Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click here now
Forum Home Forum Home > Horse Racing - Public Forums > Racing Forum
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Victorian Track Ratings Policy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Thoroughbred Village Home Page. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. For horseracing tips, follow @Villagebet on Twitter. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.


Victorian Track Ratings Policy

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Gay3 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Location: Miners Rest
Status: Offline
Points: 51829
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gay3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Victorian Track Ratings Policy
    Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 6:50pm

EXCLUSIVE: Track policy review

November 16, 2018 1:15 pm

Significant changes to the way in which Victorian racetracks are prepared may be on the horizon, with Racing Victoria set to undertake a review of track surface preparation.

Correspondence from Racing Victoria officials indicates the “major review” will seek input from all significant stakeholders, including track managers, trainers and veterinary staff.

The preparation of tracks has been a topic of significant public discussion in Victoria, with some trainers, jockeys and prominent owners concerned that tracks play too firm and have an adverse impact on the wellbeing of their horses. This has come in the wake of shifts in the horse population, including the increasing presence of European-bred animals with a preference for softer tracks.

The review will examine whether Victorian track preparation policy should be modified to a preference for softer tracks. Current policy dictates that, where possible, Victorian tracks are to be prepared to a Good 4 rating, improving to a Good 3 rating as meetings progress.

The review will seek feedback on the impact of adjusting this policy to a preference for soft tracks, improving to a Good 4 rating throughout meetings.

Particular items to be assessed include:

·     The potential impact of softer tracks on turf / track health and performance

·     The potential impact of softer tracks on wagering volumes

·     The potential impact of softer tracks on horse welfare

·     The merits of introducing a simpler track rating scale.

A simpler rating scale would include four ratings – firm, good, soft and heavy – and remove the more complex 1 – 10 numerical ratings placed on tracks.

The timing of the review may come as a surprise to some, after the three major Melbourne clubs were widely praised for the tracks presented over the Spring Carnival, often in the face of constantly shifting weather conditions. Track bias, the scourge of punters and often associated with softer tracks, was regarded as largely absent from major racedays over the carnival.

BY:Mark Haywood. Blank Canvas

Wisdom has been chasing me but I've always outrun it!
Back to Top
Sneck View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2013
Location: Payout Queue
Status: Offline
Points: 7555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sneck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 8:42pm
This is a joke.
What's the motivation for this?
The Melbourne Cup was run on a soft track and there were issues.
Cliffs Of Moher was backing up of an soft track that was aerated and in terrible condition.
Prince Of Arran was on the quick back up from a firm track and raced phenomenal.
Japan runs on firm tracks and there's 10 year olds still going around no problem.
There's evidence firm tracks are safer so I'm worried they're just going to twist the data to confirm their bias.
There is conclusive evidence punters prefer wagering on firm tracks.
 
Back to Top
anabel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Location: VIC
Status: Offline
Points: 1521
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote anabel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 8:44pm
Where is the evidence that firm tracks are safer?
Back to Top
Sneck View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2013
Location: Payout Queue
Status: Offline
Points: 7555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sneck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 8:45pm
Who praised Caulfield? it was a disgrace.
Back to Top
Sneck View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2013
Location: Payout Queue
Status: Offline
Points: 7555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sneck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 8:49pm
 TRACK CONDITIONS DISGRACE by ROB WATERHOUSE

Horse racing must be the only industry where the customer seems to be totally ignored. For the authorities who run racing, it is as though racing exists in spite of punters, rather than because of them.

The Victorian Track Preparation Policy is an example of this folly. It demands that tracks should be prepared with “some give in the ground”, erring on the soft side. And the NSW Racing policy is not different enough to the Victorian madness – NSW officials describe “dead” as the “perfect” track.

For customers, the punters, they love fast and good tracks. They hate, in particular ‘dead’ tracks. What’s more, they show it clearly in their betting, which translates to racing revenue. They bet much less when the tracks are ‘affected’. In any other businesses, shareholders would sack any management who refused to sell the business’s most profitable product.

Of course the current Victorian policy is, like the “road to hell”, paved with good intentions. They believe softer tracks are:

·     Kinder to the horses
·     Produce a more sustainable product (by not breaking down horses)
·     Produce bigger fields
·     Fairer to owners

But I say these arguments are fallacious and that the current policy:

Kinder to horses
Well, horses don’t actually “like” affected tracks. It is a fallacy to say they do. They are reluctant to stretch out as they do on fast/good tracks. The best ‘mud lark’, of course, runs slower times ‘in going’- he just dislikes it less than others.

A more sustainable product

My wife, Gai, a trainer, says: “My horses are more likely to break down on affected tracks than dry. It is a myth that softer tracks are kinder to horses. They only race for a minute or two but soft tracks can wreak havoc with them. I hate these over-watered tracks”

A vet of Gai’s says: “you could expect more fetlock hyper extension injuries like tendon injuries, avulsion injuries of sesamoids etc.”

Leading trainer John Hawkes says, when asked about the issue: “I agree, I do not like the water policy and prefer firmer tracks.”

I recognise some trainers “think” they like the affected tracks. Were they asked: “Would you prefer to race on the current softer tracks for the current prizemoney or on firmer tracks for 10% or 20% extra prizemoney?” not one would say they would.

Moreover, a recent study of Australian (1992 to 2005) shows clearly horses with a high number of career starts have a higher percentage of dry track starts. Dry track horses last longer.

Produces bigger fields

In another study (1995 to now in Victoria), field sizes have been bigger when the tracks were fast and good as against dead, slow, heavy.
 

Summer October to March 137,867 races (1995 to now)

Average field size

Average field size

Average field size

HSD

9.31

10.35

9.80

GF

9,61

10.86

10.45

Winter April to September 135,229 races (1995 to now)

 

 

 

HSD

10.49

11.29

11.14

GF

9.66

11.47

11.32

 

Correspondent, Len Loveday has pointed out to me that, contrary to what they seem to say, trainers and owners are more likely to scratch runners in going. From a vast sample, 10.56% of runners are withdrawn. From his figures, the pattern is stark:

Overall: 10.56%

F  - 08.73%

G  - 09.30%

D - 10.84%

S - 14.44%

H - 19.16%

 
Fairer to owners
 I speak from personal experience, I regularly hear my wife, Gai, trying to convince owners to let their horses start when the going is affected. They hate wet tracks for “their” horse.
·         Diminishes betting turnover markedly and consequently reduces revenue to the industry
·        Creates tracks punters are reluctant to bet on
·        Creates biased tracks which undermine punters’ confidence
·        Is a disadvantage to breeders of tough breeding stock
·        Makes racing bland
·        Undermines the integrity of racing
·        Is a large cost burden to the industry
 
Diminishes betting turnover
1.   With my bookmaking business, my turnover falls once a track is dead or worse. Punters won’t bet as freely on affected tracks. My first hand experience is echoed by all bookmakers.

2.   Professional punting syndicates bet as much as possible, based on models with a view to maximising profit. These models reduce the turnover by about 20 per cent on affected tracks because firstly, the public turnover is smaller and secondly, the randomness makes it harder to find value. The senior partner of the world’s largest punting syndicate told me they adopt the same strategy.

3.   Every punter I know dislikes dead and slow tracks. They know these goings are more random. Only Racing could not realise its only ‘customers’ are punters and force on them what they don’t want.

4.   TAB Corp produced the table below. It shows how much less is bet with TAB Corp on affected tracks. The Victorian Metropolitan drop off – over 20 per cent – is very marked:

% Average Turnover Impact By Track Condition - FY07 (Compared to Good)

DOW
REGION
GOOD
DEAD
SLOW
HEAVY
 
Saturday
NSW – Metropolitan
                   0.0%
-0.4%
-17.3%
-20.7%
 
 
VIC – Metropolitan
 0.0%
-24.4%
-15.5%
-32.5%
 
Other Days
NSW – Metropolitan
 0.0%
-9.0%
-0.3%
-20.6%
 
 
QLD – Metropolitan
 0.0%
-14.2%
-12.0%
-33.4%
 
 
VIC – Metropolitan
 0.0%
-26.0%
-21.2%
-21.7%
 
All
NSW – Country
 0.0%
-1.8%
-11.9%
-2.3%
 
 
NSW – Provincial
 0.0%
-14.2%
-13.8%
-26.4%
 
 
QLD – Country
 0.0%
0.9%
-18.0%
23.0%
 
 
VIC – Country
 0.0%
-6.4%
-3.7%
-16.0%
 
Total
VIC/NSW/QLD
 0.0%
-6.2%
-9.6%
-8.2%
Note : Good Track used as Base Impact
  
Of course, this drop in turnover causes a bigger drop in available prizemoney.
 
 
Creates biased tracks
It is generally recognised that watering creates biases. The fence is often worse because of natural drainage. Irrigation inhibits root growth so parts of tracks give way.
 
There are many instances of biased tracks in Victoria, notwithstanding the recent dry conditions. Take these examples:
· Werribee Cup Day: no winner drawn outside four, no winner three wide or wider on the turn.
· Werribee 28/11 : meeting abandoned before any races run, no rain for seven days, parts of the track slow to heavy.
· Geelong 2/12 : Again no rain, track downgraded to slow before the first, and jockeys to outside fence in the straight.
· Sandown Lakeside latest two meetings, track dead all day.
· Sandown Guineas meeting where leaders on the fence totally dominated the programme.
· Turnbull Stakes Day and Final Day at Flemington where winners were seemingly random horses and form irrelevant.

The casino laws make it a jailable offence to create a bias in, say, a roulette wheel. I, for one, would support severe sanctions against course curators who create biased tracks. Perhaps a public flogging in the betting ring after the last? There would be no difficulty finding floggers.

It is noteworthy in the UK, when there is proprietary racing, course curators are sacked by track owners if they produce what punters hate – biased tracks. They know it attacks turnover and their profits.

Breedings
There is no doubt the famous hard and tough Australian breed is disadvantaged by the policy and a less robust type is encouraged. It will have a long term impact.
 
 
Blandness
Denying racing of fast(1) and good(2) tracks robs racing of its diversity.
 
 
Cost of implementation
The cost implementing the softer track policy runs into millions of dollars.
 
 
Integrity
The results of races are very much affected by the policy and it must damage racing’s reputation.

Pity help the owner of a horse ‘best on firm going’, he never gets a turn.

It is a clear lack of honesty in that no tracks are described as 1s, 2s or 10s even though they are many, according to my figures. The TPP even appears to instruct course curators to misreport firm tracks (on page 5 at point 7 of the RMG).

For the sake of fullness, may I add?:
 
·        I note the TPP and RMG advocate rolling. Leading world track expert Michael Dickinson [mwd@tapeta.com] told me that no turf track should ever be rolled: “Rolling and grass courses should never be used in the same breath. Michael is responsible/consults/consulted for Manton, Ballydoyle, the Maktoums and has provided many courses around the USA. He is also a great trainer and horseman. I will locate his letter and CD.

·        I say, the improvement a track makes during racing is imaginary, and easily shown to be such by a proper study. Tracks can deteriorate but never improve. 

I re-draw your attention to the TAB turnover figures and ask you to assess the impact on racing prizemoney and consequently racing participants.

Courtsy of ROB WATERHOUSE, 01/05/2009
 
http://www.trackdata.com.au/Story.asp?Id=988
Back to Top
Shawy38 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 17265
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shawy38 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 8:58pm
Changing a number is not going to fix anything.

As they say, a polished turd is still a turd.
Back to Top
Speediskey View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 4116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Speediskey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 9:07pm
Seems rather pointless comparing heavy track turnover? It's also a completely different ball game having a 4 than a 7 - which are both dead/soft depending on what era you're talking - if you want to compare the difference of starting on a 4 vs a 3 compare the stats with a 4 vs a 3, don't compare a 2/3 to a 4/5/6/7 because that's incredibly meaningless.
Back to Top
anabel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Location: VIC
Status: Offline
Points: 1521
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote anabel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 9:14pm
Still can’t see any evidence that firm tracks are safer?

I also don’t understand “horses with more starts have higher % on dry tracks” ?? Is that supposed to prove it’s safer?

If we are after anecdotes, as Rob seems big on, most trainers I know hate hard tracks, and the patching up jarry horses behind the scenes is sadly not recorded in any data.
Back to Top
3blindmice View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 3blindmice Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by anabel anabel wrote:

Where is the evidence that firm tracks are safer?
Studies I've seen say the opposite,  and from memory the data from most major jurisdictions all point to the same conclusion. Overall, injuries increase with track firmness on turf and with track softness on dirt. Google will find them for anyone interested.

Can't see anything wrong with the current policy, although it could be simplified by saying the aim is for horses to run on a track no harder than a G3. That way if conditions are going to be extreme (hot, windy) mgrs of tracks known to dry out quickly could start with a dead 5. Most problems seem to arise when tracks jump into the F2 range. Balancing weather, water and track absorption/evaporation must be a nightmare at times.
Back to Top
3blindmice View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 3blindmice Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2018 at 10:26pm
"I say, the improvement a track makes during racing is imaginary, and easily shown to be such by a proper study. Tracks can deteriorate but never improve. "

Astonishing, can only suggest he's making a broad generalisation. Wonder how he explains Melb Cup day. Presumably he thinks soil doesn't dry out (the gardener looked after the lawn at home) and that evaporation is a climate change myth.
Back to Top
linghi11 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 18 Apr 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote linghi11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 9:32am
Some tracks are most certainly too hard, Ballarat comes to mind as a big offender and no doubt others. Victoria’s lack of humidity and hot winds on warm days dry up tracks to a crisp.
to the victor
Back to Top
Bonfield View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 07 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 10291
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bonfield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 10:48am
Really annoying. I much prefer firm tracks and I'm suspicious of this assumption softer tracks are better for the horses. If they start watering for soft tracks bias will be more common.
Back to Top
linghi11 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 18 Apr 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote linghi11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 11:17am
Firm tracks most certainly cause issues for horses as so many train on proride. 4-5 or 3-4 with good grass cover are ideal.
to the victor
Back to Top
3blindmice View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 18105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 3blindmice Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 12:05pm
Originally posted by Bonfield Bonfield wrote:

Really annoying. I much prefer firm tracks and I'm suspicious of this assumption softer tracks are better for the horses. If they start watering for soft tracks bias will be more common.
It's more than assumption Bonfield. Google is your friend.
Back to Top
Prince of Penzance View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 1938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Prince of Penzance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 12:19pm
It’s a fact that hard tracks are not suitable for horse welfare.
More horses break down and die on hard surfaces, than on on soft ground
A good 4/soft 5 is the perfect surface for racing.

Good 3 is too hard, which is what we have nowadays.
Back to Top
Prince of Penzance View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 1938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Prince of Penzance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 12:25pm
We should not be making our tracks hard just to please punters.

At the end of the day, the horses are the ones who are racing on it.
It causes more injuries and deaths than wet tracks.
That’s a simple fact.

We should be making our tracks suitable for horses.wothout horses, the punters wouldn’t have anything to bet on.

Just another way of human greed trying to make money from animals.

We should be protecting them, not actively destroying them.
Back to Top
Carioca View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 13 Nov 2015
Status: Online
Points: 21703
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carioca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 12:33pm
Hard to imagine we are pandering to the whims of a few, if it's too hard ..scratch, if it's too heavy ..scratch , a good 4 when the weather is conducive is perfect , if it's too hot in the kitchen ..go where it suits, firm tracks are far better than heavy or softer conditions , go and have another look at the bloody Everest, buy better boned horses and don't house the weak as we know it's a vets paradise, we gotta toughen up and apply the same principles to our horses , this ain't England!
Back to Top
Gay3 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Location: Miners Rest
Status: Offline
Points: 51829
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gay3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 12:54pm
The Sandown track manager was on RSN this morning & when asked his opinion , said that trainer feedback to him is that some horses won't let down on the Good 3 & many more on a "2". They're not running true to form so he finds it hard to understand why punters like them.
He's prepared today for a "3" in the 2nd half of the program.
Wisdom has been chasing me but I've always outrun it!
Back to Top
linghi11 View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 18 Apr 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote linghi11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 1:28pm
Already upgraded to 3. Carioca, you need to move with the times. We have European blood coursing through a high proportion of our horse population, soft proride training surfaces, oh and we care about equine welfare. Some tracks served up as 3 are easily 2’s and are detrimental to the horses.
to the victor
Back to Top
Carioca View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 13 Nov 2015
Status: Online
Points: 21703
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carioca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2018 at 2:27pm
Originally posted by linghi11 linghi11 wrote:

Already upgraded to 3. Carioca, you need to move with the times. We have European blood coursing through a high proportion of our horse population, soft proride training surfaces, oh and we care about equine welfare. Some tracks served up as 3 are easily 2’s and are detrimental to the horses.

We have had European blood in our horses for over a 100 years so that don't wash with me, a rating of 2 I can understand some worry, but a 3 bordering on 4 or a 5 boarding on 4 are perfect for most horses, I don't have to move with the times lingh11, a walk down the Main Street tells me all I want to know, and while I'm on that subject have they got Official barrier trials yet for unraced 2 yos or made it mandatory? if not You better move with the times .
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.05
Copyright ©2001-2022 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.