Let's try something different.

[dizzy]

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.

Mitch I'd say there is a whole lot of difference between happy to run second and resigned to ensuring the best possibility of running second. As an owner Mitch when Gamechanger is back out there what would your instructions to your driver be?

Bankstowns stabling area could do with some attention certainly Mitch, as to the racing surface I guess you know the track record was broken several time on Treur night so I guess the track cant be too bad. You should know though that as a trainer there I am regularly at a committee man to keep the track regularly ripped and watered. The new water truck apparently promised by HRNSW hasn't shown up yet. Perhaps some new carpet in the lounge wouldn't go astray, I'm happy to chip in a little for that Mitch if it comes to it, how about you?

I don't actually believe we need any half mile tracks in Sydney, but in the long term Penrith is viable and could remain and that Bankstown will go. I do believe that if Harness Racing is going to survive in Sydney then we need an approximately 1000m track and assosciated club and entertainment/gambling facilities in a multi user commercial facility located in a densely populated region within easy reach of the CBD and wealthy areas to the east and north of the city.

I understand your rational for restricted access and it is very valid. The downside is that by increasing the isolation of the participants from the public we lose an opportunity to garner new owners and participants. Perhaps Dan can comment further, having been involved much longer, but in my time in harnes racing, around 15 years, it seems to me that the near total demise of show racing has hurt us as far as gathering interest and involvment in our sport from people otherwise interested in horsey pursuits. My understanding was from the days of the old Sydney Showground and Royal Show is that the Rodeo followed by Harness Racing and then Showjumping were the most popular ring events, I can imagine why quite easily!

Plenty of ideas and action is needed Mitch not just yours and mine. The dogs have been doing more then barking this week about the agreement that sees their turnover subsidise us

[Mitch]

Dot,

100% in agreement with your 1000m track and entertainment proposal. Not so long ago I thought getting rid of all half mile tracks was the way to go however some horses do excel on them and it can provide some exciting racing and tests driver skill and tactic. So I have changed my view and support Sydney metro retaining 1 half mile track.

In regards to your question my instructions to Joel every time Gamechanger raced was if you can find the front take it and once you get it don't give it up. I gave similar instructions to Michael Muscat when he drove Gameface at his only start. If you can't lead then sit outside them and and make them earn it. He did that, we galloped on the turn - that's racing. I will be giving the same instructions to David Thorn if Gamechanger returns, use his speed off the arm and post whoever comes up outside you. If they're good enough to beat us doing in the breeze so be it!

[broncobrad]

Dot, when you come back from a spell, you sure come out firing...still 'Dizzy' taking in your comments. From a purely biased opinion, half mile tracks have no peer in regard to providing entertainment for spectators and one has to look no further than last Saturday night at your track. From go to whoa the racing was competitive, unpredictable, tight (especially the monte going into one of those corners) and the public are at fairly close quarters to the action (BTW I was not actually there). Mitch, I take your point about security of the stabling area, but checking the horses out between races is something I loved to do as a young bloke, getting a look at them up close, seeing who was there, talking to people. I hate the over-protective atmosphere of removing general racegoers right away from the stabling areas.

That big track at Menangle is a heartbeat away from being an American track, all 1600m trips, racing in single file with small fields and boring, boring boring, not to mention two suburbs away when watching them down the back. For me the half mile track, (with water truck in working order) will do me EVERYDAY.

Somewhere along the line there has got to be some balance between the two.

[Danno]

I understand your rational for restricted access and it is very valid. The downside is that by increasing the isolation of the participants from the public we lose an opportunity to garner new owners and participants. Perhaps Dan can comment further, having been involved much longer, but in my time in harnes racing, around 15 years, it seems to me that the near total demise of show racing has hurt us as far as gathering interest and involvment in our sport from people otherwise interested in horsey pursuits. My understanding was from the days of the old Sydney Showground and Royal Show is that the Rodeo followed by Harness Racing and then Showjumping were the most popular ring events, I can imagine why quite easily!

G'day Dot,
good to hear from you, with regards to why our game is shrinking ( participant wise), my opinion is that there are several tiers to the issue, not least of all technological changes in our society over the last 30 years or so....people get fewer and fewer opportunities to physically interact with horse these days and that has been gradually happening for about a hundred years in the work environment, but in the recreational/social world it has accelerated VERY rapidly over the last twenty years, which just happens to co-incide with some other factors, like the "Americanisation" of our game which really took a foothold around the same time, so personaaly I think we have been shooting ourselves in the foot on two major fronts for about 25/30 years, one is,

a) disenfranchise the public by reducing their opportunity to "smell and feel" horse racing on wheels.

the other is,

b) copy a really dumb idea ( all mobile racing, all shortdistance, on bigger tracks) from someone else ( North America) who is already stuggling to make their product attractive to punters.

AND as you suggested, when show racing was abolished, that really was just another nail in the coffin.. that racing was the catalyst of many participants involvement in this silly game we play and anyone running a successful, growing enterprise will tell you that is where you need to concentrate your efforts..at your established growth points.


cheers,
Dan

[mary]

Welcome back Dot.

[dizzy]

Mitch I hope Gamechanger returns in the form required to allow you to keep "living the dream" driving in the fashion that you propose, but if he doesn't what then? A change of tactics? trainer? retirement? I know from another thread you are realistic about his prospects on return but does that realism include that you too may be handing up to the McCarthy's?

On you original points earlier in the thread race programming at restricted meetings does already slant them towards hobby trainers in that the conditions imposed often restrict them too lessor performed horses, and if I could so bold as to say towards those usually found, but not exclusively so, in hobbyists stables. Driver standards are a different issue and I'd like to see greater competancies required for all level meetings. I don't think straight professional/hobby definitions is the way to go but perhaps some recent and offence free driving criteria could be introduced, along the lines of participation in a certain number of country or lessor front races in a defined period prior to driving at a metro meeting as opposed to an "A" license that last forever.


Brad I hope to be able to hold my form too! I couldn't agree more on the difference in favour of a small track over the large one for harness racing as a spectator spectacle, and I was at Bankstown and it was a very good night. But for me the balance today you speak of is a 1000m track. Not quite as in your face for spectators as the half but not that different either and "framed" right still spectacular. Of course getting people to the races is only part of the equation for success
and I think 1000m (designed right) allows for a competitive 12 horse field which benefits the turnover side of the equation. That is what the Vic's have at Melton, and the TAB told them to do in QLD but it appears that we don't listen to our business big brother in NSW because the new track at Bathurst will be ten across the front. For me I see most of the mistakes of Menangle being repeated at Bathurst.

Dan with a background in equestrian sport I have often wondered about the wisdom of those in administration of harness racing who saw fit to align our sport solely with gallops racing instead of keeping a seat at the campfire with the horse sports people. At the gallops we are only ever the poor cousin, who is occasionally on the nose, whereas amongst horse sport people we would actually be the friend with the greatest benefits!

Thank you Mary

[Mitch]

Dot,

Re: driving tactics - I'm not sure what your point is?? My instructions to my trainers are not really relevant to my original topic of discussion anyway.

Re: My choice of words re professional and hobbyists, I don't necessarily mean it as literally as I have written. I try to be succinct and clear in my posts, the danger being it can be interpreted too literally. Let me be clear in saying again that I do not want to exclude any current participant from participating in the future. I am proposing that the type of involvement and at what level may have to change for some if the sport is to remain an attractive product for wagering consumers. And yes that may mean the some who currently invest a lot of money may not be able to drive their horses at Metro meetings.

The AFL, as an example, have made many contentious and unpopular (at the time) decisions in the last 25 years and without them they wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as they are.

[Alcyone]

Dear All,

There has been some encouraging debate in this thread.

As such, I'd like to make the NSW Forum Members aware of the upcoming HRNSW Strategic Plan Focus Groups.

Information concerning them can be found at the following link:

http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=19338

Should anyone wish to be involved in a relevant Focus Group please contact me via email at afairley@hrnsw.com.au.

Regards,

Adam Fairley

[dizzy]

Dot,

Re: driving tactics - I'm not sure what your point is?? My instructions to my trainers are not really relevant to my original topic of discussion anyway.

Re: My choice of words re professional and hobbyists, I don't necessarily mean it as literally as I have written. I try to be succinct and clear in my posts, the danger being it can be interpreted too literally. Let me be clear in saying again that I do not want to exclude any current participant from participating in the future. I am proposing that the type of involvement and at what level may have to change for some if the sport is to remain an attractive product for wagering consumers. And yes that may mean the some who currently invest a lot of money may not be able to drive their horses at Metro meetings.

The AFL, as an example, have made many contentious and unpopular (at the time) decisions in the last 25 years and without them they wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as they are.

Oh but Mitch they are. You did say Mitch that your interpretation of handing up to McCarthy's was trainers happy to run second. If your horse was inferior or, performing inferiorly to a superior McCarthy runner challenging would you still instruct your driver to hold the lead or would you be happpy to run second? If your going to instruct your driver to hold the lead in these circumstances and your horse is "gone" in the run home would your driver have displayed the professionalism you have called for to drive at metro meetings?

Perusing tonights Menangle meeting I would say that perhaps only two drivers could be considered "hobbyists", leaving the rest obviously to be considered "profesionals" who would easily jump any proficiency and currency bar set. Must say my concerns are more with R meetings at Bankstown which at times have races that resemble a hybrid version of polocrosse and dodgem cars. But that would be our inferior track I guess Mitch. There is a new Licensing Policy on the harness.org site that interested people here might like to read.

Yes Mitch I believe the AFL has a long term plan and I'll take your word for it that the decisions they made were both contentious and unpopular. Fortunately for me I not in the position were I actually have to make any decisions popular or not, but I would like to ask some contentious questions with regard to decisions made and to be made.

In 2008 when the vote was being made to sell HP and move to Menangle John Dumnesy stated that there would be 4000 new houses in Menangle Park by 2013. To the best of my knowledge there are none at this time and 2013 starts next month. In 2010 I looked at purchasing property in Menangle Park and spoke to the planning department of Campbelltown Council who advised there would be no building approvals given for Menangle Park until Sydney Water had connected it to the sewer. I spoke to Sydney Water who advised they had no plans in the forseable future to connect Menangle Park to the sewer. I didn't buy. If this is still the status quo and there in no threat to existing stabling facilities in Menangle Park for the forseeable future is a $10million investment by HRNSW in a 400 horse stabling complex at Menangle warranted at this time, or could the money be better spent else where?

Like put towards a 1000m track in Sydney or Tamworth or another regional centre for example? From what I have seen of the plans for the new track at Bathurst it is, like Menangle, being sited in a relatively remote (apart from during the Bathurst car race, where are we putting the horses then?) poorly accessed area with a 10 across the front configuration and a "grandstand facility" being set well back from the track, and has an onsite training facility to be included. Is this really the best configuration for the long term future of harness racing?

The two most prevalent issues facing harness racing are turnover and participation rates, so does the current Bathurst Proposal best address these issues? In light of what has been written in earlier posts wouldn't a track closer to town, or on the main arterial road in and out of Bathurst to Sydney serve us better. Does a training centre really need to be co located? Why was a decision made in building a brand new facility to site the "grandstand" well back from the track, and make the track 10 horses wide thus putting specators further back from the action then they need to be. Hmmmm Menangle mini me perhaps. Some of you may wish to google Skyboxes and Spruce Meadows, ok its a different horse sport but I think you'll get the drift.

On the turn over side why are we persisting with a field size limiting 10 across the front configuration instead of a second row and 12 runners. I guess they only do that at Melton to give the participants a 1 in 12 instead of a 1 in 10 shot of winning. Oh wait wasn't there a press release from Albion Park saying that the betting agencies said 12 horse fields would increase your turnover? Not to mention its actually a less expensive option to build and maintain.

Of course if we just don't believe what the betting agencies say heres a novel idea, lets try it! Newcastle is being shut down next month for renovation how about we reopen it with a new configuration, 12 horse fields and a sprint lane! The project manager is Graeme Maher from Victoria I'm sure it would be a cinch for him to do it. Plenty of historical turnover data available from 10 across the front for comparison, and well perhaps its a little tight but at least some time before we say lock it in Eddie, or I guess that would be Graeme, when it comes to track configuration for the new tracks we're building.

Just some thoughts folks, Ron did title this thread lets try something different,

Thanks for the information Adam but somehow i think "the boss" might veto my invitation. However if by rare chance anyone actually likes some of the ideas I've posted on this forum I'm quite happy if they want to pick them up and run with them.

[Mitch]

Dot,

If my horse was inferior it wouldn't be in the race. I'll repeat it for you one last time my approach is pretty simple if one of my horses is best suited to racing in front and it finds the front, without the driver having to do anything stupid, I would instruct him to hold the front. If my horse is not suited to racing on the speed it would be appropriately positioned somewhere else. At all times I would instruct my driver to use common sense. (Race 1 at Menangle tonight was a great example of a particular driver not using common sense, thats 2 weeks in a row now - surely the stewards will act?)

If you want to go & twist the above to create further debate knock yourself out. I think we are going in circles on this particular point.