Staying The Course

The words Rob Waterhouse mean different things to different people. One thing that can't be argued, in my experience, is Rob's profound knowledge and understanding of racing. Having been in close proximity to him throughout my Tulloch Lodge days, I can attest to his wide scholarliness and intellectualism - he's a bright man.

Rob has kindly made a couple of contributions to the blog. The first of these was in reply to my piece on the insidious elimination of distance racing.

The way we're heading, if we're not careful, the genotype and phenotype of the Australian thoroughbred will be such that within a hundred years there will only be 'quarter horse thoroughbred racing' in this country. Some people - influential commercial breeders amongst them - think that's OK because we have proved we breed speed best - it's become our international brand image - and therefore we should exploit it to the exclusion of all else. But I doubt such homogenized racing will sustain mass appeal.

Rob's is a thought-provoking piece worth elevating to a posting in its own right, so I reproduce it here. I invite comments, but please stick to the subject and leave the writer alone, if you know what I mean.

Here's what Rob wrote:


Thoughts on re-establishing Australian distance racing

The great sadness of Australian racing is the gentle and gradual demise of distance racing. In spite of Group distance racing receiving a much larger proportion of prizemoney than distance racing should expect, the quality of staying races has become unsatisfactory and the number of races is declining. This situation must be maddening to the allocators of prizemoney.

The Melbourne Cup itself is evidence of this weakening – both the Cup winners and fields in general have too many imported elements (included New Zealand-bred horses), showing the weakness of the locals. Efficient (NZ) was a pleasing exception to the general 2006 VRC Derby form malaise.

It is a talking point that the subsequent form of recent Derby winners and runners has been woeful. Many reasons are given but I say the reasons generally put forward are not the true driving forces against the staying races, and misexplain the dynamics of the situation.

There is a general concensus that staying races should be maintained for the sake of the breed as well as the spectacle and our international racing reputation. I believe there are two reasons for the decline, interestingly these are both unrecognized as such.

In my view the major reason is the near abandonment of the handicapper’s most important tool – the weight-for-age (WFA) scale for non-group races. Also, handicappers feel/are constrained to handicap “on performance” rather than correctly aiming at equalising runners’ chances.

The lesser factor is the pernicious bonus prizemoney system each State uses that diverts prospective horse buyers from the “best” horses to the local product. This pollution of the free market system is, in reality, a strong bias against stayers.

The major reason – the weight-for-age factor. In essence, there has been a large change in non-Group One handicapping regarding the use of the WFA scale in recent years. The time-proven WFA scale has been supplanted by an inferior, dare I say, puerile scale. In simple terms, the new scale is very muted and inexplicably, ignores distance as a factor. This important change has never been ventilated or publicly debated.

To illustrate the change, under the old WFA scale a three-year-old in early November over 3200m would receive, till about 25 years ago, about 13 kilos from a four-year-old of equal standing. Under the modern official WFA, it is now about 10 kilos. But, under the current non-Group One scale, only 1.5 kilos is allowed - a huge difference.

This shift has been allowed to occur for probably three reasons:

First, connections complain only about too much weight at the top of the weights – complaints are never made about runners on the limit being over weighted or too close to the top weights.

Second, it is said three-year-olds are well catered for with plenty of races for their own age. The handicappers would also say that soon-to-be-top-class three-year-olds would dominate. Of course, that is the problem when handicapping is done by formula, as they are presently constrained to do, rather than to equalise runners.

Additionally, the handicappers and form students would argue that the WFA “only works with Group One (i.e. top class) racing”. I believe the old scale is accurate with all open class races and works in a diluted form with restricted races (the weaker the races, the less effect) to the extent it has no relevance in maiden class.

It would also be said that many three-year-olds would find themselves on the limit but ‘out of the handicap’ (should be well less than the limit) in handicaps. But, conversely, the new Ratings Based Races provide great opportunities for staying three-year-olds. The biggest effect of this shift is that three-year-olds don’t compete in open-age distance races. Consequently, they are not bought or trained to be stayers. Moreover, those three-year-olds who compete in three-year-old distance races are usually “second division” i.e. failed over shorter courses.

Good racing is built appropriately on the fortunes of two and three-year-old horses. For instance, my wife, Gai, has only a handful of four-plus aged horses in her stable. Punters are mostly interested in young, exciting horses. And staying events need the young competitors to make them interesting. If the full WFA scale allowance were given, three-year-olds would, quite rightly, win more all-aged staying races than any other age group. I believe three-year-olds were the most successful Melbourne Cup group till the Second World War.

The minor (but still important) reason – the bonus systems. Protectionism has infected horse racing for a long time. The notorious Jersey Act effectively barred US and Australian race horses from racing in the UK from about 1913 till about 1949. English racing was poorer for it. The French discriminated against foreign (UK) horses racing in France for many years as did Germany – they now regard that policy as a foolish mistake. The American “state-bred” races are a blight. Today, it’s hard to race our horses in Japan and Hong Kong because of protectionism.

For about 20 years Australian racing has had different bonus schemes, off and on. Today, they are VOBIS, BOBS, SABIS, QTIS, Magic Millions etc. They are, in effect, devices set up to aid the local breeding industry at the expense of yearling purchasers’ choice - a conspiracy against the laity and not in the general interest of racing. It’s ironic that at a time when “liberals” have convinced most of the world of “free trade” advantages, racing has gone down the seedy, protectionist path, and it is a shame.

These schemes point purchasers to buy “home breds”. For example, Queensland trainer Bruce McLachlan attributes his demise as a top Australian trainer to restricting himself to Queensland-breds, to take advantage of the QBIS and QRIS.

However, the big loser, with no Australian-type bonus scheme to support itself, is New Zealand. The reduction of New Zealand imports to Australia is a matter of record. The numbers have dropped more than 25 per cent and the median value is well down. This has had a big impact on “staying-bred” horses. New Zealand is our fountainhead of the staying pool. This has been an unintended effect of the bonus scheme but a serious and pernicious one. It is ironic that these bonus races are only available to 2yos and 3yos, yet, in this way, they work against them.

Conclusion: I have no doubt that if:
• The WFA scale was made to be used by the handicapper (as well as handicapping to equalise runners’ chances) in all open class races, and in a diluted way in restricted races; and
• The bonus schemes were abandoned,
then the quality of distance races would respond dramatically and a great contribution would be made to Australian racing.