Is Racing Structurally Unfair?

Since becoming ( rather unenthusiastically ) an owner once again one of the issues which has really struck me this time around is the unfair nature of many of our racecourses.

I mention this primarily because of the spin put out by those with vested interests in the sport/business -

From a punting persepective I am advised that this is a pure mind game - requiring the 'player' ( or 'handicapper' if you have developed some skill ) with an opportunity to assess all relevant conditions and have a wager on the back of those conclusions.

Part of that process almost immediately reveals that there is precious little about about racing on the majority of South African racecourses that can be labelled as fair.

I have not assessed each course in detail but, purely from the perspective of barrier position, an owner is effectively wasting very expensive time and resources competing at the following venues :

Durbanville - Virtually the entire course is a write off unless you draw low.This course is a joke and embarrassment to the top horses - particularly gallopers.

Kenilworth - the 1400, 1600, 2200 & 2400 all seem pretty hopeless from a wide draw although the longer distances do offer the runner the opportunity to slot in and come from behind.

Now the 1200m straight appears to have gone wonky with characteristics normally only seen in winter making a sham of the sprints. I note there has been no comment from course management.

Greyville - 1000m - 1600 m pretty much the kiss of death if you draw wide.

Clairwood - 1450 still a bit iffy but at least they gave up on the old 1400 start. 2400 m start also a shocker although no longer (?) used.

Scottsville - A little difficult to tell but its lack of popularity suggests its not that great.

The Big T - how clever is it that they build a new course so we now have 1200 m races starting on a bend? Am I missing something?

Apart from that Jhb's flagship course seems almost unbelievably equitable when compared to options elsewhere in the country- although some might argue over the 1400 - 1600 metre starts.

Given the above - which may not be deadly accurate - as an owner you are left with the feeling that opportunities to race your horses COMPETITIVELY will, on average, prove to be quite few and far between.

( Which reminds me how fair Newmarket appeared to be......sorry but I had to bring that up again! ).

Taking into account the dramatic impact that a bad draw is likely to have at many of the courses mentioned above I am prompted to pose the following question :

How come somebody has not challenged the clubs to compensate for wide draws? As ridiculous as this may sound a 16 draw over the Kenilworth mile will, under perfect circumstances, probably require the horse to run, say, 1605 metres from start to finish. Given that many races produce finishes of half a length or less this 5 metre handicap is very material.

Looked at from another viewpoint - I would be warned off for taking weight out of my saddlebag but I must voluntarily give my competitors 5 metres start if drawn on the outers!

Furthermore - why do we continue to rely solely on a random draw for barrier positions? As most horses are moderate a succession of wide draws could deny a horse a merited win for months. How many horses in the Western Cape miss qualifying for the summer classics due to a succession of poor draws? Why this insistence on the 'lottery factor' when we are supposed to be trying to identify the better animals.

At the very least I would like to see the following :

Barrier positions : As it might be both hazardous and impractical to have staggered starts to make up for the distance differential surely horses drawn beyond a certain position should be compensated with a small weight reduction?

Alternatively on each occasion that a horse draws beyond midway ( 8? ) it should acquire a bonus points to be exercised at the discretion of the trainer at a future date. On the first occasion that he gets a draw of 8 or wider a single bonus point is accumulated. On the second successive occasion 3 points. On the third successive occasion 5 points etc.

Should a good draw then be acquired the bonus points are scrapped immediately. If another wide draw occurs then the trainer may cash in and deduct the bonus points from the barrier position drawn :

eg Draw 12 minus 4 bonus points = 8 etc., This system might also assist in preparation as a trainer would know that under certain conditions his WORST possible barrier position would be X.

This system should average out well over time and ensure that nobody is permanently prejudiced by a succession of almost unbelievably poor draws.

What does the clan think?

Well Garrick, that was some food for thought!

I suppose my first question would be, does this happen anywhere else in the planet?

Yes I have often heard and been told "bad draw will have to scratch". so its a serious problem and yes Newmarket and Germiston etc have gone!

So, the staggered start, could not really work, apart from the danger? the times would be strange.

The extra weight for bad draws, would also make it a bit complicated.

I would favour if anything the better horses, getting the better draws on graded scheme rather than a lucky draw.

Best solution imvho, more races, smaller fields, and any future layouts or modifications to current tracks look closely what can be done to level the playing fields.

I would say that starting stalls are struturally unfair.

Hi Catsmug,

My immediate thought was staggered stalls although this MIGHT prompt a rush from the outside with the effect of baulking quite badly the horses with a lower draw. However - If a 'keep straight' rule for 200m was ruthlessly imposed it could work.

Unfortunately any rule requiring enforcement seems to meet with resistance or a shrug and 'I wasn't there to enforce it last Tuesday' approach.

We must remember that most race courses were 'designed' in an era where there were no starting stalls. So these are 'after the event' additions to the sport which appear not to have received much attention.

Given the fact that racing people are not averse to running off to the Supreme Court I am actually quite surprised that the connections of a wide drawn horse narrowly beaten in a major event have not objected on the basis that they were required to traverse a greater distance!

Imagine, for example, an Olympic 400 metres where they started in a straight line. That arrangement wouldn't last for long.

Garrick, you have hit the nail on the head.

Everytime I am interviewed and asked about racing on So Africa, I say that the biggest detriment to the game in the unfair impact of the draws. It is absurd.

The best race courses in Europe, where the Classics are run, have draws that do not impact the outcome of the races: The Curragh, Newmarket and Longchamp.

Turffontein is the only one with half a chance in all of So Africa.

Here is the solution (although I like Catsmug's idea of putting the gate at an angle, which I would have suggested had he not done so):

Since so few people show up to the races and most do their wagering on TV, reconfigure the courses in such a way as to provide for a fairer layout and the actual point of the finish line be damned.

Racing is about trying to figure out who the best horses are, not to provide fodder for horseplayers. Given a good contest, horseplayers will respond.

Your biggest races are handicaps and are basically unfair as well. All of the truly big races should be held under true, level weight-for-age, with no penalties.

No Grade 1 sprints should be contested around a bend.

Guineas races should be started at a point that no horse has an edge.

Ja definitely the start at our racecourses needs to be reconfigured..those starts on the bend as you mention Garrik are ridiculous..they need to take as much "luck" out of racing as they can as some owners are not punters and therefore rely on the stakes to cover costs..each horse should theoretically be given a chance to win

I know that some courses have 2 winning lines - maybe Turffies 3/16ths apart??

I would have to say that the Kenilworth (new course) has proven to be very fair in races over a mile and more. Results in big races show that the draw has little impact on results.

I suppose the expression "luck of the draw" implies that there are times when who goes first or which side you get just has to be accepted, but I'll grant you it's a bitter pill when you get the short straw.

Catsmug, I agree with your reasoning...stalls at an angle.

One just needs to look at the way althletes get positioned at the start, when they compete around a circular track.

Agreed, that they need to stay in their respective lanes, but the whole idea is to level the playing field, so you don't have a top athlete using up energy to overcome a bad starting position.

We do see, what a bad draw, can do to a good horse, so what chance does an average horse have from a bad draw.

While on the subject, can anyone enlighten me as to how the draws get done (exclude graded races, where there is transparency and write-ups)

The Vaal race course also gives every runner an equal chance as far as draws go. Although I sympathise with owners getting bad draws, the shoe is on the other foot when you crack a good draw... and that is why we have false rails in this country. In the UK there are also tracks where the draw is paramount...and they do not have false rails (Lingfield and Southwell to name just two)