BROWNIE'S BLOG: SETTING STANDARDS TO ENSURE STANDARDS - THAT CAN'T BE A BAD THING

By Damian Browne | Thursday, July 23, 2020

Commentator Terry Bailey raised an issue earlier this week when he basically seriously questioned whether ‘slow’ horses should be allowed to take their place in certain races. It was really a quite passionate appeal for the eligibility rules for entering races to be reviewed.

Bailey’s opinion has elicited plenty of response and, at the outset, I must make it clear that I have not read all of the related articles and comments on this matter. Neither have I spent any time weighing up things like whether paying prize-money down to tenth place is a good thing, in terms of the fact that there is a greater distribution of racing income to owners, trainers and jockeys, or whether it is a bad thing, in terms of the fact that it encourages possible uncompetitive horses to line up merely to make up the numbers.

My input, rather, stems purely from my time in the saddle and it is from that perspective that I know, first hand, how frustrating it is when you are riding in a race against some horses you know shouldn’t be there. The race could be run fifty times and those horses would never run in the top six … anytime.

You are sitting in the barriers before a big race looking at the horse next to you thinking, ‘this horse is just going to get in my way’. It is $100-1, can’t win and maybe the jockey is having his first ride in town in a big race. They start taking on the leader at the 1000m. They are gone by the 800m and then drop back quickly into your lap, which can be quite dangerous at times.

A jockey has to deal with a lot of things in races. One thing that he shouldn’t really be asked to deal with is trying to get out of the way of, or outright avoid, a horse that shouldn’t have been in the field in the first place. As I said, it can be dangerous and it can compromise his chances.

To a degree you can expect that sort of unwanted form imbalance in Maiden races and Class 1 races. That is where everybody starts out, but I certainly think once you get up in class and, therefore up in prize-money, you should have to earn your way into those races.

I have always felt that, particularly in the bigger races, there should be stricter qualification criteria with horses having to reach a certain prescribed, acceptable rating before being allowed entry.

I know a lot of people just want to have their horse in a big race so that they can go along to the races with their mates and say, ‘I’ve got a horse in the big race,’ but the implications are far greater than a social day out.

Of course, any horse can interfere with another runner in a race at any time … that is the random risk you run … but, apart from anything else, a slow horse racing out of its grade can be a danger on the track because it can cause an incident. Imagine getting knocked over by a slow horse that shouldn’t even be there because it is stopping so fast … and imagine that happening in a Group 1 race where there is so much at stake.

That is not really a random situation. Rather, it is a completely avoidable one if suitable criteria is put in place to ensure that horses likely to be outclassed never find themselves in a position where they are in way above their head.

What the entry criteria has to try and ensure is that, while any race will produce a field in which there are horses of varying abilities, none of the runners should be totally out of place.

And that doesn’t just apply to the big races.

In the rating races … say, a Ratings 80 race … you will see a horse in there that’s on a 50 rating. Should it be there? I don’t think so. Perhaps having a bottom rating to go with the top rating might be an idea. So, for example, say that Ratings 80 race will also have a bottom benchmark of, let’s say, a 60 rating … and horses rated below that wouldn’t be able to be in there.

To me, tightening up the criteria to move from one grade to another has got nothing to do with excluding anybody. I have every respect for every participant who does the hard yards to help keep this great game going.

It is simply all about setting standards to ensure standards … and that can’t be a bad thing.

I can’t see anybody who believes that the on-going quality of the racing product will be a factor in the industry securing its future having a problem with horses having to tick off some level of performance to qualify for the higher-grade races.

I know this argument can be taken in many directions and I don’t pretend to know all of the avenues of the present discussion but, as I said, this is my view of this issue from a rider’s perspective … which I obviously believe is an important angle to take into account.
_____________________________________________________________________

Top New Zealand jockey Michael Coleman has announced his retirement.

Coleman was a champion apprentice with Jim Gibbs when I first started. Gibbs was probably the North Island’s version of Theo Green back in the day. He had all the top apprentices. He would have five or six runners in all of the Open Handicaps and he would put all his boys on.

Coleman was one of those. He went on to become a champion jockey and he has been one now for some thirty odd years, I guess.

He is probably the New Zealand version of Michael Cahill. He is not an outspoken sort of guy. He lets his riding do the talking. He is Mr. Consistent. He is there all of the time. He rides well and is a lovely guy … a gentleman who has had a great career.

I wish him everything of the best in his retirement.
_____________________________________________________________________

HRO COMMENTS: For the record, Coleman was New Zealand's champion apprentice jockey in his second and third seasons of race riding. In that second season (1986-87) he rode his first G1 winner and, not only did he go on to win 39 Group 1’s, but, quite incredibly, he has ridden at least one G1 winner for the last 20 years. He retires with a record 2131 wins and is only the seventh jockey to have ridden 2 000 winners in New Zealand.

More articles