Why stop shuttling? I'm all for selective line breeding (more predictable than choppy pedigrees) but sometimes one needs to branch out to bring in/strengthen up some aspects of the line. If the sire you need is in a different country then shuttling is the only way to achieve that. In show jumping it is easier because there is tightly controlled AI but that isn't allowed in thoroughbreds. I'm not sure about limiting stallion books either. The aim of breeding is to improve the breed (or should be). If the best quality stallions were restricted to 60 and poorer stallions were allowed 60 it would increase the percentage of poorer quality produce. I think that would be bad for the breed. I didn't realise they put up prices when the meeting featured a band. I thought it was just added entertainment to attract more to the races. People either want to see a band or watch racing. How many want both? It would be interesting to see how many would stay if they had to pay separately to listen to the band. .
Limiting stallions and reducing the number of offspring would decrease fixtures due to lack of available runners. This would exclude thousands of people who want to be owners and would reduce bookmaker income which in turn would lead to a massive reduction in the levy.
It's not right to limit stallions covering numbers as this goes against market forces. The key is allowing market forces to operate for the courses. The sport is popular and people do want to go racing as if you look at any decent meeting it will be busy and the festivals like York this week will be packed. We simply need stop allowing unprofitable courses to be propped up by bookmakers which will reduce meetings, allow those courses that do have support to flourish even more and prevent the worst horses finding a race which in time will eliminate this bottom rung which is the part everyone complains about. Market forces are simply nature for business and the weakest areas do not survive whist the stronger ones get stronger. Just as a basic example a course should need be able to guarantee it can provide 6 races with a minimum value of £6000 to the per race, broken down £4k to the winner, £1.5k to the r/u and £500 the third. If it cannot it is not awarded the fixture, this is a fairly low limit to begin with and will wipe out some nonsense all weather cards along with the worst of the weaker meetings. It means a course needs provide at least £36k in prize money per meeting. This will have a small culling effect at a stroke, once the effect could be measured we could raise it to £8k per race which is where I feel it should be. This would leave us with a sport in about 5 years time with less meetings, less horses, less trainers but one of strength where the courses are strong businesses and the horses running for acceptable prize money. It is hard to argue that a horse should receive less than £4k for winning any race. I understand this will have an impact on the industry with regard jobs etc but this has to be the case as otherwise the industry will kill itself anyway as the product is weakened and weakened to nothing but bookie and gambler fodder, It is a great sport with a rich history and enthralling narratives and it deserves to be so much more than that.
My biggest concern about your proposal Blue (not that I disagree with it in principle) is the knock on affect on horses. Over time it will naturally cut down on the breeding of lower class thoroughbreds but I worry what will happen to the lower quality horses in the meantime, and even subsequently regarding those horses that don't "make the grade". Which is why, on BBC 606, I floated the idea of past time racing (ie courses where owners can take their beloved horses for a fun day out with prize money funded by entries and local sponsors. This happens in dog racing (eg afghan hound racing), show jumping, and I think pony racing. Basically introducing a new level of the sport. Such events would not find there way into the sports papers "runners" and there would be no legalised betting. Reports/articles in local papers and equestrian magazines would be the limit of publication.
Just there are too many horses being bred and the gene pool is being swamped by the blood of popular stallions. For instance far too much Northern Dancer blood. Some of Frankel's foals will have as many a 6-7 crosses in the first five removes. This is not good for the future of the breed. When we had books limited to 40 covers there were enough racehorses. Are there more fixtures now? There are less racecourses than there were in the 1960s and 1970s. Haydock Park usually charge around £14 for an evening or midweek meeting. On Soul Night in September it is £32 for all enclosures. I wanted to go to Haydock, it is my local course, but £32 for a low grade card is too much, I am not interested in the Soul Night, I would want to get home after the races not stand around on a chilly racecourse listening to tribute bands. Racecourses such as these are alienating their loyal audiences and only attracting new people on an occasional, one off basis.
Something needs changing in the breeding game - under the current set up we have a plethora of grade 6 handicappers and almost always single figure fields in Group 1 races. The way things are done at the moment is dominated by greed (what Bluesky politely calls market forces) with breeders taking the scattergun approach - breed as many as you can in the hope that one will turn out to be a nugget. No idea what the answer is though.
Saw some really interesting stuff on an overview of racing up to 2008. It's obviously a bit dated, but one point that stood out was the return to racing off gambling. At the time, the UK punter popped 12 million pounds into the game, to make it the second highest behind Japan in global rankings. But whereas Japan kicked back 5.3% to racing, the UK received just 1%. The USA and France pumped about 8% into the coffers. You guys are better placed when it comes to assessing the bookie problems, but it seems to me that a tote is not so bad an idea. Although I know a lot of folk detest the thought, it would help heaps. Racing is a huge business in the UK, it reaches deeply into society and any culling of the race programs will cut a painful swathe into many lives. In 2012 there were 8,215 owners supporting 13,716 racehorses. The direct, indirect and associated employment in 2012 was 85,200 and was the second most attended sport.
I certainly agree that we don't want line breeding to be so close it becomes inbreeding which is why we need to out-cross now and again and why I wouldn't want to restrict the range of stallions to be used. I don't know what it is like in thoroughbreds but in show jumping (at least, in France) stallions are graded. One grade allows one to use the sire on one's own horses and a full licence allows mares from elsewhere. Relatively few obtain full licences in any year. I think mares should be graded also. Note grading is not based on results; it's based on a panel of experts judging the horse for conformation, temperament and jumping ability and style. This might help with your proposal to restrict breeding without quality suffering. Performance should also be taken into account. Looks like 11 tracks closed since 1960. Didn't seem to have much effect. We now have (I think) 58 tracks, 24 NH, 18 Flat and 16 Mixed Disgusting. I agree 100%. Can only deter true race loving folk
That's about it isn't it Cyc. Princess once published some actual numbers on how much is pumped back into racing and it was frightening. France and USA put UK to shame. What's it like in Australia? In France, compared to UK, the entrance fees (and parking) are so cheap, sometimes free, and the access to paddocks etc included. Free buses from train station to course on Arc day (haven't been anywhere else). To get the money back in, whilst allowing price competition among bookies, maybe France could achieve that by introducing competition whist maintaining the central control. Due to their starting point it would be much easier for them to introduce an element of competition than it would be for UK to introduce central control. But I think that is the only way the money will get squeezed out of the bookies. Basically a subset of PMUs with freedom to offer fixed odds. Not thought through but maybe a concept worth considering. Yes it would require managing over time. But if there is a vision of where we will be in (say) 5 years with a phased implementation it would at least give people time to adjust. It shouldn't be much worse than people losing jobs in any loss making business.
Ron, the corporate bookie is little more than a legal thief. Their returns to racing are minimal at best. I'm sure you in the Northern Hemisphere are well of this. In Victoria and NSW, for the season 2012/13, they returned 80 million dollars from a 5 billion dollar turn over. The combined total from these two TABs turned over 9 billion, but the returns were a much healthier 567 million. Australia is up to it's arm pits in racing clubs. The best info I could find on the subject said that we have somewhere around 360 race clubs. Even in our off season, in NSW alone they still promote some 50 meetings per week. Of course few of these get TAB coverage, but I think all receive funding from Tote returns. There is a massive amount of money in racing here. Despite the country only having 23 million people, Australia is in the top three when it comes to horses bred, Group racing, prize money and races run. The USA and Japan usually fill the other two spots, with France also chipping in on occasion. All four countries mentioned are heavily propped up by a totalisator of one type or another. Racing here has saturation problems which affect those at the end of the food chain. No matter how well a system is set up, and I'm not suggesting that the Australian model is without problems, the desires of man will in the end, over load the structure. People love racing and want to be a part of it. Back yard breeders are all over the place, syndication is rampant. Advertising fills us with the thrill of it all. We don't want to think about the ugliness that can come with the sport or the economic struggles that can accompany the participation. "Bugger that, I just want to be part of it all, I want that good horse." Sadly, that seldom happens. The end result being that the sport buries itself deeper and deeper in mediocrity. Still, a heap of people are employed, and huge revenues are added to the treasury coffers through the myriad of offshoot industries that get to suckle from the racing breast.
This thread is warming up. Keep it going. Maybe we should invite Timeform to read it. They did ask for views from race goers.
Corruption and the way the BHA handle people who have been proven to be guilty of corruption. Take the example of a jockey returning last week to the sport, and compare that against those guilty of spot fixing in Cricket. One gets pushed down criminal proceedings, the other gets a slapped wrist and no convictions and ability to return to racing. Then we have issues such as the Godolphin issue that got covered up with an internal investigation, and racing looks to be in the dark ages. I am sorry to say that I have fallen out of love with flat racing completely, and it may also feel the same with the jumps, I am just fed up of the way the lifeblood of the sport are treated, its disdain from all sides. The BHA, the courses and the bookmakers are all leaving the paying punter to suffer, in the shadow of those who don't really care, those going on stag do's, or going to gigs at the racing. I also see it getting worse if the BHA do what I expect and promote from within when Bittar finally goes.
It is clear that the racecourses need to "think out of the box" in order to attract more people through the gates to enure they stay in the black. Southwell had a crowd of over 8000 on Sunday for a summer jumps meeting which they headlined as ladies day. They had 7 races on the card, the poorest in terms of winning prize money was 2.6K but the feature handicap chase paid 14.6K to the winner. To me that is an example of what CAN be done to put on a good days racing for a healthy crowd with good competitive races whilst (hopefully) turning a nice profit. No need to resort to pop concerts or other rubbish. Well done to the course executive for pulling that off.
BTW I found this site very interesting: http://aes.hblb.org.uk/index.php/attendances/summaries Allows you to slice and dice racecourse attendances, some really interesting numbers in there. For instance, Kempton averages around 800 for a winter all-weather meeting but nearly 19000 on King George day. Newbury's biggest crowd is usually for the Hungerford / Geoffrey Freer stakes day (last Saturday) NOT for the Hennessy. Biggest single attendance is usually between Aintree on National Day, Cheltenham on Gold Cup day and the Saturday of Royal Ascot (all 3 pushing 70000 currently, although Saturday at Ascot used to be the biggest day with well above 70000 most years from 2008-2012 as far as I can tell).
Try this, bookmaker and paying punter attendance comparison per meeting 2012 and 2013 http://www.agt-ltd.co.uk/data/documents/503-Bookmaker Attendances by Racecourse 2013 vs 2012.pdf
Very interesting Grizzly - I think 20 at Wolverhampton was the lowest ratio I spotted. Supports the argument that certain meetings are only there for the bookies.
Quite so. Lord Stevens conducted the inquiry which absolved Sheikh Mo...despite the fact he never actually spoke to the Sheikh himself. Stevens is a consultant to the FEI of which the Sheikh's second wife is president...he is essentially a de facto employee of Sheikh Mohammed. Scandalous how he exonerated the head of Godolphin despite Sheikh Mo's previous bans for doping/cheating in the endurance "sport" field...the eldest of the Sheikh's vast litter, who owns most of Mark Johnston's inmates,also has mulitiple doping bans in the endurance arena. Godolphin are clearly out of reach of any jurisdiction and are aware of that situation.
Just a rhetorical question Dex, but if the BHA did ban Sheikh Mo and (by association) his extended family from British racing, surely that would have a disastrous effect on the sport? There is the old saying about not biting the hand that feeds and, although I find it as appalling as you do, surely that is the position the BHA has to take here? Maybe not though - they fell out with the Aga Khan and (as far as I know) he still has no horses in training in Britain. Mind you, Sheikh Mohammed's operation is a different order of magnitude ........................
Far from it, I think it would have rejuvenated the sport in the UK, the gap it would have left would have been filled by others. Lets face it, Godolphin might be big, but they aren't the best with breeding and training racehorses are they?
