TURF TOPIC - PUNTERS ENTITLED TO EXPECT MORE PROFESSIONALISM FROM RACING AUTHORITIES

By Graham Potter | Monday, February 8, 2016

It really does make you wonder at times whether some racing authorities have heard of the internet or of the other various advanced communications devices which, at a touch of a button, will instantly keep you up to date with what is happening elsewhere in the industry.

I mean are they even in touch at all.

At the same time that Racing Victoria trials a thirty minute interval between races, in order to shorten the timeframe in which a meeting is completed, Racing Queensland brings out a draft schedule proposing a number of twelve race meeting programmes which will increase the length of the current standard meeting by fifty per cent.

Talk about pulling in different directions. Even if there are good reasons for either proposal, it is clearly evident they both can’t be right.

One is currently being trialled. The other is in the ‘pending’ tray.

I think, in a perfect world, the thirty minute option would be great but, even at best, it will be more of a practical option at some tracks than it will be at others.

Various distances from the weighing room to the tie up stalls, for example, will be a factor, so it certainly won’t be a ‘one size fits all’ scenario.

The question of the scheduling of individual race start times on busy race-days has already been raised in dramatic fashion. Here the dilemma comes in a complicated three-fold mix.

Firstly, how do you schedule races so that there are no time race clashes within the major metropolitan meeting schedule?

Secondly, in the event that can even be done, does that leave enough time for winning punters to reinvest in bets on the next race as the much needed rollover effect on turnover cannot be overestimated?

Stewards also have a job to do on race-day. They might initiate riding inquiries or be involved in protest hearings, apart from other basic work. How does the time factor play out in that regard?

So do jockeys and trainers have a routine to follow. Same question?

But, while the thirty minute deal is clearly a multi-faceted proposal, it is not as if some of those problem areas mentioned have not been in existence for some time, even with more than a thirty minute timeframe.

So, realistically, in the majority of cases it is only a five minute difference we are talking about ... which makes this past weekend’s performance by racing authorities a bit hard to swallow.

In spite of RV announcing their intention to trial the concept one month prior to implementation, racing authorities from different jurisdictions, as a well the SKY Racing broadcaster, could not come up with a viable, working schedule for the Saturday, the one day during the trial period which had a surplus of race meetings.

Or let me rephrase that. Maybe it wasn’t that they couldn’t ... arguably it was that they didn’t try hard enough.

Maybe Racing New South Wales and Sky Racing weren’t able to see properly with their noses out of joint, because that is seemingly how they chose to react to Racing Victoria’s ‘audacious’ decision to move forward unilaterally with their own agenda.

So there was a clash of race times meaning that some Caulfield races were removed from Sky 1 to Sky 2, in favour of meetings like Dalby and the Sapphire Coast.

Whether that decision was related to contractual obligations or executive choice by Sky doesn’t matter one iota to racing’s customers (punters) who, not for the first time became innocent collateral damage in other players fight to be ‘right.’

All it did for punters was leave them dissatisfied and discouraged.

Sure it wasn’t an easy equation but, from the time that Racing Victoria, rightly or wrongly, went ahead and announced the trial one month before it was undertaken, how much effort was made by all interested parties in all racing precincts affected to ensure that the trial passed with the minimum of inconvenience to racing’s customers?

If there was not enough effort, why not?

For goodness sake, all we are talking about is a one week trial with a particular one day difficulty with a five minute change to normal ... yet racing authorities apparently couldn’t cope.

It was all too much for them.

And not surprisingly, that opened the door to the blame game.

I’m certainly not interested in the finger pointing game. Racing is a Premier League player in that regard, and that attitude only provides a disservice to the sport.

In the end, unless the thirty minute trial is extended, all this might be much ado about nothing.

Surely, even there, logic dictates that one week is too short a trial period to deliver any specific weight of data?

So, we wait to see what happens next.

And as for the proposed twelve race card on occasions in Queensland?

Well that is another story completely.

It is only in draft stage at the moment (although we all know what happens most times when draft copies are sent out from Racing Queensland for feedback) but I’m still not certain who it is meant to benefit.

Will the add-on races indeed be extra races, in other words they will not be taken away from other scheduled meetings.

Also, remember, that proposal will come into effect only after stakes levels are due to be reduced so will the extra time and expense (ie stable staff) involved be an attractive proposition for participants?

As with the ‘thirty minute’ argument, there will be several other angles to that story before it reaches a conclusion.

The bottom line though is, as was shown by the lack of cooperative foresight in the handling of the Racing Victoria thirty minute trial, that if any proposal of significant change is not conducted on a level of professionalism that punters are entitled to expect from authorities in an industry as large as horse racing it will have serious negative consequences.

In everything racing does it has to forge an outcome which avoids the type of internal haemorrhaging that the industry has suffered from for so long.

It suffered from another one of those this week.

It doesn’t need any more.