Good racecourse drainage for good racing: John Jeffs

by Brian de Lore
Published 30 November 2019

The art of racecourse management goes mostly unnoticed until something goes wrong, and then all hell can break loose.

And then you get a season in which 24 meetings are lost to weather and track conditions, and the question arises – how many could have been saved with better resources and a bit more know how?

There is, perhaps, no-one in Australasia with more experience in fixing grass racecourses than 75-year-old retired racecourse manager John Jeffs who last week reflected on his lengthy and highly successful career of maintaining grass surfaces and keeping them in the best of condition to produce the best racing.

Jeffs was at the Karaka Ready To Run Sale assisting with the marketing of the Diamond Lodge draft, one of 17 sales he has attended this year on behalf of various vendors as ‘the marketer,’ a role perfect for the man who knows everyone in racing, has personality plus and instant recall on pedigrees and racehorses.

Sydney Turf Club Chairman and Tyreel Stud owner, the late Jim Fleming,  talked Jeffs into the retirement role in 1998 and he’s been doing it ever since. And you don’t keep doing something like that for that length of time unless you’re good at it – but it was turf management that made Jeffs famous during his primary career.

“Drainage is the key, and that’s what we did in the old days,” explained Jeffs. “Gordon McVeigh at Ellerslie was also a great man for drainage, and when I took over Rosehill it was widely known as the worst wet weather track in Australia.”

“We spent a fortune on both Canterbury and Rosehill and turned them into the best-wet weather tracks in Australia, if not the world. You can drain a rice paddy field if you want to and if you do it right, it will work. You can drain anything, even a swamp.”

Draining the swamp is another story for another day. But as racing people debate the pros and cons of synthetic tracks, StrathAyr grass installations and drainage while also considering climate change and what the future holds, the John Jeff’s voice of experience is well worth an ear.

The Cowra born Jeffs began his career in 1972 at Rosehill and learned the art from people like the legendary George Johnson at Randwick and even our own Gordon McVeigh at Ellerslie. Jeffs says, “I don’t profess to know it all, but I do know that’s its 95 percent common sense, and only five percent theory and what works practically is what you stick with.”

Jeffs spent 17 years looking after the Sydney Turf Club courses of Rosehill and Canterbury before the Jockey Club in Hong Kong lured him to the colony in 1989 where he was course manager for five years, overseeing the installation of Sha Tin’s StrathAyr grass surface in 1990.

And in light of the Auckland Racing Club’s recent decision to go for drainage over an expensive StrathAyr, Jeffs just might be agreeing with them:

“I don’t say that StrathAyr doesn’t work – it works, but it works at a cost, says Jeffs. “People would phone me from all over the world about StrathAyr – USA, South Africa, Asia, Australia and I would try and be as honest and helpful as I could.

“I had to warn them that the upkeep and maintenance was the issue, not the track. The RHKJC could afford it – they had an unlimited budget. I’ve been home from Hong Kong a long time now, 20 years in fact, but in those days it was seven to eight times the cost of a conventional track.”

So what makes StrathAyr work in Jeffs’ opinion and why are we losing so many meetings to dangerous conditions after rain – the question was posed to Jeffs:

“StrathAyr works and what does the job is the sand in the correct proportion. To my mind looking after racecourses has gone backwards – we lived on the principle that it was 75% soil and 25% sand – the sand gives you the draining characteristics.

“Looking after tracks is not a perfect science, but we have lost the old original tracks. As I said, in my day it was 75/2, but today they have 25% soil and 75% sand – some are worse, as high as 10/90. What it has done has taken the uniformity out of the tracks.

“In Australia, they have to water courses and get them to a Dead 4 in the hope they’ll be a Good3 on race morning – Caulfield on Caulfield Cup day was a disaster – they tell me many horses left the course lame. It was just too hard.”

As a racing journalist in Sydney in the 1970s in Randwick’s heyday, witnessing the clashes of greats like Triton and Gunsynd who fought out their titanic Doncaster and Epsom Handicap battles on a racing surface then described as the best in the world, why was it now so different now?

”Randwick was renowned for its drainage and beautiful cushion of grass explained Jeffs. “It was built on pure white sand but over the years they removed all the sand, sealed it all off and introduced all these foreign types of soils from other locations and when they firm they firm like a brick., Randwick was the best in George’s day.

“George Johnson was legendary, and a great mentor to me – George had a sump system at Randwick down near the old ledger, and at times after a tropical storm there might be a foot of water covering the track. He would locate his sump plug under bricks beneath the surface of the track, and when they removed the bricks it was like pulling the plug in a bath.

“Melbourne has problems because they have gone sand mad,” continued Jeffs, “- too much sand. Now they have to water their tracks overnight or on race morning to make them forgiving – that’s not fair.

“The recent Melbourne Cup carnival was awful as far as the tracks were concerned. The first day had a bias, and on Melbourne Cup day they left the rail in the true position and every winner pretty much on the day came through on the fence. Then they moved it out for the Thursday and Saturday.

“Gordon McVeigh’s tracks were real tracks – has Ellerslie been as good since Gordon? – I don’t think so. McVeigh used the roller between races as I always did – it helped to put the divets back in addition to having 20-25 people replacing divets – and now no one rolls the tracks between races.”

Times have changed all aspects of racing, and through Jeffs’ eyes and experience, advancements in turf management have not always produced improvements:

“The jury is still out on synthetic tracks, but there’s a very good one in Canberra. It’s called a Thoroughtrack. Warwick Farm also has a good synthetic training track, but they have still experienced problems. There are three types of synthetic tracks; the main two being Polytrack and Proride.

“Today track managers go to conferences to listen to the academics, and that’s the problem. Too many academics having too much say. Academia has infiltrated everywhere – it’s now running racing, but we need to get back to the grassroots if you excuse the pun.

“What happened at Eagle Farm is that they appeared to use the wrong shape of sand. It wasn’t cohesive enough because sand grains are all different shapes and the best analogy is to look at a beach – you walk along the beach and where is the best place to walk?  Down by the water where all the fines go – they are filtered down to the water, and the course sand stays higher. Every time the tide comes in its filtering sand. It’s the shape of the sand – and any geologist will tell you that – but I’m not a guru, I’m a practical man.

“Course sand also has its place – take a track like Bathurst or Orange – they would spread it slowly and evenly, and that was giving the track a platform to grow the grass through.

“I used to get my staff at Rosehill and Canterbury to spread course river sand in the areas the horses would jump from the barrier – sprayit on and in the following weeks we’d do it again and it was building a platform that the grass could grow through and wasn’t cutting the track out.

“Sand slitting really helps – we did a lot of it – Te Rapa has done it correctly and is said to be one of the best all-weather tracks. Avondale is good because it’s a conventional track and the drainage has been done properly – it takes the surface water away but not every bit of moisture.

“In my opinion, Kikuyu grass is the best grass for racetracks if you can get it to grow. I tried to get it to grow in Hong Kong but couldn’t – it’s a native of South Africa. It needed diurnal temperature variation so it can switch off and sleep, but in Hong Kong, it didn’t get that variation – too hot all the time.

“We got it to grow, but as soon as you put it out on the track, it would die fairly quickly.

“Moonee Valley had the best Kikuyu which was near where the commentator used to say ‘up by the school,’ but they took it out and introduced some other varieties – some university graduate who would say ‘this other grass is what you should be using.’

“I’d love to be 20 years younger, and I would come to New Zealand and help out with these problem tracks – I don’t want to be the man in charge anymore, but I am always happy to give some advice if it was wanted. But if I went somewhere, it would be one ship and only one captain.”

Transparency and accountability badly needed

by Brian de Lore
Published 8 November 2017

If our new Racing Minister Winston Peters keeps his promise and sweeps a wide broom through racing administration and the Racing Act is dismantled and rebuilt, the facility for complete transparency and accountability to the stakeholders must be adopted.

Racing doesn’t operate like usual businesses in that the stakeholders are not bona fide shareholders and in reality have no say in their destiny. The administration of racing began in the first instance with the appointment of racing people who came from within the industry but also had administrative skills.

It’s fair to say that for many years they did a very good job, although racing like every other business has had its share of ups and downs. But when the Racing Act of 2003 was passed, few could have envisaged our administration would grow horns and develop into the monster it has become today.

Once it was administered from one office in Wellington with a staff of around 20 people, and the TAB came into being when racing clubs got together to set up this new betting platform for the benefit of racing. Time lends enchantment but let’s not get nostalgic – we have to deal with what we have today and where we are heading.

It’s been only a few weeks since the election, and our Racing Minister has been relatively quiet; understandably so given that as well as being the Deputy Prime Minister he is also Minister of Foreign Affairs and this week, for instance, has gone overseas to attend the APEC conference in Vietnam.

Peters wasn’t available for any comments pre-departure, but the NZ First racing spokesman Clayton Mitchell did speak to The Informant to convey what progress they had made. He said that Peters understood the urgency for racing concerning the Racefields legislation and they would have liked to have achieved something before the Christmas parliament adjournment, but that was now looking very unlikely.

Mitchell explained that with the protocols required for a new, incoming government and other matters deemed more urgent than racing, the five and a half weeks in which Parliament would sit would not allow time for further progress.

Eliminate January and February, and March is the earliest we can expect action. Rest assured it will happen as fast as Peters can make it happen and the importance of it happening fast is that it will alleviate the debt this business is racking up through NZRB borrowing $24 million for increased stake-money over this and next season.

Australia has had Racefields legislation for years, and annually it returns in the order of A$160 million in actual prize-money. Racing and Wagering Western Australia (RWWA) runs a similar sized business to the NZRB and gains between A$27 million and A$30 million annually from Racefields. South Australia gains more than A$30 million.

One source says that after three years of Racefields in New Zealand, the return could be around $20 million annually to our stakes. Add that to the savings that could be made through a restructured NZRB administration, which is blatantly top heavy and extravagant, and racing could get back to an economically sound footing – as Winston Peters says, ‘decent stakes for the owners’.

Anyone who has been in business knows that you can’t always control your income, but costs are completely controllable. The problem with the NZRB is that while they claim to be transparent in their dealings and their Statement of Intent (SOI) always claims they are cost-cutting, there is no real evidence to back it up.

Look at this excerpt from the most recent SOI: “…NZRB’s underlying operating costs are reducing by $200,000 over the past year, with a significant reduction in staff expenses. Operating costs are budgeted to reduce by a further $500,000 in 2017/18. It’s an ongoing focus area with further initiatives being progressed to minimise future growth in operating costs.”

Does it need to be pointed again that the operating costs last year were $205 million, so reducing them by $500,000 is hardly significant, even if that budgeted figure is achieved without any creative accounting? Then we have last week’s announcement that the NZRB has appointed a new five-person team to ‘manage our communication and engagement with our government and industry stakeholders.’

What the hell! The NZRB already has 488 employees, and now we have more? And for what – communications. In the press release, it stated that one of the appointments was for four years the Ministerial advisor to former Racing Minister Nathan Guy and therefore he understood racing – Guy was the minister who sat on his hands with the Racefields legislation for years and contributed little to racing.

Another appointee worked in Parliament for Bill English for six years, and yet another formerly worked with John Allen at the post office. The five-person appointment which reeks of more National Party nepotism is very well summed by journalist Mary Burgess in her blog entitled ‘More climb aboard the NZRB gravy train.’

In my most recent communication with NZRB CEO John Allen, I expressed scepticism about the NZRB’s ability to make the FOB platform work financially after spending $30 million to build it and then having to pay a further $17 million annually in running costs – presumably there is an on-going commission to be paid to Paddy Power.

Allen declined the request to show any figures as to how he arrived at the projected profit of the FOB in the first year of $11.6 million andthe second year of $17.4 million, citing the sensitive nature of such information to the TAB’s competitors. What competitors?

The TAB doesn’t have any competitors domestically, unlike Tabcorp has in Australia with a plethora of bookmaking companies operating. With no bookmakers in New Zealand, the TAB has the whole market, and as Allen pointed out, they have no interest in selling the FOB offshore. Its success is based solely on increasing their margin by recruiting more punters at home through sports betting and then converting them to racing.

The problem for racing is that the net return on sports betting is only two percent, whereas betting on horses across all the exotics and the pari-mutuel tote returns racing 15 percent. In other words, horse racing turnover of $1 million will return racing the same profit margin that a sports turnover of $7 million will return.

Having to get extra profit just to cover the $17 million running costs, and then achieve the objective to recruit sports bettors to be converted to racing seems to be akin to a plot you would find in a Jules Verne novel. The required increase in TAB turnover must be astronomical – and remember that we are living in times when most businesses are happy to retain their margins and reduce costs as a path to success.

On page 57 of the 2015-16 NZRB annual report, under Turnover Related Expenses, there appears a figure of $7,519,000 for advertising and promotions. Upon enquiring as to how that expense was incurred a brief breakdown of ‘the spend’ was supplied in an email. Requesting more detail, a second email informed that the information could be supplied only under the Official Information Act (OIA).

The reason for the interest in this figure was based solely upon being told by a reliable source that a $1 million Joseph Parker fight promotion conducted by the TAB has delivered only a small return. The cost of such promotions comes under turnover-related expenses, which in the last annual report amounted to $66,436,000 and which when added to the year’s operating expenses of $138,751,000 produced the total expenses for the year of $205,187,000.

Every dollar spent by the NZRB on expenses that doesn’t yield a return is a dollar that’s not coming back to the three codes for prize-money distribution and other dire needs such as infrastructure investment. And if the $1 million spent on a fight promotion which is essentially racing’s money, and the potential return is only two percent net back to racing, then racing stake-holders might consider that a very poor investment – and remember that for racing to benefit the sports betting fans then have to be converted to racing.