Definite Earl and Robbie Colgan seen winning at Ballinrobe last May© Photo Healy Racing
Distinguishing a ‘no-try’ from a ‘not able to try’ is a requirement of any competent race-reader, not to mention the different degrees of ‘easy’ in between. Even so, much of it comes down to individual interpretation, which is just a fancy way of saying hunch. But when it comes to horse’s weight, often an important element to when a horse is ‘off’ or not, there is an opportunity for hard statistical fact to be employed. Yet there appears to be no urgency about employing it.
In this digital age, is it really too much to expect that scales be installed at racecourses to record horses weights, resulting in a bank of statistics to assist punters but especially hard-pressed officials who are currently left with little to work on but the evidence of their eyes which can always be easily dismissed as mere hunch.
There can’t be many significant yards in the country that don’t have scales to regularly and precisely weigh their horses. Yet at the races such a fundamental element to an animal’s performance as the size of its tummy remains a statistical mystery.
No one can argue the weight of a horse is some failsafe guide to success. However even a cursory glance around most parade-rings at middle-of-the-road meetings reveals horses fit enough to run but not likely fit enough to win. And there’s a skill in spotting that, as well a vast grey area of opportunity for those waiting for another day, and who probably have a scales at home to tell them precisely where they stand in terms of that day.
Mention that weight data on horses is standard practise in Hong Kong usually leads to shrugs about that being Hong Kong and all the money they have available to them, money incidentally that is available through betting dependent on assuring punters they’re not being taken for granted.
But we’re not talking huge money here: if individual trainers can purchase scales, why can’t racecourses? Has all that telly money been accounted for already? And the good part, from an official financial point of view, is that the resultant data would be worth selling on, providing that vital dash of self-interest which always sweetens the prospect of a little capital expenditure.
The end result would be a data bank adding statistical fat to the bones of vague excuses about horses having come on or improved for a run. It would enable officials to use black and white fact for once rather than individual judgement and allow an element of retrospective examination of a horse’s performance.
In a desperately imprecise area, such factual evidence would be extremely useful. Yes, there’s an initial cost but hardly one that’s too exorbitant and it would introduce a welcome element of accountability. Which is perhaps why there appears little appetite for introducing it - question asked and question answered.
There isn’t a new sheriff in town but there might be a new tone. After the dramatic penalties imposed on the back of the Noble Emperor case in Limerick, it was the turn of the Ballinrobe stewards on Friday as jockey Robbie Colgan was suspended for 21 days, trainer David Broad got a €2,000 fine, and Definite Earl was banned for 60 days after finishing runner in a novice hurdle.
The horse did finish noticeably well and Colgan’s ride appeared quiet enough for questions to be asked. In the not so distant context of what’s escaped any question at all, the penalties did appear a little harsh but not so much to think that the Ballinrobe stewards got it wrong.
What’s important is the new tone that seems to be in play. If the Definite Earl case appears to err slightly on the harsh side then that is only a reflection of the massive realignment necessary if there’s to be a serious impression made on ‘non-trier’ incidents. Provided the tone is applied across the board, regardless of who’s involved, then this new vigour is to be welcomed.
It was interesting to note the change in Britain in relation to the flat trainer’s championship being judged in a calendar year. It seems only a reflection of the reality. Starting in March and ending in November, but counting the all-weather during that time, and during the winter, is convoluted and automatically reduces almost five months of action to second-division status.
The implications for the flat jockey’s championship in Britain will be interesting since technically the season hasn’t even started yet. Instead that will be judged between the Guineas and Champions Day which seems just another convolution. Isn’t it easier to also make that a calendar year competition, maybe even judged on prizemoney too to make more than just a test of slogging perseverance?
And if that makes sense there, why shouldn’t it be the same here. Maybe not in prizemoney terms for the jockeys title — where the potential for a rider with a relatively small number of overall rides, but big race winners among them still exists — but the idea of a calendar championship for both trainers and jockeys is surely a more accurate reflection of the reality.
The drawback comes in terms of a lack of profile and exposure at the height of the winter jumps campaign but a calendar year championship seems logical. And it’s not like there’s a dramatic ‘Stop Presses’ element to the current situation.
And finally, just after Aintree Willie Mullins was a 1-10 favourite for the British trainers championship. A week later he’s odds against. Presumably these markets wouldn’t exist without people betting on them. But who are they? And in any other circumstance would they have their car keys taken away for their own safety?
