http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=32464
Get your word in!
Printable View
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=32464
Get your word in!
Good one KTQ- I have complained strongly about this handicapping system to HRA and will be getting my word in again.
The recent interview with Dale Monteith posted elsewhere
https://vimeo.com/202591740
would indicate it IS going to happen
Some of the current Handicapping + Grading is dumb. We all make mistakes. I make a lot and my thinking below might be another.
I understand that there are industry challenges due to factors such as foal numbers etc. however some aspects of the current system only appeal to a few.
Below are examples of the current policy's and issues regarding handicapping and grading;
Example1: short priced favs
we want less short prices favs. However, the system consistently allows “out of class” horses to compete in lower grade races. The system is creating shorter priced favs. Here’s the really dumb part. The system then allows these “out of class” horses to enter a lower grade race and draw as good or better than the horses that they should be handicapped against. E.g. a C3 mare in a C1 only race with a concession driver drawing barrier 1. They can draw 1 whether it’s PBD or RBD.
Example2: 12 horse fields
The 12-horse field strategy has been created to offset the problem of short priced favs. Reduce the # of short priced favs and we don’t need a 12 horse field. I’d like to know how much a 12 horse field actually helps betting when we have a short priced fav drawn favourably. I’m guessing it’s negligible.
Example3: increasing C0 and C1
We have worrying and increasing trend of C0 and C1 racehorses. How hasn’t this already rang alarm bells?
I had a good conversation with Cameron Brown from HRA who is facilitating this handicapping review project. He's a lot more than his title of Finance Manager suggests however us, the industry, the customer and the stakeholders need to drive change for it to improve. Handicappers and Administrators created the current system and so I'm not confident that they have the answers.
I’m thinking about getting involved in the workshop in Melbourne to strongly represent the thoughts of owners, trainers and breeders. I know that many think that this and other things don’t get anywhere however I can promise that if I do go, it won’t be for the scones and cakes. And it won’t cost you anything.
I’d only do this if I could first get at least 30 owners, trainers and breeders to run through a workshop with me (before the event) as I want to represent you and your ideas and not just mine.
I doubt that merely forwarding a submission will do too much. I won’t be doing that. It hasn’t changed much in the past.
I speak to many harness racing participants. A lot of them make sense and have valid ideas however aren’t great at expressing themselves. I’d like to help.
This could be a 2 or 3 hour workshop in the Penrith area. My email richard@alphastud.com.au or call me 0417 227 768.
http://www.hrnz.co.nz/news-and-event...stem-documents
This RBHS has been trialled in the Nth Island since late last year with generally positive feedback from participants. Naturally such systems have some drawbacks but its success has meant it is to be rolled out throughout the Sth Island and thus the whole of NZ from March 17.
We were told recently at a meeting of participants that HRA has shown such interest in this system for consideration of use in Aussie. It may be worth a browse.
Good work Richard.
All of your examples are spot on.
I get very annoyed at the handicapping system in place. The "out of class" issue is a monster and needs to be stopped. I also think that if they are singleminded/determined and get the right policies and procedures in place that it will dramatically improve, there needs to be a bit of "blood on the tracks" though. You cant make major change to systems where money is involved without a few blood noses. I would be willing to participate in a workshop but only electronically due to location.
Good luck with it.
Richard, race 5 next Tuesday at Menangle C4 or better PBD/C is such a race.
C4 MO draws 1 and a C15 M3 draws 8
Add to that a C9 draws outside 2 C11's.....go figure
Thanks for your feedback Pat. If we get it up then I'll provide a gotmeeting link so that you can help. Thanks Brendan and Bailey.
Our challenge is that betting revenue is by far and ahead the #1 priority for this industry.
So how do you increase betting revenue and at what cost?
More Races, Competitive Races, Advertising, Participation, etc.
If there is so many C0 and C1 racehorses then why can't we make more competitive races from such a significant pool of horses?
Short priced favs stifle betting.
What is the cause of short priced favs?
Horses racing out of class or unfairly preferenced? Refer to Brendan and Bailey's posts above.
Leading / X-factor Trainers? How many short priced favs are trained by these trainers?
What probelms can we review and improve to both increase turnover and add value for participants - breeders, owners etc. ?
What are the reasons for these problems?
The 12 horse field strategy is diminishing returns particularly if handicapping and grading isn't improved.
A bit of crossover here with the APG Sales Syd & Melb commentary.
In regards to mares claiming both concessions. Sure it can stifle betting but the other consideration is honouring a commitment you've made to an owner when they've purchased a filly at the sales...or bred one. Wise to consider cause and effect when thinking about dishing out, quote, "a few blood noses".
No question a lot of C1 fields aren't any stronger than some C0's and in the case of the C3 mare drawing well in a C1...hard to gauge how this has helped with increasing, or curbing the decline in, the horse population (it's intention along with building up a broodmare's credentials for her progeny at the sales).
In my case, I have purchased at the sales with the mare's concession in mind, as well as obtained another two females. But on the flip side I've also owned males. Can't have my cake and eat it too and I'm fully aware of the punting dollar aspect.
If wiser heads think this should be changed I'd hope any introduction wouldn't dishonour the current obligation.
Talking for myself as a possible comeback buyer and small breeder to race, an example of changing the goal posts that makes me say possible is the Vicbred Homegrown Series. No coincidence Empire have naming rights and I imagine this little series is an example of David's state based sires racing. However the maximum stake money allowed to be earned to be eligible changed from 6 to $ 10,000. Not that on the fall of the hammer my "Tailamade Lombo" purchase was targeted for this series but if she didn't have "it" this series was introduced for the likes of her, as a 2 & 3yo.
It's little, or not so little(?), things like this that makes me wary of heading back to the sales as I don't envisage ever competing with Emilio and Mark.
Btw, there are some vendors who are happy with the prices they receive for the lower tiered stallions.
If removing the mares concession it would need to be phased out eg we set a 2021 date. Maybe hard with declining horse pool but need more mares only races especially in the 2yo and 3yo ranks which gives all owners a better crack. Mares owners have their races and C1s dont end up racing C5s. Of course a drawback is if a mare wins 5 against her own sex and is all of a sudden thrown in against boys or forced to race in a M0-M3 mares (cos need that range for field sizes usually) but at least the owner can hang their hat in getting those first 5 wins that they otherwise may not have got.
Thanks to everyone for their feedback.
However, I’m confused. I’m based in NSW and so will discuss the HRNSW handicapping only for now.
I understand that Handicapping in NSW is successful when reviewing the excerpt below from the HRNSW 2015/2016 annual report:
The programming during the 2015/16 racing season combined with prizemoney increases provided viability to a higher percentage of horses and gave more owners the exhilaration of winning a race. Furthermore, a better utilisation of the horse pool through “like for like” racing and an increase to the maximum field sizes at Tabcorp Park Menangle and Newcastle led to more individual horses racing, larger field sizes and an increase in total turnover and average turnover per race. (p28)
So then, is the HRA review of handicapping a call to make further improvements or is it a result of a hidden handicapping problems or other factors?
HRNSW (p27) says that the current model aims to:
a) Make a higher percentage of horses viable, which will keep them racing and maintain their connections in the sport.
b) By making horses viable it is hoped that owners will be able to further invest in other horses.
c) If owners invest in other horses there will be demand for horses at yearling and ready to run sales. d) If there is demand for horses at sales then commercial breeders may breed more horses.
e) If hobby owner/breeders have viable race horses then they may have money to breed more horses as opposed to leaving their mares barren
Does anyone know?
x - how the current HRNSW handicapping system is tracking against these aims?
x - if there are any other measures that are used to determine the success of the current HRNSW handicapping system?
x - how HRNSW defines its benchmark or “optimised” handicapping system? i.e. what are the targets or criteria for this optimised system?
Now, I understand that many of us have valid ideas on how to improve handicapping. And it seems that some of the fixes are common sense and clear. However, please support me on working through this if you can help. Thanks, Richard
m. 0417 227 768 or richard@alphastud.com.au
Good luck Richard.* At first, I was thinking that the average horse earnings per season would be an indicator but realized that it means nothing as there could be as little as 50 horses winning the majority of the money and thus skewing this average as meaningless. Also the more horses that compete the smaller that average will be unless prizemoney is increasing.
The median (middle earner) would be more relevant and other points such as the 20th percentile (the horse with only 20% of those to race below him)
The simple fix of course is to make the emphasis on just having a horse good enough to compete and for authorities to keep increasing the percentage of prizemoney that goes to every starter. Unless we are growing the size of the cake, it does after all require today's big winners to be getting less and today's losers to be getting more.
Once upon a time HRNSW'S Adam Fairley used to post on here and although I think they still monitor us ,for when we make a mistake, it seems they strangely no longer see any value in communicating with the rank and file on here
A couple of comments I received in an email from an expert on the topic:
*
An increase in total turnover and average turnover per race. (p28) – just wondering how HRNSW have deduced that this minor turnover increase (1.5%) on previous year can be directly be attributed to programming – could it be the result of a general improvement in the economy – benchmarking against thoroughbred and greyhound turnover would provided an insight?*
Larger field sizes – whist the numbers are small and may well be insignificant I wonder whether 18 less race meetings and 54 less races has contributed to this
*
It seems to me that whilst programming has a* worthwhile tactical role to play in potentially helping to sustain the sport in the short term unless the industry can strategically secure product* availability in the future the long term decline trend that has been evident for the past* three decades will continue albeit at a slower rate
*
The industry seems to spend more time and energy focussing on tactical initiatives rather than strategic fundamentals to me – Strategy development requires a far greater degree of thinking (hard work) than does tactics and maybe this is the reason why
*
*
This started out as a review and then a proposal in the document
Accordingly, HRA invites interested parties to submit a ‘Ratings Based Handicapping System’ proposal, addressing at least the following criteria:
Nothing strategical about it but depends on the authors views and experience on what is tactical and what a strategy is. Kev, your expert is correct, the tactical thinking approach is much easier and gives short term gain only. The headline of this document was basically wanting a review-far short of a strategy.
- Method and system of rating horses;
- The effect of the RBHS on ‘concessions’ – i.e. junior drivers, fillies and mares;
- The effect of the RBHS on trotters; and
- Impact and consequence of a RBHS between different states and international competitors.
Each of Mr Browns points in his proposal request need to be drilled down as some of our posters have done and get to the bottom of why the systems is failing. And as you can read , most individuals have their own agenda depending on what type of horse they have bought and where ( which state & which country) and the cost.
For an individual or group to come up with a proposal to meet the four points requires a great deal of resources which has to include subject experience/administrative experience and a strategic mind which are not easy qualities to find in one spot. At the moment I see individuals putting in their 2 bobs worth, there may be a lot more going on behind the scenes but I finds Richard's ideas of good value but how will groups from WA for e.g meld in with this. I think someone totally independent, a clear thinker with strategic ability and marketing expertise needs to be bought in- this is a once only opportunity.
My opinion:
*A horse only has a finite life in racing- why do we want to keep them racing if they have no ability at all? Why do we want to create a losers "class"
*Why do we keep breeding horses with limited pedigree?, this creates a class of Co's all of their own. I understand the hobby breeder/owner doing this and I appreciate it but can someone clearly explain to me how many horses don't even make it to the races and what happens to them? I never hear anything regarding this subject.
* We have rehomed a couple but happens to the rest? Is this sustainable?
* If a group cant promote their own product and increase "gambling turnover" and create good social atmosphere they should cease to exist i.e a race track or club.
* If some-one wants to sit at home watching Fox and complaining about odds on faves, get to the race track and have a good time. Support the local industry.
* Are we short of racing horses? Another one that intrigues me. International horses arrive by the dozens each month, so is this to fill the void? No, it is a way to try and pick up 5-6 wins/good prizemoney before the horse comes back to the field. Most of us have all done it.
* Local Horse owners complain when people go overseas to buy a horse because you are putting a ridiculous price on a local horse which has won 2 races from 40 starts. Its called cutting your own throat.
* Why are international horses allowed to come her on easy marks and racing against very good horses especially trotters and win easy local money-no other sport in any other country allows this.
* Why are 2yo & 3yo international horses allowed to enter into each states big money races especially when these "international horses" are the pick of the crop? Now that's a tactic and a strategy. Try doing that in another country.
* I think mares should get certain advantages for a certain length of time in their racing careers, the reasons are obvious.
* There should be more races for fillies to encourage the their breeding and help with sales which are on a downward trend generally
* The view that " local plodders" aren't good enough. This term came from a thoroughbred commentator actually in relation to upgrading the Caulfield cup to get more international horses here. I think all Australian horses should be given first spot in any race unless international horses are specifically invited to enter a big race.
* If we are short of horses -International horses should only be allowed to come over here when they have reached say C5/9 or MO in their own country and that rating is equal to Australia's or bought here as unqualified 2 y/o's. This increases the risk of buying an overseas horse and this allows the local product to develop.
* Review the NZ ratings system and see if it works or investigate other countries systems- but we have to fix some of the other problems as well.
*It looks like HRNSW are going alright according to Richards data- What can we learn then? One thing we know is that they have a shedfull of money more than anyone else.
These points all meet the HRA Proposal and some go further. They also align with the agreed Philosophy.
Good thought provoking opinions Pat
Remembering the trotter (how could I not - they are all that is racing at Melton tonight), they have the huge advantage of still having Standing Starts and thus true handicap racing if they get serious about it.
I may be diverging a little but I would have loved to have seen some of those races where champs of the past made up huge handicaps - I have been a bit of a follower of athletics and with the pros, watching whether the backmarker can get up is 90% of the interest factor.
Kev, I agree with the standing starts of yesteryear, it would have been good to see. One thing that sparked my interest in the way that handicapping works is athletics and also pro bike riding where any hint of ability more than your opponents and you are on a handicap, the Stawell gift is one such event in athletics where you are handicapped on who you have raced against, where and your race record. It is rare that someone gets under the handicappers guard, unfortunately I don't see those strict protocols in Harness racing. There is quite a bit of money involved in athletic meetings especially overseas and they I believe they manage the running heats well especially based on form, there are no easy races to get to a final.
With all systems for ratings /classes / mares concessions and driver concessions will never be a perfect system. All trainers owners will study the rules or rating system to squeeze out the maximum results for their horses. When the drop back system was brought in horses were not at there peak at start 10 but peaked the next start down in class however this factor does not seem to be as prevalent as it was maybe $$ was a factor.
I have a database (5000) of mainly NSW horses and have found that of these horses that start 14% actually win a single race. 27% never win a race. 23% win 2 races probably improved when conditioned racing came in.
In my opinion the system at the moment is good however I think its designed to a degree to force country horses who reach C5+ to race at Menangle by restricting the open class races in the country. With $30k country cups it attracts the city to the country has to be good for turnover.
Thanks Kevin, Pat and Steven.
A few comments and notes below in response and to take the discussion further.
x - current HRNSW Handicapping + Race Programming - 1. Bettting Revenue and 2.Larger Field Sizes seem to be the only measure of success. Both have increased under the current Handicapping system for HRNSW. However, it's caused significant other industry problems. Will discuss another time.
x - current HRNSW Handicapping + Race Programming - Increasing betting Betting Revenue is the only real priority. HRNSW measure, track and work towards this outcome way ahead of any other. This is for the PUNTER. There is no or limited strategy to improve factors for the BREEDER, OWNER or TRAINER in Handicpaping + Race Programming. Will discuss another time.
x - Steven Pile - Hi Steven, thanks for your input. Do you know the % of C0 and C1 horses in the population? This is a significant bottleneck and example of the system not working as well as what it can. Furthermore, the satisfaction of the customers of HRNSW i.e. PUNTERS, BREEDERS, OWNERS, TRAINERS etc. provide the ultimate measure of whether the system is working or otherwise. Will discuss another time.
x - Major problem with any new Handicapping, Race Programming etc. System - if the strategy remains the same then any new Handicapping system probably won't help the other customers of harness racing. If the strategy's focus stays on the PUNTER, then we shouldn't expect too much improvement for the BREEDER, OWNER etc.
We've summarised some problems discussed in the list below. Note that you may not agree that all below are problems and may disagree with some. Remember, that they may be a significant problem for a different customer i.e. TRAINER.
Do we need or want a more holistic approach? i.e. a strategy and activities that supports more interests of key customers beyond PUNTERS
Can you please add any further problems or issues that you feel are important and should be addressed? Here is the current list.
1. 12 horse fields.
2. False Preferential Barrier Draw (PBD). i.e. Horses preferenced in sequential order (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. ) versus them orderered by the most successful barrier. (Penrith 3, 4, 2, 1, etc. if this was the case)
3. Concession horses getting equal opportunity to enter a race. e.g. C2 horse getting into a C1 only race ahead of other C1 horses.
4. Concession horses getting equal opportunity to draw as well as or better than non-concession horses. e.g. C2 horse drawing better than a C1 horse.
5. Out of class horses e.g. A 3C5 horse who's won $100k racing in a C0 race against C0's without a LTW.
6. Multiple runners. e.g. Trainers getting 2 and 3 runners in a race and balloting other trainer runners.
7. Lack of opportunities for lower grade horses to compete with similarly graded horses. e.g. 4YO + with 0 LTW
8. The system giving the same preference in barrier draw regardless of life time stakes. e.g. a C0 that's won $100k can draw as good as a horse that hasn't won a race.
It is state by state here TC - no unity I'm afraid, sadly still a fair degree of rivalry.* We cannot however blame that for our woes as the gallops are probably worse.* It makes you wonder what could be achieved
I appreciate that but I just wonder whether HRA is about to take what I see as a long overdue leadership role when it comes to this issue as they have with the whip banning issue.
I believe that the issue regarding a system for all states will be decided in April this year, presumably during the review of the current method. So hopefully there will be some unity.
So how does the NSW system work?
I look at Races 1,2 & 4 at tonight's Menangle and see they are Level 2, 3 & 4.
I am thinking the lower the level the higher rated a horse is?
I look at each horse's class and see there is an M0 horse in both the Level 2 & 4 so I am only guessing
https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=PC260817
The NSW system is on trial for a few months. It is designed to place horses based on their current form in the amount of $$$$'s.
Under a "How It Works" sheet it states;
Events open to all horses
Horses will be ranked based on the prizemoney won in the last 5 starts less any prizemoney won when winning a M0 event in the last 5 starts.
Barrier draws are PBD/$L5 so highest money winner draws 10 or 12 with reserves in.
Level 1 usually a $30,000 race
Ranked 1st to 10th with 11th and 12th as reserves
Level 2 usually a $22,000 race
Ranked 11th to 20th with 21st and 22nd reserves
Level 3 Usually a $14,000 race
Ranked 21st to 30th with 31st and 32nd reserves
Level 4 Usually a 12,000 race
Ranked 31 to 40th with 41st and 42nd as reserves.
As a horse earns more prizemoney it progresses through the levels and races for more prizemoney. It allows out of form highly M graded horses to continue racing but not against FFA in form horses. An example was tonight Bettor Bet Black a M8 was in a level 3 (he had 1 second in his last 6 starts) he wins $7,000 tonight and will probably be Level 2 next week.
Hope that helps.
A better example was Desdon Murruffy coming home nice odds of $82. Not sure where this post fits in relation to several threads, especially as the trainer got QIP, driver tactics questioned, long shot winners, handicapping and last but not least ....a very long shot winner with an owner/driver.
Thanks Bailey and thanks to Adam Fairley for sending me this link
http://www.harnessmediacentre.com.au...bsite%20v2.pdf
HBNSW have distributed a copy of HRAs proposed ratings based handicapping system to their members requesting feedback. Not sure if any other industry groups have done likewise yet.
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ae971c...System_HRA.pdf
Thanks for that link Dot. I think it's worth a try.
Yes it is Rick, and changes that address the economic losses and welfare failings of the industry due to horses that don’t race at all or disappear from the racing pool after one win are long overdue.
I can’t believe on other social media there are people who would can this ratings system based on an irrational fear of the lengths some drivers may go to to to finish nearer the tail of the field to maximise the loss of ratings points. I’ll bet these same people are the ones that haven’t noticed over decades those drivers who have only ever been trying to run in the placings to avoid taking a penalty.........
I think the first win bonus should be paid out for a win in any race the TAB is betting on regardless of race prize money. This would also encourage owners of lower ability horses to stay in the game longer. With the current demand for as many races as possible I don't think punters care much about the ability of the horses they are betting on, they just want competitive racing, fields big enough for each way betting and fewer odds on favs.
Ballarat should be a great nights racing but has stimulated some discussion on our current handicapping system with Spankem fresh from 2 heat wins in the ID and fourth in the final being assessed an M3/C3 and eligible for that C3 race, and seeding for the derby heats as 5 of the top 6 in betting being drawn the same heat.
Think it shows we have room to improve our product
Alternatively, it shows how out of whack the handicapping system is in NZ that you can have a horse like Spankem, who has only won 6 lifetime races, as an open class horse (rating R91). Horses like him have to come to Australia just to get a chance of winning. He has paid the price for being a good 2 year old (4 wins, 6 placings from 10 starts and $186K). No wins from 5 starts at 3 and 2 wins this season.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about the proposed handicapping system based on ratings. You would have to ask an NZ'r for an honest opinion of how its working there. Lack of 4 year old racing does not help their horses. Elle Mac, for example, is a seriously good 4 year old mare but had only raced against her own sex as a 2 and 3 year old. She had to start her 4 year old season as a rating R95 - against males. Two wins later, she is a R104. Little wonder her next race start will be in Australia. Against mares and possibly many of her own age.
Spankem a special in the C3 at Ballarat based on that.
Well in the absence of a Kiwi, though one is welcome to come in and answer, I think it goes like this, Allstars don’t like the ratings system because many of their horses do progress too rapidly for their liking through it. Others do like it because the good horses progress through more rapidly leaving like to race like more often, and there are issues with lack of races for juveniles against other like juveniles after they’ve had a win or two.
But it’s not just the ratings system there that’s the problem, it’s the programming, the field sizes, prizemoney and declining horse population and favourable handicapping here that see their horses travel or sold overseas to race.
If the Allstars stable were in the US then the majority or all of their horses would race on the stakes and grand circuit so no problem with handicapping or horse numbers but here and in NZ their performances are an outlier on their and our handicapping systems which is hard to cater for.
Spankem is not quite as “poorly” performed as you suggest Trevor. 4 of his wins were at 2, he did win at 3, here in a heat of the Victoria Derby last year, and the Kaikoura cup as a 4yo before 2 heat wins and a 3rd and then 4th in final of the ID for lifetime summary of 25 8 4 9 total earnings of approx $330k. I believe he went into the ID as a C1, and because of the Kaikoura Cup an M1, the ID heat wins made him M3/C3.
Of course when the class system was set up you couldn’t be an M1/C1 or M3/C3. He may not have gone through his grades but the Kaikoura Cup win would have made him an M1/C6 ( from memory) on arrival in Aus for the ID, and the ID heat wins an M3/C8. If he was in a C8 or C8+ at Ballarat then fair enough that’s what his assessment (should) have been.
I don’t think a horse like Spankem has to come to Australia to get a chance at winning ( apart from having to take on his stablemates in NZ) but the Kiwi connections giggle at how easy we are making it for them under our class system as it stands now.
Ratings alone won’t fix the problem, but they have to be better then what the class system has become, programming has to come into it too, and most important is a big enough horse population from a variety of stables to make it work.
Just so you can see where the two horses mentioned above come to get ratings that they have included is their respective paths to such ratings. The ratings take account of age with young horses as well as ability. It is a little misleading to suggest good / above average good horses are penalised by the ratings as can be seen by the ratings allocations to these two examples. There is no such thing as an open class rating. When all hoses start with 50 ratings points then a horse like Spankem with 91 points is only the equivalent Class 5. Hardly Open class even taking into account max rating is 120. (10+ wins old class system)
Spankem
https://harness.hrnz.co.nz/gws/ws/r/...nzg-Gait&Arg=P
Elle Mac....
https://harness.hrnz.co.nz/gws/ws/r/...nzg-Gait&Arg=P
Thanks for bringing us up to speed, Tony. Would I be right, though, is suggesting NZ's "fast class" ranks are seriously depleted?
Looking at a horse like Sicario, R94 rated and destined (due to programming or lack of horses) to fast class races. A pretty good horse who has won 11 of 24, but his best win has been the Flying Stakes. In Australia, he is assessed a C2, M0!
Here is a horse that has beaten Chase Auckland, Pats Delight and Sheriff, as well as a FFA (sitting parked outside Alta Orlando - AS A 3 YEAR-OLD!) assessed a C2 in Australia! I cannot work out which is right or which is wrong, the Aus or NZ handicapping system. Either way, it flawed.
It’s not as simple Trevor as one or the other is flawed. A quick look at the WA pacing cup field will tell you very quickly where a large number of the NZ fast class horses are. It’s not just the NZ ratings system that sees them in WA. It’s the difficulty other stables in NZ, have in matching the standard set by the All Stars horses to be competitive in NZ, plus a number of very wealthy owners in WA that are willing to part with six figure sums, and the first digit is often not a 1, which is far inexcess of what many horses can win in NZ, and it’s in a lump sum, to compete for high levels prizemoney in WA which is subsidised by the TBs.
But our class system is flawed and particularly so by the changes of more recent times that the Kiwis often become very loosely assessed on arrival in Australia, so much so that when Mark Purdon brought Picadilly Princess to WA for the mares feature races during the ID carnival she was actually too lightly assessed to be eligible. Now HWOE applies in WA. And of course there are a number of NZ fast class horses in the eastern states as well.
The NZ industry is underpinned by the sale of horses overseas, which hampers their ability to generate turnover, and our breeding industry is in decline as a significant portion of owners choose to buy going horses of known ability from NZ rather then partake in the purchase of yearlings which is somewhat more of a lottery.
It will take more then just handicapping reform to restore the balance that sees each state of in Australia breed sufficient of its own horses that creates the economic activity that ensures government support for the industry more so then just taxes on wagering does and for NZ to have a racing environment that encourages owners to race rather then sell horses.
Great post Dot.
I noticed that WA Cup winner Rocknroll Lincoln had had 13 starts in NZ (11 as a 3yo and 2 as a 4yo for 4 wins and 5 placings) for $28,721 in prizemoney - I added up his next 13 starts in WA to find he had already won another $89,745 (7 wins and 3 placings)
He has now had 21 starts in Aus for $435,453
Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) will conduct a series of consultation sessions across Victoria in relation to the proposed national ratings handicapping system.
All stakeholders are encouraged to attend one of the following sessions:
Tuesday February 12 at Shepparton (7pm)
Wednesday February 13 at Ballarat (7pm)
Thursday February 14 at Cranbourne (7pm)
Monday February 18 at Mildura (7pm)
Light refreshments will be provided.
https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/art...ns-to-be-held/