Cover image courtesy of The Image Is Everything
TTR’s problems-and-solutions series has so far heard from a trainer, breeder, punter, race club board member and welfare advocate. The next response comes from Jamie Walter, managing director of Proven Thoroughbreds.
What is the biggest problem in racing?
Data accuracy concerns are a problem that affects all racing aficionados be they breeder, owner, trainer, punter, strapper or dare I say, syndicator. The gripe, whilst conceding it may not be the biggest problem confronting the industry, is Track Ratings and how inaccurate so many are.
Take for example Saturday (September 5) at Randwick where the track condition will be historically documented as a Good 4. Half the ten-race card recorded sub-34 second final sectionals, in fact for the 1000 metres G3 Concorde Stakes, the overall time posted was 55.6. That’s the second quickest 1000 metres run at Randwick in the last six seasons with the last 600 metres in a blistering 32.65 secs.
Jamie Walter | Image courtesy of Proven Thoroughbreds
A Good 4? Really? That is actually the fourth fastest (or sixth slowest) track rating that can be officially allotted on any given day, so what time would they have run on a Firm 1? About 30 seconds flat?
A brief history. In December 2005 the 1-10 numerical system was introduced. The old categories — Fast, Good, Dead, Slow and Heavy — were retained, but a number was added to give more precision.
Nine years on, the terminology was overhauled. The numerical 1–10 scale stayed, but the category names were changed to the modern system with Fast, Dead and Slow canned for Firm 1–2, Good 3–4, Soft 5–7, Heavy 8–10.
Form is so detailed today in its analysis that the numerical 1-10 band rating system has been a welcome initiative.
However, it's important that the numbers are absolutely accurate. Assessing a horse that may never raced on a Good 3, you’re confronted with the question; should we run when it’s rated like that? If on closer analysis, some of the Good 4s from six months ago were actually racing like Good 3s or even Firm 2s, this shifts the potential decision.
The same applies to stallions. What if a stallion runs a time that is perceived to be faster or slower than average for the official Track Rating, but the whole meeting ran faster or slower? The way the horse is subsequently rated by form gurus and breeders can thus change.
It’s a pretty simple system. Yet since that ruling in 2014, the clubs, officials, curators, whoever decides these things, continually and consistently mislead the racing world with laughably erroneous ratings. Yes, weather on the day can alter the surface mid-meeting and the policy of describing a track based on the worst patch in the whole circumference, is generally acceptable though those discrepancies tend to be more prevalent on rain affected decks. As it stands, Track Ratings are sometimes changed during a meeting based on weather or performance. It’s the consistency of these decisions that’s in question.
And yes, like every component of this great game, opinions abound. Jockey A may interpret the going on a particular day as inferior to Jockey B’s view. That’s fine but on days like Saturday September 5, when everyone from participants to punters were in unanimous agreement that the horses were galloping on a Fast 2 or Good 3, who are we fooling by labelling it a more publicly succulent Good 4?
Who are we putting the spotlight on here? Is it the curators? Is it the promoters, the club or the regulator, who are saying, we can't have a Fast 2 or Heavy 10. This is not an indictment of curators. They have a tough gig. Most of the metropolitan racecourses get a lot of traffic over them in challenging conditions. We are an outdoor sport and the weather impacts on everything.
There is also a welfare component to these imprecise gradings. A trainer with a horse prone to jarring up on hard surfaces, will be reluctant to run on a Firm 2 or Good 3 but happy to proceed if the official rating is a Good 4 or Soft 5. If that horse pulls up sore, is it fair to ask whether that flawed rating is paying lip service to the health of the horse?
In an era when the subtleties of race form are more acutely analysed than ever previously and our grand sport is being morally and ethically judged, then it’s important that something as basic as a track rating, is as accurate as nature allows. Anything less suggests commercial motivation is at play.
Apart from obvious veterinary reasons, post final scratching time at 7.30am, trainers are only permitted to scratch if the track rating changes. So in essence, are incorrect ratings an attempt to maintain field sizes and thus avoid an impact on turnover?
What is the solution?
It’s easily fixed. Try something as fundamental to integrity as telling the truth. Punters and other racing participants need to be able to trust the information the industry provides for form analysis. If you're documenting for history's sake or for the sake of tomorrow’s form guides, then providing inaccurate information results in the ethics of the game being challenged.
Today’s world is data rich. That data is so critical now because we live and breathe by it. In an extremely competitive wagering climate, if punters can't trust the form, then that will affect turnover in the long term. Not being accurate to preserve field sizes is a short term fix that will have a long term impact.
Whoever is making the decision, whether it's stewards, whether it's commercial pressure from elsewhere or coming from the regulators, it can't be as inaccurate as it's been.
A small issue? Well, not if you value the trust of core customers and participants.
So we put the question back to the industry: do you feel the Track Ratings data is inaccurate and what should be done?
Email your thoughts to vicky@ttrausnz.com.au.
Read the other answers in this series:
