[richard]

Reet Hard,
You miss the point big time. The reason it is a few years ago is a) never again had a runner in such a lowly rated flat race and b) being older and wiser I now know (in conjunction with trainers) which jocks not to put on an odds on favourite.

Having said that, it is my experience and understanding that the number of flat jocks that will take money to throw a race (or communicate info for profit that a horse is not going to win on that day) is a small minority of those riding and because of the HRA actions that number is smaller than it was a few years ago. But there are some still riding and it would be better for horseracing if they were not – assumimg a due and proper investigation and hearing. Get rid of the jocks that are prepared to do these things and the criminals who would have bribed them are out of business.

richard

[richard]

Absolutely agree that Gina Andrews is a very good jock, but think her younger sister Bridget is very good as well. Both of them have a very natural riding style and seem to be good judges of horses, pace and position.
richard

[richard]

Seems to me there is a definite distinction on this thread between those who have experience of ownership of horses and those that do not.
But having said that, the charges against the jocks, owners and account holders relate to information that a horse was not going to win. It has nothing whatsoever to do with young horses being run to get a handicap mark off which they can compete or football.

And Reet Hard – we have had this conversation before- but I can tell you with 100% certainty that a jockey can throw a race without the connivance of trainer or owners. I’ve experienced that, though to be precise that was back in the days where if the owner or trainer complained the BHA would charge those who complained with bringing racing into disrepute, or whatever the precise wording is.

So I welcome he charges against these people and may justice take its course. Hopefully other jocks/owners will be charged as well, because there are other crooks. Racing needs to get rid of them, particularly the jocks.

richard

[richard]

I’ll go aolng with Glen, otherwise it’s Ascot X 10

richard

[richard]

Thank you for the replies. Prufrock, for what’tis worth I agree with all you say. I’d add though that I think the bits of racing’s levy submission about offshore bookies paying no levy, bets on UK racing from overseas similar and the loophole which allows the majors to construct profits from their shops to take advantage of discounts meant for smaller independants need to be sorted. If they were sorted, the levy contribution would increase significantly. What would increase the Levy even more significantly is if there was a proper audit of the major bookies profit from racing. At the moment they can declare whatever amount they want.

Glen, yes, punters do get a raw deal from the majors, but that is between punters and the bookies, there isn’t much the racing authorities can do about that, apart from make a serious integrity effort. Whether one thinks they do that is maybe a matter of opinion and experience.

But on the broader front, here are a few stats which may help to put racing’s problems into perspective.Figures are taken from the latest BHA Statistical Bulletin and are for mid-September

Owners
2077 – 9704
2008 – 9563
2009 – 8938
2010 – 8851
Decline 2007/2010 = -9%

Comparing flat and jumps horses isn’t exact because the BHA changed the definition of dual purpose horses, but taking flat only plus dual purpose and jumps only plus dual purpose, these are the declines:

Flat+ DP
2007 – 11316
2008 – 11625
2009 – 10280
2010 – 10124
Decline 2007/2010 = -10%

Jumps + DP
2007 – 6244
2008 – 6215
2009 – 5372
2010 – 5216
Decline 2007/2010 = -16%

According to today’s RP foal production in GB has fallen by 21% 2007-2010 In Ireland the decline is 41%.

Even the most conservative extrapolation of these figures suggests that in two years time racing will be in a parlous state in terms of owners and HITs so racing is going to hell in a handcart. Unless, that is, the horseman’s group can persuade the likes of Arena Leisure and Northern Racing to divert some of their substantial revenues from media rights and levy funded integrity payments into prize money and the government make the major off course bookies pay for the points mentioned in the first paragraph.

One can only hope…..
richard

[richard]

Prufrock and Glen,

The number of horses in training, owners and trainers are declining. Smaller studs are struggling to make a profit. Judging by the recent sales results and the very significant decline in the breeding of foals in the UK, there are going to be significantly less horses in training in the UK in the next couple of years.

In other words, racing is going to hell in a handbasket as the Americans would say. Without owners and horses in training, there ain’t no racing.

So, my question is: both of you seem very quick to make smart remarks ,but what would you specifically do to remedy the situation? Again specifically, what would you suggest as a means to arrest the decline in HITs and ownership and what would you do to encourage an increase?

richard

[richard]

Action by owners and trainers have worked very well in the past, though there have been few instances of them. Back in 2003(?) at Sedgefield there was a move to protest at the planned reductions in prize money by the BHB and the Levy Board. Basically one race was massively entered up, all but one or two were declared. Unsurprisingly, Peter Saville/Levy Board/Bookies suddenly discovered that there was more money available.

At Yarmouth a couple of years back the same tactic was employed because Northern Racing refused to discuss their levels of prize money with the NTF. As I recall, the meeting was abandoned but as a result of the proposed action Northern Racing did meet with the NTF and lo and behold, Northern Racing upped their prize money contribution.

So selective, targeted action does work.

As to owners voting with their financial feet (if I may thus paraphrase your opinion Cormack) this is happening. The number of HITs, owners and trainers is already in significant decline. Given the general economic situation and the devastation of prize money due to the betting operators finding more ways of not paying their full whack to the levy, next year is likely to see a dramatic decline in HITs and owners in GB.

As to overproduction, that occured primarilly in Eire, mostly due to the massive subsidies from the EU which created loadsa rich people largely in the construction industry.

And of course Irish racing is subsidised by Irish taxpayers but now foal production has now dropped majorly.

In summary, targeted action does work and IMHO whatever action owners and trainers take to try to improve prize money is worth supporting because if prize money doesn’t start to recover, racing as we know it will go into a very steep decline.
richard

[richard]

Miss Woodford,
Thank you for that info and I too will try to get hold of that book. Out of interest, roughly what percentage of the class of races you mention are they of all horse races in the USA?

thank you
richard

[richard]

Lingfield,
The winning owner would nett £1065 on that prize money. Some of the racing costs -jockey, lad’s expenses- are fixed, but the biggest cost of getting a horse to a race is usually travel, so it depends how far the horse has travelled as to the total costs.

Based on the prices I pay for a horse trained in Newmarket, total costs specific to that race would be around £550, so the nett gain to the owner would be about £565. That doesn’t include the owners’ expenses in getting there, hamburger and a drink (whatever), or farrier and vet costs which may be specific to getting that horse into that race.

Training costs do vary by trainer, but I would budget for £20k a year all in per flat horse for, say, seven runs. To put it into perspective, hypothetically, the "gain" to the owner in that race would be about 0.3% of the horse’s annual cost, based on the above figures and the prize money for that race.

It is perhaps no wonder that the number of owners and HITs are declining significantly and that trainers are boiling up to boycott races.

Whilst I have been a racing fan for most of my life and my wife and I have owned horses for a good many years, as things stand I see no alternative to an escalating and eventually dramatic decline in horse racing ownership in this country. Germany and Italy, relatively speaking, are very good examples of what happens when the betting operators effectively run racing.

richard

[richard]

Why have Newmarket gone along with this and why have Racing for Change decided that Ascot should be the venue?
Is it because Ascot has got so much more capacity for corporates, or that Newmarket lose too much money on the fixture? Or is it that RforC just need to justify their salaries by doing "something"
Be interesting if anyone knows. All I can say is that I will be contacting Newmarket to request a reduction in my annual membership fee.

richard

[richard]

I come back to the point Prufrock and others that Racing United is addressing issues which are specific to the Levy. The Levy board is a statutory body set up by the government, it’s members are enshrined in law and only the statutory members can contribute to Levy Board "discussions". The three racing representatives on th LB (all appointed by the BHA) are the BHA, the RCA and the Horseman’s Group. The govenment is the only body that can change the workings of the Levy Board because the bookmakers have the sole right of veto on any proposals that might change the mechanism of the Levy.

So I for one applaud the formation of Racing United, because for the first time that I can remenber racing’s three constituents ( in legal Levy Board terms) have come together to put a specific agenda to the government for the benefit of racing. I don’t know, but would suspect that the banner Racing United is a mesage to the bookies that you ain’t going to be able to divide and rule this time like you normally do.

Whilst punters may have concerns about what is going on in racing, no-one other than the statutory members of the LB can make proposals. So Prufrock’s points are , I’m sure, well meant. But are legally irrelevant in respect of the statutory limits of the Levy Board and who legally can try to change things.

richard

[richard]

Interesting that reportedly one of the likely bidders for the Tote is Cenkos. Paul Roy, currently Chairman of the BHA, is a non-exec director of Cenkos. As mentioned, interesting.
richard

[richard]

Prufrock, Be interesting to know what brought on this particular rant. But what are you suggesting that punters as a body could contribute to the negotiations with the bookies? Cancellation of all outstanding debts for racing journalists, or occasional racing jounalists?
richard

[richard]

For what it is worth, my experience as an owner is that whatever the reasons one might decide to front run a horse (assuming the horse is fit)is mostly down to the capability of the jockey in judging the pace of the race. Some jocks are good at that, some are not.
richard

[richard]

To back up Alan’s point about the decline in onership, these figures are taken from the BHB Statistical Bulletin for June 2010 comparing 2008-2010.

The number of owners (joint and sole) fell from 9483 to 8777 – down 6.1%

The number of trainers (excl. permit holders) fell from 621 to 576 – down 7.2%

The number of named horses in training (excl. Hunters) fell from 14825 to 14199 – down 4.2% But I think a more interesting statistic is the change in the number of horses available to run under either code.

Combining flat only and dual purpose horses the number fell from 11287 to 10140 – down 10.2%

Combining jumps only and dual purpose horses the number fell from 4855 to 4077 – down 15.5%

The BHB did change the definition of dual purpose horses in 2010 (how I don’t know). Their numbers dropped significantly and it looks like the flat only category benefited most from the re-classification.

The re-classification apart, these are significant declines. The worrying thing is that the effects of the economic downturn probably have not yet fully fed through into horse and owner numbers. Prize money declines will cause an additional exodus.

richard

[richard]

Andyod,
If I have understood the Coolmore press release on the Sporting Life website correctly, the plan is to keep SSP in training for the rest of the UK/Irish season. About three months max. There is no mention of keeping him in training next season.

If he wins another major race that may well increase his stud value. If he runs well without winning, it will not decrease his current likely stallion fee value.

So from a commercial stand point it’s a no-brainer. Sacrifice 3-4 months of stallion fees with the opportunity to increase those fees if he wins again.

Frankly, I don’t think it is a sporting decision, more like a sensible, low risk business decision.

richard

[richard]

Murtagh’s move effectively put half the field out of the race. The Stewards must have thought it serious, otherwise they wouldn’t have banned him for those particular six days. Not that Coolmore or Murtagh would care, as has been said already they have created another high fee stallion. This is an organisation that pushes the rules of racing to the limits. No doubt relying on their effective and high priced lawyers and their equally effective and ruthless p.r. operation. Would Starspangledbanner have won without the move from Murtagh? Not from that draw I would suggest.

And to forestall the usual responses re Coolmore I didn’t have a bet on the race, though I was at the track.

richard

[Author]

Posts