Cliff Williams, Contributor
RECENTLY I have been taking another look at the classification and handicapping of horses, as well as conditions for stakes races in the United Kingdom and the competitive racing it is producing, leading to huge increases in sales for bookmakers and tote operators.
The variety of conditions written for races other than handicap events is quite interesting. The weight allotment takes into account age, sex and stakes earning in differing combinations to produce competitive racing.
As far as straight handicapping is concerned each horse has a rating which determines class. Each race therefore there has a band of ratings which determines the eligibility for entry, thus restricting the competition to horses of similar ability. Naturally, a horse can be entered to compete above its classification in a higher handicap rating group but never the reverse.
Basically, something closely resembling what is being done in Britain prevailed in Jamaica up until a decade and a half ago. It was then decided that although only one racetrack was in operation, the inferior American Claiming System should be implemented here.
STEADY DETERIORATION
This, done against the advice of those who knew better, led to a steady deterioration in the quality of racing product and the departure of many of the wealthiest owners and with them the viability of the breeding industry.
The arguments advanced at the time, as the rationale for going this route, was that the majority of horses were being manipulated for gambling purposes and there were too many "non-triers", which in my view is a load of rubbish.
Nobody was better placed to refute this than I was, having worked for a decade with the leading bookmaking establishment and having responsibility for limiting the company's exposure.
Manipulation of the form of horses could only have been possible if the Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) was reneging on its responsibility and mandate to protect the integrity of the racing product.
PALTRY PURSES
Truth be told, it was the paltry purses on offer that made owners and trainers feel the need to gamble to supplement earnings that led to whatever manipulation there was at the time.
Here is some of what the local proponents of the claiming system erroneously did not take into account.
The system was implemented in North America just over a half a century ago, simply because with so many tracks in operation and no computerised database it was almost impossible to keep track of the form of horses being moved around to compete at different courses. In any event, there was probably nobody around who could do the mathematics of handicapping successfully unless the expertise was imported from the United Kingdom.
NEGATIVE IMPACT
This had a negative impact on sales turnover as the patrons could not bet confidently without prior knowledge of the form.
It was decided that the most sensible way of dealing with the problem was to allow owners to put a value on their horses and compete where they think they could succeed, even at the risk of the animal being claimed. This was possibly the most appropriate thing for the totally comercialised North American racing with its huge horse population.
The most deleterious effect of operating this flawed claiming system is the lack of control over where horses can compete. Then there is the matter of the weight allotment being so bizarre and illogical that inferior horses give away weight to superior ones.
What this does is to put the promoting company in a situation where on any given day a fair number of the races on offer have no prospect of turning a decent profit.
The most important aspect of the racing industry is for the promoters to maintain strong viability and this is not possible without competitive racing and it is only genuine handicapping that can achieve this objective.
Incidentally, has anyone noticed how infrequently on most days the photo finish equipment is utilised and surely this speaks to uncompetitive racing. The fact of the matter is it is only accidental when there is a close finish under a Claiming System as opposed to genuine handicapping where the objective is to equalise the chances of the entries to theoretically produce a multiple dead-heat.
To this day I am still at a loss to determine how the then operators of the promoting company could not have seen where a system that basically left the handicapping of horses to owners and trainers, catered to defective horses, destroyed the possibility of smaller trainers developing top class horses and produced largely uncompetitive racing thus reducing sales turnover, was not in the best interest of the industry's viability.
