FOREWORD
Twitter is a wonderful thing, however if the executives who run the company struggle to define exactly what Twitter is, what is anyone else supposed to take it as.
I find Twitter an amazing way to connect to people, news and information. It is also effectively an open forum where anyone can enter into a dialogue or banter on any given subject. It is this fact and the number of people from the Harness racing community who are active on the platform of Twitter has lead me to take an active interest in what others see as some of the challenges that are facing this great sport.
As a result I have decided to put my harness “Wish List” into the same location and document. Some of the things that follow are extensions of what others have exchanged through social media discussions, some are ideas from the many participants I have talked to over time, others are my ideas that may seem unrealistic or downright ridiculous. However they are opinions and as the saying goes, like those things that point to the ground, we all have them.
I have been involved in the harness game since I was a boy. Introduced to the sport by my Dad who loves the game, loves to have a little punt and loves nothing more than watching his own horses go around. My interest as a young lad blossomed and since then I have been a punter, owner, breeder and most recently administrator (handicapper and race day steward) and writer.
So here is my Wish List in an order that was hard to compile with continuity, so my apologies if it seems to jump around or hard to follow. I wrote my wish list over the past 4 months whilst travelling abroad, written old school in a spiral notebook!
HOOFNOTE: Some of the things I address have wheels in motion or have been implemented since I started putting my list together.
FEATURE RACE CALENDAR
There is no clear structure on what the Feature Race Calendar actually entails. Each State has their flagship events and carnivals, yet they never seem to lead into each other or have a staggered approach so horses can follow a feature race path.
A Feature Race Committee needs to be established and meet every year to set the following Season’s feature races.
Every State (include NZ if necessary) has one member appointed to the committee and each representative is afforded one voting right. All representatives can then work to establish the calendar and through the voting rights come up with what is the best approach for the entire sport.
This leads into the relevance of the Grand Circuit. It has run its course and is no longer relevant in today’s landscape. Rather than having set races forming the Grand Circuit legs, every Group 1 event for Open Age performers has a sliding point score scale. Similar to a NASCAR Sprint Cup format, the top point scoring horses then face off in a race at Season’s end, with the winner being the Australasian Pacing Champion.
If feasible, the same format could be used across all age groups and in both gaits. It could effectively be a Jewels-type day open to all horses from Australia and New Zealand.
Sires Stakes/State Schemes
Why should a horse have dual State scheme eligibility. One area where things have not followed a progressive approach. Under the former “Sires” based schemes, it was wherever the sire stood. Now with nearly the majority of foals conceived via artificial insemination and the opening up of the breed, multiple State eligible foals has become a reality.
I would like to see multiple eligibility scrapped and create a super day or night of racing. Owners can still pay up for multiple state schemes should they fall under the current requirements. However, have a moonlight date where any horse that fits multiple eligibility, the owners have to choose which State scheme they will compete in.
Then on the chosen date through the Feature Race committee (ideally as a lead up to the Breeders Crown and replace Breeders Heats- another issue to be covered) all State Finals are held in conjunction with each other. Be it a Friday, Saturday or Sunday, whatever works best, with each State showcasing their best against each other on the same day to create a Super States race day. Dedicated coverage from each state to highlight the best that state has to offer will complement the National approach.
HARNESS RACING AUSTRALIA
In a nutshell, there either needs to be an increasing in the power that they hold, or their relevance is redundant. They are the overarching body of Harness Racing in Australia, but under the framework of the rules, each state effectively does it’s own thing.
HRA need to have a firmer governing hand. If they can achieve this, it will lead into more collaboration and cooperation between the states.
If you choose to go further with the idea of HRA strengthening their power, can each state simply become an HRA office and the Principal Racing Authority of each state is the HRA. Does each state need it’s own PRA? What costs could be reduced with each state duplicating resources and departments.
Is the extra layer of governance required or best for the sport? Similar to the duplication from Federal to State to Local government, is the sport big enough for it to be still relevant to be beneficial to continue with the current model and framework of administration. If each state took on a different department or level of the HRA administration, would there be improvements, efficiencies and cost reductions realised? Would doing this strengthen clubs and give them performance increases, with each state having greater collaboration with their clubs.
Club Model
Is the Club model of racing relevant? Could clubs work more collaboratively together to provide a stronger base with which to grow? If HRA became the PRA in all states, would this allow each state to focus on working more closely with the clubs to achieve greater outcomes.
Under the government idea, where municipal councils have merged to form larger councils, could clubs merge to provide a stronger base? It would allow sharing of assets, sharing intellectual knowledge and ideas. If we are all competing for the same prize, that prize being a strong and prosperous sport, does one club need to be stronger than the next? It is not like football where clubs are competing against each other for the trophy, so why not look it from a more collective angle.
While big may not be better with many things finding the right mix would certainly be more effective. So many small race clubs do amazing things with a loyal band of volunteers and committee staff. These are effectively a ‘mum and dad’ investor scenario. Given the opportunity to have these ‘small time investors’ have at their disposal more income, event staff, managerial experience and varied industry and sporting administrative background would the end result not be one of stronger operations and performance.
This model would also allow those who know the market, in terms of the local hard working team, collaborate to achieve great results for their local track, but also feed back into the good of the overall sport.
HANDICAPPING
Ever since I can remember harness racing has had an issue with short priced favourites. Whether it is seen as a problem or not, I guess is up to the individuals perception if they like to take a short quote or if it does actually have a negative impact on turnover.
Some of the biggest “organic” quadrella pools are realised when there are distinct and obvious favourites in each leg. This is may offset the win pools in the race, but what you drop on the whirlybird you pick up on the roundabout.
It is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast. Particularly in juvenile racing, where there is quite often a large gap between the good horse and the next horse in line.
The harness handicapper, with so much mobile racing, has very few tools to be able to handicap the field under a numerical, class assessment based handicapping model. Other than writing conditions into race programmes, the only other tool at their disposal is the barrier draw.
There needs to be more like-for-like racing to make the racing more competitive. In theory, more competitive racing will lead to an increase in the average starting price, which again in theory, should lead to larger wagering pools. The argument from any trainer I speak to is always that they want to place their horse. That placing their horse is an art that form part of their training craft. Quite often the old line is trotted out place your horse in the worst company and keep yourself in the best. My response to this is always it is hard to soar like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
Simply put, the trainers can’t be the handicapper. If you allow this to happen, there will be a continuance of a dominant horse being placed into a race the trainer sees as an easier option. The handicapper needs to be allowed to handicap the field. Barrier draws need to be random barrier draw, only in higher staked events.
Having a tiered prizemoney structure across the programme has merit in principle. However it again allows the owner or trainer to be the handicapper. It does not work in attracting a more even quality of horses competing against each other.
There needs to be a shift towards implementing a ranking or rating system that is dynamic, allowing a horse to slide up or down depending on its form. Races need to be weighted against the rating, by that I mean higher stakes races carry higher rating points shifts.
Western Australia attempted this with their Harness Performance Rating. I don’t know the reason as to why it didn’t gain traction but from reading the framework of the idea, it seemed to have merit.
NSW has gone down the path of conditioned racing, decided primarily at Metro meetings on prizemoney. While it seems to work and is making races open, reading it clearly and concisely in a formguide can become confusing.
Queensland has used the Band ranking races. They were well received and produced even racing, yet for no definitive reason were scrapped by the board.
A ranking or rating, that is applied on a national scale makes sense and will make it easier for formguides and from a punting perspective. The rating will be easy to display, against both the horse and the race and becomes a clearer way to define the numbers of the national racing population. A rating could also have state weighting or adjustment, allowing the handicapping panel to assess their racing population on a state specific basis.
If the HRA were the PRA a rating system would also allow the handicapping panel to work in a more collaborative manner. It would encourage the sharing and implementation of ideas and allow a state focus with an overarching national framework.
Barrier Draws 
The barrier draw is one of the few handicapping tools available in mobile start racing and it needs to be better utilised. Random Barrier Draw should only be used if the field is evenly allocated or in major (some) major Group races.
Simply, the best horses in a race and the horses with superior form (under current numeric class reached over time) need to be allocated the widest/second line barriers.
This, more than the increase in field size will help stimulate turnover. The punter has to be prepared to take the risk that the better horse will need to overcome more in the run to get the win. Adds a greater variable to the race and helps create a greater spectacle in the racing product. It is not so much a case of odds-on favourites being the huge problem, it’s the case of the dominant horse draws the best barrier, leads easily and turns the race into a procession.
If they draw a bad barrier, they may still start at a short quote, however the variable is then added which may mean if the horse draws 1 in a RBD and starts at $1.20, it draws the second line, the predictability of the outcome changes and the starting price may get out to $1.80, whilst still odds-on may actually generate more wagering on the event because of the change in predictability/variance.
Under current handicapping system- Not denying that track bias may be a factor, however I firmly believe race tempo and favoured runners drawing to lead a race accounts more to leaders winning at short quotes. A horse draws to lead and is of better ability, then the procession follows of it leading, controlling the speed of the race and therefore the leader wins. If that same horse draws wide or on the second row, with equal or slightly lesser ability horses drawing prominently, the race has added variables and the notion of track bias would swing.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Understandably, to get the ‘right’ people into a sport, they need to have a passion for the sport. However the lines become too blurred when you have people in positions of power on executive committees, in club administration and board member positions who are active owners/participants in the sport.
It is a double standard to have rules in place where stewards/handicappers/registrars cannot have direct (or indirect through family) ownership or interest in any horse, yet other administrators/executives/board members can have any interest they so desire. Sure they may have to disclose these interests, but in the interest of transparency I don’t think it serves the best interests of anyone to allow this.
Being realistic, doesn’t a member of a board have a far more reaching influence of the entire sport than a steward. They can directly influence and approve policy changes, directives on programming, breeding schemes and any other number of initiatives that may stand to benefit their own interests, even if it also is a either a benefit or detriment to others.
In short, conflicts of interest need to be better documented and addressed to provide overall transparency for all involved.
INTEGRITY
Under the same idea that HRA needs to increase its power base, Integrity matters need to face a bigger national approach.
Penalties
Each state operates under the National Rules, how can it be that the same offence carries different penalty dependent on the state the offence takes place. This is one of the single biggest issues that face the sports integrity.
The same offence can carry a penalty that varies significantly between states. The fact that one state may disqualify a participant, whilst another issues a fine for the same offence should not be tolerated
Coupled with this issue is the way that appeals are heard and decided upon. There needs to be a more effective appeals system, so that the course of natural justice can be decided, however civil claims tribunals are not where they should be decided. A national racing appeals board should be established and used by all three racing codes. Find intelligent members with judicial backgrounds to form the panel and they only deal in racing related appeals.
There needs to be a nationally agreed penalty template. NSW have lead the way here with a class scheduling of banned substances. Introduce the national integrity body to set the framework and template for penalty. A national template would clearly define a scale of penalty that is matched against the offence and is automatically applied.
There appears to be too much grey area, when often it is a black and white case. Weighting applied for repeat offence and the overall offence record needs to be considered.
Race Tactics
The bane of many punters frustrations, the change of tactic rules and notifications of such variances, needs to be reviewed.
It is a tricky situation as to when or if a tactic notification needs to be made. On one hand there needs to be some protection for the punter so that they are advised and on the other you have the owner with their argument of why they should have to declare their tactics if they are going to change them.
Either way it needs to be addressed by integrity teams in consultation and a solution found. At present the systems in place do not work and when tactics are notified and then not followed, it makes the situation even worse. Again a problem with too much grey area and variable factors that may or may not attribute to the situation have influence over the outcome.
Stewards Reporting
Twitter has seen the advent of notifications being more easily broadcast and this has been a positive move. However there is so much more that stewarding panels could do either through social media or through technological use to improve the work they do.
Through the HRA website and again through a national approach, they need to overhaul how stewards reports are published. There should be a national template that can then be reported against to show race incidents, fines inquiries and any other matter that needs to appear. Presently, you can read one state report and it takes three scrolls down the page to get to the start of the report or read another states and the format is completely the opposite, with minimal information.
A video should accompany every steward’s report, showing any incident that has caught the panel’s eye with a commentary and review by the chairing steward to explain what they have seen, their interpretation of the incident and what action they have taken resulting from the incident.
The timeframe for release of the reports needs to be expedited. The fact that it may take up to 4 to 5 days to read a stewards report when a horse may be facing the starter again prior to the release of the report from its last start should not occur. Thoroughbred steward reports are generally available within a few hours of the conclusion of the race meeting, there should be a move towards achieving the same in harness.
“Explanation noted”- a very ambiguous statement that appears far too frequently. There needs to be a more definitive wording of what has transpired and a more concerted approach to come back to such matters at a later date. Far too often an explanation noted will appear, without any research having been conducted into it from prior to that race or at subsequent starts as to the nature of what has occurred.
One recent example highlighting that this is not appropriate, there was a race incident recently where a driver came off the back of the leader approaching the bell to move into the position outside the leader and apply pressure. Had he stayed in the original position he was occupying, an easier run and then the sprint-lane opportunity at the finish would have been available. At a subsequent stewards questioning, the driver stated it was his opinion that the leader was a horse that would surrender the lead as it had down at its previous starts. The lead horse in question had in fact lead and maintained the lead in its most recent starts. The stewards report simply stated- explanation noted.
Victoria’s approach to adding supplementary reports and adding them in a different area is a step in the right direction.
Trainers/Licensing 
Firmer stance needs to be taken against the transfer of horses following the disqualification of a trainer. Instances of trainers being placed in charge of horses when they have held training licences for a limited period or are known staff members, family members or close associates needs to be addressed. The sport wants to uphold integrity and rightly disqualifies a trainer, yet then allows the transfer of that horse to someone who in most cases is closely linked to the disqualified person. It is a terrible perception even if it is an innocent situation. That person may have the highest of horse skills and be gifted in equine husbandry and care, however it makes a mockery of procedures and policies aimed at making the sport a level playing field.
The transfer of training of a horse from a disqualified trainer should only be permitted to a trainer who has had a period of X number of years free from training suspension/disqualification. There should also be an embargo placed on the training location of a horse following the disqualification of it’s trainer. It should not be allowed to be trained from that same property for a set period to attempt to close the loophole of a new trainer coming on to the existing property and it effectively becomes business as usual.
There needs to be a bigger emphasis on the regulating of the location of horses out of competition. Currently compliance is poor. Improving this will also assist out of competition testing and regulating being undertaken. The pre-training and location of horses and who is undertaking this should also be closely watched.
Currently a trainer’s stable return will show all horses that are “supposedly” in the care of that trainer. A horse that is spelled will more often than not still appear on that trainers list of current horses in their care. If this is more accurately defined, to include only horses with a time period of X from racing, it will become a valuable tool for both integrity and programming of races. Implementing will provide a more accurate snapshot of the pool of horses available and a more defined location of the horse population.
OPS
If states are going to go down the path of letting the barrier draw be the handicap, there needs to be a stricter policing of horses being out of position at the start and the penalty applied for a rule breach.
Horses drawn inside the second row on their own that shift out prior to the start, or if they do have runners outside them and are a length off the frontline runner to get into the running line, they are not filling their allotted barrier. Horses drawn wide the front line that are already restraining prior to the mobile releasing the field are doing the same.
Is a monetary fine to the trainer suffice? Or should the horse be made ODM and made fulfil the same requirements that a horse made ODM though its racing manners is required to undertake. I’m sure the trainer/driver would me much more diligent in getting into position knowing that if they aren’t that the horse will be out of the draw for 2 starts rather than copping an obligatory $100 fine.
HEAT RACING
Heat racing is outdated and should be consigned to the annals.
The only place for heat racing is in the pinnacle events such as the Inter-Dominion or Great Southern Star. All other races should have it removed.
In minor event heat finals, there are so many occasions with a “happy to qualify” mentality. This serves no favours to anyone and only further harms the perception that may be held of the sport.
Granted, many clubs use heat racing to make budgetary savings to bolster the purse of a final and thus make a more attractive event. However there needs to be alternate ways rather than having races that don’t provide a racing spectacle.
If the heats for that were removed and the money used from those heats added to the final or to supplementary races, the money would not only be better spread, if done correctly, the same dominant horse that gets the ‘easy-kill’ in the heat would be no worse off financially. A ranking using a handicapping ranking/rating or position by dollars earnt in the season be used to determine the field.
Take the Vicbred scheme as an example. In the 2014/15 season 3YO Colts & Geldings there were 6 heats conducted paying out 6 x $10,455 in each race with $6,050 going to the winner. If you took $44,000 of this and added that to the final, making the final worth $154,000 and paying back to last bringing that figure up to the same as a heat win. That would leave $20,000 in reserve.
Remove the $40,000 for the two semi finals and there is then $60,000 made available that could be used in 3 consolations, each of $20,000, spreading the entire pool across a wider base. Obviously there are any other number of permeations that could be used to make a wider spread of funds for all.
HRA WEBSITE
The structure of the HRA website is ready for a spruce up. The frame with which to work with is viable, like the whole industry it’s ready for a new wardrobe. Currently its quite easy to find fields, formguides, results and any other basic piece of information. However there are many areas where I see it could improve, without needing HarnessWeb to access.
Statistics
As well as season totals for trainers and drivers, there needs to be a weekly tally of performance. This will provide an accurate snapshot of trainers and drivers and how their form is, this will allow punters/enthusiasts (can then be advertised/broadcast) to know who is in current form.
Lifetime statistics for trainers and drivers should also be incorporated. This also helps in the idea of celebrating our heroes. We want to showcase the human heroes of the sport, yet there is no way of easily viewing an individual career statistics.
Engagement Finder
Currently unless you have a horse in your blackbook, there is no way to tell if it has an upcoming engagement. A function where you enter the horse name and it takes you to the link of fields if that horse has an engagement. An easy tool for punters or other interested people to quickly and easily find any upcoming entries for a horse.
This should also be expanded to trainers and drivers.
Formguide
The HRNZ website custom formguide builder is a great tool. The HRA could follow this model. Allowing an individual to tailor a formguide to their individual desires and what they like and require.
Individual horse form, regardless of an upcoming engagement needs to be added. Under horse search, enter the horses name and be able to print a form history of that horse for X number of starts that you wish to view. This would be a great tool for people looking at purchasing/selling stock with the formguides already incorporating the embedded video of race performances.
Currently if looking up a horse performance and you click on a particular race performance, it takes you to a different result screen to the meeting results screen. This is particularly cumbersome if looking to watch a replay of the race. I would suggest making the page that is race specific either redundant or add an embedded video of that race to the page.
Trainer and driver performance with a horse should also be part of the form. Showing how many starts for that trainer and their performances under their training. For drivers, how many times they have driven that horse and their performances when driving that particular horse.
Trials
Why across all the states are trials done differently? Victorian trials don’t appear in the fields section of the website, WA trials appear in the formguide via the horse performance. Some videos for trials are found through club websites, others through youtube or Queensland through Trottips. Some results can never be found, some are on the HRA website, some in another area. Why can they not be accessed in the one place?
Surely in the current environment of technology and with the way race fields are displayed, all trial fields should appear on the HRA website. Results should also be complied and shown in the same format as race results with the video embedded. How much more efficient and streamlined would this be if it was all in the same location.
BREEDING
Bonus schemes have been increasing year on year across all states, however it appears to not be achieving the goal of why most bonus schemes were introduced- to encourage more on-breeding and re-investment.
At present the schemes are all delivering great money back to the owners, however it is not translating into increased foal numbers. There needs to be a greater shift in the incentive to breed another horse with the bonus payment.
On top of current bonus schemes and rewards, a scheme where any resultant foal bred by a mare that was a recipient from the earnings of a bonus certificate/payment, automatically qualifies for increased bonus. Or some such similar reward based system where there is incentive to breed.
A breeding register should also be looked into. Any mare that retires from racing is then entered onto the breeding register, Not only would this help in capturing details of the potential size of the breeding population, open the avenue of information sharing and the possibility of leasing and sale.
A potential breeder can then look on the register for mares that are not being bred to- for whatever reason they are not being put into foal. This would then more easily open the avenue for people to contact the listed owner of mares not being bred and potentially lease the mare or acquire the mare for breeding purposes. This has the potential to help increase foal numbers.
It also becomes an easy way for any potential breeders who are trying to locate a particular bloodline that they may find easier access to. Or a stallion that may not be getting the patronage that the studmaster is hoping for, can access the register and see if there are any mares that suit their stallion and are available for breeding.
Stallion numbers should be looked at being capped at an agreed ceiling limit per season. This would need consultation between stallion owners and the major stud farms. A limit of 150 could easily be realised. Whilst not wanting to pander to mediocrity, there needs to be a fine balance of levelling the playing field.
WAGERING PAPER
The Wagering Paper was a very good document that covered many topics and on face value appeared to be well received.
How many action items out of that report have been adopted or have the state PRA’s moved towards initiating? Why spruik the outcomes and findings of a report if they are then not initiated?
The same idea as the Wagering Paper needs to be undertaken with overall ideas and frameworks for the growth of the sport.
There should be the establishment of a working party with a call for anyone who wants to add submissions and ideas. After all submissions, the working party decides upon a draft agenda.
Set aside a date and venue and all interested parties can attend where all submissions chosen to be discussed are done so. Make the gathering a regular event and give the consultation process a real chance to be heard. There are enough sensible, intelligent individuals passionate about the sport to get together and proactively discuss and propse initiatives that will help the entire sport to grow and prosper.
Actioned items need to be delivered and implemented.
OWNERSHIP/SYNDICATION
The sport needs more owners and it needs more ‘new’ owners. People who have not experienced the thrill of ownership before.
With the strength of current bonus payment in the various state based schemes, there needs to be a more concerted push to highlight the benefits that these schemes make and the potential of new owners to be well subsidised for winning performances early in the career of a horse.
Thoroughbred syndication has worked extremely well in number of subscriptions and success of syndicated horses, there needs to be a concerted focus of achieving similar results in harness.
There has been some good inroads into this recently, the more the better. Achieving success with higher profile individuals in such groups can only help the cause. Horses such as Nathans Courage, Stone of Destiny, Steffi Rice and Zee Dana can bring in a different base of interest.
Attracting individuals with a profile away from harness racing gives an ideal platform to leverage from these and help build on the ownership aspect. HRV announcing a position dedicated to this .is certainly a step in the right direction.
Many clubs have seen the value in attracting new owners as well by having “club horses” and initiatives like Race-a-Pacer and the NSW model where they have had female only or other open ownership groups with horses selected from yearling sales.
Another initiative that should be looked into is more “competition” style ownership to help whet the appetite of potential owners. Bling It On had a small percentage share won in a competition during his 3YO Brisbane campaign. Getting the right people on board to ‘sell’ a percentage of their horse for the night to the race club who then raffle or give away that share for the night, giving them race night priveleges is an ideal way in attempting to showcase the benefits, joys and thrills of ownership to a new audience.
Many trainers are also becoming more active in chasing new owners and social media is an ideal platform for trainers/owners to freely and easily promote what they have on offer to try to bring in new owners.
To ensure this is successful however, there needs to be a trainer education/best practice model followed. Its all well and good to attract new owners, however if they end up owning a horse with a trainer that may not provide the experience that the new owner was expecting, there is potential for a sour taste to be left and that owner may be lost forever.
I have spoken to many owners who have chosen not to re-invest or purchase other horses because of experiences with their trainer. Some of the things spoken about was the inability to be able to watch their horse in trackwork or at least see it in it’s training environment, the “closed ranks” mentality and unwillingness to be forthcoming in how the horse is actually performing, not being given an indication of the training/nominating/acceptance/racing process and the belief that their horse would be in a particular event only to find out it had not even been nominated. While this may certainly be a minority instance, it has been across various trainers.
The point is, that syndicates, clubs or the PRA’s can do all the hard work to attract the new owner. They are then let loose with a trainer who may have all the horse nous available, but does not have the skills or knowledge to build and foster a strong relationship that ensures positive outcomes are experienced.
Clubs also need to see their role in looking after owners. Owners need better service from the clubs on race-nights. It doesn’t need to be a big cost item or have any exclusivity attached, however there needs to be a sense of benefit felt by an owner for having their horse race and being at the track.
SKY CHANNEL SCHEDULING
The balance of racing product available on Sky needs to be better managed. There needs to be a better balance of lead in time for all codes. Its a common and easily defined result that more lead in time converts to more wagering revenue on that event.
There never should be a situation of a race being shifted to Sky 2. If it is bumped, it means there is too much content. The fact that race meetings are being scheduled with 35 plus minutes between races and then get reassigned to an alternate channel is unacceptable.
Should Sky be allowed to be the sole schedulers of the racing of all codes considered their ownership/affiliation with Tabcorp?
Why can’t there be a better scheduling of product where lead-in time is afforded, where there is not greater than 25 minutes gap between races? Fixing this issue won’t come easy and will take negotiation and consultation. However there is no reason that a better outcome cannot be achieved.
Under current operations, Sky use their power and will veto requests of PRA’s and clubs to suit what they see as best scenario for their own commercial endeavours.
A 10 race card with 30 minute gaps equates to the meeting being stretched over a 4.5 hour period or 270 minutes. Those same 10 races provide approximately 20 minutes of actual racing product- what you are primarily getting people to the track for.
Condense this same 10 race card to 20 minute gaps it is 3 hours or 180 minutes. Use the condensed racing card to engage those on track or at home into more of the racing product. It then allows a 1.5 hour program of entertainment after the racing is completed if the club so desires. There will be more chance of people staying at a venue after the racing is completed if they haven’t already had their day/night dragged out through a race meeting with 35-40 minute gaps between races.
If dedicated time slots were made available for the product, would we achieve better wagering turnover collectively? If the following model were followed, with no overlap of codes what would the results, positives/negatives be?
9.00am-1.30pm- Matinee Greyhound meetings and overseas content
1.30pm- 4.30pm- Afternoon Thoroughbreds
4.30pm- 7.30pm- Twighlight Harness
7.30pm-10.30pm- Night Greyhounds, harness overflow, night gallops.
NATIONAL TOTE POOLS
To strengthen the overall wagering landscape, the mingling of national tote pools needs to take place. If co-mingling with the Hong Kong tote can take place, why cannot there be enough collaboration and agreement to co-mingle the 3 Australian totes.
Surely the strength that the resultant pools would then generate would only result in positive growth of all the wagering pools. Larger punters would then have more confidence betting into the pool, without restriction knowing they are much more likely to receive a better return.
Achieving this would call more corporate bookmakers into account, and would this possibly lead them to standing a client for more?
If take-out rates match where the investment is placed geographically/organisationally, surely this is only beneficial to all involved.
RECOGNITION OF PARTICIPANTS
Top Performers
There needs to be better recognition of our top performers, not just from within but to also get the message out to those who may not be au fait with this great sport. How many ‘non-racing people’ would know of Black Caviar. How many of these same people would know of Blacks A Fake. It is a problem that may not ever be overcome, however it needs to be given dedicated resources to lift the knowledge and awareness of our sport.
Recognising the top performers could also be used as a promotional tool if a Race To Glory or Australian Pacing Champion series were initiated.
A Brownlow Medal or Dally M medal style award should also be implemented on a National basis. Some states currently have a similar style award, but how much more recognition could be achieved if it is undertaken on a national basis. It could even be a peer elected award, like a players-player style. At the end of the year, votes counted and the winner decided to start the Race To Glory week.
Drivers Colours 
Always seems to generate heated debate for whatever reasons.
Look at any other sport- who or how are the heroes recognised? By the colour of the team that they play for. Sure there are many trainer/drivers that have easily recognised colours and wear those colours consistently.
If there is a desire to reach a new audience, strengthen the current audience base and help recognise our top performers/heroes, then driver colours need to be instituted. It will make the promotion and recognition easier to undertake.
The wearing of greyhound colour saddle cloths receives positive feedback in identifying a runner in the field. However do we want to be our own sport? Driver colours will achieve the same result, if not greater benefit then wearing a coloured saddlecloth.
This is the first part. There are other topics that I will cover in an upcoming piece once I find the time.
dashman01's observations 