Reply With Quote
Mango I guess that would depend on where you think the long term dancehall should be!Originally Posted by mango
These were also my thoughts.
Mango I guess that would depend on where you think the long term dancehall should be!
[VVV] That's very altruistic of you Dot.
Now & again I'd like to see the credit given where it is due, that's all. Some encumbents have over the years become extremely adept at grabbing bouquets & dodging brickbats however. Things that work will invariably be their ideas and theirs alone while those that fail, well, they were the spawn of others and from the outset, doomed to fail.
Industry Consultation has far too often code for Pick the brains of all those who bother to turn up & if, from the huddled masses an unexpected gem is unveiled the default position is snap it up & run with it like you were born with the notion.
Don't you think it would make for a very pleasant change for someone to come out & say "Well, we went along to the meeting at Upper Cumbucta West and old Fred, he stood up and spoke about such and such...and we thought that what he suggested was a good idea so we picked it up and we ran with it"...or whatever. When was the last time you saw that happen?
I don't question what you say here Jamie and yes it does and doesn't happen as you say but at the end of the day does it really matter so long as good things get done and wrong choices get discarded. Does any one person ever really come up with and implement an idea all on their own? I think we all know that they don't.
[VVV] G'day Dot,
I wouldn't be too quick to jump aboard that perenially leaky boat.
Post the EI outbreak here in NSW, do you recall ever paying an Australian Horse Industry Council levvy via HRNSW for the clean-up of said outbreak?
Don't sweat it if you don't recall because it didn't happen...but apparently not without a rather diligent effort being made by the then CEO of the then Australian Harness Racing Council in order to make it so.
This it appeared was a one man policy development/decision making process at work, one which it was said stood to cost the Industry plenty and the fact that it was alive and well and in place and ready to roll but ONLY CAME TO LIGHT BY SHEER ACCIDENT is an extremely disturbing thing, one that occasionally still pisses me off to this very day.
An Industry participant's mate was a Federal MP at the time & saw some horse related legislation come across his desk which as it happened was set down for its 1st reading that day.
Knowing of his mate's involvement in Harness Racing the MP phoned him from Parliament House in Canberra to get a bit of background/input on it. Not having heard anything about it, the participant listened intently and it was then that the alarm bells began to ring.
A quick call around revealed that virtually nobody, anywhere knew anything about it...not at a local nor even at a State or Inter State level.
It was only at the 11th hour that the plan for a National Clean Up Levvy was scuttled...one that would have seen Horse people paying to clean up a disease outbreak that the Government of the day had been responsible for creating...and with the double edged sword of revealing those who were in place to look after our best interests to have apparently inexplicably been lining up to sell us down the river...for God only knows the reasons why. Perhaps it was to cultivate some political favour? Perhaps to simply secure an invite to the next Ministerial Cocktail Party? Who knows. In Harness Racing terms it was approaching treasonous in my book.
So Dot, having read the above, no doubt you'll find it within yourself to forgive me if now and again I seem to view some things with a rather jaundiced eye.
Last edited by Triple V; 05-13-2012 at 06:05 PM. Reason: no idea why that was in bold???
I have just read the presentation sent out by HRNSW that was used at the roadshows. Some points of interest for me are;
Overall a step in the right direction.
- Funding increase ($1.1M from FY11 to FY13) seems a bit mediocre given that there are 150 additional meetings, trackside gaming revenue & increased wagering via TAB Fixed Odds.
- Fully support the move to centralised programming - this is a no brainer in my opinion. Make it happen Sam!
- Great to see $2M being invested on plant, equipment & track works. The safety of participants & horses is paramount. The better quality tracks we have will also generate more competitive racing.
- Some quick decisions need to be made on the 'potential projects'. If all of these get caught up in red tape or people putting personal interests ahead of the sport this will be a crying shame! Some these will certainly evolve the industry so they must expedite a couple and get it done.
- I understand the economic rationalisation behind the changes to the number of race meetings etc. This needs careful ongoing review, particularly in regional growth areas.
- Handicapping is an interesting subject. My view is why can't we have both? Surely a model where class and conditioned races existed would be exciting and diverse. All we need to do is play around with the mix to understand what balance generates the most competitive fields.
- I would support a controlled trial of seeded barriers draws. This is certainly worth investigating if it can make races more competitive.
- I don't support the idea of nominating for a meeting instead of a programmed race. Too hard for trainers to have their horses at peak on race day if they only find out distance 4 days before.
- User pay licensing should be bought in for restricted license holders. Any A class license holder should pay upfront. The administration of this needs to be simple and cost effective.
- Strategies & Concepts: Not sure how much each of the points were elaborated on but I thought this lacked innovation. As I have said before evolution is critical and you only achieve this through the development of new strategies and concepts. Of the 6 points raised nothing stood out as being overly exciting. Prize money growth = obvious, Fillies & Mares Schemes & Incentives = obvious, GWS Track = This is the only real innovation albeit very controversial, Sprint Lanes = pros/cons, Breeders challenge series = good.
I don,t know the full extent of the presentation BUT if your point No.8 is correct then it is a case of BACK TO THE FUTURE. That is how you used to nominate before the late Eightys', nominate for a programme and after the fields were drawn up, the handicappers would lump all those that didn't get a start into a conditioned race that encompassed those that missed out.
It was rubbish then and it will be the same now.
Wasn't the plan for those nominate for the meeting and let the handicappers sort them out option that it initially be used for/applicable to R meetings only? Incidentally Lee, that EXACT thing happened here in NSW back when the EI outbreak occurred & not only did much more competitive racing result but during that period TAB turnover actually went UP & quite significantly so.
It was an extremely valuable real life tested and proven lesson that sadly was apparently lost on virtually all and sundry because no sooner had the EI outbreak been mopped up than things went back to the way they had been previously...with every silo town & dung hill programming their own races...and surprise, surprise, turnover duly retreated.
G'day Jaimie
I don't think that nominating for a meeting is the way to go, I am however fully supportive of a centralised approach to programming with full on conditional racing. i think trainers should have the ability to place horses and the North America model looks well suited here. I think there needs to be some form of ceiling on the conditions so as to avoid the more dominant dropping back against the weaker horses. The idea of $ earnt in their last 6, 5 or 3 starts is one way, however, without care it is possible for horses competing at the higher level to sneak into a weak event and basically dominate. In many of the North American programs they include conditions which make earners, of say more than $50k lifetime as an example, ineligible. I think this would be the way to go, there's endless conditions that can be written whilst still giving trainers the ability to plan and place horses, and whilst also ensuring that like races like.
Regards
Mark
Last edited by Mark Croatto; 05-13-2012 at 06:55 PM. Reason: grammar
[VVV] G'day Mark,
I agree with all of that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of you nominate and let us sort it out, rather I was trying to highlight that during that EI outbreak period here in NSW we operated under full on conditioned racing principles (albeit with the composition of the fields being left to the discretion of the handicappers)...and competitive racing/like racing like/turnover wise it worked extremely well. The sooner that we finally change to centralised programming and a full conditioned racing basis here in NSW, the beter off we'll be.
Posting Permissions
