Transparency - Paul Lafferty initiative

Sorry to be chauvanistic,but Don and Zsu your responses are emotive.I agree with everything you say but you are missing my point of "contract"
I have always believed the punter is entitled to as much information as possible for all the same reasons you mention ....
HOWEVER:
a) Dissemination of information should be part of the regulation and therefore form part and parcel of the contractual arrangement between owner and trainer!
b)The information should be in the form of public trials or workouts so the information is fact.This initiative ,however noble,will just be an opinion rather than fact,and with respect,often be of very little use to anybody IMO !
Trainers are expert in using a technique called "rainbow ruse" (and I don't blame them) .......which is providing an answer in such a way that it covers every eventuality!
(eg.Nice horse ,shows nice work and if not too green ,should run well....now what on earth does that actually mean...... however it runs is covered by those words!)

Another factor that is overlooked by many is the "compared to what?" aspect.

Let me try and explain ...a few years back 2 good friends asked me if I wanted to join a syndicate that would be going for a few coups .......they had bought a few horses and placed them with a small stable.Horses would be punted "big time" when going to win (sic).My response was, "thanks but no thanks" to which they expressed surprise.
My reasoning was the that the best horse in that particular stable was about a MR 80 and a stayer,so what yardstick was going to be used to decide when to pull the trigger?(The truth is they never got one right and they gave up after 3 or 4 failed and expensive coups!)
To this day ,I only respect stories about unraced horses if they are in stables with good comparitive stock!...........ie compared to what!

Rob, you know we mean systemised trials as you mention above. The comments initiative is commendable and probably as a result of being desperate - but you and I know it won't work in the same way as trials will to remove the blind spot in a race where there is betting. It is sad to see some owners admitting to their abuse of a system publicly and without obvious thought as to the consequence of their action, but we know they are a handful - what will they do if the operators institute trials in any case? as a condition to race your horse? as is done in Aus? Unless your horse has done two official published trials it cannot enter for an official race (where there is betting).

Don wrote: Rob, you know we mean systemised trials as you mention above. The comments initiative is commendable and probably as a result of being desperate - but you and I know it won't work in the same way as trials will to remove the blind spot in a race where there is betting. It is sad to see some owners admitting to their abuse of a system publicly and without obvious thought as to the consequence of their action, but we know they are a handful - what will they do if the operators institute trials in any case? as a condition to race your horse? as is done in Aus? Unless your horse has done two official published trials it cannot enter for an official race (where there is betting).

TBH,I didnt think you meant formal trials,as none of the owners reactions were to that suggestion.
I think owners will accept barrier trials and public workouts if formalised ,well managed and controlled!

Really? from those comments?? That's not how it reads? - it definitely reads they want to keep things as they are so they can manipulate the system!! Same on SP post?How blatant can one be! :S

I agree that Barrier Trials would be the top prize (in fact, there were initiated in the Cape many years ago, but were stopped again for some reason).

However, we are being offered comments on first timers in the KZN area as a start (kudos to Gold Circle for taking the initiative). No, it's not the best case scenario, but at least it's an acknowledgement that there is a need / demand for information out there and at least someone is trying to supply something.

Rob - I didn't mean to be emotive. I feel that the dissemination of good information can only be good for business. However, I did state that with regard to the comments system being proposed, it will depend on the quality of the information being supplied. Otherwise, as you rightly say, it's just a PR exercise.

I guess we'll have to wait and see !

Barrier trial and other things the bottom line is as follows

this is a recent conversation with a partner of mine in an unlaced 3 years old in KZN

Mike " boet just spoke to xxxx and very happy with our horse"
Joao " cool what does the happiness revolve round"
M " working very very well recovered from gelding and actually working with a 2 TIME WINNER, xxxxx says he is a decent animal"
J " 2 time winner, WOW can you ask the trainer if the 2 TIME winner is rated 54 or 114"
M " shit i see what you mean"
J "good i hope xxxx does as well"

I agree that barrier trials can help - but as far as I remember these are not going to take place because of factors like cost, too much work etc. And anyway imo it will still not rule out 'betting coups', as surely the trial can be manipulated if the desire is there? And if we do ever get them, imo they should definitely also be held in cases where runners are returning from rests - and I understand both sides of the argument, but I think punters are not disadvantaged significantly by 'coups' being pulled on first timers - as quite a lot of these 'morning glorys' fail to find the winners box. So I have sympathy for the view that a debutante's ability or lack thereof should be a matter between the connections....

Imo what is needed more and would go a long way to not 'chase away' the few horse racing punters that remain, is to have stricter controls (as per RF) on 'in-an-out' running....and to really clamp down on the 'drug' issue ..... and to have more information made available (don't ask me how) regarding AHS 'shots.... and to do more to convince Average Joe Punter that there really is an explanation as to why Horse A drifting from odds-on gets beat by the stable mate which shortens dramatically in the betting....and I can go on and on....

So imo this is much ado about not much

Barrier trials in conjunction with sectional timing information will offer a good deal of value.

Chicken and egg argument this.....there is nothing that will make both sides happy.

Both are coming from a position of entitlement and both are wrong and right.

Good luck finding a solution.

Barrier trials will be a good start but not the be all and end all.

For all my pro-transparency talk, which I remain steadfast about for the reasons Don and zsuzsanna have explained a millions times better than I ever could, I do retain an element of sympathy for the owners regarding first timers.

I do believe there is something of a solution though Chris, one I have mentioned before. My biggest "thing" with these types of races is late money because by then most punters have already invested. If the comments were to be provided say one or two hours after the markets open, then owners etc have ample opportunity to back the horse at potentially the biggest odds before the general public are made aware if they so wish. They have their bet at odds and the rest of the punting world, with the information infront of them, can then decide whether or not they want to play on the race without having already invested.

I also think that if the authorities monitor the trainer comments then it will become clear pretty quickly anyone who is playing games. Even with the current Tellytrack comments, interviews and historical comments on ABC, it is quite obvious to some of us that certain trainers are seemingly not exactly 100% honest. Only a couple of them perhaps but after a time, it is pretty evident that all is not how it was "portrayed".

I give credit to GC for introducing this, it is much too little much too late and needs imvho to be widened asap, but it is at least a start.

Englander wrote: For all my pro-transparency talk, which I remain steadfast about for the reasons Don and zsuzsanna have explained a millions times better than I ever could, I do retain an element of sympathy for the owners regarding first timers.

I do believe there is something of a solution though Chris, one I have mentioned before. My biggest "thing" with these types of races is late money because by then most punters have already invested. If the comments were to be provided say one or two hours after the markets open, then owners etc have ample opportunity to back the horse at potentially the biggest odds before the general public are made aware if they so wish. They have their bet at odds and the rest of the punting world, with the information infront of them, can then decide whether or not they want to play on the race without having already invested.

I also think that if the authorities monitor the trainer comments then it will become clear pretty quickly anyone who is playing games. Even with the current Tellytrack comments, interviews and historical comments on ABC, it is quite obvious to some of us that certain trainers are seemingly not exactly 100% honest. Only a couple of them perhaps but after a time, it is pretty evident that all is not how it was "portrayed".

I give credit to GC for introducing this, it is much too little much too late and needs imvho to be widened asap, but it is at least a start.

Giving out comments at the stated time seems like as a good idea but the problem is that the information gets out much sooner anyway through other avenues so even this makes no difference as the owners cannot get on no matter what. There is nothing that will make both sides happy because there is two big issues that cannot be broached....money and greed....

Cheers, Chris. That is a slightly different argument for me, if true (and in plenty cases it undoubtedly is) and the info on every "good thing" really is already out there, then they really can have no opposition to this proposal.