There have been some comments around improving/evolving our racing getting an airing on twitter but I thought I’d make my comments here.( Yes I can’t write that short and I don’t have a twitter account)

STANDING STARTS: one question I’ve never heard answered by HRV is if standing starts are so detrimental to turnover why do we still have them for trotters? I’d have to say SS have there place too amongst the pacers and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that they replace a significant number of mobile start races. There’s no question SS gives handicapping options that mobile starts don’t and certainly looks like field size in country cups and likely turnover too has diminished since they’ve gone all mobile. That’s not to say all country cups should be stands though, variety is the spice of life.

HRVs arguement against SSs is reduced turnover on the race as compared to MS, and one on one equal field size no doubt is true. But would some standing start racing that returns horses to the racing pool that aren’t or are no longer suited to mobiles, horses with no gait speed off the mobile ( but step away swiftly) or horses who as a legacy of a lengthy racing career can genuinely only make one sprinting effort in a race, increase the horse pool and therefore increase field sizes in mobile races with a resultant increase in turnover on those race? Thus compensating for the reduced turnover on the stand? Isn’t distributing more prize money among more participants a priority ( I’ve seen a horse who hadn’t won in three years win from a rare standing start race at Penrith some years back) keeping more people and horses in the game? Isn’t extending the careers of our horses in Australia a priority?

We can only know if we try it. And ( apart from country cups) I’m sure those participants who want SS understand and expect, as a concession to TABCORP and HRV, that they would be programmed at such times that the race has the minimum detrimental effect on turnover. And I’m sure they would understand that they would be required to be good at standing starts so expected to show proficiency at the trials within a reasonable period before the race and expect to be sent back to the trials if they blow the start.

Of course turnover and SS have been mentioned before ( ad nauseum) and it’s apparent that David Martin does not want to budge from his narrow short term view that SSs are bad for turnover, ( pacers only apparently) but how much is being lost to us in turnover by the elimination of pacers standing starts? The NZ CUP is the biggest event in harness racing in the Southern Hemisphere and ( apart from WA) the loss of standing starts has effectively cost Australians the opportunity to participate in that event with a horse born, produced and prepared for the Cup in Australia.

Although Sky sent their harness staff to NZ on a junket ( how much did that cost? Who paid?) the turnover on the NZ cup in Australia failed to exceed a 6 horse gallops field ( I guess we have the false start to thank for knowing that) at Qurindi in NSW ( and that’s not far from the middle of nowhere for those who don’t know ) How much could our turnover improve on the NZ Cup with genuine Aussie participants? ( guess turnover might have been nil if it wasn’t for adopted Aussie Tiger Tara! and Aussie punters don’t know Kiwi form) How much might interest in our racing and our turnover improve on our other races as the result of genuine Aussies competition in the greatest harness event in the Southern Hemisphere, and the interest and life long friendships that that sort of experience creates? Guess we’ll never know because we don’t have standing starts in which to train for such a momentous occasion, but I’m tipping its more then we’d lose in turnover by running a stand start pacing race or two a week.