G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 19 Non Members

New Handicapping System for the Trots

Harness & Greyhounds


  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    24 made redundant including Wishart and admin staff.
  • VillageKidVillageKid    2,250 posts
    JayJay said:

    24 made redundant including Wishart and admin staff.

    Hmmm do we assume a TAB sale announcement is imminent then?
  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    It is hard to draw any concrete conclusions VK....it is a truism of business that when you wish to sell something, you present it in the best possible light,, so it MAY be the case as I don't think it is a national secret that the Government wants to sell the TAB, a breathtakingly stupid call in my opinion but many others in favour in the court of public opinion, that's life...less overheads, lower wages bill etc, all that sort of thing but who knows. Following last nights Industry Communique, I haven't seen anything else emanate from RWWA today....but the jungle drums has been beating out all sorts of rumours, theories and the like. Heard all sorts of stuff, 24 redundancies, a nice word for "don't come Monday" (some of whom know personally) but hard to confirm the total number in the wake of no news from RWWA,  heard about a possible BOTRA meeting this weekend, many words of support for Warren Wishart, meeting boycotts, owners, trainers, horses leaving the industry, ....hot air?, traditional resistance to change?, whinging for the sake of whinging?......Can't be definitive about the authenticity or otherwise, but the "noise" is definitely out there. Another truism of business/politics/ or whatever, is that the longer an organisation leaves a factual news vacuum unfilled, the faster the space will be taken up up with conspiracy theories, predictions of doom and the sky falling in etc. So I guess all we can do is wait and try and be as objective as possible. I will say it does seem strange that in the embryonic stages of implementing a new handicapping system that the actual handicapper would be made redundant. I will remain open minded and will have my meeting with Barry on Friday, respectfully present my views and then wait and see what eventuates, let due processes run their course and decide what to do after that. 

    VillageKid, Kane_26, curmudgeon likes this post.

  • Kane_26Kane_26    88 posts
    edited November 2018
    I'm not going to say to much on the issue as I don't need any bad karma at this time of the year. What I will say is that Warren has done a wonderful job in what is a thankless job and he deserves much much much better then this.

    Good luck in the future Waz and to the person who takes over his roll and is expected to be able to do it at aswell as him, good luck they'll need it.

    JayJay, cisco, curmudgeon, VillageKid likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    Every time I look at it, another concern arises. Mighty Conqueror, nothing against horse or connections at all, they are simply playing by the rules but it wins a $50k race last Friday (4yo Championship) but only $15k of the win stake gets accredited to its HWOE under the age concession rule. It won 3 out of 4 in NZ before coming to Australia, as a 3 year old. So it gets the discount in HWOE for those wins, comes to WA, goes to Kellerberrin in an R2 and beats them up, another 2 wins at Pinjarra and then wins a $50k race and emerges with a HWOE of $41k having won over $60k in win stakes (7 wins from 8 starts, a very serious horse). Concession will apply even if he wins the Golden Nugget with a ceiling of $30k, so if he wins the Nugget, he will only cop a further $15k towards his HWOE, taking him to a HWOE of $56k (less than Neighlor at $57,500).  I mentioned this to Smackwater Jack that he has the same HWOE as the Conqueror and I had to book him in for therapy....told me he really didn't mind drinking muddy South Australian water and thought Globe Derby would be a very nice place to race. And when I told Neighlor to ready himself for combat against the Conqueror, he walked off ignoring me completely. So, yes, there are concerns (for me at least, yes, a vested interest!), about the fairness of the system that claims to strive for "like against like" racing. I may have this wrong, and if I have, I will gladly stand corrected,  but that is my reading of the current conditions that apply.

    cisco likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    Yikes, it gets worse, don't want to look anymore. The more I do, the closer I get to calling up Ramsay's Horse Transport. The juvenile concessions mean that Jack Mac, an absolutely super horse, I love him, has had 21 starts, won 15, stake earnings of $270k plus, he gets in with a HWOE of $50k....thats after winning the Pinjarra 4yo classic. If he wins the Nugget, quite likely, and earns the $120k on offer to the winner, he becomes a $400k stake winner with a HWOE of just $65k. Starting to think that juvenile concessions are total nonsense. Can you imagine the WA Derby winner in the gallops rocking up as a 4 year old in a Narrogin maiden? More depressing news for Neigh and Jack.

    Offthebit likes this post.

  • rooster321rooster321    186 posts
    No matter what ratings/class system you have there will always be good horses going through the lower classes

    Kane_26 likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    Unquestionably....of course there will be, that's the very nature of the game. But to do so with such huge advantages and concessions is the point of issue. Way too many free hits for talented early developers combined with a very high deeming or conversion WOE rate for average horses transferring over to the new system immediately puts a large proportion of your horse population  (and owners and trainers) at a serious disadvantage. WA's already diminished horse population and low trainer numbers can ill afford to lose any numbers without running the risk of an industry implosion.

    curmudgeon, cisco likes this post.

  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    2,417 posts
    edited November 2018
    Handicap - Oxford dictionary definition - 

    "noun. A circumstance that makes progress or success difficult."

    The whole essence of handicapping in Harness and Thoroughbred racing is to make life difficult for the more talented horses and less so for the not so talented.
    It has been thus since the inception of racing and as a standard is primary to wagering considerations on any race. This was a truism in the 1800's and remains so now.

    It appears from general feedback that the concern is that currently within the bands the reverse of handicapping in its definition is occurring ie juvenile winners are being granted HWOE penalty of very limited amount. Thus they return to the same race type and leave bands only incrementally it seems....just in time for another horse of similar ilk to do the same and so on.
    The battler of limited ability that has progressed through the ranks by going around and around until the breaks go its way receives very limited or no concession in terms of transition or additional HWOE earnings.
    The nearest equivalent in standardbred handicapping terms to weight allocated in thoroughbreds racing is barrier draw preference. It is obvious from the race programs scheduled that this has been largely ignored in favour of the RBD concept for most races. Why you would seek to do this is beyond my comprehension.

    From my point of view there seems to be a dilution of this handicapping concept from its initial proposal and forum discussion to the advent of the current active model. The reason no one body has ever been able to race consistently " like for like " races is that variation within the horse racing population is fluid and rapid thus handicapping and making progress difficult for the better performed is absolutely necessary.

    JayJay likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    I think a major issue is that the very high ability juvenile receives only a very moderate penalty for being very, very able. By putting a maximum $30k limit on what goes on to their HWOE, they get free kick after free kick. The moderate 3yo or 4yo performer may never reach that $30k limit but the very able horse cruises past and just keeps winning at zero penalty. Hate to seem to keep on picking on Mighty Conqueror or Jack Mac but should either of them win the Nugget, a win in the upcoming McInerney Classic would be an absolute free kick. Having already reached their $30k ceiling, they could win that race and have zero addition to their HWOE. In fact, the whole concept of a ceiling on 4 year old races seems quite absurd....and a similar argument is equally as valid for the 3 year olds. So when they re enter "band" or "Level" racing, they are at a huge advantage over the horse that has gone "around and around" accumulating wins at distant venues that attract full and non discounted additions to their HWOE. Thus the circumstance of $300k or $400k plus lifetime earners racing against $100k earners (or in many cases even less than that) in the same band as they both are allocated a HWOE of, for example, $57,500.

    curmudgeon likes this post.

  • savethegamesavethegame    2,716 posts
    Nothing about hcp, will be foolproof remember the days when maiden twoyearolds  started out 2.38 class ;; three yearolds  started at 2.30 class ;;;;;;maiden four year olds  started at 2.28 class.....first big uproar was sweetmans  horse  thors hope or thors rise? ,who had won a heap in Victoria. prior to coming w.a.....Then fred kersley put the system in his favour with south aussie horses who all were nearly aged free for all  horses but when they came here they slotted in at qualys. 2.25 horses like rite riteson, saddle tramp.heap of them.

    Top horse fixers the problem,only got to find him or her...

    VillageKid likes this post.

  • Kane_26Kane_26    88 posts
    edited November 2018
    This is just my two cents worth but I don't see a major problem with the old system, there was a variety of races for horses along with a drop back rule for horses like The Marble Ridge who's best days were past him which kept them in the system along with concessions and mares claims. In regards to the community meetings I do believe @Markovina is right that maybe they need to make some races preference to trainers within a 150km radius to maybe make it harder for Bondy and co to beat up on the lesser likes.

    In regards to younger races I think if your lucky enough to breed a nice young horse you shouldn't be overly penalised as a lot of people can't afford to buy horses like some trainers (which their entitled to do). But I don't know how you penalise one and not the other.

    Let them win there four free races as a 2yo but if you win a Group 1 you will be penalised not only a 3yo mark but a C class aswell. If you win any more then four two year old races you automatically lose a 3yo mark for each one.

    In regards to three year old's you get your two free ones but for every other win you lose a C class. If you win a Group 1 as a 3yo you not only lose a C class you also lose an M class.

    Make all C0's restricted to four year old and over unless there is a 3yo programmed which doesn't stand up and make the C0's and C1's restricted to horses who haven't won a race worth $20k or more. I know it sounds long winded but it would work better then this abomination they've currently bought in.

    Re the Nugget @JayJay I can see your point in regards to the current system but my question to Warren at the time was let's say for miracles sake we get The Great Dane into the Nugget and he flukes it and wins it why should his win dollars automatically go to $100k and be a C2 but have to race in a higher grade then Major Catastrophe? Now people would say well you've won $100k why do you care but at the same point that horse is still entitled to stay in the system.

    Warren said he would get penalised $30k which is two metro wins which I said was fair but I thought it was $30k for each Group 1 not just $30k no matter how many races you win but I stand corrected. If Dane was to be a penalised $100k though he would be on the first flight to Melbourne so there would be another horse lost.

    JayJay, VillageKid, curmudgeon, Royboy likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    Yes, it is $30k max regardless of how many he wins, not $30k each win ....so if a horse wins the 50k 4yo championship, the $200k Nugget  and the McInerney, maximum HWOE penalty is $30, remembering his 3yo earn and 2yo earn are also heavily discounted as well. Victoria has cut 3 year olds out of CO's, we still allow and then to add insult to injury, discount the win as far as HWOE is concerned.
    If the Dane was mine and he won the Nugget, he would be sitting in the comfiest seat in the lounge dining on Fresh Lucerne, hot barley and molasses and endless fresh carrots.....but yes,point taken. I think it is about finding some middle ground that will prevent an exodus and at least give the lesser lights some chance of at least earning something, otherwise, they just become cannon fodder.
  • MorganJamesMorganJames    168 posts
    edited November 2018
    I agree with Kane here
    Im not a full bottle on the new system or the old system,
    However i am sure on a cost and benefit analysis of the new system that the time and  money and resources spent on this new handicapping system will not improve turnover dramatically.
    It has been 12 months in the planning surely just putting a few conditions on certain races could have easily fixed things .
    Does RWWA have a 10 /20 year plan to get new participants into the industry.
    Wats happens when the Halls Bonds Reeds retire is there are a plan that RWWA have in place for the future..

    Kane_26, VillageKid, curmudgeon, Offthebit likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    Well, $200 and 2 demerit points later courtesy of a very zealous and uncompromising young officer patrolling at 12.55am in the morning 12 km from Manjimup (exceeding the speed limit by 10km/hr)......terrific, hadn't spotted another vehicle for about half an hour....anyway, you can't argue, can you!!! But back to the point.....spent 2 hours discussing the new system with Barry Hamilton, which I thought was a very generous allocation of time, and I appreciated the chance to present my thoughts.
    Be fair to say that there wasn't a lot of common ground but a very civilised exchange of views and a few things sorted out.
    Firstly, although I can't understand why 4 year olds are in receipt of any HWOE concessions.....unjustifiable in my view....the conditions as per the RWWA website are not as read.....the % concessions for winning 4 year old races apply to EVERY 4 year old race, the ceiling of $30,000 as stated does not apply. So, a horse winning a a 4 year old race cops $15,000 against its HWOE for each race under $100k and $30k for each race over $100k. So to put it in context if for example Mighty Conqueror wins the 4 year old championship (a 50k race), his HWOE goes up by $15k. If he wins the $200k Nugget (worth 120k to the winner), he cops another $30k, and if he wins the $125k  McInerney Classic, he gets another $30k added to his HWOE....so the $30k ceiling as I read it does NOT apply. Barry agreed that this was not clear on the RWWA website and would be making it clearer.
    The topic of the broadness of the bands was discussed....additional bands are being considered, something like a $55k band in between the $40k and $70k band, amongst other adjustments at lower levels.  I strongly suggested that if this was being considered, why wasn't it being communicated with the fraternity? If you leave a vacuum of information for participants, then you can;t blame the gap being filled. Communication, communication, and then more communication!!!!! Point was taken.
    The programme for Busselton as presented in the website calendar is apparently incorrect and has been modified from what is currently listed, with a far greater spread of bands.....addition of higher bands as the point was made that the standing start horse population for the very low grade programme currently online simply doesn't exist.  Again, the question was asked why this has not been communicated to the industry? Point was taken.
    The issue of 3yo's racing in open age races (CO for 4yo and above in old lingo), winning, and only getting 75% of the win stake accredited to their HWOE, before returning and repeating the dose to the same horses the next week, was raised along with the Victorian policy of simply not allowing these horses to enter such races was also raised. Don't think there was any agreement there....I don't think Barry could see where I was coming from on that issue. Also raised at length the L5$ won races, and the scope of the $22,000 dollars earned in the last 5 starts allowing pretty able and in form horses into these races against horses who were genuinely out of form with maybe only $1,000 earned at their last 5 starts? He suggested that this was okay as there were midweek races with a much lower scope of dollars earned last 5 in place.....albeit for much lower stakemoney ....not sure where I sit on this one, will think about a bit more but I got the impression this won't be changing.
    RBD/PBD issue raised, question asked as to why there had been no PBD's programmed, was assured that this was being considered in a variety of guises, ranging from grouped PBD's, dollars won last 2 starts etc. If we are serious about more even racing and thus better turnover then there must be a mix of RBD/PBD. Again made the point that if this is in the pipeline moving forward, let the industry know, don't leave a vacuum. Point taken.
    The deeming values for horse being transitioned to the new system was also discussed....at great length....and that there were an awful lot of free kicks for highly performed juveniles that walked into the new system with NO penalty whatsoever for their juvenile success, to the detriment of horses that were late developers. If you are transferring horses into a system where there is at least some "penalty", albeit extremely generous, for juvenile succes, and you assign the transferring horse no penalty whatsoever, that automatically introduces a gross inequality, with horse having won multiple 100's of thousands of dollars being assigned the same HWOE as horse having won much, much less money. I pushed and pushed and pushed on this point but fair to say, we are wide apart on that point. I think they are fearful of a huge revolt from those fortunate enough to have had star juveniles in the past but for the life of me, I can't see the fairness in $400k plus and $500k plus stake earners being assigned the same HWOE of $57.5k as a horse with $73k in win earnings, simply on the basis they are both M2 rated as per the previous handicapping system. It just doesn't cut the pub test on fairness. I suspect that there will be no change on this objection. I think the perpetrators of this new system just don't get this point at all.
    I also suggested that when something new is introduced, no matter how long the lead in time, people don't really sit down and  familiarise themselves with proposal and all of the associated detail until about a week before it begins. That is invariably what happens, so the ruling body needs to be prepared to make almost immediate adjustments and tweaks to concerns as they arise. Simply adopting a siege mentality and saying this has been well thought out, give it time, it will all work itself out, it is much fairer,  be patient etc etc.....is not the way to keep people happy and reassured. It is dismissive of people with genuine concerns who are raising genuine complaints based on how the new system affects both them as individuals and the industry as a whole.  And the suggestion to wait 3 months is ridiculously long (whilst slowly going down the financial gurgler), just as ridiculous as the concept of chucking the whole thing out the window after just a few meetings.
    Hopefully, positive respectful discourse can continue....throwing the toys out the pram and passing motions of no confidence or whatever achieves nothing ......but response to concerns MUST occur....and waiting for 3 months is a recipe for angst, anger and distress.
    I think I will shut up at this stage, I have had my say, I appreciated the opportunity, it is up to participants far more involved than me to have input by going and talking to get a better outcome, not simply manufacturing bullets and getting a semi partially bewildered old fart like me to fire them.

    curmudgeon likes this post.

  • sonnysonny    985 posts
    Well done jj. There was a CEO interviewed and he stated, I made some mistakes but I'm sticking to them . Makes you laugh...
  • ciscocisco    802 posts
    Great work Jay pity about the fine - it only happens to the good guys.

    One thing to remember Jay and Boys - if the Industry leaders do not look after owners then there will be no Industry at all!!

    Cheers cisco

    Offthebit likes this post.

  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    2,790 posts
    Any report on the Byford Meeting yesterday?
  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    2,417 posts
    Wasn't there but apparently very well attended. 
    Like yourself...awaiting some confirmed information re items covered.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    2nd hand info, wasn't there, couldn't risk another traffic infringement .....am told 103 in attendance, motion passed to revert to old system whilst problems ironed out, industry group to meet with Charlotte Mills for further discussion.....repeat, only second hand but reliable info.

    cisco likes this post.

  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    2,790 posts

    It may be time to consider why the HWOE was introduced in
    the first place.

    Sale of the TAB now seems inevitable.

    This should ensure that the total 2018 RWWA
    distribution of $157.4m to the three racing codes with incremental increases will
    continue into the future.

    What is unknown is how this distribution will be
    apportioned to the three codes under the new structure but it is almost certain
    that wagering performance will be a criteria going forward. There is little
    doubt that HWOE has been introduced in an endeavour to improve wagering
    performance in the harness code with a view to maintaining its share of

    Since RWWA started in 2003 harness distribution has
    increased from $16.7m to $34.6m an increase of 107.2% against the Reserve Bank
    Inflation Rate of 35%.

    Country base stakes have increased 133% and
    metro base stakes by 80% against the same inflation rate.

    It is important that these facts should be acknowledged as a
    driving force for change.

    As to the current performance of HWOE I am far from an
    expert and do not have the resources to do some financial modelling if the
    conditions were tweaked. As an overview the metro meetings are showing
    considerable promise but conversely there appear to be some concerns with the
    mid weeks.

    My observation is that the concessions for 2 and 3 year old
    racing may be too generous and some imported NZ horses appear to be getting
    into the system at levels below their ability.

    Personally I see no need for four year old earnings to be
    capped at all as this is an elite age of racing with feature race winners
    deserved of the penalties that go with stake money won.

    I would prefer to leave it with RWWA staff to evaluate
    results and make adjustments as necessary.

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  • GilgameshGilgamesh    4,548 posts
    It seems like the only positive out of all of this is that a horse who wins good prize money as a 2/3yr old can't come back as a non winner at 4, for that they have created a whole myriad of problems and those high earning young horses are coming back well in anyhow.

    Why not just go back to the old model and for any race you with prize money equivalent to a Metro penalty race as a 2 or 3yr old you cop a a C class penalty? Can still come back as an M0 but not a C0.
  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    The transitioning of horses is a major issue.....implementing a system which DOES have some (albeit generous) HWOE penalties for juvenile wins, and then allowing horses transitioning into the system with no HWOE penalties for prior juvenile success automatically introduces a potentially huge disparity....and I can quote example after example of current 4 and 5 year olds that have had an absolutely free hit by basing their HWOE on the C or M rating from the past handicapping model. Also, including a previous R class win (non juvenile) into a horses current HWOE....where that R race may have been a very, very low class field, selected on reverse points for absolute bottom level horses....is another gross anomaly. Agree completely on why 4 year old classic winners get treated so generously.
    And the bands are far too wide for equality of racing......a horse with a genuine $40.5k HWOE accumulated from racing anywhere, anytime over a number of years having to race a horse, who with a junior concession, has a HWOE of  $81k ($70k and an $11k junior concession)  .....which after you consider that the better $81k  horse may have won the Derby or the Golden Slipper (or both) on the way through and have actual stake earnings of in excess of $400 or $500k.....Is that "like racing like".....not in a million years. And that is what the early meetings are throwing up, great disparity. And don't throw up the "well, he can go in a L$5 won or a stand at an outer community meeting for $4.5k....prior to the new system, the '$40.5 k HWOE" was going around in an $18k MO trying to crack an 11k payout.
    Applying juvenile penalties to the past system was an easy fix but in spite of people arguing for that simple fix for years, if not decades, it never happened.

    curmudgeon, Gilgamesh likes this post.

  • GilgameshGilgamesh    4,548 posts
    So are you saying there are very few if any pref draws @JayJay ?

    I would think the dollars earned last 5 would be good for them, a 50/50 split of all races good for it IMO.

    Looking at it as a punter/spectator though you don't wont the dollars earned last 5 too low as if you start having a field with next to no form it can quickly become a non event for the punter. If you can lower the cap a little so you don't drop all the form but then "handicap" through use of a barrier draw you give the low earners a go because they draw well, the medium earners a go because they are racing out of form horses and the punters a go because there will be a bit of skill involved to find the winner.

    My one comment on the topic so far is probably more negative than I actually am on the topic. My opinion really means very little as I no longer own a share in any and I probably punt about 10% of what I once did but I still hold aspirations of one day when I am in a position to retire getting a few acres and having one or two to give me reason to get up in the morning. For that to happen I need the sport to continue.

    So for them to give change a go I actually think they need to be commended. As long as they listen to everyone's views, weigh them up logically and if ideas are assessed and not deemed adequate for change then outline why then this can be a good thing. I mean they are obviously making change with intent for the greater good.

    Again only I know Barry Hamilton from media works etc but to me his efforts to get things out to the greater public and to make himself accessible over recent years seem top notch. I heard some talk of trying to get him Kiboshed, ridiculous to me. But again I am very far from the heart beat of things so opinions may vary.

    I will say be it coincidence, just the time of year or the changes actually working we have seen some fantastic racing from GP over the last week that has sadly barely mentioned a comment on here from us foramites. I mean last night we even had some sit sprinters win, it was bloody beautiful! And some guy called Morgan Woodley drove a winner at headquarters, it was like being in the twilight zone!

    curmudgeon likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    Hi Gil, just back from a meeting at Byford with Richard Burt and Charlotte Millsplus a crossection of involved participants.....obviously, the new handicapping system was the point of the gathering. Up and back in the same day, so I am too knackered to go into detail, badly need to put the feet up .....but PBD issue was raised very strongly.....early days, we were told there would be a mix of PBD/RBD....thus far no (none) PBD's have been run....a pretty glaring mistake I think.
    There are a couple of lines of thought on L5$ won .....personally, I think $22,000 for metro is way too high......a horse with very low dollars in its last 5 runs, say $1200 either because of barrier draw, out of form or whatever finds itself up against a horse that has won $22k in its last five runs....a Metro win 11k, and 3 x 2nds at 3k each.......and the 22k winner can draw inside the the $1200 horse because of no PBD.....a stated aim of the new system was to run "like against like".....as described above is as far away from like against like as you can get. Lots of other things raised and was good of the CEO and general manager to give us some of their time by travelling out to Byford.

    Gilgamesh, curmudgeon likes this post.

  • MarkovinaMarkovina    2,732 posts
    The 2 main issues - are NZ Horses - and 3 year olds - even Australian ones - how they get in restricted races

    Now you can go back over 50 years - before NZ horses were anywhere  near plague numbers

    These were the days 2.28 were Beginners - 2.27 were Improvers  2.26 were Progressive 2.24 i tyhink were Advanced - and 2.22 were Transition -  i can remember them like the Alphabet

    Now most bred and butter 3 year olds could win 2 races 2.30 and 2.29 - and the good ones could win as many as they liked as 3 year olds - even a NSW Derby - and then as a 4 yyear old go to a Beginners - ive got no problem with that - because basically it was homebread Aust  horses

    The big problem in WA is the plague like numbers of NZ and how do you handicap them

    I dont know the ins and outs  but NSW seem to do it ok - Junee Frid night  So Kool Master in C1 with a claim 5 wins 21 placings but out of form ( ran 4th - i backed it of course - lol) - the winner had prior to the race 11 starts for 1 win ( a genuine c1) but i like that type of improverished handicapping

    curmudgeon likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    Last gasp for the night....I can understand the concessions for 2 and 3 year olds, regardless of where they were bred.....I think they are very generous in the new system but understand and can live with most of it....but a 3 year old competing in an open age race and only getting 75% of the win stake accredited to its HWOE is not on......if it races in an open age event and is good enough to win, it should cop the full whack.
    But applying concessions to 4 year olds such that the very successful 4 year old can obtain massive concessions on its HWOE is beyond belief. By winning all 3 major 4 year old races and pocketing $200,000 plus, the concessions would see only $75,000 of that $200,000 accredited to its HWOE....that is most unfair and will, into the future, not allow the much vaunted "like versus like" racing that we are being told is one of the major aims of the new system. Easily fixed......but will it be so? Night all.

    curmudgeon, Gilgamesh likes this post.

  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    2,417 posts
    edited November 2018
    You might be being a little kind there JJ .....with the issues surrounding the new handicapping system and concerns emanating from its implementation I would have thought it the responsibility of the CEO and General Manager to seek genuine well  considered feedback asap.
    Issues such as PBD were raised in the forums and largely swatted away as an anachronism......I know....I raised it on at least two occasions. Couldn't understand the negative inference toward an integral handicapping tool then and still am bemused by it now. Given the inverted pyramid of prizemoney concessions that exist in the system you could be forgiven for suspecting the total lack of RBD scheduling apart from the odd mares race is an additional tacit concession for the squeaky wheels that inhabit some industry echelons in harness racing. What do they say...."in the race of life always be on self interest because you know it is trying."
  • JayJayJayJay    7,467 posts
    Maybe, but always like to take things on face value without pre-empting outcomes, that is the way to negotiate, reach compromise with goodwill... reaching final positions that enable everyone to walk out reasonably satisfied that their case has been heard...and that is what appears to be happening.
    Just going back to your point on NZ imports @Markovina , it is true that there is a predominance of NZ horses as illustrated in Friday Night's 4yo classic....10 of the 12 have the NZ suffix after their name (and what an absolutely stellar field it is) and the Mares race has 50% of the field the same. But this is not a new phenomena, it has been going on for decades and decades, and if it wasn't NZ imports, it was NSW or Victorian horses "swamping" us.....and I'll use the Derby as an example. Back in the 1960's, Rising Scott NZ won the Derby, Master Clan NSW, Royal Force NZ, Pure Steel NSW although purchased from a yearling sale, Via Vista NZ, smooth Dave NZ, Gay Boyden NZ, Arden Meadow NZ, Tricky Vic Nz, Lord Guy NZ, Mr Yankee NZ right through to I'm Victorious, Alta Christiano, Beaudienne Boaz, Chicago Bull.....the swamping isn't a new thing and it was going on long before Rising Scott with Stratton importing Dillon Grattan etc etc. That is the nature of the industry and an open market.
  • MarkovinaMarkovina    2,732 posts
    Yes the NZ thing ( high numbers ) is probably a WA thing

    You look over east Colt Thirty One and Poster Boy  1st 2  in both NSW and Vic Derby

    Gammalite ( Terang dairy farm ) and Popular Alm - i can remember Welcome Advice the huge public interest when it sired its 1st foal - a horse called Welvan - a handy pacer . They have got a history of breeding their own

    WA - even your stories - horses of the past - people in rural WA actually bred some top horses - that seems to have fallen right away

    Im not bagging G Hall snr - but he blasted them when they 1st brought in square gaiters - he blasted them when they closed GP for track renovations

    WA is all about people who want a quid quickly - and with that money they want an instant horse - alas NZ imported pacers
Sign In or Register to comment.