Let's try something different.

[mightymo]

Which "commercial breeders" influenced the decision making???

[Mitch]

Dan,

I don't confess to having all the answers and your point is a very good one which I don't disagree with.
The 2 points I raised are certainly not the only solutions I believe exist in improving the sport, just the 2 I am most passionate about.
Why I think my suggestion has merit is due to the current appeal harness racing has to the general punting public. There is little or no appeal for people to attend the races and still too many races are run and won in a predictable manner. Bookies are rare as the risk is too great and many trainers in NSW are happy to race for second behind Team McCarthy.
By implementing a model that creates a more competitive alignment of the talent pool it should in turn increase competition over time. With this should come increased wagering revenue and hopefully increases in other forms of revenue due to a better product being delivered. That is a simplistic explanation but hopefully you get my drift. I get that there will be winners & losers as part of this however if its for the greater good of the sport I am ok with it. It would also require a significant amount of research and testing to get it right.
To your point improving the distribution of prize money across juvenile & open age racing could well compliment the above or be just as effective in its own right.

There is probably another 20 things that could or should be done that haven't even been raised.

NSW is in the best financial position to try some of these things and I do genuinely have faith that Sam Nati has the right intentions regarding the future. Whether he has the capability to convince the board to make some of the harder decisions quickly and then execute them well remains to be seen...

[Danno]

G'day Harvey,
I don't know how long you have been involved with the game in Australia, but I can tell you I have been an active participant for over forty years in NSW and a keen student of the game Australia wide during this time.
Prior to the development of "Sires Stakes" racing here in NSW and Victoria in the early eighties we had a select number of 2yo feature races with nice prizemoney ( eg NSW Sapling Stakes) and a couple of others.

A successful push came for a "Sires Stakes" program similar to systems operating in North America. I was personally involved with some of the debate about the value of these proposals, and being a part time horse trainer, breeder, owner,farrier,administrator and driver (among other things) voiced my concerns about the overall welfare of young horses if the incentive to push them too early became too great.
Every time I raised this concern the people who bred to sell at that time kept saying this would help to sell their yearlings.

So in answer to your question Harvey, every person I spoke to that bred to sell.

Cheers,
Dan

[Mitch]

Ron,

To your original idea the biggest challenge I see in implementing a model like that is how you protect the punter. How would stewards enforce many of the rules of racing given that not everyone in the race would be racing against a common outcome? Some would be there to win the race overall whereas others would use their horses as sacrificial lambs just to get some type of cheque. I'm not sure punters would support this and like it or not we need 1 of 2 things to happen 1. Increased investment by existing punters or 2. Recruit new/lost punters back to the sport.

[mary]

and many trainers in NSW are happy to race for second behind Team McCarthy.


Mitch, with respect, but I found this line strange.

Why would ANYONE be happy to run 2nd behind Mccarthys ????
Unless its Mccarthys.
You can not make a living out of running 2nd.

[2minuteman]

Ron,

To your original idea the biggest challenge I see in implementing a model like that is how you protect the punter. How would stewards enforce many of the rules of racing given that not everyone in the race would be racing against a common outcome? Some would be there to win the race overall whereas others would use their horses as sacrificial lambs just to get some type of cheque. I'm not sure punters would support this and like it or not we need 1 of 2 things to happen 1. Increased investment by existing punters or 2. Recruit new/lost punters back to the sport.

Good points Mitch and I had thought of them as well but the post was to start discussion not to push any particular barrow.
The most disheartening thing is that the powers that be are not open to ideas outside of their own.

[dizzy]

My comments here will no doubt be met with plenty of criticism but I am willing to take the heat! The biggest issue in harness racing is one of the purest features that has defined the sport until this point. For the sport to re-establish itself it must make some serious decisions to delineate between hobbyist non professional trainers & drivers & professional trainers and drivers.

I am not suggesting that we get rid of the hobbyists, I am however in support of a licensing & race programming model that provides exclusivity for both and some opportunity for both to co-participate at certain events. I would investigate the viability of making non tab events exclusive to hobbyists and country meetings open to all trainers and a minimum graded driver. Metro meetings should be open to professional drivers only (all trainers). I would also make the licensing process more stringent particularly for the various driver classes.

Secondly the governing bodies in each state need to make the call on closing down venues which no longer meet the required standard. A prime example of this is Bankstown in NSW. I attended a Monday meeting there a couple of weeks ago and walked away questioning a lot of things. Furthermore a lot of work needs to be done on venue management, in particular restricted access to race day stalls. At Bankstown it was come and go as you please for anyone????

There is a lot more detail that goes with my two suggestions above.

Given that the future of the sport relies heavily on wagering, making decisions that entice the punter to invest more should be prioritised. The above 2 points are a good place to start in my opinion.

Well I've enjoyed my sabbatical but there are some points in this thread that cant go unanswered. Mitch your certainly entitled to your opinion but it seems you were unable to take on board much of what has been raised here previously.

At this point in time there are not the number of participants available to deliniate between hobbyist and professional as you propose even if it were a good idea. Most non tab meetings would not stand up if the pro stables did not attend, and why would hobby trainer/drivers nominate for metro meetings if you are going to deny them the opportunity /thrill of driving their horses plus the cost recovery opportunity from driving fees or running in the money without offering them compensation for their lost returns?

Don't get me wrong I do think that lower grade meetings should be structured to provide better opportunity for lesser trainers/driver/stock and that driver compatancies at all level meetings should be looked at, but straight out legislation preventing hobbyists from metro meetings is not the way. Do you think Colin McDowell would have invested another $150 odd thousand in the industry at the ready to run sale on Sunday if your going to tell him he cant drive them at Menangle in the 2yo races he's sponsoring in a couple of months time?

Mitch your certainly tenacious on the issue of shutting down Bankstown but what is the "required standard" and certainly it should apply to all tracks equally. What were your unanswered questions with regard to Bankstown and perhaps they can be answered if you direct your enquiries to the right people. Perhaps you should have attended Treur night instead of a Monday meeting.

If the required standard is restricted access to raceday stalls then Bankstown is not the only track in the state in breech. Of course to close any track for that would be ridiculous. Obviously the "required standard" if there was one should be along the lines of returns to the industry from the TAB distribution made available to them but you may not like that one as it may not show your prefered track in a very good light. Individual tracks are not shown but HRNSW data from their annual reports for the last 2 years show metropolitan club (there is only one of those) turnover down around 6% each year whilst country, provincial and carnival of cups turnover continues to grow. So Mitch just what is the required standard? A business that has a large cash reserve from extraneous sources is obviously in a better position then one without, but is not neccesarily a good business.


In a latter post Mitch you made the comment that some trainers are happy to run second to the McCarthys. Are you for real? In my 35 years of racing and compeditive equestrian sport I have yet to meet someone who was happy to run second. Sure rationally second is as good or indeed much better then most can expect on many occasions but emotionally everyone is out there to "live the dream" and that means winning not running second.

Mary posted some interesting and damming stats regarding prizemoney distribution and rightly said professionals cant live off running second. Just this week I have heard of another 2 professional trainers quitting the industry and another on the brink, and another who is not going on past the end of this season. As Mark pointed out many times previously harness racing turnover is largely driven by the connections of various stables, how do you think we will go for turnover when there is less then a handful of stables left?

Clearly the renaissance of NSW harness racing from the sale of Harold Park is not happening.

[dizzy]

Ron on your original question of lets try something different how about this- Instead of trying to imitate something else like we did with the flying k why not utilise the differences in harness racing from the other two codes and capitalise on our unique position. Most of the criticism has been around harness racing being too boring and harness races take too long for the TAB liking, hence the flying K concept, which might have been the only concept available in 1999 when it was put to the world trotting conference but in 2012 and beyond with the technology available now why don't we make harness racing more interactive for the punter?

By that I mean why aren't we looking at a "Bet till the Bell" concept? Harness races typically take place over a 2 to 2 and a half minute time frame, with a number of "landmarks" on the course, which with todays technology should be ample to use all but say the last minute to continue betting. Presently betting closes just before the race begins but as the TAB is now offering fixed and tote odds why cant the tote pool remain open until the bell with the exception of cancelling bets from the same time the fixed odds would close? This would mean punters could continue to bet as the race unfolds, those who backed a breaking favourite at the start would have a chance to back something else in the race. Those who thought something could win but only if it led could further invest on their choice if it got the lead. I'm sure those of you who punt get the gist so feel free to discuss further as I don't punt so may have missed something. Maybe it needs to be a separate tote pool to that before the race. I'm sure being a more interactive betting medium would change punters opinions about harness racing being boring.

[aussiebreno]

Ron on your original question of lets try something different how about this- Instead of trying to imitate something else like we did with the flying k why not utilise the differences in harness racing from the other two codes and capitalise on our unique position. Most of the criticism has been around harness racing being too boring and harness races take too long for the TAB liking, hence the flying K concept, which might have been the only concept available in 1999 when it was put to the world trotting conference but in 2012 and beyond with the technology available now why don't we make harness racing more interactive for the punter?

By that I mean why aren't we looking at a "Bet till the Bell" concept? Harness races typically take place over a 2 to 2 and a half minute time frame, with a number of "landmarks" on the course, which with todays technology should be ample to use all but say the last minute to continue betting. Presently betting closes just before the race begins but as the TAB is now offering fixed and tote odds why cant the tote pool remain open until the bell with the exception of cancelling bets from the same time the fixed odds would close? This would mean punters could continue to bet as the race unfolds, those who backed a breaking favourite at the start would have a chance to back something else in the race. Those who thought something could win but only if it led could further invest on their choice if it got the lead. I'm sure those of you who punt get the gist so feel free to discuss further as I don't punt so may have missed something. Maybe it needs to be a separate tote pool to that before the race. I'm sure being a more interactive betting medium would change punters opinions about harness racing being boring.

That would seriously alienate most punters, the quantity of punters would severely decrease.

[Mitch]

Dot,

As you said I am entitled to my opinion and as I have stated in my post there is a lot more detail to be investigated in regards to the economics and practicality of my suggestions. They may well be unrealistic, unsuitable or in fact unfair.

I will respond to a couple of points to elaborate on what I have previously stated:

- People happy to run 2nd to the McCarthys - I believe they are, if not why do so many hand up and let him dictate races? I don't watch every race at every track but a lot of the races that I do watch I am amazed at how easily he is afforded the lead. I interpret that as them conceding that they can't beat him and are therefore happy to take the sit and race for 2nd. Right or wrong that is my interpretation.

Bankstown - The facilities and racing surface are below what I determine to be a reasonable standard. If the club or HRNSW want to invest the required money to get them up to standard then I am happy for it to stay in operation. Furthermore I believe we only need 1 half mile track in metro Sydney and Penrith is the better option in my opinion.

Restricted Access - I believe all tracks should have restricted access to the stabling enclosure for trainers, drivers, stable hands and owners that have been granted access once they present themselves to the race day office. This should be a given from both an integrity and safety perspective.

Feel free to put forward any ideas yourself Dot. I think forums like this are great place to debate rationally.