The Non-Starting Gates

Has anyone got any figures on the rate of late scratchings owing to mishaps in the barrier?

I’m getting sick of them. After Maldivian in the Caulfield Cup we today had the example of Mimi Le Brock going off prior to the Golden Rose, another highly anticipated runner left lamenting behind the gates. Because they’re high profile we remember these ones, but there are dozens/hundreds more every year.

I watch a lot of races and think there’s an epidemic of barrier incidents in Australia.

Theoretically, Australia should have the second-highest number of scratched-at-the-barrier incidents because the second-highest number of thoroughbreds in the world compete here. But I wonder if Australia’s rate of defections is greater than some other countries?

Adrenalin-laden thoroughbreds aren’t always predictable or controllable so some level of incident is inevitable. Some breeds even seem to have a wired-in disposition towards throwing a wobbly in the gates. For instance, the Nijinsky line can have short fuses.

Are the horses solely at fault, or is there a claustrophobia/clatter factor associated with the type of starting gates used in Australia which help send them off and inflict injuries on themselves?

As someone brought up in New Zealand, I thought the open-top gates used there functioned well. They seemed to fulfil the purpose of the exercise which is to get all the horses standing safely in a line and release them all at the same time. If they have a shortcoming, it’s a lack of somewhere for the sponsor to hang his big sign, or somewhere for the TV soundman to stick his microphone boom. Big deal. Or maybe they just don’t look imposing enough?

Not that every set of gates in New Zealand is of the open-top variety; there are a few places where closed-top, like Australia’s, are used. I wonder if anyone can rustle up any comparative scratching figures between the two types over there?

But it’s my impression that the frequency of barrier scratchings in New Zealand is low. I have no figures, it’s just a feeling in my water.

Someone out at Hawkesbury or in Druitt Street might like to tell us what really killed the trials with the New Zealand gates a few years ago?

Naturally, the chances of an Australian administration embracing holus-bolus a New Zealand model/idea were next to nil. So they tinkered around, made some “safety” modifications then, I think, declared the contraption unsuitable. As they’ve used those gates, or similar, for 50 years in New Zealand, without an epidemic of horses throwing themselves on the ground or going over backwards, I hope someone wised up the Kiwis.

Presumably the reasons for the brief flirtation with the New Zealand-style gates were concerns about the safety of the closed-top variety. What were the problems encountered with the New Zealand gates which rendered them unsuitable and/or what modifications were made to the local variety to allay the concerns?

This scratched-at-the-barrier business is a right pain. I’m not talking through my pocket but I feel for the owners, jockeys, trainers and staff involved and I doubt it’s any good for turnover or makes the racegoing public happy. Plus horses are depriving themselves of winning or placing in important races which indirectly impacts on their place in the breed.