundance of stamina for a miler rather than brilliant acceleration and actually was placed in the Italian derby over 12f. He appears an 8/10f horse rather than a blinding miler.
If I am right a slow muddled pace would probably have suited Excellent Arts kick far more than Ramonti and Dettori would have been forced to make his own pace and probably been picked off by Excellent Art.
An unusual mistabe by Coolmore and I await their tactics in the QE 2 with some interest if both the principles turn up.
Got yer Richard,
Flay them alive and boil them in oil – that will larn them.
Incidently before you commit libel and slander – I bet your attitude to punishment would miraculously change then! – the Chairman of the panel, Mr Matthew Lohn is an independent legal advisor to the HRA. A senior partner and head of regulatory law at Field Fisher Waterhouse he is the acknowledged expert in the law of disciplinary procedures and sentencing and advises inter alia, the GMC, Police Authorities, RCIS etc as well as sitting on the Chairmans Panels of the HRA and RFU amongst many many other sporting bodies..
He is not a registered racehorse owner.
Culhane did not get the minimum sentence he got the recommended entry point and the panel lay out the arguements for raising or lowering the sentence from that entry point ( Mernagh got above). The HRA are intending, however, to raise the entry points and the punishments in general now that they have defined insider information and clarified that jockeys passing their opinion to anyone except the owner or the public at large are guilty of passing ( by definition) insider information.
Richard I am very sorry to be so obtuse but I cannot see the merits of your position at all. I support the conclusion of the panel that their punishment of Culhane was appropriate. The Panel stated the entry point for punishment under the the regulations, stated their debate of factors for upping the punishment and factors for lowering and announced their decision.
You do not agree with their punishment and say "it raises a very serious question as to the motivation of the panel in their sentencing". What question? Whatever are you suggesting? Is this just the normal "tabloid stance" that you know better than the judge who sat throughout the case and saw all the evidence, all the cross examinations and all the responses ? or do you know something about the panel that we all ought to know?
Richard, Nor etc with the greatest of respect you are missing the point. Culhane was alleged to have passed information to his relatives. no element of for reward was included. He pleaded guilty and was suspended for one year – equivalent to a very hefty fine. I believe this was appropriate.
If the HRA had any evidence that he had not ridden his horses on their merit – a far more serious charge – why would they not have proceeded on that charge? It is not a criminal court, they suffer no consequences if they do not convince the tribunal of the probability of their charges being correct. After all the HRA are the experts and it would be difficult to oppose their viewing of the video tapes if they believe a transgression has occurred( who is more expert than them and their stewards?.
We must therefore conclude as non experts that The HRA, acting fairly and properly were satisfied with the riding . That being the case further heavier punishments are not appropriate.
When the HRA believe a jockey has not ridden a horse on its merits and that such an offence is deliberate rather than normal human error no doubt they will so allege and if the tribunal are convinced swingeing punishments such as disqualification for life or 4/5 years which is effectively life, will undoubtedly follow.
Precisely. Let us hope that we have not got a society which sentences on opinion rather than proof. HRA would have presented it if they have got it. Lydia I suspect has as much idea as you and I
Lydia is of course entitled to her opinion and is lucky to have a stage to espouse it. Whether at her age and with her experience (purely limited to journalism) she is especially qualified as compared to the HRA is yet another matter of opinion.
Culhane has passed his opinion as to his chances to family members. Neither Lydia or the HRA have had the balls to suggest that his race riding was in any way improper. Why not? Instead HRA have defined opinion as inside information. That is fine – we now know the rules – but this definition was not in place when Culhane spoke of racing to his family nor has any proof of Culhane profiting from his opinion been tendered. My opinion for what it is worth is that the use of the term corruption and drawing comparisons with Keithley are absurd. His sentence for breaking the rule that he did is appropriate.
This question is too broad and so I am going to confine my comments to improving racing for Owners.
1. Owners recover only 22% of their costs by way of prizemoney. This is by some way the lowest in the mature racing world. This figure is getting worst as Betfair draws more and more punters away from traditional bookmakers. To overcome this I would make the Exchanges licence every one of their punters as a bookmaker at a rate of £80 per licence with the proceeds going direct to the prizemoney fund ( not the racecourse!). The exchanges would recover their money by increasing the commission rate. If I am right Racing would benefit by around £20 million per year and the commission rate would rise from 5 to 6.5%
2. Racecourses must provide better and separate facilities for owners. A couple of years ago I had the 2nd favourite for the Ebor and to make a day of it also entered a horse in the sprint handicap. Total cost of entry fees was over £2000. When we got to York from Cornwall the owners accomodation was so overcrowded that despite our advanced age my wife and I could not find a seat anywhere on the course . This is a thoroughly normal way for raccourses to treat owners and makes it almost impossible to bring guests for the day and give them the day out that any host would expect to give.
If racing wants to attract owners it must at least make them feel wanted even if they cannot increase prizemoney.[/b]
As I have argued on the insider information thread the cost of exchange betting to the punter has to rise with the whole of that extra cost going to Racing. At the moment a £ bet on the exchanges gives Racing only 15 to 20% of the benefit of a pound spent with the bookmaker. Aspunter money switches to the exchanges Racing’s income falls and yet its cost of regulation increases markedly as the number of "bookmakers" has risen from a handful to millions.
Looking at all the background briefings the HRA are giving – eg a trainer has an hour to withdraw an injured horse but not 5 hours etc – its evident that most of the concers are due to the Betting Exchanges and the ability of people to lay a horse to lose.
Obviusly the punter benefits from the Exchanges and they are here to stay.
Considering, however, that a pound bet on the exchanges benefits Racing only some 15 to 20% of a pound bet with the Bookmakers is it not time that the commission rate of the exchanges was increased and the levy % rate on that commission also increased. Otherwise the Racing industry is having to put up with all the mind blowing beaurocracy and costs of an increasingly regulated industry ( with new crimes being discovered all the time) whilst seeing its income falling as all the punting money switches from expensive bookies to cheap exchanges.
Exchange punters have to pay for all the unintended consequences of their existence.I agree with Reet Hard – in the meantime the real ways of cheating the handicapper and through him the other owners and punters – are not being addressed with sufficient intelligence.
