The missing heats were in the east/south east regions in both the cases Kev has brought up. How is that deficiency addressed, not program heats for those regions? Run the prelude format where series heats are set down for those regions only?Originally Posted by Dot
Increase the prize money in the final and include preference in the barrier draw for the final given to those who contest a prelude.
That of course is a quick fix for these races. The real problem has to be what is our strategy for the future of harness racing in the state and the south east in particular in the long term?
With the dust now settling from the election we wait to see what the plan is...
Don't program heats of anything in the east or south east of the state. That will fix the issues. Increase foal numbers would be a good place to start but they don't seem to care much about that.
Maybee now that the board knows it's safe for 4 more years they might put in some longer term plans !
Don't die wondering !
With the swing to the ALP it’s very likely they will govern Victoria for the next two terms and little doubt the future of harness racing in the state will be very much in their hands.
Very interesting interpretation of what I've written Dot. What I am saying is if there isn't a breeder component to the bonus there's no having your cake and eating it too.
Honestly, are there any buyers who give a damm about what it costs the breeder? Food for thought - are there any breeders looking to top up or improve their broodmare band who freely up their own bid for a yearling filly from another breeder at the sales?
Are you saying there are buyers who head to the sales armed with the calculations that the value they've placed on a yearling pre sale has to be less than the cost of production otherwise they won't buy? I don't know of any and similarly I don't know of any buyers at the top end who slings the breeder if their purchase comes in cheaper than expected.
We need to incentivise owners whether they be breeder owners or purchases. The election result will see $6 mil going toward prizemoney, with an incentive being the abolishing of the $5K level (apparently the coalition promised the same). Is there $ left over to supplement breeders? If not before, the breeders association would have had D Martin's full attention a couple of weeks ago at the annual awards he attended to influence him to maintain lower prizemoney levels but up breeder's booty.
My thoughts on Rick's foal on the ground bonus. First question, what $ would it be? What $ would be enough? My limited economics' knowledge leads me to believe price is determined by supply AND demand. Isn't it the lack of demand that sees breeders suffering? Can you put a false floor in the market? Is that what a reserve is, where if not met the seller can take their lot home where they can race themselves? They don't have to sell to the bottom feeders you've alluded to Dot.
I loooove the idea of amending the homegrown series. Have harped on about it previously. No, not ruling out sales horses but running it as was intended i.e. for any horse that doesn't reach lofty heights. As it is now the 3yo series is really the 2yo series. The 2yo series is at the mercy of APG.
I think it was Kyle who brought up we could/should have a 4yo series. Simple, abolish the 2yo due to where it's scheduled now, run the 3yo as is and the 4yo at the same time as the 3yo.
For those yearling purchasers, or any owner, who do persist with a late developer who may be a tad slow, there's a bit of half decent prizemoney available for their patience.
Is there really much of a market for known slow horses? I recently spoke to an owner who trains, just after a win. I think it was their horse's second career win with this one at C0 level. They indicated there may be a market based around the smaller NSW tracks for this one. They weren't looking for someone else's slow one as a replacement.
Owners who don't pay training fees do often persist with one they bought or bred even though their brain tells them they shouldn't but I'm pretty sure the number of those participants has shrunk dramatically and the ones remaining aren't looking for further known slow ones.
It’s the literal interpretation of what you wrote Wayne, first you said they were buyers who didn’t want the breeder to share in the bonus for the horses they bought. Then you said they also bred to race where of course they collect the whole bonus so it appears it is just the breeder who sells that they want to miss out.
I’m saying I know of many prospective buyers, generally smaller owner trainers, who head to the sales with a budget that only permits them to buy stock that sells for below production cost. And they are doing so, in part at the very least, because they are aware that they can buy a horse for less then it costs to breed one. I don’t consider them “bottom feeders” just financially restricted or astute, as you say breeders can place a reserve on the horse, only there are some breeders who cannot because they can’t afford the cost of racing their own or breeding next years if they take this years home, and the buyers I know also know that. But none of the low budget buyers I know begrudge the breeders a share of the first win bonus as you said your buyers did.
All of the $6 million from what I have read is allocated for prize money increases across a number of race categories not just the $5k C races. I don’t recall any of the monies being allocated for specific breeder incentives, though of course it can be argued that increased prizemoney is a breeders incentive as well.
Registration costs can be seen as a tax on breeders and I’d be happy to see those go permanently but I have concerns about Ricks calll for a bonus for breeders for producing a foal. Whilst it starts with a foal it is racehorses we need and imo any bonuses for breeders should be weighted towards foals that go on to make and suceed on the track more so then just foals that arrive in this world.
Your understanding of economics Wayne whilst basically correct is rudimentary as indeed is mine but our industry is too complex to just rely on the laws of supply and demand to produce enough horses for our needs. We need a certain number of horses to make up fields and meet our obligations to the TAB and to that end our administration is beholden to directly stimulate breeders to ensure production of sufficient numbers of horses rather then rely on the indirect stimulus of additional prizemoney to ensure production. We do need to incentivise owners and whilst increased direct returns to breeders in the form of bonuses may result in lower returns to owners the flow in effect for prospective owners of the increased supply of horses should be a lower up front cost to purchase a horse.
I agree the homegrown series should be amended, certainly should not have group status with its restricted entry conditions, and should reward those who have toiled for little reward rather then those who’s earnings are low through limited racing.
I can’t imagine slow horses are high on too many participants wish lists, but as they will always exist it is up to us to ensure as good business practice and on animal welfare grounds that there are opportunities in the handicapping system for like to race like and a place for them.
Wayne, I think something needs to be done for the next 3 to 5 years to boost foal numbers urgently. Whether it be $ bonus for foals on the ground or change the first win bonus to a first start bonus, and it should all go to the breeder. Just increased prize $ will take too many years to have a flow on effect on foal numbers and that goes to owners not the breeders.
We need 8 to 10 races on every race card and at least 10 runners per race if turnover is to be encouraged, to do this we must almost double the horse population. As to how much the bonuses are that is up to how much money is available. I also think pushing the 2yo season back a few months to December has not been good for the industry, I would change it back to October like it was years ago .
I don't have a magic answer to increasing foal numbers but I know what they have been doing for the last 15 years is not working so something must change !
Having only small numbers of well bred yearlings available is driving up the prices of the good ones and driving owners away from the sport.
Last edited by gutwagon; 11-26-2018 at 02:55 PM.
Don't die wondering !
“We need to incentivise owners whether they be breeder owners or purchases. The election result will see $6 mil going toward prizemoney, with an incentive being the abolishing of the $5K level (apparently the coalition promised the same). Is there $ left over to supplement breeders? If not before, the breeders association would have had D Martin's full attention a couple of weeks ago at the annual awards he attended to influence him to maintain lower prizemoney levels but up breeder's booty.”
Wayne this is the break up of the additional prize money:
Restrictedclassracesincreasedfrom$4000to$4500
$5000CareerPenaltyracesincreasedto$7000
Metropolitanclassracesincreasedfrom$16,000and$18,0 00to$20,000
Semi-feature metropolitan class races increased from $20,000 to $24,000
A$10,000minimumracestakewouldbeappliedonallmetropo litannightsatMelton CountryCupprizemoneyincreasedby$222,500
Pryde’sEasiFeedVictoriaCupprizemoneyincreasedfrom$ 200,000to$250,000
Minimumpaymentforfifthtolastincreasedto$140
There are restricted races for juveniles so an increase of $500 per race for 2 and 3yos, I’m sure HRV know the exact break up but $5000 C races for juveniles compared to $7000 races appear to be one to three so between 1 and 2 a week, so between $100k to $200k increase per annum, there are no metro races programmed for juveniles so no increase there, how many semi feature metro races for juveniles? One a month maybe so $48k, 3 yo races at Melton in the new year already appear to be $10k so no increase there. Juveniles don’t participate in country cups or Victoria cup so no increase there, they do run unplaced so collect a little more from the $140 minimum payment. So all up what, around 10%, perhaps 15% of the increase at best allocated as prize money to juveniles? Not even an extension of the waiving of the registration fee, which would amount to around another 10% with falling foal numbers.
So Wayne I don’t think HBV had much input in determing this distribution of the increase. I don’t see anything in this that creates a buyer demand for yearlings that would increase returns to breeders or prompt an increase in the supply of yearlings.
Frankly I am surprised that the government has signed off on this as it predominantly creates, if anything, an increase in opportunity for older horses and a demand for older horses which are most likely to be sourced out of state. There’s a reason why the government legislated casino revenues in the US are directed predominantly to sires stakes racing, and some to overnights, and not stakes races, because investment in juvenile racing creates the greatest flow on economic benefits for rural areas of the state. I think the racing minister has dropped the ball, or as has been suggested elsewhere isn’t interested in harness racing.
But of course the known form of older horses as opposed to the mystery of juveniles is a better generator of turnover and it certainly appears this distribution of the increase is heavily weighted to older horses and increasing turnover which seems to be HRVs favoured policy over all else. Perhaps one day that increased turnover will flow on to incentives to breed horses but for now I can’t shake the feeling that this sole focus on turnover is the industry’s Titanic, a design that was flawed from the outset, and our iceberg will be insufficient horses in the future to make up fields, an occurrence guaranteed to sink our turnover. As Rick said what is the point in increasing interest in a product we will not be able to supply?
Only too happy for you David to drop in and tell me how I’ve got it wrong, what the actual allocation from the increase to juvenile racing is and how it will stem, perhaps even turn around the decline in the number of horses being bred, and how we will have sufficient horses in the future to sustain our turnover.
Sent from my iPhone
Whether it be the win bonus or some form of start bonus, taking it away from owners would be a negative stimuli. As it is now, the only reason a significant number of horses make the track is because of the win bonus enticement.
We have some forum contributors who are members of HBV, might they know if HBV asked for breeders to be considered with the $6m.
Am aware of the racehorse pool numbers we need Rick. Probably still rudimentary economics and I know not exactly the same but I think of the Aus car industry and trying to prop it's production up.
The sole(?) reason for the late start to the 2yo season is lack of numbers.
I know you are aware but we don't have metro juveniles due to lack of numbers...hence minimal distribution of the $6m there.
Why isn't the Vicbred Sires/Super sires, APG and Breeders Crown enough incentive to want to buy in and race a juvenile Dot? The breeder bonuses there aren't enough incentive to breed obviously.
I'll digress a little, another chat to a participant yesterday. I think relevant to the juvenile versus older $ distribution. This person/people, a very successful and Group 1 winning public trainer, award winning breeder as a seller and breeds to race as well. Was a neighbourly visit, I honestly didn't think to raise bonuses, was more about the horses, feed costs, foaling, joining, ups and downs, horses.
The word lament comes to mind, his expression of the go fast early effect on the lack of depth in our free for all ranks. Moving on, the apparent distribution weighted toward older horses would be about keeping those horses racing on. Maintaining the pool versus the mystery of unraced young stock, but the distribution probably more so due to the demand from within the ranks to raise prize money levels.
Right now I'm waiting for a phone call from the vets that will most likely decide if a mare races on or it's the breeding barn option. It's not too late, the way the $6m is to be distributed does have a bearing on me thinking about breeding this season. A breeder/win/start bonus has less influence, even in this case of us getting it. But if breeder bonuses ate into prize money increases/levels, that would.
Solving the short term...if you could add a breeder bonus (finding the money to) can you cease it later if it doesn't work? Sure, giving the full 7k to the breeder ups their yearling return by that amount. Sure, funds them to breed again. Where are the buyers/owners coming from? The bit about me as a breeder owner having my cake and eating it too. Can't see any joy in that when we're looking as though the sport is closing down. To me that's short term selfish thinking.
Thinking about solutions, quick ones that will last. May not be a quick solution and don't really like bringing this up as it should be all about ID18. Could well be the ssshh elephants in this thread, we need to slow horses down (shock horror!), and we need to be able to enforce removing repeat offenders who cheat to win from the sport for good (that did come up in the conversation yesterday). Less people participate as owners or breeders due to not believing they can get a horse that goes the speed necessary to have fun. It's a fact broodmare numbers have been reduced because of that. We've made a little inroad into that under the current administration.
Still waiting for the vet to ring, flicking through the stallion guide. Comes to mind the only time I've looked at a thoroughbred stallion guide is in the vet's reception. Can't say I've ever noticed how quick a stallion's gone. Might be due to them adding weight to slow them down. Even at weight for age, and she does get a gender advantage, does anyone care what time Winx has run in a Cox Plate? Does anyone know without googling?
As for level playing field, compare the AFL player whose first offence is allegedly a positive to cocaine. Apparently taken socially, low level, not on race day. Stood down, looking at 4 years.
Horse welfare has been raised. One of the most obvious abuse of a horse in relation to illegal performance enhancing drugs and substances/treatments is ignored. The effect on the clean horses chasing those juiced horses. Horses need to be trained harder, chase harder. That's poor. It's one of the main reasons people leave the sport and a reason horses are retired earlier.
We can have newbie naïve syndicates to make up for that but that's ignorance.
Perhaps this belongs in the sss thread but relevant to slowing horses down and if D Martin does pop in, this concept won't be beyond his comprehension.
Could we use the same technology incorporated in resistance training sulkies as a handicapping method? For those who don't know, put simply, these sulkies use hydraulics to create a drag, resistance.
Still waiting for the vets call (actually putting off shoeing a horse) these sulkies could be colour coded, a '10 metre handicap' might be red...goes on like the greyhounds or our saddle cloths. "Go the blue"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote