Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangles
Our Little General was nominated for Cranbourne last Saturday and due to withdrawals, the race was deleted - obviously trainers were trying to avoid him.
He's exceptional but he is also entitled to race. It's a quandary for sure.
If HRV programmes a race and your horse is eligible to compete then you have every right too nominate. The problem is not with the team nominating, it is all about the programming such a open 3yr old race at a second tier country track and not having restriction on horses that can enter. i.e it could be programme for 3 yr old with earnings of no more than 50k, or 3yr old with a claiming price of 50-60 k etc. The alternative is to continue with the status quo and see the "Red Hot" continue.
The argument would be that by nominating for a $7k race as opposed to a $5k or $3½k race (they're all pretty pathetic sums I know) you have to expect better horses
Your absolutely right Kev they are pathetic sums. Under the current system they are entitled to run him there however, if we had 3yo metro age penalty races like we used too they probably wouldn't run at Hamilton and we wouldn't have 3yo who have won 2 country penalty races going around in CO 's all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Then all that is left to say, is that with this type of programming by the HRV all owners with average 3 yr olds need to sell up and get out of Harness racing. Oh silly me, I forgot that is what they have been doing.
I am hearing you men
[QUOTE=Njcstables;51141]Your absolutely right Kev they are pathetic sums. Under the current system they are entitled to run him there however, if we had 3yo metro age penalty races like we used too they probably wouldn't run at Hamilton and we wouldn't have 3yo who have won 2 country penalty races going around in CO 's all the time
I totally agree with you Nathan. Back in the day when HRV ran Metro open 3 year old races there was a viable alternative for the better 3 year olds. We have been asking HRV for a better go for 3 year olds and have requested that they reinstate Metro 3 years olds but to no avail. Now there is nothing. The 3 year old race at Cranbourne was deleted and OLG needs a lead up race before the Sires heats. There are no other options for him .
Programming for young horses is non existent. After a 3 year old wins their first 2 races they have to nominate for a C0 to get a run and many of those are for 4 year old and older horses. If you find a suitable C0 then the 3 year old is forced to compete against horses in the 4-6 year old age group. We have recently sold a handy three year old interstate due to lack of racing opportunities.
[QUOTE=Bonnie;51153]Agree re lack of 3yo Metro racing. Even if they have to run them with 6-7 its better than nothing. I do wonder if they got sick of insufficient noms though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Njcstables
I see no problem with 2 wins 3yos racing open age in C0s. In this scenario if Our Little General was in a C3-C4 race that would be fairer.
Well OLG broke the Tk Record w/o any luck from the draw and w/o raising a sweat ( I don't think they even washed him down after)
$ 15,000 race at Ballarat. 6 entries. 3 x Emma Stewart, a first starter and a horse unplaced in 4 starts. This is why 3yo Metros are not scheduled.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
There is a 2yo Classic on that program too and it also has only 6 entries with 3 x Peter ManningQuote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cf...&fromstate=vic
So in W.A a new go it alone handicapping system will be implemented in September. C and M class will be scrubbed and races will be programmed on win dollars won for each horse. 2yo and 3yo racing as per normal but dollars won implemented as the season rolls along. Other issues like the drop back rule to be addressed as it rolls out. Interesting times ahead for W.A with most industry participants positive but cautious about it. I believe its something pretty close to the programming in the States as it currently stands. Might take a while to see how it pans out..could be the way forward but we have to wait and see and hope that its better than the current system.
Wont be in place by September Big K but they have a few good ideas and will be looking after mares and local horses.
I am not convinced about the win/dollars method. It can be manipulated. e.g horse finishes 3rd in a NZ classic race and wins $12000 then flown over here and entered in local race worth $7k against local horses who have finished 3rd or whatever in an RO and picked up $450. A different level of ability, not a level playing field and that is where it is wrong. I don't believe any Australian racing body will put in rules or methods to prevent this happening. They haven't got the guts.
The dollars won method will work in the drop back rule- where if you finish 2nd 9 times in a row , you will be handicapped in some way either bumped up to a more competitive class or back row draw over 1700m - I am sure they will come up with a way of doing that.
Those concerned can forget about a one system fits all across Australia /NZ-it wont happen for various political reasons. It is getting like the railway gauge, every state has a different size gauge and never the twain shall meet. I thought HRA was going to have a strategy that made a level playing field across Australia. I must be mistaken or have misread the whole issue
Pat, I thought your NZ example is precisely what Big Kev's news would catchQuote:
Originally Posted by Fan of Jate
Be interesting to see how it pans out Kev, be good if we could get some feedback from Richard C as well to see how the HRA strategy is developing thus far.
Hi Pat,Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan of Jate
I'm not sure if you're psychic, tapping my phone or it's co-incidence however a representative of HRA had the courtesy to give me a call and update.
From their meetings with the states and around 6 other submissions, they've drafted a system that sounds like it has promise.
They'll soon put out some brief comms to update participants. It seems that the IT integration will probably be the bottleneck in its time to inception. Let's hope that the states or HRA don't stuff it up with their programming or with exceptions etc. to appease a few at the expense of our primary customers.
Emma Stewart trained the winners of every race she had starters (all the pacing races) but could not make it 6 in a row despite having half the field in this oneQuote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...A260517&ms=vic
Small fields can create an upset
Is Chris Alford injured, on holiday, suspended? (Vic's Suspended drivers list has not been updated for a couple of weeks - must not be anybody's regular responsibility)
ps Peter Manning couldn't win the 2yo where he had 60% of the field but he didn't have the long odds on fav
The field for the 30k 2yo Trot at Menangle on Saturday is now down to 4
The Gp1 Trotters Derby only has 6. Then again, NSW just doesn't have the emphasis on trotters like Vic
Half to Yankee Rockstar won the 2yoQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
In Sweden for Elitlop KevQuote:
Is Chris Alford injured, on holiday, suspended? (Vic's Suspended drivers list has not been updated for a couple of weeks - must not be anybody's regular responsibility)
Well, he deserves a 6000 reward
Cheers for that feedback Richard. You are right , as the framework is developed the IT system does take a lot of work as well. I believe the software for the draft WA system will take some time to develop hence the slowness of its implementation. So there may be lessons there for HRA.
One thing we don't want is any new handicapping system coming in halfway through a season.
But most important of all my psychic abilities don't seem to transfer into my punting exploits, a couple of small losing bets last night are testament to that.
It seems strange finishing a meeting which has six $120k Gp1 races on the program, with a $7k C1 as the last (Melton on Saturday night)
On the positive side, I guess they know that it will pay its way
41 minutes between race 4 and race 5 at Horsham today - you have to be joking
Ray Chaplin has done more work on his report regarding the importance of Excitement and looked at HRV following the American business model again in its decision to go with more races but less meetings
Here is an excerpt:
"The USA model has failed to grow wagering
Latest 2017 Year to date wagering statistics
Race days – 3.21%
Purse money + 1.75%
Total wagered – 6.6%
These results follow a similar wagering decline trend in recent seasons
Problem – Inability to fill large race number programs with sufficient field sizes to maximize wagering
Fundamental Reason – Lack of racing product due to less foals being bred, due to declining participation rates and public interest in harness racing
USA industry remains reliant upon slots income to survive
Ramifications of reducing total Victorian Harness Racing Meetings by 30 in 2017 /18 season, but increasing total number of races and stake money
What will the TAB (Sky Racing 1) replace these meetings with – 30 more thoroughbred meetings, 60 more greyhound meetings or a combination of both?
How many of the additional harness races programmed will fall outside of prime waging hours?
What will be the impact of these changes on market share for harness racing market share over time – positive or negative?"
It really got me thinking - if our reduced meetings results in extra meets for the dogs and/or gallops, our market share would have to struggle to grow
You are spot on Kev. From R.Chaplins excerpt, the fundamental reasons stood out for me. This is where you go to fix the problem. We need a couple more home grown champions such as Lenny and Hector and draw the crowds the money then follows. For those who dont get it, if you dont help and then reward the local smallish breeders, trainers/owners and other plebs involved then you die on the vine and slowly. The facts speak for themselves, especially in the breeding side of it. I support the local stallions and overseas stallions 50% each but if you breed to sell from a local stallion then you are on a hiding to nothing.
Will people go to a race meeting that has 12 races on a Wednesday night in winter anywhere? I doubt it. So does that mean everything will be squeezed into a Friday night? I hear that figures are up at Menangle so there are some lessons there.
I cant work out why greyhound racing is/seems to be getting more of the Govt $,good exposure in the print and seems to get a good run on SKY 1 & 2 as well. Probably because the action is fast and there is plenty of it. Races last about 20 seconds (Think T20)
Having said that, states are going through handicapping/programming change as we speak and that needs time to settle in- probably 12 months.
I received the following reply from David Martin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
"Thanks for the question. In isolation, any increase in race numbers by other codes would have the effect of reducing our market share. That’s what I talked about in the forum, whereby the Vic Greyhounds had run 480 more races this year than last year (till end of May), and by comparison Vic trots had run approx. 150 less races (due to decisions taken prior to my arrival).
In terms of reduced meetings, the timeslots become important. The majority of our 30 meeting reduction in 2017/18 will be on the Wednesday day timeslot, noting that we will still run a Wednesday night on those occasions. The gallops or dogs may elect to fill the Wednesday day timeslot, or irrespective of our decision they may choose other timeslots as the dogs have already been doing over the last 2-3 years. Wednesday day was one of our lower wagering timeslots, so by transferring those races to other meetings in more preferable timeslots, there is a net benefit to the industry by way of wagering and reduced cost. Also, bigger meetings have enabled meetings to start in the 5-6pm window which has the highest turnover/race for trots. In summary, it’s not the number of meetings that’s important, it’s the total number of races, and the wagering/race.
In reality, we have to take positive actions to grow wagering and market share. We can’t continue on the path we were on, which has reduced our turnover and market share for a number of years. The changes we have made in the last 3-4 months have already increased the number of horses participating, as well as turnover and market share. That is evident just by looking at race fields and turnover each week/month."
Sad to see only 6 races at Horsham on Thursday - they extended noms for the Horsham Guineas (big title for only $7k now) and made a field but the Princess of the Wimmera (another big title for a $7k race now) didn't come up
https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cf...&fromstate=vic
When clubs raced for $5000 the extra 2k made it a race worth aiming for, now it becomes just another race like the rest of the 7k ones each week in my opinion.
Perhaps they should have been made 10k, though the argument would be that you might struggle to get a field at Horsham for 10k!
They still deserve a chance to run a good quality race though, like the other "smaller" clubs.
Totally agree Kyle, $7000 would be a drop in prize money for this "smaller" club's signature races.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amlin
Great story from Tony Logan againQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
http://www.harnesslink.com/Australia...-by-Tony-Logan
I forgot that both of these races (sadly only 1 today) carried free services
Credit to HRNSW and Adam Fairley for listening and trying to provide more opportunities for lower graded of racehorses.
Email from HRNSW below. - I've added a link to the relevant race.
Dear Stakeholder,
Following feedback received from a range of Stakeholders at recent Industry Roadshows, from August 1 HRNSW has programmed a NO MORE THAN 2 WINS PACE at Country venues.
These races are designed to provide opportunities for horses that win Maiden Races before they enter the general horse population in either C1 or Divided Stakes events and for horses with limited Career Penalty wins to allow them to race against like horses with a small number of wins.
In the first week there have been limited nominations received and this may be because trainers do not understand the conditions.
See Race code BHC23081705 as an example.
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-pr...&fromstate=nsw
The Other conditions mean no more than 2 “Career Penalty” wins.
Therefore a horse that has won multiple $2,000 Penalty Free Races or multiple $3,500 Graduation Penalty races are eligible for this race if they have not won more than two events valued at more than $3500 “Career Penalty races”.
Should you require any further clarification please contact either myself or the HRNSW Handicapping Panel.
Regards,
Adam Fairley | Manager – Industry Development | Harness Racing New South Wales |
I realize they had 14 acceptances for the Trot at Stawell and thus they split it but in the end we have had 2 scratchings so we have ended up with two 6 horses races when we could have had one race. They would have had to have named 12 and 2 emergencies. I guess if the program is a bit light for noms then two small races may produce more turnover than one big one
It has really only caught my eye because we have ended up with the first four races at Stawell today all only 6 horse fields
Looking at the Calendar - have we really got Ballarat on as well as the Crown Semi's at Bendigo on Saturday Aug 19?
What is the issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
You think that it will work - having that many races - it would have to be dependent on both being on Sky1
Run of the mill horses who are still being fed and trained need somewhere to race still when the Breeders Crown comes to town.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Down in Vic we only run race meets when we think we can make a return to the industry Breno
Maybe they are planning on making a profit but regardless occasionally veering from the one track mind short term goal of getting a profit on meetings to keep your long term battlers happy is smart business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Touché Breno :)