Recommendation For The Drop Back Rule

The introduction of the drop back rule has achieved the following:-
1. Massive class rise between C0 to C1, M0 to M1
2. Massive wastage of stock with average ability to gain fair share of prizemoney and sentenced to retirement
3. Increased lack of competiteness for fillies and mares due to the fairer sex having on average lower ability and therefore having difficulty breaking through the c1 barrier
4. Disillusionment of breeders/owners in not winning a fair number of races for average horses and then reducing participation

I recommend that the drop back rule be changed to only apply for fillies and mares so that:-
1. Breeder/owners will be just as excited to own a filly as well as a colt with the extremely likely leveling of distributed prizemoney between sexes
2. Retention of horse population for fillies and mares as a valuable racing resource
3. Reduction of the C0 to C1 class gap to enable a fairer distribution of prizemoney to the more average horses.

Would be good to get further comments.

This is my first post.

Jeroen Nieuwenburg

G'day Jeroen,
I have to agree with some of the points you are making,when the drop back rule came in I thought it was a good thing, however, I reckon the class gap you are talking about is definitley causing some grief.
There have been many times lately where you see a horse with 9 or 10 life time wins, $45/55K in prizemoney to his name and he's in a C1 race at a country meeting where the opposition are typical country C1 horses, and guess what! he's showing $1.50 on the tote, stifling the betting and wins it with a leg in the air!!

I think some adjustment is required to the drop back rule, whether that is as you suggest restricting it to mares or whether it's adjusted to say C2 or C3, or the number of non winning races form part of the adjustment, I'm not sure, but I reckon you're on the money that its a bit counterproductive as it is.

Cheers,
Dan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alcyone

You could have the best of both worlds by programming races for horses never assessed better than C1.

However, most $1.50 fav's in C1's are good 3yo's going through the grades, not out of form horses working their way back.

Cheers.

Why not program a or some races at Menangle for horses that have not gone faster than say 1.54 (personal times) over the last 10 starts.
Just trying to keep these ones in the game to help numbers. No good running 1.54 and finishing near last when the winner goes 1.52, usually from the top stables.
Lets keep the little guys and hobby trainers/owners interested.

They are now starting to program races in QLD where they runners may never have had a class better than C1/M1.
My recommendation will do heaps for the equitable distribution of prizemoney to fillies and mares.
Administrators have in the past failed miserably to cater for this major disrepancy.
I also beleive that a serious number of average horses are being retired before they are even fully tried as a result of the perceived lack of races that can be won for these average horse.
For most of the year a 3A0 is harder to win than a C0, open 3yo races equate more to a c3-c4 class.

This leaves one race for an average horse to win - a C0. I believe the drop back rule has created a major class gap between C0 to C1.
With the stock I have bred, I have retired 6 average horses in the last 3 years due to probable lack of opportunity to win more than 1 race and not bothered trying to win the C0.

Quote:

However, most $1.50 fav's in C1's are good 3yo's going through the grades, not out of form horses working their way back.

No doubt Adam you are correct "most $1.50 fav's in C1's are good 3yo's going through the grades" however that said there is a growing issue with burgeoning C1 class in that the ability gap of those in that class is widening and doing so quite rapidly IMO, the number of horses that have won at C4/5 plus and finding their way back to C1, is, if you dig into it a growing thing.

I hope we are not looking at copying the dogs...they changed their handicapping/assessment rules years ago and what happens now is just about every race on the program is for "fifth grade " ( that would be dog equivalent of C1) dogs, and now people nom their dog for the fifth grade ( which is often the only grade available on each race night) the GRA "do the fields" and any chance the owner/trainer had of placing his dog to it's best advantage went out the window and into the hands of someone who doesn't know and doesn't care. Sorry to sound contrite, I should have added the dog meeting has 2 distances available so the trainer and owner can plunge their collective thoughts into...."the 450m or the 600?????"

Point being Adam, whilst I'm aware that everyone is plenty busy... increasing the racing life of horses is a good thing mostly, so long as it's not creating more problems than it solves, and I think an issue is growing that needs a little attention/tweak.

cheers,
Dan

Not so sure Adam, I don't think "Restricted" fronts are so much slowing horses progress through their grades as they are being misused from their original concept. Although I could be wrong ( as I have been many times before) I recollect that the original concept of "R" racing was for horses that were struggling to earn a cheque in "C" class, but what seems to happen (around here anyway) is that the field is no stronger or weaker for either... the horses are being placed to increase their earnings before moving to the next "C" grade by winning money in "R" class racing, which, of course does not affect their "C" class handicap!

You cant blame people for taking advantage of it, they'd be mugs not to...trouble is as Jeroen was saying in his original post, "what happens to the average horse" he cant compete and his owners are either,

a)looking for another one or

b)looking to try a greyhound or some other avenue of entertainment.

bottom line is I reckon you'd be a mug to deny that what Jeroen is saying has merit.

you wont hear too many people in the professional ranks talking about this, as they need to turn horses over continually
to remain competitive over all grades week in week out, so it's not as big an issue for those folks other than they will turn over horses a little more rapidly.

Thanks Dan,

The drop back rule is by its very nature elitist in that it intends to reward the better horses at the expense of the average. Mathematically this concept is impossible to argue with.

When we are decimating the opportunities for the average, we come to the conclusion it is too risky to breed and produce an average horse through lack of opportunity.

I estimate that about 15% of horses that are bred, will end up in the category of better than average (i.e. better than C1).

It may cost $15,000 to $20,000 to identify whether a horse is "better than average".

The Australian owner is now making the correct business choice - just buy a horse from NZ that you know is better than average.

I believe our breeding industry depends on the ability to win 4-5 races for the average horse - not 1.

Sorry if I seem to be arguing the same point in multiple ways.

Adam,
There are WAY too many Rs in Sydney with restrictions.
What has happened to Bulli at Menangle racing for $5000, from what i have seen they too are $3000 Rs.
A lot of peoples horses can not run 1.54 or 1.55 on tuesdays meetings & would like to race at Menangle.

The Drop Back clause is a half-arsed Claytons option introduced as a result of various State Admins. not having the ticker required to sell a change to wholesale conditioned racing principles to the Industry at large.

I don't think the drop back clause is altogether crook,I just reckon it needs a bit of a tweek here and there.
Personally speaking If we were to return to conditioned racing I reckon that'd be a backwould step, we had a form of it years ago and it was a dead set shambles, if you had a half decent 3YO he would be handicapped for it for the rest of his life.
I know the type of conditioned racing being proposed is not a carbon copy of that which we had, but I don't like the thought of nominating my horse ( MY horse, that I have put an enormous amount of time,energy, money etc into ) for a meeting and some half educated dimwit decides which race it's going around in, what barrier draw it's likley to get etc.

Geez, if a half educated dimwit is going to make that decision about my horse then that half educated dimwit is going to be me!!

My apologies to no-one on this one....full bore, god help us, conditioned racing is for people who don't give much of a rats arse about their horses as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers,
Dan

Quote:

Originally Posted by danno

i don't think the drop back clause is altogether crook,i just reckon it needs a bit of a tweek here and there.
[vvv] tweaked right out of existence and replaced by a full version of that which it currently masquerades as would be better still.

personally speaking if we were to return to conditioned racing i reckon that'd be a backwould step, we had a form of it years ago and it was a dead set shambles, if you had a half decent 3yo he would be handicapped for it for the rest of his life.
[vvv] that was not conditoned racing. It was something else.

i know the type of conditioned racing being proposed is not a carbon copy of that which we had,
[vvv] nothing even remotely like it.

but i don't like the thought of nominating my horse ( my horse, that i have put an enormous amount of time,energy, money etc into ) for a meeting and some half educated dimwit decides which race it's going around in, what barrier draw it's likley to get etc.
[vvv] ???????? To my knowledge that is not on the table dan.
this is a proposed handicapping change, not a move for owners & trainers to hand over all control over the placement of their horses to race secretary and or handicapper.

geez, if a half educated dimwit is going to make that decision about my horse then that half educated dimwit is going to be me!!
[vvv] as it should be and should always remain.

my apologies to no-one on this one....full bore, god help us, conditioned racing is for people who don't give much of a rats arse about their horses as far as i'm concerned.
[vvv] conditioned racing is for people who don't give much of a rats arse about their horses?????? jesus dan. That's one hell of a charge, one that makes me wonder if you really have a full appreciation of the principles and implications of conditioned racing. Is it better that we remain as it, handicap them on historical form and ultimately force them out through the top and either to export or to an early retirement?

cheers,
dan

vvv

Triple,
that response was, as quite often you are capable of, full of critizism and very short on anything much else, please table your idea of what style of "conditioned racing" you are plumping for,and we mere mortals may be able to cast an eye over it and form an opinion.
you think "conditioned racing" comes in one form only, but, " that makes me wonder if you really have a full appreciation of the principles and implications of conditioned racing." apparently it must????......... The Jamie Varcoe version of conditioned racing that everyone in the world should by now know about!!!!

Jamie when you put forward your idea of conditioned racing I'd like to have a look at it..

Hey u fellas... Please try to stick it up the topic rather than each other so others can get the gist of your views on the topic.
Nothing personal here and applies to all on all threads.....cheers

At this juncture, in relation to the above, perhaps ask yourself a few questions.
Handicapping wise, is there a whole lot to be gained by re-inventing the wheel for the sake thereof?
Or would it be better, smarter and more expedient move to take the majority if not the whole of the conditioned racing system/s as per the US/CAN and employ them here in Australia? It is no more nor less complicated than that.

Sticking with the present historical form/force them out through to the top system simply cannot be justified.

Danno I liked your uneditated answer just fine! There is no simple answer. Class only racing needs a bigger horse population and they then are wasted when they reach their mark. VVV version of conditioned racing is no doubt based on the yanks last six starts and claiming which certainly reuses horses better. Conditioned racing allows trainers to recycle horses of known abilities back into races against weaker opposition, this was the art of the original successful claiming trainer a superior horse of moderate recent form back to its original capabilities and putting it against mostly weaker opposition but at times now reclimbing the ranks.
Ultimately the only thing that will work is a combination of class and conditioned racing to better utilize a declining horse population.