FROM THE SHERIFF'S DESK: CHANGE OF TACTICS PROCEDURE CREATES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES

By John Schreck | Thursday, August 17, 2017

John Schreck, a former Chief Steward in both Sydney and Hong Kong, has seen both the colourful and the dark sides of racing. His wealth of experience and his deep knowledge of racing matters across the board is unquestioned and the reputation he built as a racing ‘lawman’ remains firmly entrenched in racing’s history. Schreck’s personal blog, ‘From the Sheriff’s Desk', appears exclusively on HRO.

Last weekend I had an interesting conversation with a very keen punter.

This person does his form and lays his bets before going to the races because he doesn’t want to be influenced by the coat tuggers and the like.

A couple of weeks ago he did that, went to the races and then, halfway through the day, the news came over the public address system that a horse he had backed was going to be ridden back in the field instead of forward where it had been ridden previously ... even though it had drawn gate one.

The horse was ridden back. It reefed and pulled all the way and finished a nice seventh.

I have always been opposed to the compulsion of trainers having to inform stewards of a change of tactics which they then make public ... for all sorts of different reasons. I’ll mention two.

One: I think that owners and trainers are entitled to play their own hand. You would not expect any football coach of any code to publically announce his tactical plan beforehand so his opposition can have upfront knowledge of how to combat that move ... so why should trainers have to do it?

Two: Take this example! Somebody might be planning to ride a horse back in the field and the public have been notified of that fact. Then the gates open and the expected leader does not take up that role, for whatever reason ... it was slow away, bumped or baulked early for example ... then that pre-race proposed backmarker might be entitled to go forward and of course it will go forward if that is its best option and the jockey is worth his salt.

And there will be countless other examples of plans having to change because of changing circumstances in the running.

So where does that leave the value of the change of tactics announcement.

Nowhere ... just like that horse that finished a nice seventh!

***************************************************************************************************

This rule unnecessarily complicates things particularly when generally these change of tactic announcements are only made fairly close to race time.

If you are going to do it why not do it at scratching time or something like that?

I’m sure trainers would not be prepared to do it at scratching time and that would be understandable.

They would still want to weigh up their options in terms of the opposition and the conditions on the day ... but to do it when the horses are going onto the track or just before that very much defeats the whole purpose of the exercise and upsets punters unnecessarily.

It should be remembered that racing is a competitive sport and should remain so.

I think forcing any trainer to publicly say what he or she is going to do with their horse in a race ... particularly when when it is not always possible carry through with the intended plan ... well, I think that detracts from the competitiveness of the sport.

This rule can also inhibit initiative.

Initiative is one of the things that is lacking in a lot of race riding today. The really good jockeys of the past were never frightened to change their mind mid-race and do something very different.

These days, if you lock jockeys into public instructions, that initiative is not as great as it used to be and it is not as great as it ought to be.

As I have said many times before one of the great attractions of racing is its unpredictability and that, like its competitiveness, should remain as a key factor in racing.

I know that stewards by policing this rule are trying to create a sense of transparency but I don’t think it is working and, in my opinion, consideration should be given to doing away with this practise because it is something I think racing could, and should, do without.

**************************************************************************************************

It has been decided to raise race riding fees in New South Wales to $200 (right across the state) ... which brings the New South Wales into line with Victoria.

Any time any change occurs to this particular fee structure in any state it generally prompts across the board discussion.

Are the existing riding fee discrepancies between states understandable, given the respective financial standing of the various states or, should jockeys who face the same risk wherever they ride around the country get the same reward for their involvement?

Arguments can be made both ways.

Personally I sympathise with the many riders, whereever they are, who are trying to make a living far removed from the spotlight.

The great majority of people who view racing look at the top riders ... like the Lloyd’s, the Oliver’s and the Bowman’s and the like ... and see people who make a very comfortable living.

They forget about the battler who is very, very badly needed if the sport is going to keep going as we know it.

If the sport is going to survive away from the major centres than you have to have the men and women prepared to ride horses in those sorts of areas.

They have to be compensated for doing that, in the same way as those along the coast are compensated. For the most part these people are doing it focussing on the riding fees as an income and obviously not so much for any percentage return on stakes.

They travel long distances, wear out motor cars, take the same risks as that taken by those riding at metropolitan venues ... probably greater risks because lots of the horses they ride are not as well educated as their city counterparts and they don’t have the same medical facilities on hand.

So it important that they as fairly compensated as their more illustrious colleagues.

Two facts have to be accepted about racing in general.

1) The more rules and regulations that can be agreed upon on a national level the better and ...

2) There will always be interstate differences through capabilities, rivalries or jealousies.

Jockey’s riding fees is one issue that you would like to think is not that complex a matter. In an ideal world riding fees would be struck nationally.

I believe, in time, that will happen.