Today I read Tony Morris' column in the January edition of Thoroughbred Owner Breeder, and it reminded me that two of the topics which have been simmering away while I haven't been doing much blogging have been 'street racing' and 'team racing'. I think that we've touched upon these previously; and regular readers probably could work out that I'm inclined to be sceptical about both. Tony is such a good writer and, predictably, he has summed up the pros and cons of street racing more succinctly than I could have done. "So what do we need to recruit more fans to our sport? We certainly don't need street racing, which will antagonise more people than it will attract".
I couldn't have put it better myself. I don't know that I'd be as adamant about team racing as Tony is, but even so I feel that he's probably got this one right too. "If the BHA sanctions the crackpot scheme for a series of team races next summer, it will merely confirm that it has totally lost the plot". As I understand it, the idea of team racing is that for eight consecutive Thursdays there will be an evening card consisting of very valuable 0-90 handicaps, with the only horses eligible being those previously allocated to a team.
I think that we've covered this previously, but basically if the 12 teams are the 12 biggest stables, or even the 12 biggest owners, then this wouldn't even deserve to get off the drawing board. I could hardly think of a more divisive move, of a move more likely to cause widespread dissatisfaction, than one which creates a large pool of extra prize money for which one is only eligible if one has one's horse in one of the dozen biggest stables. Its only hope is to be as inclusive, as regards its spread of stables and owners, as possible - or, alternatively, if each race which is held is mirrored by an identical one open to all qualifying horses who are not a member of one of the teams.
Think that that sounds ludicrous? Well, no more so (less so, in fact) than the situation which had to be applied when Newmarket wanted to stage a race for grey horses a few years ago (which it has been doing annually ever since then, and which was and is a very good idea). Unbelievably, our overlords (not the BHA, I would imagine, as this was a while ago - probably the BHB might have been in charge at that time) decided that this would be discriminatory against horses who aren't grey, so what was decided was that, if there was going to be a race for grey horses on the Saturday afternoon, the Friday evening card must contain a race with conditions identical apart from the stipulation that it was for horses registered as being any colour other than grey.
It could work. Couldn't it? Prize money galore for horses rated up to and including 90. We could get used to that. And we'd probably have to get used to seeing horses rated in the low 90s (and high 80s) finishing unplaced in their races shortly before the series starts.
3 comments:
not often I totally disagree with you John but having spent a while a long time ago (pre Shergar Cup inception) in a long correspondence with then supremo Peter Savill about this very subject i think there is mileage in this but i dont particularly like the current idea
The idea we were discussing was a season end affair whereby the top twelve teams in terms of numerical winners we felt prize money even then weighted too heavily towards the bigger stables and winners would reward the regular all weather stables (at the time we were discussing the end of the all weather season) would compete in a mixed series of races for a large overall price fund on the day .
so the idea was a finals night of say eight races where each of the top twelve stables would enter a horse , the races were to be over a series of distances , age groups, handicaps and non handicaps
points would be awarded for all places , i think we were looking at 25 for winning down to 1 for 12th place
each stable had 1 jockey and 1 apprentice (who for the evening would be "attached to the stable) the jockey would be down to ride six races the apprentice two which would be nominated by the team captain (trainer) he could also bring in the apprentice once in the event to ride for double points beyond their initial two mounts - I realise with the benefit of hindsight youd probably need to have substitutes in the event of riders or horses being injured/ withdrawn
the idea was there would be limited (normal level) prize money for each individual race but the bulk of the money would go to the winning stable with a proviso that it was split 40% to the winning stables staff , 40% to the trainer 10% to each of the riders
it never floated as PS preferred the Shergar Cup option but I feel even now that this idea has far more mileage than the current offering and would like to see some racecourse maybe try it as their season end event
any thoughts john
i'm with John, I am so against any form of "team" racing as it is the antithesis of what racing is all about
restricting races to the top X number of stables is feeding those who need it less
the most obvious initiative to increase racing popularity would be to charge less at the gate
Happy new year to you all hope you have a great one with plenty of winners
Post a Comment