Is it coincidental that my surname is similar to Baghdatis? :P
Hope you are not a cranky fellow Adam I dont coach cranky ones !! Been there done that! cant afford rackets and horses too. Hence havent broke one for some time.....but i have broke 3 horses in the last 4 years, long wait for a runner hoping santa will bring me a winner at christmas time.
Steve, I take your point.....a lot of vastly improved horses have seen their trainers caught and disqualified.......so the natural thought is here we go again......Shane has not put a foot wrong and we should not "tar everybody with the same brush", as the past is not a total reflection of the future! If we were in the same position, we would want the accolades for our results! But should this not be the case somewhere in the future........all cheaters, whoever they are, should be dealt with by long term bans, including disqualification for life, especially repeat offenders!
One should look at what is happening in SA at the moment........Barbara Scott (Chair of Stewards) has been going through the place "like a dose of Epsom Salts", and so has QR, cleaning things up!......all the better for the future of Harness Racing!
Hi Adam, please don’t take this as me starting an argument as that is not my intent, I simply don’t agree with your statement and I want to provide an alternate perspective.Originally Posted by Boydy
Sure it may be harder for you to place horses and on sell them for a profit under the new system. If this is your primary purpose for participating in the industry then I understand your frustration. At the same time I would suggest you fit into a minority of people whose primary interest is to buy horses, win 1 or 2 races and then on sell them. I would think (happy to be corrected) that the majority of owners who participate buy horses with the intent of racing them for as long as they are competitive.
The other majority critical to our sport are punters and having a handicapping system that trainers can too easily manipulate which in turn creates predictable racing outcomes is killing our sport. Odds on favourites stifle betting in almost all cases and the simple fact that cannot be ignored is we need more money wagered on harness racing if we want prize money to increase. Without this we will all be racing for ribbons at the show.
I want to make the point that any change that is made to prosper the industry will ultimately have positive and negative ramifications. These ramifications will vary in impact for all participants but ultimately if the changes being made benefit the industry as a whole first and foremost, then they should implemented with purpose by HRNSW.
Everyone (including me) has to get over the ‘what’s in it for me’ mentality and instead work with the changes and adapt how they/we/I do things. Adam, you can still buy and sell horses that are lightly raced you just need to find a new way to do that under the current handicapping system.
The sale of Harold Park created similar hysteria with some still criticising the decision. But the fact is Harold Park was a dead duck long before it was sold. I moved to NSW in 2002 and started going to Harold Park, apart from a couple of feature nights and the initial introduction of the ‘10 for 30’ promotion it was a ghost town most Friday nights. Harness racing was in serious decline long before the sale of HP and MV. Menangle and Melton are the result of the decline not the reason for it. This is a great example of the industry being reluctant to change and to an extent I feel the same is happening with the handicapping change.
Harness Racing has declined for 2 primary reasons in my opinion:
1. Integrity (lack there of)
2. Product Development (lack there of)
I think the new handicapping system has positive impacts on both of the above particularly the latter.
When I first heard about the new handicapping system my immediate reaction was to focus on the things I didn’t like such as not being able to place my horses as I liked, that if my horse wins a couple in a row he/she may face a steeper class rise (highly unlikely with horses I own by the way). That if my horse is struggling to a win a C0 that it might end up racing for $4000 (most likely for me). But having taken the time to learn and understand the system better I am fully supportive as I think the collective benefits to the industry far outweigh my personal preferences.
HRNSW, in my opinion, understand better than any other state jurisdiction the challenges and headwinds our industry faces and to their credit they are acting to make changes in the best interests of the industry as a whole. I am not saying everything they do is right because it isn’t but I do respect their willingness to try new things to help the sport prosper.
I personally feel the new handicapping system brings with it much more upside than it does downside. Yes there are some opportunities to improve the system and hopefully they will be addressed in due course. However we have to give the system time to be applied and for a true picture of the impacts to be realised.
The best thing any owner can do for the industry in NSW at the moment, and for themselves, is race their horses. This will provide HRNSW with the largest possible sample size to extract the best insight and learning from the application of the new system. This will allow them to identify the critical areas to be changed and adapted further to make it a fairer system for all whilst still benefiting the industry as a whole.
There is an element of equalisation to the new system and I can understand how this would be seen as unfair , particularly to those who are currently enjoying more success than the average. It will no doubt make it harder for the leading stables, however if you look at other sports such as the AFL, NFL, NBA, NRL etc. they all have implemented equalisation measures such as drafts, salary caps, free agency, priority picks etc. These initiatives have been fundamental in driving sustainability and growth of their product.
Equalisation in harness racing, if applied correctly, will drive the following outcomes:
• More competitive racing which drives bigger wagering pools – tick
• More horses earning more prize money – tick
• A larger spread of trainers winning races – tick
• Less domination of a smaller group of trainers – tick
• Owners who have more horses who pay their way – tick
All of the above are fundamental to harness racing collectively becoming a more sustainable product.
Ultimately the market, both punters and participants, will validate if the new system is better or worse and it will be up to HRNSW to respond based on this. I just hope everyone gives it a fair go so the best long term outcome can be determined.
For what its worth I agree that NZ import fee is wrong. I am also vehemently opposed to the introduction of driver colours as I feel that it will have no material benefit to the sport and I fail to understand how it will increase wagering revenue. However if the people who run this sport (most of whom are much smarter, more experienced and knowledgeable than me) have research to suggest it’s the right thing to do then I encourage them to proceed proceed with purpose.
I hope I have objectively explained my perspective of this topic.
Regards,
Mitch.
The type of handicaping system that is in at the moment is not unlike a system that was introduced when Barry Rose was chairman, not exactly but some parts are similar. I don't like the way you don't know if you will be racing for $4000, 5000, 6000 or $7000 and what class is each horse next start? A horse that wins a $4000 co race at Tamworth should not have to take the same penalty as the horse that won the $7000 co at the same meeting. Trainers knew bigger money, harder opposition head South, less money but easier opposition head north. That's the control trainers have lost. Not sure about doing what the authority wants became that's what they want. I think the trainer has fair idea of what is what. Just keep in mind that this is not a new idea.
Im happy at the moment with new system tuesday is an example that benefits me i nominated my T2 mare for both trots if the T0-T1 become a T1 front she would get in being a mare. They had enough noms for the T2 or better so being the only mare they put a T2 mares clause and im in the easier race although off 20metres , and now she is in with a good chance while the T2 or better she would have been a midfield finisher
http://www.harnessmediacentre.com.au...%20Process.pdf
Good luck in the race.
My understanding of the new handicaping system is that if the race has a co or to front then the mares and or junior driver concession claim would not apply. This is good luck for David and I don't blame him for nominating but as it is trying to work out what you are nominating for is a maze.
Last edited by Race For Fun; 10-10-2014 at 06:27 PM. Reason: hope link to mares concession works
Yes I bet Joe Sultana is over the moon
They changed the conditions to get bigger field im still off same handicap so i havent gotten the lift if it became a T1 front then i would have got lift
Yes I know that and the change is good luck for you but my point is that the authority has set rules as to how the new handicaping system is to be implemented. Rules for trainers to work by when planing which race they want to nominate a horse for. The rules for the front of a race are also for the authority to follow. Tweaking a race is different to changing a rule. The whole thing with this handicaping system is that changes are made at the expense of the horse that has not won a race. Trainers with maiden horses do get sick of making up the numbers for horses with multiple wins add to races.
Good luck to you on Tuesday. My comment is in regards to the quick sand handicaping system.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote