It’s time to ask questions about the perennial problem of track biases
We go all the way back to December 1939 for the club to decide that a hedge on the inside of the track, on the flat side, was making the track much quicker there.
No, I wasn’t there then but I doubt it could have been much quicker on the inside than it was last Saturday when you had no chance if you were more than two to three horses off the inside rail (with the exception of the Newmarket).
Smart punters can deal with this on the fly but it’s a disaster for owners and trainers and must be perplexing for the casual fan having a flutter.
This bias was, of course, pronounced in the circle races as well as those down the straight which was the primary concern all those years ago and has been – intermittently – ever since.
It does demand an industry response as we saw similar inside/on-pace patterns through most of last year’s spring carnival. We saw a very similar scenario at last year’s Newmarket meeting but it’s not just a Flemington issue.
It’s a complex problem and blame is not readily apportioned nor appropriate. Even experienced track walking trainers often remain perplexed.
And, in fairness, recently appointed Flemington track manager Liam O’Keeffe has openly conceded that “no doubt inside was the place to be” and that the rail should have been moved out further than four metres. It will be this Saturday – to seven metres.
What you see is not necessarily what you get when it comes to track conditions. The worn area is likely to compact more quickly than a lush section of turf and although it may look less attractive, it will race faster.
Club officials probably have to be prepared to have wider rail movement which may look less desirable in the race program assuming that owner and trainers are prepared to have slightly reduced field sizes if it means fairer tracks.
There are, of course, a myriad of other factors at play – tempo, tactics, irrigation, drainage, wind and all the forces of nature in these outdoor arenas – not to mention that the fence is indeed the shortest way home.
Nor is the bias ever quite as pronounced as the initial perception but when no horse, all day, threatens to win making a wide, swoooping run then you have to be sceptical. Not to mention that the state’s most experienced and accomplished jockey Damien Oliver simply refused to be anywhere but on the fence in his later rides.
Racing participants are a hardy and philosophical lot who generally accept the rub of the green but I am surprised disgruntled owners aren’t more vocal about this issue.
Fewer and broader rail movements may well be the simplest solution. Last Saturday the Flemington rail came out four metres from the true position seven days earlier (when the track raced well) and trainer Michael Kent believes that wasn’t wide enough.
“I think there was wear on the track to six metres from the previous meeting so we had an inside worn two metres which actually became firmer. If close to the inside was a good 3 then the middle of the track was a 4.5. When you have a faster inside section of a track, very few horses can get there,” he said.
This type of bias creates the biggest racing problem and is, of course, potentially dangerous. “Only a few get a chance when the inside is favoured but if the fence is off everyone gets their chance,” said Kent, who is an advocate of wider rail movements.
Leaders do win on what we call a ‘swoopers’ track if they ease out to the better ground but a ’swooper’ never wins on a leader’s track.
These inside favoured tracks may well be distorting racing’s history. Was last year’s Caulfield Cup winner flattered and likewise the Guineas winner? Were the Flemington carnival results fair and true?
“With due respect, perhaps the right horses haven’t been winning the big races. At least the champion mare (Winx) was able to defy the bias at Moonee Valley but she was the only one,” Kent said.
Kent’s high class sprinter Supido, finished second to Redkirk Warrior on the grandstand rail in the Newmarket Handicap but was placed fifth overall. “Redkirk Warrior’s performance was outstanding as the grandstand side was slower then the inside but it was better that he and our horse headed there, from their respective draws, than go to the much slower middle. From gates 14 and 15, they were never going to get where you really needed to be on the inside,” he said.
This is a perennial problem and while there may not necessarily be the simple solution, it’s reasonable to ask whether current track management and rail movement strategies are working.
Maybe some radical action is required which is what happened all those years ago.
Then, the VRC Secretary Arthur.V. Kewney (after whom last Saturday’s fillies race is named) said: “it was decided to remove the privet hedge on the flat side…the hedge acted as a windbreak for horses racing beside the inside rail. It is also believed that the roots take so much moisture from the soil that the inside track becomes harder and faster, particularly in winter.”
This was just nine months after Mr Kewney had insisted there was nothing wrong with the track. This didn’t wash with one journalist who wrote: “Despite the secretary’s statement the March Nursery was a repetition of previous races and horses drawn wide were not in the picture.’
And it certainly doesn’t wash now that there was nothing to worry about with last Saturday’s track – at one of our premier meetings on one of our supposedly premier courses.
POSTSCRIPT: Simon Dix, some time ago, forwarded me this letter sent to his great uncle Jack Millman from Arthur Kewney explaining the club’s decision to remove the hedge. Note the VRC address in Bourke Street, Melbourne and the four digit phone number!