Month: September 2020

The Pattern is the measuring stick by which the quality of performances of all thoroughbreds around the world are assessed, both for international and domestic comparisons and the continuation of the breed. But the introduction of sweepstakes type races has created division and put the Pattern under threat. John Messara AM has thought long and hard about its history, the introduction of races like The Everest and the future of the Pattern. He expresses his thoughts in this paper. – Brian de Lore

by John Messara
Published 18 September 2020

The Spring stakes racing program, now upon us, provides a series of escalating tests of class – collectively known as the Pattern – that deeply engage me as a sports fan who wants to see the best thoroughbreds, jockeys and trainers not only identified, but also put under pressure by competing against each other.

As the season goes on, I build up vital information about individual horses, how they compare with their peers and how they measure up against horses of previous seasons.

That information helps turn my early views about stallions, broodmares and their progeny into proper assessments based on evidence I can trust. Those assessments feed into decision making, which in turn drives our participation in the sport and investment in the industry.

Importantly, the Pattern over the years has also proved to be a valuable tool in the programming of progressive horses with options of upper and lower paths to Group 1 glory.

Leading US racing journalist the late Kent Hollingsworth said it best when he wrote in The Blood-Horse in 1974, as the international Pattern was beginning to take shape:

“Because to improve the breed, to upgrade a broodmare band, to select a stallion, to understand a catalogue page, to evaluate a family – one must be able to recognize racing class.”

That seems like a self-evident truth to me yet, forty-six years later, the Pattern is threatened in Australia and around the world by a mind-set that under-values the quest for racing excellence – for me, the ultimate Key Performance Indicator – in favour of prizemoney, wagering and entertainment KPIs.  In my view none of these four objectives is necessarily incompatible with the others.    

The Pattern itself was introduced as an innovative solution that would help the industry respond to the changing demands of modern racing.

There is evidence to show that Pattern Committees can facilitate innovation in race development and programming, when racing administrators see it as a valuable and flexible asset, not a set-in-concrete impediment to progress.  

I find myself in agreement with Brian Kavanagh, Chief Executive of Horse Racing Ireland and Chairman of the European Pattern Committee, in his address to the 38^th Asian Racing Conference earlier this year:

“Innovation is good and should be welcomed and encouraged, but it must be within a controlled environment, such as that run by the European and other Pattern Committees, and should be based on the strategic objective of improving the breed of horses or improving the race programme within a particular region.”

Mr Kavanagh went on to point to recent developments in the fillies’, sprinters’ and stayers’ programme in Europe, and support for end-of-season championships in Britain, France and Ireland.

“They were all introduced following detailed discussion and, importantly, unanimous agreement between the European Pattern countries. And further afield, innovations such as the Dubai World Cup, the expanded Breeders’ Cup programme, the Championships programme in Sydney and the upgraded Hong Kong international races programme have all been accommodated within the Pattern races of those regions.”

Progress towards consistent racing standards

A major difficulty emerged soon after the introduction of the Pattern: how to establish consistent international racing standards, so a Group 1 race in Ireland, South Africa or Australia would be of a similar standard to a Group 1 race in Japan, the United States or Brazil. A consolidated world-wide Pattern remains elusive, although progress has been made in the past decade.

What is now called the World Rankings Supervisory Committee first published international classifications of the best British, Irish and French horses in 1977 to assess quality, give breeders accurate criteria for selection and provide a method to show progression or deterioration in the breed over time.

In 1983, the International Cataloguing Standards Committee (ICSC) was set up to prevent disparities in the criteria for Group Races and black type in sales catalogues. Classifications expanded to include non-European countries to encourage international competition and a similar ratings scale had to be adopted for consistency.

Today, ‘Part 1’ countries, where races are eligible for Group/Grade status, include the USA, Canada, Japan, U.A.E, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Brazil, Peru, Chile and Argentina. Consistency of ratings is crucial for the selection of horses for international races and assessing quality for breeding and importing, as well as to identify both national and international ‘Champions’.We at Arrowfield certainly relied on the Group 1 rating of the Haydock Sprint Cup when we acquired Danehill in 1989!

In 2011 the Australian Racing Board adopted the Asian Racing Federation’s Ground Rules, which aim to co-ordinate the assessment of Pattern races on an international level and are based on the European rules. Previously, each country within the ARF followed its own methods of upgrading, downgrading, or introducing new black type races.

The Ground Rules provide a ratings-based system for changes to the Pattern, which is applied consistently throughout Asia and Europe. These ratings are set by the World Thoroughbred Rankings Supervisory Committee, which also has members from Europe, North America and South America. In order to achieve an upgrade or prevent a downgrade, the race must improve by changing its date or conditions, or by increasing its prizemoney and the importance of a race to a club, state or sponsor can no longer over-ride these criteria.

21^st century challenges & opportunities

Since its establishment, the EPC has set the bar for quality of the Pattern and its mission has set principles for the Pattern in other countries: ‘to ensure the provision of a co-ordinated programme of quality races across Europe; countries working together rather than against each other’. For this mission to succeed, consistent methods of quality control are crucial.

Re-vamped racing carnivals and the introduction of super-races have created challenges for the Pattern on a global scale. While innovation is necessary to improve participation and develop racing, it is also important to ensure that changes expand racing in a way that considers the wider industry and the long-term impact on the sport and the breed.

Five case studies illustrate the bold and creative approaches taken by racing administrators, including Pattern Committees, to develop new events for 21^st century audiences and participants without throwing the Pattern out with the bathwater:

Case Study #1: Breeders’ Cup, USA

The Breeders’ Cup (BC) was created in 1984 as a championship event to attract top international horses, generate revenue, betting handle and fans. Seven brand new races worth a total of $10 million were created. The Graded Stakes committee made the unprecedented decision to grant each race Grade 1 status and again in 1999 for the new Filly and Mare Turf.

The BC aimed to provide a more logical and definitive end to the racing season. They chose a date to minimise the effect on other Pattern races while still allowing BC to be held in acceptable weather. However, many other Graded Stakes had to come forward to avoid clashing and decreasing field sizes. The New York Racing Association (NYRA) adapted their Autumn Grade 1 races including the Champagne, Man ‘O’ War and Jockey Club Gold Cup so they would become BC lead-up races. This move, to work in harmony with BC, maintained the importance of each of these Grade 1 races.

While many races successfully adapted, some existing target races suffered. Held in November over 1½ miles, the Washington D.C. International Gr.1 was North America’s first international race and had attracted the best National and European horses since its inauguration in 1952. Despite efforts to try different dates on the calendar, it was eventually discontinued in 1994 due to its decline in quality and proximity to the popular BC.

Since 1984, BC tried to create a robust series of races throughout the year by contributing funds to many US and Canadian stakes races. However, these funded races were not linked to the year-end championships. In 2007, the BC Challenge Series was created as a series of qualifiers, serving as a prelude to the BC. This ensured that the best horses in each division would have to compete against each other on all occasions on a clear pathway to the BC. This new strategy accommodated the international Pattern and built recognition for both the brand and racing throughout the year, generating more excitement, fans, and wagering, and supporting breeders and sales. The Challenge Series began with 24 ‘Win and You’re In’ races in 2 countries in 2007 and grew to 86 races in 11 countries by 2019.

The BC history since its inception shows that even the boldest innovations can be subject to challenge and review, and that working with, rather than against the Pattern can be a highly successful strategy. In 2019 five Breeders’ Cup races were ranked among the world’s top 100 Group 1 races: Classic (rated 121.5), Mile (118.5), Turf (118.25), Sprint (118) & Distaff (116.5).

Case Study #2: British Champions Day, UK

Established in 2011, British Champions Day combined two big late-season fixtures into one Championship event between the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe two weeks earlier and the Breeders’ Cup three weeks later.

A large prizemoney boost created the richest race day in Britain but how could Champions Day fit into the Pattern, without disrupting or under-mining existing races? The answer was to re-format existing end of season target races into one meeting with increased prizemoney and new titles to attract higher quality fields and allow the races to be assessed by the Pattern committee. To complement the Pattern, the top 6 races in five categories throughout the calendar were branded as part of the Championship Series: sprint, mile, middle distance, long distance and fillies and mares.

The British Champions Day program features four Group 1 races and one Group 2 – three of them from the historical season-end program at Newmarket and two from Ascot. They became the 5 Championship races, three of them named British Champions Sprint, F&M Stakes and Long Distance Cup, with the Queen Elizabeth II Stakes & Champion Stakes retaining their original names. The use and retention of meaningful race names is a valuable tool for maintaining the Pattern’s integrity over time, and building public familiarity with the annual program of major races.

In 2019 the Champion Stakes (rated 119.75), Queen Elizabeth Stakes (117.5) & British Champions Sprint (117.25) were all ranked among the top 60 Group 1 races in the world.

Case Study #3: The Championships, Australia

In Australia, we learned from both the US and UK initiatives and ‘The Championships’ were launched in 2014 as the culmination of the Sydney Autumn Carnival. The goal was to attract top horses from around Australia and the globe, present the best racing competition at a world-class event at season’s end and provide an economic boost to racing by attracting the younger generation to the racetrack. The challenge was to create a prestigious, attractive and commercially successful event by re-shaping, not breaking or ignoring the Pattern.

Ten existing target races with well-established pathways were re-packaged into a two-day event, including 8 existing Group 1 races. Clashes with other important races were avoided, but there was a need for the addition of new races to grow the program for juvenile fillies and 3-year-old sprinters. Two existing stakes races were renamed and incorporated in The Championships program but were not awarded instant Group 1 status. Instead, increased prizemoney to attract higher quality horses was given to help those races earn Group 1 status on their merits in due course.

In 2019 both the Queen Elizabeth Stakes (rated 122) & T.J. Smith Stakes (118.5) were ranked among the world’s top 5 Group 1 races in their respective distance categories.

Case Study #4: Commonwealth Cup, UK

The Commonwealth Cup was introduced as a brand-new Group 1 six-furlong race for 3YOs at Royal Ascot in 2015, as part of a series of changes initiated by the EPC to strengthen the European sprint program. The 3YO sprint category had been under-represented, with many horses being ‘stretched out’ to try and get the mile distance of the Guineas.

Four decisions were made to make room for, and launch the race:

1. The Diamond Jubilee Stakes (same course & distance at the Royal Ascot meeting) was closed to 3YOs, encouraging them to run in the new race.

2. The Buckingham Palace Stakes was removed from the Royal Ascot meeting.

3. Geldings were allowed to compete in the first 5 runnings of the race (2015-19) – the first age-restricted Group 1 race in Europe open to geldings. (As it happened, no gelding managed to win the race in those first five years).

4. The Commonwealth Cup was also the first new race in the 44-year history of the European Pattern to go straight in with Group 1 status, rather than with a probationary period at a lower level or no grade at all. This was permitted as it related to an important European strategic initiative, rather than a single event and on the understanding that if it did not meet Group 1 parameters, it would be subject for downgrade

The Commonwealth Cup has twice been ranked among the world’s top 100 Group 1 races, in 2017 with a rating of 117.25, and again in 2019 with a 118.75 rating.

Case Study #5: The Everest, Australia

Launched in 2017 by Racing New South Wales with little reference to the Australian Pattern Committee, The Everest has been an almost instant success in terms of attracting audiences, industry backing and the best horses, and does not appear to have had a negative impact on the major weight-for-age Group 1 sprint races, notably the VRC Sprint Classic (run three weeks later) and the T.J. Smith Stakes (part of The Championships in April).

In my view, a good argument can be made for including The Everest in the Pattern because, although the method of field selection is not traditional, the slot-holders can in theory choose any horse, but are, of course, motivated by their substantial investment to select the best horses they possibly can. The proof is in the pudding: since inception the Everest has rated at Group 1 level.

Conclusion

I regard the Pattern as the bedrock of our sport because it is a time-proven system for classifying our equine athletes according to their ability that guides owners and breeders to decisions which will lead to the improvement of the breed.

The Pattern enables owners to benchmark their horses against others in their generation as well as against horses of the same age in previous generations. For many of us, aspiring to have our horse at the top of such a list is the “raison d’etre” of racing.

I applaud advances in Australia which help to make horse racing more attractive and competitive in the 21^st century marketplace, such as the introduction of The Championships and the establishment of The Everest.

However, it is important for the sport that these and other initiatives find a means of meshing with the Pattern rather than disrupting it; there is too much at stake for participants in doing otherwise. Respecting the Pattern is crucial to achieve international consistency and relevance. If changes are made based on an isolated interest without considering the long-term impact on the sport and breed, we risk damaging both our national and international racing product. This obviously demands collaboration between State, National and international racing administrators willing to work in the fertile space between innovation and tradition.

The Wyong Polytrack

by Brian de Lore
Published 10^th September 2020

Leading South Island racing people remain divided on the issue of the building of the Polytrack at Riccarton with detractors of the proposal seemingly outnumbering those in favour by a Winx-like margin. But indications are the building of the track will go ahead despite the opposition.

Blood pressures are sure to rise, and the debate is bound to be lively when the NZTR Roadshow arrives at Ascot Park, Wingatui, and Riccarton over Thursday and Friday of this week when all subjects racing are up for discussion with NZTR heavyweights Alan Jackson and Bernard Saundry.

The synthetic track proposal for Riccarton will be the hottest item on the agenda. Owners, trainers, and motivated pundits may turn up in good numbers (although not more than 100 are allowed) at every venue to have their say and attempt to sway the argument.

Leading South Island and Riccarton trainer Michael Pitman makes no bones about where he stands in the Riccarton Polytrack debate.

He says: “No one knows how much it’s going to cost; that’s the thing that annoys me. They have a ballpark figure; it could be as low as $12 or $13 million, but it could be as high as $18 million, but they don’t know until the design plan is finalised.

Michael Pitman: I want to see more racing at Riccarton, and I don’t want to travel anymore…

“Personally, and I’m looking at this through rose coloured glass. I am based at Riccarton and have my own property at Yaldhurst, and I want to see more racing at Riccarton, and I don’t want to travel anymore because I’m sick of it.”

When asked what Michael Pitman would say to the people in Southland who might lose dates and have to travel more, Michael responded, “I agree with that, they probably will have to travel more, but that’s life.

“I’m all in favour of the all-weather track,” Michael continued, “and I hate the criticism of the track coming from people who have never seen one in their life. They are not the be-all and end-all; they’re only an aid, and they’ll probably hold only 12 meetings a year on the Riccarton one.

“I want to see more racing at Riccarton, but it can’t be held on the turf because the grass track probably couldn’t handle any more days than it has allocated now. It’s not going to suit all my horses, but hopefully, it will suit some of them.

“We will be able to hold regular trials on the all-weather and have much better facilities for training both through the winter and summer months. It will be a huge advantage for the Riccarton trainers to use the Polytrack for training six days a week, and that’s what they are all up in arms over. If they want to be professional trainers, they can shift to Riccarton.”

The grey area is the final cost and the annual maintenance costs

The Michael Pitman optimism in saying it might come in under the touted $16 million budget seems fanciful in the knowledge that nothing completed in racing in living memory has come in under budget. The grey area is the final cost and the annual maintenance costs, which are unknown at this time with the design plan incomplete.

Gallop South General Manager Jo Gordon says, “The ongoing costs are just one of the problems. Some people who want it can’t see past the Provincial Fund’s $10 million being there for the taking. They can’t see past the money.

“Why do we want a synthetic track?” continued Jo. “Places like Oamaru and Timaru have the lowest rainfall in New Zealand during winter. The South Island doesn’t generally run its winter racing on heavy, bottomless tracks like they do in the North Island.

“We wrote to Bernard Saundry, and he replied, but he thinks it’s just an Otago-Southland issue and he couldn’t be more wrong. In the past week, I’ve had seven trainers on the phone, and six of those were from Canterbury who didn’t want the synthetic track. Most trainers in Canterbury do not want it.

Jo Gordon: If they rip one more day out of the southern program, racing becomes all that less viable. 

“If they rip one more day out of the southern program, racing becomes all that less viable. If racing goes in the south, they will all go – Canterbury will not survive by themselves.”

Jo Gordon’s thoughts were echoed by Riverton based leading Southland trainer Kelvin Tyler.

He said, “I can’t find one reason why the South Island would ever want one. Apart from Riccarton, Southland has the biggest number of horses in training, and if you want to stuff South Island racing then this is the fastest way to do it.

“If anyone thinks we are going to race on a synthetic track when we haven’t even worked a horse on it, then they’re dreaming.

“If Riverton was based in the middle of the South Island it would be the second-best track, and it would be in the top five in New Zealand. Riverton is as strong as it’s been in a long time; we have over 50 horses in work here now – it might be 20 years ago since we had those numbers.

Kelvin Tyler: If they close Riverton down, I’ll just walk away from racing

“If they close Riverton down, I’ll just walk away from racing and do my dairy farming. I love racing, though, and that’s why I’m in it – not for financial gain. At Riverton we have a lot of young guys that have come onto the committee – it’s very frustrating the way New Zealand racing is at present.

“Winter racing in the South Island has always been about racing on grass with winter class horses. We get heavy tracks, and some horses love it, but up the east coast of the Island the winter racing is often on dead tracks.”

John Parsons of the highly successful John and Karen Parsons training team from Balcairn in North Canterbury also has an issue with a synthetic track at Riccarton.

“If it was going to get the game back on track, there would be some sense to it,” began John, “but to spend that sort of money while they are closing all these small tracks when they’re already in place and are costing nothing – I can’t see the sense in it.

John Parsons: It might benefit a few Riccarton trainers, but how can you race on it if you don’t train on it.

“There are no synthetic tracks they race on in Sydney, and the ones in Melbourne are so predictable. I can’t believe they are even thinking about it. It might benefit a few Riccarton trainers, but how can you race on it if you don’t train on it. Horses working on it will have a distinct advantage when they race on it.

“In Australia they only run lower grade horses on it, and at Riccarton they are talking about 12 meetings a year. Where are they going to take those dates from? It will ruin racing in other places, and probably the south. They reckon the one at Cambridge cost $16 million; I’d rather see them put the money into stakes,” concluded John Parsons.

Leading the charge to build the Polytrack with the approval of his committee is Canterbury Jockey Club CEO Tim Mills who I phoned this week to see how he thought Friday’s meeting would go and how far the Club had progressed towards finalisation of the project.

“Friday’s meeting will have to be limited to 100 people,” said Tim, “but it shouldn’t be a problem because we haven’t had more than 100 in the past. This week might be Murphy’s law if they do come out of the woodwork for this discussion – we will have it set-up according to COVID-19 level two requirements.

“The three synthetic tracks is a national strategy, and where I think Gallop South have a problem with it is that the Messara Report predicted they might have only 20 race dates in six or seven years time, and they will lose race dates, and they will end up at the synthetic track – that’s where I believe the opposition all started and they’ve really got themselves fired-up about it.

Tim Mills: NZTR has told them they will still have their 32 dates

“NZTR has told them they will still have their 32 dates. You would have to ask Bernard Saundry for confirmation on that, but some information of that nature will be public after this week’s roadshow.

“There are two parts to it,” started Tim Mills in explanation of the Club’s stance, “and that is it’s part of the Messara Report, and the trustees of the racecourse have embraced the Messara Report to revitalise racing. While we accept that the synthetic track is not a silver bullet, the three synthetics is one of the 17 recommendations to revitalise racing.

“The design for the track is 1900 metres by 16 metres wide. It’s a bigger circumference but similar width to Cambridge.”

The annual cost of maintaining a Polytrack is dependent upon staff, equipment, the base, weather conditions and the amount of usage and the requirement of renovation, and is likely to be different for each track. I have seen documentation detailing annual costs of $1.56 million for maintenance of the Polytrack at the Singapore Jockey Club.

Tim Mills continued, “There are so many different stories about what they cost, and that’s certainly not what the maintenance costs will be. We’re told that if you spread the costs out over a 12-year average with the big projects that have to happen every four years, then it averages out at $55,000 to $65,000 annually.

“…how are we going to approach the situation in eight, ten or 12 years time when the material has to be relaid…” – Tim Mills

“The question we need to address with the NZTR before anything is nailed down is how are we going to approach the situation in eight, ten or 12 years time when the material has to be relaid – that’s the question that still needs to be resolved.

“Yes,” I have seen the Singapore costs, but as far as I’m aware, the Cambridge track isn’t going to be costing anything like that, so I don’t know why Riccarton would be any different to Cambridge. We would have preferred to have had a couple of years to see exactly what the maintenance costs would be but when the Minister announced the money that put everything on the opposite of the backburner, which is the fast burner.”

So, did the CJC feel the pressure of not wanting to pass up the opportunity to get the $10,000 million? Tim answered: “What we don’t want to pass up is the opportunity to be an evolutionary part of racing, and if the benefits are there for racing, to be part of an overall package.

“It’s hard to say if the people in opposition to the track will come across once the track is built, because they have it cemented in their brains they will lose race dates. Now, I can’t guarantee them they won’t lose dates because only NZTR can do that, but I have seen a letter that says NZTR do not intend to take away dates and destroy the pattern of racing in Otago and Southland.

Tim Mills: I’m struggling to see where the paranoia is coming from

“The likes of Motukarara, Waimate, and dare I say it, Timaru is the one at risk. The irony is the synthetic tracks are predominately late autumn, winter, early spring, and Southland only has one race date during that whole period. I’m struggling to see where the paranoia is coming from.

“I can only report on what we have been told, but Bernard is going to be talking about dates this week. I stress that the CJC doesn’t make a decision on dates.

“If it’s costing $5,000 a week, which is $250,000 a year, there is no way we can run it. Our information is it will cost between $55,000 and $65,000 a year to maintain, and if you look at what we pay to maintain grass tracks, the plough and sand tracks, it’s not in excess of that figure.

“Riccarton will get extra race dates, but they will be mid-week dates. We don’t know how many, it could be as many as 12, but it might be eight, nine or 13 – again, it’s all part of the revitalisation of the sport. It’s not going to take away the grass track as being the principal surface used for the major race days.

“The track would be built inside the line of the course proper so the plough will go. There will be a new grass track built inside the synthetic track. We have a meeting on the 16^th of this month at which the design plans will be presented to interested parties.

Tim Mills: A lot of the questions Gallop South is asking are the same questions the CJC is asking of NZTR.

“A lot of the questions Gallop South is asking are the same questions the CJC is asking of NZTR. We are still waiting for some of those questions to be answered – at this point the final cost hasn’t even been determined. As soon as the design is finalised we will know the cost and the maintenance costs. The Minister’s announcement on the 12^th of May accelerated everyone’s planning and thinking.

“I think the South Island would be foolish not to be taking the evolution of the sport seriously.”

The Optimist Says:

The pros and cons of the synthetic track debate is clouded by the financials detail of the deal with Government to access the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF).

Firstly, why did Cambridge get only $6.5 million when Awapuni and Riccarton were granted $10 million each? It seems strange given Cambridge needed the synthetic more than any other centre in New Zealand with more annual rainfall (1,213mm or 47.8 inch) and 1,100 horses in work, which is more than double the number of the other two venues combined.

Then, The Optimist discovered that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) advised both The Canterbury Jockey Club and Race Corp (Awapuni), they would both be required to front with a minimum of $3 million or a 22% contribution for the building of the Polytracks.

The way the numbers work is that the PGF grant of $10 million for each venue would include $500,000 deemed non-refundable by the clubs on the basis they needed to do Geotech work and feasibility studies, etc. And then there’s $9.5 million left for each of the Polytracks to be built.

So, if they did proceed with the preliminary work but decided not to go ahead, but did the work in good faith, they each wouldn’t have to pay the $500,000 back. After that, if the clubs proceed, they need to front up with the extra cash to complete the synthetic track projects, and for Awapuni, it’s a minimum of $3 million and for Riccarton, a minimum of $5 million. Neither club has that money available.

Another problem for both clubs comes in 10-years-time when the compound on the Polytrack needs redoing to the tune of several million for each track?

Another problem for both clubs comes in 10-years-time when the compound on the Polytrack needs redoing to the tune of several million for each track? How do they budget for that when neither club today has the cash to pay for 22 percent of the installion of the Polytrack in the first place.

Does anyone reading this (and all power to you for having the tenacity to read this far) believes we can afford to build these tracks? Both tracks seem a bridge too far, but one track might be doable if our esteemed Minister of Racing agreed to pour the PGF resources into the neediest one instead of two – both overstretched.

If you said which of Riccarton and Awapuni is the neediest, and were honest about it, then Awapuni and the Central Districts is far more desperate than Riccarton. Riccarton will survive, but the Central Districts has been on death’s door for ages and is worth saving – such a move could save it.

Consider the absurdity of this entire situation. The industry is broke, NZRB and RITA have sold us down the river, and $20 million is there in the PGF which can go into synthetic tracks with no chance of a financial return. What it might do is save the C.D. where the need is greater.

Race Incorporated have done their design for the synthetic, which would make it the first course in New Zealand to have three racecourses

Race Incorporated have done their design for the synthetic, which would make it the first course in New Zealand to have three racecourses.
 
If Awapuni gets a synthetic, the next step in the plan is to rip up the course proper at and do it properly. Race Incorporated have done their design for the synthetic, which would make it the first course in New Zealand to have three racecourses. They have plans for the long course bend and the short course bend on turf, and the synthetic inside those two.

They plan to go from 18 turf meetings a year to 22 or 24 and be able to run another 16 on synthetic. The thing about synthetic tracks is they love water – really love water. Water on a Polytrack tenses the track up slightly and the horses run faster times. Water or rainfall is far more prevalent at Awapuni than Riccarton.

In Winston Peters speech for his emergency support for racing made two days before the 2020 Budget was delivered, he said: “Compelling arguments exist behind synthetic race tracks because they reduce the number of cancelled events due to weather or poor surfaces.”

Annual rainfall at Awapuni is 980mm (38.6 inch) whereas Riccarton in 2019 was 543.2mm (21.38 inch). With reasonable drainage, neither Awapuni nor Riccarton race days should ever be lost to poor surfaces. It barely happened at all in the good old days.

If you were honest about what’s best for New Zealand racing and put all parochialism aside, then what would you do? If racing in New Zealand is to turn around its continuous fall from grace, then racing people have to band together and do what’s best for racing, and not what’s best for just themselves.  

The popular Easter race meeting at Riverton

by Brian de Lore
Published 1^st September 2020

The growing discontent in the deep south is now echoing through the committee rooms of many New Zealand race clubs residing outside the metropolitan areas. And Gallop South has taken a determined step forward in seeking a significant change in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) Constitution.

Gallop South Incorporated, last week sent a memorandum to all race clubs and sector members with a proposal attached to amend the NZTR Constitution to give the stakeholders of the industry what they believe a more equitable and fairer structure of governance.

Gallop South represents the Beaumont Racing Club, Central Otago Racing Club, Gore Racing Club, Kurow Jockey Club, Riverton Racing Club, Tapanui Racing Club, Waikouaiti Racing Club, Wairio Jockey Club, Winton Jockey Club, and Wyndham Racing Club.

The problem for Gallop South and its army of supporters in other jurisdictions is that the devolving of powers from the New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB) down to the codes, as per the Racing Industry Act 2020, has also handed NZTR full control of the race club assets with the clubs devoid of voice at board level.

When eighty-five percent of 1,700 submissions supported the Messara Review in October 2018, it was for full adoption of the 17 recommendations as a suite of interconnected solutions reliant on each other for an overall benefit, but we know that never happened. RITA and the DIA cherry-picked the recommendations, which included venue rationalisation or as the clubs labelled it, the ‘land-grab.’

…NZTR not representative of the stakeholders

The new legislation gives the power back to the codes, which theoretically should be a positive step forward for future governance. But the argument is that the thoroughbred code (NZTR) has evolved into something not representative of the stakeholders of thoroughbred racing, and Gallop South is leading the charge to change that anomaly.

The ‘them and us’ stand-off that existed between the old Racing Board and NZTR cannot be allowed to pass down to a 2020 stand-off between NZTR and the stakeholders of racing – the clubs and sector groups represent the heart and soul of the industry, which is the very reason we have a body called NZTR.

If a stand-off does develop, it’s because one group wants what’s best for everyone in racing, and the other what’s best for the privileged few and their patch. Gallop South makes the point that the NZ in the acronym stands for New Zealand (meaning all of New Zealand) and not Northern Zone as they believe some would have you think.

Consider the ‘great leap backwards’ that New Zealand Racing has taken in the past dozen years. The single-most contributing factor was bringing in people ill-qualified for overpaid jobs, and those people have come mainly from political appointments via the Minister of Racing.

Government interference costly

If racing thinks it should be feeling grateful because the current Minister of Racing recently slipped $50 million into the coffers to keep the industry afloat, it shouldn’t. Government interference with their political appointments has cost the thoroughbred industry fives time that figure. They are still in arrears.

Government is not entirely to blame, though, because the apathy of the racing community borders on pathetic. Leadership has been absent with an inability to rally the racing troops, collectively sing a song of demands, and go into battle with the mindset of Vlad the Impaler. Instead, the resistance movement came with powder puff intensity. Why haven’t we taken a leaf from the V’landy book of ruling with strength?

If that alone isn’t a reason to seek improved governance, then what is? Poor governance has been the downfall of this once great industry, and while a glimmer of hope has come with new legislation, everyone should remember only good people will turn around racing’s fortunes. Six years ago, we had $75 million in cash and assets, and now the TAB owes the ASB $45 million – did you notice no one wants to talk about that?

Why do you think RITA hasn’t posted a full half-year report ended January 31^st with a full balance sheet?  Simple answer: It looks dreadful. RITA answers only to the Minister of Racing who will not be looking to release any bad news stories before the October election.

Gallop South Incorporated has support for a change in the NZTR Constitution throughout New Zealand because it would provide the opportunity for a voice that represents every club from Whangarei to the length and breadth of the country.  

Gallop South: There is a groundswell of opinion amongst clubs to amend the Constitution

Its memorandum on Friday stated: “There is a groundswell of opinion amongst clubs to amend New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Incorporated’s (“NZTR”) Constitution to change the composition of the Board to a more regional representative model.

“With the passing of the Racing Industry Act 2020 (the “Act”) into law, each Code Governing Body has a greater role in decision making that affects club assets, dates, funding, etc. To make informed decisions, the NZTR Board needs input from all regions and from members with local knowledge and racing experience.

“NZTR has control of club assets, yet at the moment no club has any input or voting rights as to the selection of the NZTR Board

“It must be stressed this is not a criticism of NZTR’s Board or Members Council. Both have worked well under the current Constitution, but now is the time to consider a change.”

A full proposal for changes to the Constitution was attached to the letter and clubs were asked to provide feedback by September 30^th. In part, it included the following:

Gallop South diplomatically says it’s not a criticism of NZTR personnel, but it’s obviously suggesting NZTR’s method of appointing board members in light of the new legislation is outdated and unfair, is far from representative of the stakeholders, and requires a major panel beating job to get it roadworthy for an industry that’s on the bones of its financial backside.

Racing as a whole should not have a problem with change if a better system of the administrative process can be written into the Constitution. If a genuine improvement is available and opposition to it is forthcoming, the reason for objections might only represent expressions of self-interest.

On Tuesday of last week, Gallop South General manager Jo Gordon sent a letter of concern to NZTR Chair Alan Jackson, arising from the cancellation of the NZTR Roadshow due to COVID-19, and thus the loss of a forum for a discussion on those concerns.

In another letter on Friday to club managers, Gallop South said:

“With the passing of the new Bill into law, each Code Governing Body has a greater role in decision making that affects club assets, dates, funding etc., and to make informed decisions the Board of NZTR needs input from all regions from members with local knowledge and experience.

“…yet no club has any input or voting rights in the appointment process…” – Gallop South

“NZTR has full control of club assets (section 21[1] of the Act) yet no club has any input or voting rights in the appointment process of the board. This proposal addresses that situation by amending the NZTR Constitution.

“Gallop South Inc. intends promoting a resolution at the next Annual Meeting or Special General Meeting to amend the Constitution but before doing so would like feedback from clubs.”

Also on Friday, an NZTR Media Release stated that Chair Alan Jackson would be retiring from the NZTR at the AGM in November. The final paragraph of that release stated: “The Members’ Council will incorporate seeking a replacement to fill the vacancy left by Dr. Jackson’s retirement as part of the selection process around other rotating and retiring directors.”

If Gallop South and supporting clubs achieve their goal, however, the Members’ Council will be abolished, and an entirely new NZTR board will be up for election.

A battle may be looming.

Footnote:

Quote of the Week:

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” – Winston Churchill