Eco-trainers - turning a profit from manure

Chantilly trainers have gone green and are soon to be the envy of their contemporaries around the world with a ground-breaking manure-disposal project. Faced with piles of manure, the bane of all trainers’ lives, Chantilly professionals are working together to launch a pioneering scheme which looks set to solve all their problems and at the same time reap both environmental and financial rewards.

The 10-million euro project, which should be operational towards the end of 2009, is at the cutting edge of technology and consists of using a process of methanisation to convert the waste into electricity which will then be sold to the EDF (French Electricity Board), and into heat which will be used locally.

CHANTILLY TRAINERS LEAD THE WAY

With some 2500 thoroughbreds currently in training in and around the towns of Chantilly, Gouvieux and Lamorlaye, the region is France’s leading training centre and among the most prestigious sites for preparing racehorses in the world. A further 700 polo ponies and 800 riding horses are stabled in the area to make a grand total of 4,000 equine inhabitants. Slightly less glamorous than the haul of Group 1 victories which the four-legged stars of Chantilly bring home each season is the waste they produce. Each horse creates one tonne of manure per month. The muckheaps of Chantilly are overflowing and a solution is urgently needed.

Dual-purpose handler Richard Crépon was one of the first to react to the issue, and in early 2006 he became president of the Lamorlaye Bio-Resources Association. “We started to research ways to deal with our large quantities of manure and initially came up with the idea of converting it into compost, or incineration. Local farmers made a small contribution by spreading shavings-based manure on their land. But none of these systems were perfect and we realised that we needed to take control of the situation ourselves”. It was then that the current CUMA (Co-operative for the Utilization of Agricultural Material) was born, again under the presidency of Crépon.

All of Chantilly and the surrounding area’s hundred or so licence holders, as well as the towns’ riding school, livery and polo proprietors, have been invited to invest the modest sum of 100 euros to join the co-operative which, as Crépon explains, “needs manure in order for our project to be feasible”. The CUMA’S methanisation project offers a mutually-beneficial solution to a relatively new problem.

Until recently trainers had been able to rely on the abundance of mushroom producers in Chantilly to dispose of their troublesome “by-product”. The farmers had chosen Chantilly for its combination of an unending supply of the horse manure necessary for their fungus to grow, and the geological characteristics of the surrounding area. Chantilly is built on valuable limestone which has been excavated over the centuries, notably to construct the spectacular Grandes Ecuries and Chateau which give such charm to France’s Classic racecourse. The quarrying left vast underground caves perfect for mushroom cultivation and thirty years ago the area was home to around 25 mushroom farms. “They used to pay us to take away our manure. Nowadays, the industry has largely moved to Eastern Europe, leaving only 4 mushroom producers in Chantilly. We have trouble to get anyone to empty our manure pits and it costs more and more”. In Chantilly it now costs 15 euros per tonne for trainers to dispose of their organic waste.

TRAINERS WARY OF CURRENT POLLUTION RISK

Aside from the purely practical inconvenience of evacuating the tonnes of waste produced weekly, fellow trainer Tony Clout, making a regretful gesture towards a steaming skip full of manure, comments, “we don’t realise it, but we contribute to the greenhouse effect every day with all this manure”. Clout is another board member of the French Trainers’ Association who is an active player in the CUMA. Like all his trainer colleagues, he is primarily concerned by another form of pollution. “Horse manure is officially considered as a waste product and we are responsible for it until it has been completely destroyed. At the moment we have no control over where it ends up. In the current crazy situation, our manure is transported the length and breadth of France. It is always worrying to see piles of manure left standing in fields across the countryside, as they could easily have originated in our stables. There is a real risk that effluent from the waste will pollute the ground water in these instances and the trainer will be held liable and fined”.

PERFECT MOMENT TO ‘GO GREEN’

The increased environmental awareness on the part of the authorities, aside from making them more likely to take trainers to task for inadequate disposal of their waste, has another more beneficial side for the CUMA. “The timing has been ideal for us”, explains Crépon. “We started to think about environmentally-friendly ways to recycle our manure at the same time as the government was creating grants and finance schemes for exactly this type of project”. One such policy is that proposed by EDF, who pay a special tariff of 140 euros per megawatt hour (compared to usual rate 60 euros MW/h) for electricity produced by renewable sources. This price operates on the basis of a 15 year contract, which the CUMA has secured. “All this is possible thanks to our contract with EDF”, states Clout.

Although the finer details have yet to be settled, the principle behind the Chantilly project is the same as that used in Germany by around 4,000 methanisation plants for pig slurry. Nevertheless this will be the first time the technology has been used for horse manure. Bruno Battistini, consultant to the Lamorlaye Bio-Resource Association, explains, “We are setting a European and worldwide precedent. The pig manure operations are common in Germany and function in the same way as sewage processing plants as the slurry is highly-concentrated and in liquid form. However this is the first time anyone has attempted the process with dry matter, although it is similar to that used for household waste”. In France there are two such plants, in Calais and Lille, for recycling household waste but there remain a number of unknowns concerning Chantilly’s innovative project and the CUMA is still conducting research in conjunction with the INRA (National Institute for Agronomic Research) of Narbonne. “Our primary concern is to verify that our horse manure is compatible with the anaerobic breakdown process. We must also be sure of the levels and composition of the biogases produced, and finally that the equipment will stand the test of time”. At the current time, around 18 months before the project is due to leave the starting stalls, Battistini and the trainers are certain that the process will work with straw-based manure and are expecting confirmation from the INRA that shavings will be able to be recycled in the same conditions.

WHAT IS METHANISATION?

Methanisation is an anaerobic fermentation process through which the waste is decomposed by bacteria in an air-free environment. The manure will therefore be collected in giant sealed silos, where it will ferment to give off biogas consisting largely of methane and carbon dioxide. These gases will in turn be used to drive turbines which produce the electricity destined for EDF. “While EDF is our guarantee of income”, explains Battistini, “we have a legal obligation towards them according to which, in order to benefit from their favourable rates, we must not waste potential energy”. The latent heat generated during the methanisation process therefore becomes a secondary resource. In addition to its utility in heating the plant’s reactors, which need to be maintained at an operational temperature of 55°C, it will also be sold locally for heating purposes. A 1 ½ hectare site has been chosen for the plant, on land owned by the Institut de France and subsidised by France Galop. Its central location at Mont de Po, between the training centres of Chantilly and Lamorlaye, while being practical for trainers, is of vital logistical importance for the sale of the heat. Within just a few hundred metres of the site are the AFASEC jockeys’ school and the Bois Larris Red Cross Hospital, the two major clients whose heating systems are to be supplied by the warmth created by the turbines. Their proximity means that a minimal amount of heat will be lost during transfer. Another bonus with the location is that there is already a 20,000 volt cable running underground across the site to cater for the hospital, which means that no unsightly pylons will be required.

VALUABLE WASTE IS LEFT OVER FROM METHANISATION PROCESS

After the three-to-four-week methanisation process has been completed, around 60% of the initial volume will remain as biologically stable residue. “Our profitability is also dependent upon the use we make of this residue”, says Battistini. “The heat we sell to the hospital and the AFASEC will be running at 100% of its potential in December and January, however that will be reduced to 10% in the summer months. This seasonal issue will affect our global efficiency and in order to qualify for the subsidies on offer, we need to prove that we utilize at least 75% of the energy produced”. The solution to this final conundrum is to recycle the residue a second time to create fuel briquettes. The latent heat which is surplus to requirements over the summer will be used to dry, and then carbonise, the waste from the digestors at temperatures of up to 400°C. The resulting matter will be compressed into briquettes for use either in households or possibly by the AFASEC or the hospital if their boilers could be converted to use this type of fuel. The CUMA are also keen not to leave the remaining mushroom-growers in the lurch and are working together to determine whether the farms can make use of the residue.

A WELL SUPPORTED SCHEME

The project is expected to cost in the region of 10 million euros. “We have yet to finalize a finance plan as we are still awaiting the various technical validations from the INRA. When we have these we will be able to make an accurate evaluation of the cost of the plant and then source funding for our operation”. However Battistini does not have any concerns on this score. In addition to the EDF contract, a whole range of grants and support dedicated to the development of biomass projects and the recycling of waste are proposed on regional, national and European levels, including Grenelle Environment and Brussels. The scheme is supported by the government ministries of agriculture and environment as well as by Minister of Budget, Public Accounts and Civil Service Eric Woerth, who is Mayor of the prestigious racing town.

Indeed the town of Chantilly itself, thanks to its status as a Pole d’Excellence Rurale (Centre of Rural Excellence), is eligible for European money dedicated to this type of project. Another source of income could quite simply be a bank loan. This may be more simple than it first appears, as Battistini confirms, “According to a law which was passed five or six years ago, all the major French high-street banks offer loans called ‘Sofergies’ which are dedicated to the financing of this type of equipment. The interest rate is negotiable but the real advantage of the idea is that banks must give priority to innovative projects such as ours which will produce renewable energy”. In the future, carbon credits may be recuperated by the CUMA, although there is still work to do on this front as they are currently only available for porcine and bovine schemes. Battistini intends to change this state of affairs. “We are lobbying the CITEPA (Technical Interprofessional Centre for the Study of Atmospheric Pollution) to convince them to change this ruling and hope to benefit from carbon credits within a year or two”.

OUTLAY WILL BE REPAID WITHIN A DECADE

Richard Crépon and Tony Clout aim to have written off the cost of the factory within seven or eight years, whereas Battistini offers the slightly more conservative estimate of ten years. Whoever is right on this minor issue, the CUMA seems assured of success on both economic and ecological levels. “Once we have repaid the cost of the plant, the trainers, who are the shareholders in the CUMA, will reap the financial benefits”, says Clout. “In the future we should be able to return to a situation in which trainers are paid for the removal of their manure, and not vice versa”. While the renewable energy supplied to EDF and local services will make a small impact on country-wide electricity production, the project is also advantageous in cutting down on primary pollution which currently originates from the currently steaming muckheaps of Chantilly.

The CUMA will seek to standardize manure storage for all the region’s trainers so that all waste is kept in covered pits or containers prior to transportation to the plant’s closed fermentors, thereby considerably reducing current methane emissions. While the project is far from completion, the ensemble of favourable circumstances mean that the members of Chantilly’s CUMA can be confident of a cleaner, cheaper future in which they will be in control of the manure their horses produce. Their progress will be followed with interest by trainers around Europe and the world.

Global Superbet - Can it take horseracing to a bigger stage?

Twenty-five years ago John R. Gaines in Kentucky came up with an idea, the Breeders’ Cup series. Gaines felt that Thoroughbred racing needed a high profile day, which would make it possible for the sport to compete with NFL, NHL and NBA in the media picture. Everyone involved in racing agreed, just as much as they agreed that Thoroughbred breeding and racing needed new innovations, offering opportunities for more international competition with chances of winning bigger purses.

Has it worked? Partly, and the Breeders’ Cup has most certainly been more a star actor than just another face to the stage. This year, the International Federation of Horseracing has been working on another new idea, of a totally different nature. Again, the reason for exploring new products for the sport is that we are badly in need of legs to stand on in the increasingly competitive betting market. While turnover on horseracing, according to figures released by the bookmaking industry, has levelled out, it has increased markedly in other sports. In Europe, football is the sport attracting the biggest betting figures.

One big difference between the two sports, as far as betting is concerned, is how international football has become. The Champions League, the UEFA Cup, World Cup Finals, European Cup Finals and their qualifying rounds, and the Copa America, combine for a huge, huge betting market – just in Europe. Add in markets like Hong Kong and Australia and the total figures are truly staggering. With football fans from all over the world logging on to bet on and tuning in to watch these big international matches on a weekly basis, it is almost unbelievable that no betting firm has come up with a weekly “Football Superbet.” For instance, a multi-leg wager where you need to predict home win, draw or away win in, say, ten or twelve high profile games. With a global, massive pool, it would become a lottery for the thinking fan.

Strange as it may seem, quite a few in this world still prefer to use their brain, their own knowledge, when betting. They do not want to bet on numbers games where the odds are stacked heavily against them. Without products to stimulate them, these brains will soon no longer be potential players, not when it comes to horseracing betting, that’s for sure. They will either turn their backs on betting altogether or they will look for other challenges. There is no longer a shortage of alternatives. Poker and bridge, to name but two card games, are tailor made for internet wagering involving thinking players. And these products are considerably cheaper to produce, and run, than horseracing. There is no comparison.

Let’s get back to the idea of a superbet. While other sports do not seem to have grasped such an idea, horseracing is, for a change, a couple of lengths ahead. This year, the International Federation of Horseracing began developing and testing a new bet, called the “Global Trifecta.” This wager is very much in its infancy, and it has been a complicated baby to conceive, but it is an excellent idea that ought to be given all the backing it can get. It has already been tested with international pools on a small number of flat races this season, but with a “soft launch approach,” according to Totesport’s (Pari-Mutuel operator in the UK) PR manager Damian Walker. If it can be refined, and marketed, in the right way, it has every chance of becoming a big success. Not just as a betting product, but also as a tool to promote the sport of horseracing worldwide. “Mauritz Burggink, at the IFH in Paris, is the man behind the idea of a superbet,” Damian Walker explains, “it is all quite simple. With bigger liquidity in the pool, there will be bigger dividends, and a bet like this can compete with all the lotteries. A lot of work has been done already, and the ultimate aim is to have a Global Superbet every week. We have tested it, but I must stress that the betting on a few races in 2007 has been nothing more than ‘dipping a toe in the water’ as there are various complications to overcome. Not least the fact that different countries have different IT-systems, and local laws also affect what we can and cannot do.”

Walker explains how punters in big markets like Australia, Hong Hong, USA, South Africa, Singapore and Europe were this year given the opportunity of betting into a global trifecta pool on some Group One events. “The product cannot be properly tested without real bets, though testing such a product must begin on a relatively small scale,” he says, “and that is why we have given this a quiet launch. I am convinced that this will be a big success, and it can change the world of betting on horseracing dramatically.

The progress of this project will be high on the agenda when representatives meet in Tucson, Arizona this December.” The global trifecta - where one has to select the first three home in the exact order - was opened for betting on the Prix de Diane at Chantilly in June. This is not a high profile race internationally, my guess is that a large proportion of racing fans in Australia, Hong Kong and USA have never heard of the race. Walker agrees, but a guinea pig is a guinea pig, and he has some interesting figures from this race. “The turnover was 60,000 euros,” he tells us, “and the dividend was 1,767-1. If the bet had been settled on the UK pool alone, the dividend would have been just 929-1. This shows what a difference a bigger pool can make.” That may be, but the pool was nowhere near what it will, hopefully, be one day, and it was too small to provide the operators any sort of hard conclusions. To the customers, however - the punters - a 60,000-euro pool is big enough to enable them to assess the value of the product.

Did this trifecta pay over the odds, under the odds, or just about normal? Well, UK punters probably would not have a clue, as they are absolute beginners when it comes to trifecta betting, most of them not even that. Most gamblers in the USA, on the other hand, would have been able to take a quick glance at the result, the odds for the first three home, the number of runners, and say whether a 1,768-1 return was good or bad value. The Diane had 14 runners and was won by West Wind, who returned 9-2. She beat Mrs Lindsay (14-1), with Diyakalanie (40-1) third. Almost as a rule of thumb, a North American exacta, on a race like this, will return at least the product of multiplying the tote win odds on the two horses involved. Plus some if the shortest priced horse is second, minus some if the shortest priced horse in the winner. In this case that would be 5.50 (9-2) multiplied by 15 (14-1), which is 82.50.

So, with a 40-1 shot finishing third, was 1,767-1 good value? Finding a race to compare this to in the USA is not at all difficult. The Breeders’ Cup Mile has a habit of returning trifectas that include both a winner at a fair price and a real longshot, and also excludes the favourite. And it is a race with a pool made up of punters from all kinds of corners of the world. The 2003 edition of the BC Mile produced an almost identical trifecta to the one seen in this year’s Diane. Six Perfections (5-1) beat Touch of The Blues (12-1) and Century City (39-1). The race had 13 runners. The trifecta returned 2,627-1. Which is a whopping 48% higher than this year’s global trifecta on the Diane. Although interesting enough, this is not at all a fair comparison, as the trifectas on the Breeders’ Cup races nearly always pay well over the odds, simply because the majority of the pool is made up of punters with little or no knowledge of racing. The pool on the Diane was almost certainly made up of punters who knew racing well, and also knew enough about the sport to know that the bet existed. 1,767-1 was therefore a very good return, indicating that it could easily have paid 2,600-1 with a bigger pool. For the record; the trifecta pool on the 2003 BC Mile was $2.3 million. A whole different ballgame, and also where one is aiming to take the global superbet.

NOT NECESSARILY A TRIFECTA

“The global superbet does not necessarily have to be a trifecta,” Walker continues. “There is a good chance that it will be a carbon copy of the Triple Trio, a highly successful bet in Hong Kong.” The Triple Trio is a multi leg bet where one has to select the first three finishers, in any order, in three consecutive races. At last year’s Hong Kong International day, when the bet was made up of two handicaps and the Hong Kong Sprint, the dividend was 301,707-1 No space here to take an analytical look at the combined odds of all the nine horses involved, but it makes sense to mention that the three winners paid 14-1, 5-1 and 3-1. A win treble at these odds would return 359-1.

It may be a pure coincidence but it is interesting to note that the Triple Trio returned 840 times the win treble, which is not at all 840 times easier to predict. We can understand why a bet like this is a real alternative to playing the lotteries. On the other hand, offering a global triple trio may have its disadvantages, as one is then asking punters to analyse three races, possibly staged in three different countries. Nobody, nowhere, will be confidently familiar with the form of all the horses. Thus, perhaps a trifecta on one race is a better way to go. “Another issue we need to address is the cases when the bet is not won, and creates a rollover, or jackpot if you will,” Walker comments. “Punters in one country may not be too happy about their money moving on to a different jurisdiction, where they will be at a disadvantage when getting involved.”

When betting on horseracing, local knowledge does count for a lot, but these are changing times, and he or she who can find the right angles on and the right understanding of international racing will stand the best chance of collecting on a global superbet. Nevertheless, without the local customers - the two-pound, two-euro or two-dollar punters joining in - the pool will never be massive enough to compete with the lotteries. Perhaps there is a simple solution to this problem. The weekly races will probably have to be scheduled in advance, but “reserve races” could be assigned the following week in the country where the race or races take place, meaning that, when there is a rollover, the global bet stays in one place until it is won. Of course, this could take weeks, especially if the bet is a triple trio, though perhaps not if it is a one-race trifecta.

Has an American style superfecta been discussed at all? “Yes, it has,” Walker replies. “The global trifectas we have had this year have mainly been like lab testing, and various models will be discussed and analysed before we land on one model. We are testing technical solutions just as much as we are testing the nature of the bet.”

COMPETITORS WILL EMERGE

I love the idea of a global superbet, but wonder, will it really happen? Will it be a success? This is early days, but, please, make sure that those two words are not too easily swallowed too often within horseracing, in particular when it comes to creating and promoting new products. We have heard them so many times before. Sometimes those ‘early days’ become ‘all time.’ Horseracing authorities and regulators, in Europe in particular, so often come across as so incredibly conservative and as such a stubborn bunch, that the one word that springs to mind is ‘immature.’

Racing still seems to be run from offices that are, if not totally then at least seriously partly, lagging behind the rest of the world. I would be delighted to be convinced that I am wrong about this, as I also fear that this state of affairs will be one of the biggest stumbling blocks for a new global superbet. Things are simply moving way, way too slowly. Take the lack of European racing rules, a topic that came to the fore after this year’s Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe. Of course, this has been discussed before, but nothing seems to happen. Why not make a couple of quick moves, why not just do it? Make those changes. Toss a couple of coins if need be to settle a couple of disagreements between the English and the French, and get on with it.

Bookmakers taking more and more and more bets on football, and fewer and fewer on racing, do not care about the lack of a sensible set of international racing rules. They are busy making money, and giving the gambling market new, lucrative products, which is precisely why the development of a new global bet must be speeded up. Why? I’ll tell you why. Because as soon as this concept becomes more high profile, through proper marketing and media coverage, bookmakers will grab the idea, adapt it to some other sport, maybe even other sports, and create a new product within a matter of weeks. All of a sudden, racing will be behind, again.

The International Federation of Horseracing may be a couple of lengths ahead with their development of a global pool bet at the moment. A couple of lengths, however, is not exactly a comfortable and commanding lead on a playing ground which is changing so fast, and is so volatile, as the betting market. Not when you are involved in the race for the betting dollar, euro, or pound. Unless you are by far the biggest, financially strongest player, it can actually be a disadvantage to lead the way. It is only an advantage if you are smarter, considerably smarter. Let’s hope we are.

Who is Controlling Racing's TV Signals?

By Howard Wright

For all the differences between the horseracing and betting landscapes in Britain and North America - size, history, administration and race and bet types, - one similarity of principle has emerged over the last five years. The live televised racing scene has crystallised into two entities, and the impact on both the foundation and prosperity of the sport and the availability of its betting facilities has been thrown into the blender.

 In Britain, the 60 racecourses have lined up equally between the two cable and satellite broadcasters - Racing UK (RUK), with 30 tracks on board, and At The Races (ATR), with 29, but soon to become 30 when the new venue of Great Leighs attains its long-awaited completion.

In North America, the dominance and extensive exclusivity of TVG has been challenged by the major corporate racetrack owners Magna Entertainment Corp. (MEC) and Churchill Downs Inc., which have jointly formed the cable and satellite broadcaster Horseracing TV (HRTV), shutting out TVG from coverage of their many high-quality courses.

Into the mix have been catapulted bookmaking, advance deposit wagering and online betting facilities, the biggest attraction for the public and the most significant cash provider for racing outside the deep pockets of racehorse owners.

What will come out at the other end, and when, is impossible to say with any certainty. Interested parties have their own views, based on which side of the divide they sit, but it would take someone akin to a soothsayer, let alone an experienced industry observer, to imagine where the path will lead.

The road-makers are still at work, using different maps to plot their separate ways, and sometimes giving the impression they are making up the journey as they go along.

Two examples of intricacies that can only ripen confusion and spread uncertainty are worth recording, before attempting to untangle the web spun by rights-holders seeking to manage content to best advantage.

Ascot, Britain’s best-known international venue, lined up with At The Races when the second coming of that daily satellite broadcaster emerged from the ashes of a failed venture known as Attheraces in June 2004. At the time, as Ascot negotiated with its bankers over loans to service a £200 million redevelopment scheme, huge uncertainty surrounded previous rights, which may have meant Ascot having to repay a significant sum. Partly to allay the fears of financial institutions, Ascot fell in with ATR, and was given a five per cent stake in the company for its allegiance.

However, the contract, which runs until 2012, did not include pictures supplied to betting shops, and when these came up for renegotiation earlier this year, Ascot decided to jump on to the back of another media rights horse. It sided with Amalgamated Racing - Amrac for short - which had set up a joint venture with the stock market-quoted betting-shop services provider Alphameric to introduce a new channel, Turf TV, offering pictures from aligned courses to off-track bookmakers.

Until then, for 20 years the betting industry had had only one company to deal with, Satellite Information Services (SIS), which took pictures from Racing UK courses under contract, and by sub-contract from At The Races’ courses through an organisation called Bookmaker Afternoon Greyhound Service (Bags).

Bags has outgrown its title by owning horseracing rights and covering evening racing, while ATR controls no betting-shop picture rights in Britain, but it does use SIS to produce its programmes on a daily basis, and has a contract with it to distribute pictures into betting shops in overseas territories such as Sri Lanka.

Confused? You soon will be…

Explaining the decision to go with Amrac, Ascot’s finance director Janet Walker says: “We believe Amrac is the best vehicle for racing’s commercial relationship with the betting industry. And the decision has no impact on our separate satellite media rights arrangement with ATR, and should in no way be interpreted as a negative reflection on our relationship with that company.”
In North America, the picture began to get decidedly murkier in March this year, when Churchill Downs bought a 50 per cent stake in HorseRacing TV, which had previously been owned wholly by Magna.

It was the biggest in a series of deals that the two sides concluded at the time, and out of the arrangement came the formation of another joint venture called TrackNet Media Group, through which one partner’s horseracing content would become available to the other’s various distribution platforms - Magna’s advance deposit wagering (ADW) site XpressBet, Churchill’s similar newcomer TwinSpires.com.

TrackNet would also deal with providing content, from pictures to betting availability, for third parties, it emerged. These were to include racetracks, OTBs, casinos and other ADW operators - but not TVG, it seemed; well, not without a groundbreaking change of heart.

HRTV immediately took over coverage of Churchill Downs, and as contracts run their course, it picked up exclusive rights to Arlington Park on August 6, Fair Grounds in November and Calder on January 3, 2008.

It was not long before the consequences became clear. The 2007 Kentucky Derby was shown exclusively on HRTV and bet on through TwinSpires and winticket.com (whom Churchill Downs subsequently purchased). TVG and its wagering partner Youbet did not get a look-in. The same applied to the second races in the US Triple Crown, the Preakness, run at Magna-owned Pimlico, but come the last leg, the Belmont, exclusivity returned to TVG, under its contract with the New York courses.

Just before the Kentucky Derby, a contributor to the Turf’n’Sport website was moved to remark: “At the best possible time of the year for generating positive horseracing buzz, the industry has succeeded in turning on itself and creating negative headlines. At a time when online racebooks that offer betting on all major Thoroughbred tracks continue to make inroads, and at a time when the World Trade Organisation has ruled America must open up horse betting to offshore racebooks, the existing companies are bitching at each other.”

The punchline summed up: “How long will it take horseplayers to catch on and simply move their accounts offshore?”
He clearly is not the soothsayer identified earlier, who might supply the answer to what will come out of the mix. But he does have a point.

A similar observation holds good in Britain, though with a different emphasis. At times the two sets of particular circumstances in Britain and North America do run along parallel lines, but at others they are subtly interlinked and completely separate. The differences, and some of the connections, can be seen in the betting arena, where HRTV and TVG have their own direct outlets, but Racing UK has a joint venture and At The Races remains corporately aloof while relying on bookmaker partners to provide one of 30 income streams.

The key in Britain is Turf TV, the betting-shop channel set up in part by the Racing UK courses, which flickered into life with six exclusive members (including Ascot) and a small percentage of betting-shop supporters, mainly small independents until the Tote joined up, but none of the four majors, which account for 80 per cent of the UK estate.

On January 1, Turf TV will be bolstered by 25 other RUK courses. The split will be equal - just as it is in the choice facing satellite viewers, who need two TV accounts to cover the field - and the dominant bookmakers, who have lined up solidly behind SIS and the status quo, will have to decide whether they can survive on half rations for their horseracing coverage.

On that decision could depend a large slice of British racing’s future prosperity. The situation in North America depends on whether racecourse and betting operators choose TrackNet or TVG. It seems they cannot have both.

In each case, the participants have made their positions clear.

Robert Evans, president and CEO of Churchill Downs, told a shareholders’ meeting: “I understand our objectives on occasion may ruffle a few feathers. That is one of the things about competition. It is not really our intent just to go out and be disruptive. Our intent is to compete aggressively and to attract more customers to our business. There are always a few potential consequences when you challenge the status quo.”

In response to the Kentucky Derby impasse, TVG general manager David Nathanson said: “We attempted to negotiate with TrackNet Media and its owners in good faith, but thus far have not seen any terms from them indicating a strong desire to reach a mutually beneficial long-term agreement. We remain open to negotiating an agreement that is in the best interest of the racing industry, the respective parties and, ultimately, the racing fan.”

In Britain, Turf TV has become the dividing line between broadcasters and rights-holders Racing UK and At The Races.
RUK executive chairman Simon Bazalgette reflects: “Historically British racing has not been good at being commercial about negotiating its media rights, and has allowed third parties, such as BSkyB (the satellite provider) and the bookmakers, to get a lot of the economic benefit. Now racecourses can manage the business themselves, keeping more of the commercial benefit in racing and having greater control over the presentation of the sport. Turf TV is a great deal for the racecourses.”

ATR chief executive Matthew Imi takes a dispassionate view of Turf TV, since betting-shop rights do not figure in his company’s portfolio. “It will be interesting to see how it works out, but we’re not threatened by Turf TV,” he says. “The most fascinating aspect is not whether Turf TV gains any material traction among the big bookmakers, but what the net effect will be on British racing. For us, though, it’s a valuable opportunity to concentrate on our core business, which is to exploit our partners’ rights. Getting together in the UK with Racing UK is not on our radar.”

It might not be war, but for the moment, and maybe for the foreseeable future, it clearly is every man for himself.

HOW THE TELEVISION BROADCASTERS LINE UP

NORTH AMERICA
HORSERACING TV (HRTV) 
Owned by: Joint venture of Nasdaq-listed Magna Entertainment Corp. (MEC) and Churchill Downs Inc.
Operates: Subscription national cable and satellite TV horseracing network. Live racing content is acquired by sister company TrackNet Media Group. Estimated coverage 11 million homes.
Racetracks covered: 70-plus Thoroughbred, harness and Quarter Horse tracks, including Santa Anita Park (California); Churchill Downs (Kentucky); Gulfstream Park, *Calder (Florida); Lone Star Park (Texas); Arlington Park (Illinois); Pimlico (Maryland). International: UK tracks on Racing UK.
MEC operates off-track betting network, and national account wagering business XpressBet. Churchill Downs recently opened online national account wagering service, TwinSpires, and more recently acquired account wagering operator AmericaTAB and affiliates.
Overseas coverage: Racing World channel in Britain, joint venture with Racing UK.
*effective January 3, 2008

TVG
Owned by: Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc., global multi-media and technology company, including loss-making TV Guide magazine, in which Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has 41 per cent stake.
Operates: Subscription national cable and satellite TV horseracing channel, and online betting network. Estimated coverage 50 million homes.
Racetracks covered: Turf Paradise (Arizona); Del Mar, Fairplex Park, Hollywood Park, Los Alamitos, Oak Tree (California); **Calder (Florida); Prairie Meadows (Iowa); Ellis Park, Keeneland, Kentucky Downs, Turfway Park (Kentucky); Meadowlands, Monmouth Park (New Jersey); Ruidoso Downs, Zia Park (New Mexico); Aqueduct, Belmont Park, Saratoga, Yonkers Raceway (New York); Emerald Downs (Washington). International: Japan, UK tracks on At The Races. Some contracts with tracks owned by HRTV partners due to expire over next year. Has arrangement with online account wagering operators Youbet and The Racing Channel.
Overseas coverage: At The Races in Britain, through arrangement with TRNi and the Dubai Sports Channel in the UAE.
**through January 2, 2008

BRITAIN
RACING UK (RUK)
Owned by: 30 British racecourses, split Jockey Club Racecourses (50%), Chester, Goodwood, Newbury, York (sharing 25%), 11 smaller courses (sharing 25%). Owns all rights, including terrestrial TV, except for licensed betting offices (belong to Amrac, see below and facing).
Operates: Subscription national cable and satellite (via BSkyB service, part of Setanta Sports package) TV horseracing channel, with links to small number of bookmaker partners; international channel, Racing World, in partnership with MEC and Churchill Downs; licensed betting-office channel, Turf TV, set up by Amalgamated Racing (Amrac), joint venture between Racecourse Media Services (separate company owned by RUK courses and Ascot) and betting-office provider Alphameric; overseas delivery of pictures and data from RUK courses in association with South Africa-based racetrack and betting operator Phumelela. About 200,000 subscribers (including Setanta, forecast to grow to 1 million when Premiership football comes on stream in Autumn 2007).
Racetracks covered: Aintree, Ayr, Bangor, Beverley, Carlisle, Cartmel, Catterick, Cheltenham, Chester, Epsom, Goodwood, Hamilton, Haydock, Huntingdon, Kempton, Ludlow, Market Rasen, Musselburgh, Newbury, Newmarket, Nottingham, Pontefract, Redcar, Salisbury, Sandown, Thirsk, Warwick, Wetherby, Wincanton, York. International: France, Dubai, occasional other major races;  HRTV (see above) coverage of North America on separate channel, Racing World.
Overseas coverage: North America, joint venture with HRTV; Australia, jointly with At The Races; other territories, partnership with Phumelela (South Africa).

AT THE RACES (ATR)
Owned by: broadcaster British Sky Broadcasting (46%), racetrack owners Arena Leisure (46%) and Northern Racing (2%), and racecourses Ascot (5%), Newton Abbot, Plumpton and Ripon. Owns all media rights of participating courses except licensed betting office and terrestrial TV rights.
Operates:  National cable and satellite (part of Sky Sports package) TV horseracing channel, with links to bookmaker partners. ATR courses shown in betting shops through agreement with Satellite Information Services (SIS), which sub-contracts rights from Bookmaker Afternoon Greyhound Service (Bags). BSkyB subscription platform covers 8.5 million homes in UK.
Racetracks covered: Ascot, Bath, Brighton, Chepstow, Doncaster, Exeter, Fakenham, Folkestone, Fontwell, Hereford, Hexham, Kelso, Leicester, Lingfield, Newcastle, Newton Abbot, Perth, Plumpton, Ripon, Sedgefield, Southwell, Stratford, Taunton, Towcester, Uttoxeter, Windsor, Wolverhampton, Worcester, Yarmouth. (Great Leighs will become 30th on opening). Plus all 27 Irish courses. International: France, Dubai, Germany, occasional other major races; TVG (see facing) coverage of North America.
Overseas coverage: North America, arrangement with TRNi, through to TVG; Australia, jointly with RUK; other territories, distribution by SIS.

Should sales catalogues include information on medication?

By Geir Stabell
​

Not too long ago, I saw a TV interview with Terje Haakonssen, three times World Champion snowboard rider. When talking about his lifestyle, and that of the general public, he made an interesting point; “Look carefully at what you eat, take it seriously”, he said, “People don’t. You know, a man is ever so careful about what quality of petrol and oil he gets for his new car. But when he has filled it up with the best he can find, the most expensive, he buys a full fat cheese burger and a large coke for himself.” Perhaps many of us value our cars more than we value our bodies. Look around you. It certainly appears to be the case, doesn’t it.

Haakonsen is a man obsessed with quality and image. In 1998, he boycotted the Nagano Games because he felt the Olympic image was not good enough for his sport. Can you imagine a leading owner boycotting a high profile race meeting, or a top thoroughbred breeder boycotting a leading sale, for similar reasons? Probably not. Haakonsen’s world is different to the horseracing world. He is a bit of a loner, but has many admirers way outside the circles of his minority sport, simply because he talks a lot of sense. The racing industry could do with someone like him.

Labelling of food products have become more of an issue lately, and when going to the supermarket I actually notice some reading these labels. On the other hand, I have also been stared at when taking a minute to compare the amounts of energy, fat, salt and sugar in, say, various breakfast cereals.
“Looks almost like he is studying a pedigree page”, I once heard a man say to the other as they passed behind me while I performed such a study. Living in Newmarket has its charms. I found the remark amusing too, until I began thinking about it on my way home. Actually, a pack of breakfast cereals costing less than three pounds is better labelled, by stricter regulations, than any million-dollar yearling passing through the ring at any public auction.

When studying sales catalogue pages, it strikes me more and more how much of the crucial information has been left out. It will never happen but I can assure you that if I did consider purchasing an expensive yearling, I would not base my decision on what has been printed in the catalogue. Of course, one has to do proper, independent research, but what exactly is the point of these sales catalogues, if they are not even able to give you half the story, half the truth, about this fragile four-legged product on offer? Using the sales catalogue as your source of information, you do not get the official ratings of horses that have run, nor of their relatives. You very seldom get any information about the races these horses have won or been placed in, such as distance, surface, were they handicaps or weight for age races, if in England were they ‘banded races’ and so on. There is no information on whether horses have raced with blinkers or cheek-pieces, or whether they have been bandaged when running. And, more importantly, there is absolutely no information on any use of any medication. Believe you me, that is the one piece of information that, according to common sense and law, absolutely should be included. Having run in blinkers has never made a horse less valuable to a future owner. A history of medication, and a pedigree elevated to black type status with the help of medication, certainly has. In particular in Europe, where one does not allow racing of horses on medication.

A friend of mine bought a horse at a public auction in Europe. The horse had performed well in Listed events, and he was going to Scandinavia, where his level of form would make him one of the top performers. Since the horse also had a nice pedigree, a good conformation and was consigned by one of the bigger operations in Europe, my friend was quite excited when getting the final bid. So was his trainer. Until he raced him. One run revealed why local bidders had not gone higher when he went through the ring; the horse was a bleeder. Could not win a race even in Norway, and how he had been able to perform so well for his previous owner on a few occasions remains a mystery. My friend wrote to the vendor, explaining the situation and suggesting that they should take him back. That never happened of course. So, my friend decided to send the horse to USA where, surprise, surprise, he won quite a few times, even in nice allowance races at principal tracks, when racing on Lasix.

At most major international sales, they have established a repository facility for x-rays, allowing vendors to lodge x-rays applicable to the sale of their horses. This is one step in the right direction.  When you buy an expensive horse, or any horse for that matter, is it so much to ask, if one also demands accurate information on its medical history? I don’t think so. Nor do I think it is too much to ask, if someone wants the simple information on the horse’s closest relatives; did any of them, at any point in their careers, run on medication? Let’s get briefly back to the man with the car and the hamburger. Would he buy this expensive car, if he was informed that “this is a real classic, a beautiful car, with elegant interior, sexy seats and a powerful engine, but, mind, you, the engine tends to switch itself off from time to time… it seems to be genetic and we can’t do much about it.” When you buy a horse at public auction, part of the “engine” may already be a bit dodgy. If you buy a young horse with an American pedigree, the chances are very high that you also buy a horse from a family that has, for generations, been racing on medication. If you plan to race the animal in a jurisdiction where such medication is allowed, that may be just fine. If you plan to stand the horse at stud, in a jurisdiction where medication is allowed, that is also fine. If not, you could soon be in trouble with this horse. Thus far only Germany has taken a strong stand on medication in their breeding stock. No stallion is approved if he has raced on medication. That is some difference, compared to the situation in North America. Change may be coming there also though.

There is a will in USA to do something about medication. As explained in Trainer, Spring Issue 2007, the Jackson’s Horse Owner’s Protective Association is lobbying hard for a marketplace which would allow buyers of horses to return the horse and demand a full refund, if veterinary records are falsified or information is omitted. Any administration of drugs would have to be disclosed. The association’s lawyer Kevin McGee says: ”The actual buyers and sellers of horses would like to see this in Kentucky because it would strengthen the integrity of the business. This would be an excellent way to encourage new owners to come into the business because it reduces the mystery of buying a horse.”
Exactly. Three key words; “reduces the mystery”. These words can hardly be used too often, in too many contexts, in this industry. Where better to start, than with the sales catalogues?
 
Achieving a better image, that of a clean, honest, open and transparent bloodstock market place, will not be quick process. There can be little doubt, however, that addressing the problem with medication in a serious way, and make some progress in this field, will help speeding up such a process. If you believe fallers and fatal injuries at Aintree and Cheltenham creates about the worst possible publicity horseracing can get, think again.  In the wake of any death on the track in North America, one often sees a flood of letters, articles and opinions posted and published on the internet, almost exclusively pointing the finger sharply at the use of medication.

Too many bad write ups will make it even harder to recruit new investors to the game, but bringing the issue of medication into the sales rings, might help a lot. What does a bloodstock agent reply, to the wealthy ‘newcomer’ at the sales, if he expresses a wish to bid as a yearling enters the ring and says, “I like this one, let’s go to 200,000 or so, but, by the way, does this family have a history of use of medication?”
Print it in the catalogue and, provided the man has a copy of it and that he can read, he will know the answer. Regardless of where the lot was bred or has been raced. This is not at all a problem exclusive to the US market. American bred horses, and horses with American pedigrees, fill many a page also in many a European sales catalogue. When I was asked to do this article, posing the question, “should information on medication be included in sales catalogues”, it is was so tempting to give a reply like; “Yes, do it” or perhaps one like; “Should health warnings remain on the tobacco packaging?”

Common sense does not always win through in this world, especially not when up against commercial interests. Horseracing and breeding is a global industry, and herein lies the problem. Not that it is global, but that it is an industry. More than it is a sport. It may have set out as a sport, but commercial factors are at the forefront and more and more dominant these days. Therefore, some breeders, consigners, sales companies, perhaps even bloodstock agents, may be opposed to the idea of publishing information on medication in catalogues.
In one corner of Europe, there is no need for any catalogue information on any use of medication for any of the country’s stallions. Germany is the nation where you cannot stand a stallion at stud if he has been raced on medication. That’s a good policy, and it should help improve the breed. Provided, of course, that none of these stallions have been trained on medication. And provided that all the mares bred to these stallions have also been trained and raced without the aid of medication. Not trying to complicate matters even further here, only trying to point out what a jungle this actually is.
Racehorses are bred from sires who raced almost exclusively with the aid of medication. Horses are being bred out of mares who also raced on medication, but a vast number of horses are out of mares that never raced. Disclosing the reason why these mares failed to make it to the racecourse, is probably quite impossible. One thing can be said for certain though, that any man or woman who spends a considerable amount of money on a yearling, is hoping that the animal will one day be physically capable of taking part in a race.
Everyone who buys a yearling should know that about one in five yearlings actually never become racehorses. Therefore, deciding how good the chances are for one particular individual is important. Disclosing all information about any use of raceday medication in the family, gives the purchaser a better chance of assessing a yearling’s chances of making it to the racecourse, than information on, for example, how many races a couple of grandsons of the third dam managed to win.

I would suggest that information about any use of medication, going back three generations, should be included in all sales catalogues, even if it means pushing some information low on the page off the page. With catalogues published online, even that should not be a problem – an extra few lines, or even an extra page, means nothing in this way of publishing. “Still not possible”, I hear some say.
I see. How about this line of thought then; that such steps would actually help the thoroughbred industry in its so-called strive at “enhancing the breed”.

The way things are going now, that is not exactly the case is it.

Should sales catalogues include information on medication - it's a case of black and white!

Not too long ago, I saw a TV interview with Terje Haakonssen, three times World Champion snowboard rider. When talking about his lifestyle, and that of the general public, he made an interesting point; “Look carefully at what you eat, take it seriously,” he said, “People don’t. You know, a man is ever so careful about what quality of petrol and oil he gets for his new car. But when he has filled it up with the best he can find, the most expensive, he buys a full-fat cheeseburger and a large coke for himself.”
Perhaps many of us value our cars more than we value our bodies. Look around you. It certainly appears to be the case, doesn’t it?

Haakonsen is a man obsessed with quality and image. In 1998, he boycotted the Nagano Games because he felt the Olympic image was not good enough for his sport. Can you imagine a leading owner boycotting a high profile race meeting, or a top thoroughbred breeder boycotting a leading sale, for similar reasons? Probably not. Haakonsen’s world is different to the horseracing world. He is a bit of a loner, but has many admirers way outside the circles of his minority sport, simply because he talks a lot of sense. The racing industry could do with someone like him.
Labelling of food products have become more of an issue lately, and when going to the supermarket I actually notice some reading these labels. On the other hand, I have also been stared at when taking a minute to compare the amounts of energy, fat, salt and sugar in, say, various breakfast cereals. 
“Looks almost like he is studying a pedigree page,” I once heard a man say to the other as they passed behind me while I performed such a study. Living in Newmarket has its charms. I found the remark amusing too, until I began thinking about it on my way home. Actually, a pack of breakfast cereals costing less than three pounds is better labelled, by stricter regulations, than any million-dollar yearling passing through the ring at any public auction. 
 
When studying sales catalogue pages, it strikes me more and more how much of the crucial information has been left out. It will never happen but I can assure you that if I did consider purchasing an expensive yearling, I would not base my decision on what has been printed in the catalogue. Of course, one has to do proper, independent research, but what exactly is the point of these sales catalogues, if they are not even able to give you half the story, half the truth, about this fragile four-legged product on offer?
Using the sales catalogue as your source of information, you do not get the official ratings of horses that have run, nor of their relatives. You very seldom get any information about the races these horses have won or been placed in, such as distance, surface, were they handicaps or weight for age races, if in England were they ‘banded races’ and so on. There is no information on whether horses have raced with blinkers or cheek-pieces, or whether they have been bandaged when running. 
And, more importantly, there is absolutely no information on any use of any medication. Believe you me, that is the one piece of information that, according to common sense and law, absolutely should be included. Having run in blinkers has never made a horse less valuable to a future owner. A history of medication, and a pedigree elevated to black type status with the help of medication, certainly has. In particular in Europe, where one does not allow racing of horses on medication.
A friend of mine bought a horse at a public auction in Europe. The horse had performed well in Listed events, and he was going to Scandinavia, where his level of form would make him one of the top performers. Since the horse also had a nice pedigree, a good conformation and was consigned by one of the bigger operations in Europe, my friend was quite excited when getting the final bid. So was his trainer. Until he raced him. One run revealed why local bidders had not gone higher when he went through the ring; the horse was a bleeder. He could not win a race even in Norway, and how he had been able to perform so well for his previous owner on a few occasions remains a mystery. My friend wrote to the vendor, explaining the situation and suggesting that they should take him back. That never happened of course. So, my friend decided to send the horse to USA where, surprise, surprise, he won quite a few times, even in nice allowance races at principal tracks, when racing on Lasix. 
At most major international sales, they have established a repository facility for x-rays, allowing vendors to lodge x-rays applicable to the sale of their horses. This is one step in the right direction.  
When you buy an expensive horse, or any horse for that matter, is it so much to ask to also demand accurate information on its medical history? I don’t think so. Nor do I think it is too much to ask, if someone wants the simple information on the horse’s closest relatives: did any of them, at any point in their careers, run on medication? Let’s get briefly back to the man with the car and the hamburger. Would he buy this expensive car, if he was informed that “this is a real classic, a beautiful car, with elegant interior, sexy seats and a powerful engine, but, mind, you, the engine tends to switch itself off from time to time… it seems to be genetic and we can’t do much about it.” 
When you buy a horse at public auction, part of the “engine” may already be a bit dodgy. If you buy a young horse with an American pedigree, the chances are very high that you also buy a horse from a family that has, for generations, been racing on medication. If you plan to race the animal in a jurisdiction where such medication is allowed, that may be just fine. If you plan to stand the horse at stud in a jurisdiction where medication is allowed, that is also fine. If not, you could soon be in trouble with this horse. Thus far only Germany has taken a strong stand on medication in their breeding stock. No stallion is approved if he has raced on medication. That is some difference, compared to the situation in North America. Change may be coming there also though. 
There is a will in the USA to do something about medication. As explained in North American Trainer, Spring Issue 2007, the Jackson’s Horse Owner’s Protective Association is lobbying hard for a marketplace which would allow buyers of horses to return the horse and demand a full refund, if veterinary records are falsified or information is omitted. Any administration of drugs would have to be disclosed. The association’s lawyer Kevin McGee says:
”The actual buyers and sellers of horses would like to see this in Kentucky because it would strengthen the integrity of the business. This would be an excellent way to encourage new owners to come into the business because it reduces the mystery of buying a horse.” 
Exactly. Three key words; “reduces the mystery.”  These words can hardly be used too often, in too many contexts, in this industry. Where better to start, than with the sales catalogues?
 Achieving a better image, that of a clean, honest, open and transparent bloodstock marketplace, will not be quick process. There can be little doubt, however, that addressing the problem with medication in a serious way, and make some progress in this field, will help speeding up such a process. If you believe fallers and fatal injuries at Aintree and Cheltenham creates about the worst possible publicity horseracing can get, think again.  
In the wake of any death on the track in North America, one often sees a flood of letters, articles and opinions posted and published on the internet, almost exclusively pointing the finger sharply at the use of medication. 
Too many bad write-ups will make it even harder to recruit new investors to the game, but bringing the issue of medication into the sales rings might help a lot. What does a bloodstock agent reply, to the wealthy ‘newcomer’ at the sales, if he expresses a wish to bid as a yearling enters the ring and says, “I like this one, let’s go to 200,000 or so, but, by the way, does this family have a history of use of medication?”
Print it in the catalogue and, provided the man has a copy of it and that he can read, he will know the answer, regardless of where the lot was bred or has been raced. This is not at all a problem exclusive to the US market.

American bred horses, and horses with American pedigrees, fill many a page also in many a European sales catalogue. When I was asked to do this article, posing the question, “should information on medication be included in sales catalogues?” it is was so tempting to give a reply like: “Yes, do it” or perhaps: “Should health warnings remain on the tobacco packaging?”
Common sense does not always win through in this world, especially not when up against commercial interests. Horseracing and breeding is a global industry, and herein lies the problem. Not that it is global, but that it is an industry more than it is a sport. It may have set out as a sport, but commercial factors are at the forefront and more and more dominant these days. Therefore, some breeders, consignors, sales companies, and perhaps even bloodstock agents may be opposed to the idea of publishing information on medication in catalogues.

In one corner of Europe, there is no need for any catalogue information on any use of medication for any of the country’s stallions. Germany is the only nation where you cannot stand a stallion at stud if he has been raced on medication. That’s a good policy, and it should help improve the breed. Provided, of course, that none of these stallions have been trained on medication. And provided that all the mares bred to these stallions have also been trained and raced without the aid of medication. Not trying to complicate matters even further here, only trying to point out what a jungle this actually is.

Racehorses are bred from sires who raced almost exclusively with the aid of medication. Horses are being bred out of mares who also raced on medication, but a vast number of horses are out of mares that never raced. Disclosing the reason why these mares failed to make it to the racecourse is probably quite impossible. One thing can be said for certain though, is that any man or woman who spends a considerable amount of money on a yearling is hoping that the animal will one day be physically capable of taking part in a race. 
Everyone who buys a yearling should know that about one in five yearlings actually never become racehorses. Therefore, deciding how good the chances are for one particular individual is important. Disclosing all information about any use of raceday medication in the family gives the purchaser a better chance of assessing a yearling’s chances of making it to the racecourse than information on, for example, how many races a couple of grandsons of the third dam managed to win.

I would suggest that information about any use of medication, going back three generations, should be included in all sales catalogues, even if it means pushing some information low on the page off the page. With catalogues published online, even that should not be a problem – an extra few lines, or even an extra page, means nothing in this way of publishing. “Still not possible,” I hear some say.

I see. How about this line of thought then, that such steps would actually help the Thoroughbred industry in its so-called strive at “enhancing the breed.” 

The way things are going now, that is not exactly the case, is it?

The growing influence of South Africa in the world Pari-mutuel industry

Trivia fiends interested in international horseracing and betting will have a field day with the combined question: Which country operates the world’s most extensive pari-mutuel system, and which company is the operator?

Many would probably go straight for Hong Kong and the local Jockey Club as the joint answer, given that Far Eastern punters are deservedly renowned for their fanatical pursuit of riches through horseracing and more recently football betting, and that Hong Kong has the best-known, most successful legalised system. They would be wrong.

A sizeable proportion of those who dismiss Hong Kong as being too obvious for a trivia question might plump for the United States, based on its size and well documented propensity for gambling. They would be wrong. A few might look to Europe, and suggest either the French PMU or Britain’s Tote as their solution. They too would be wrong. The answer is South Africa, and Phumelela Gold Enterprises. Surprised? I’m not surprised that you’re surprised, especially since Phumelela did not exist until April 1999, when a new dispensation was negotiated between the country’s horsemen and the South African government, which included the “corporatisation” of the several individual race clubs and totalisators, and a reduction in betting taxes.

The development led to the consolidation of South Africa’s racing and tote betting industries into two operators – Phumelela Gaming and Leisure, which immediately listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and became responsible for operating in seven of the country’s provinces, and Gold Circle, which takes in the remaining two provinces. As Brian Mehl, a well respected businessman who became Phumelela’s first chief executive and remains deputy chairman, explains, the new dawn was born out of sheer necessity.

Without it, racing and betting in South Africa would almost certainly have sunk into third-world status, drowned by the tide of new forms of legalised gaming, such as metropolitan casinos, bingo halls and the national lottery. He adds: “The situation was further exacerbated by South Africa’s re-entry to the international community, with renewed access to international sporting events, all of which resulted in industry decline and the chalking up of significant losses. The future was very bleak indeed.” Today, Mehl enthuses that both Phumelela, which also operates football and sports spread betting, and Gold Circle are viable and operating profitably; the South African breeding industry is producing record levels of sales, “and the future looks very promising.”

To get to this point in such a short time, though, has involved a deal of pain. Costs have been cut back ruthlessly, hundreds of jobs have been lost, racecourses have been closed - and are still closing - and the financial model has been changed. Mehl explains: “The turnaround can be attributed to the restructuring of the South African racing and betting industry into commercially orientated, professionally managed and focussed businesses, with successes - and failures - being enjoyed by all participants.” The two companies operate under different philosophies. Phumelela sets aside 30% of its income for race stakes, but has shareholders - the Racing Association (35%) and Black Empowerment Groups (27.5%) being the biggest - who can expect to earn dividends of around half of any profits after the payment of expenses for running racing on five courses and a major training centre – including the provision of transport from stable to racecourse at no cost to owners - staging events and operating the tote. Its 2005-6 operating profit, following a loss the previous year, was R9.7 million (£680,000).

Gold Circle essentially runs a non-profit making business, ploughing back income for the benefit of its racing constituents. Despite the differences, the two companies have worked closely together to achieve efficiencies, economies and scale. Mehl explains: “Wherever it makes good commercial sense, we have either combined our operations - for example in TV broadcasting, racing services and publishing - or we co-operate fully to try to achieve an optimal result, on race programming and fixtures for instance.”

The earliest most obvious example of co-operation was the co-mingling of tote pools, which came about in April 2002, when single national pools were created under the banner of Saftote. Growth in tote betting turnover was achieved for the first time in several years. More significantly, though, came the establishment of a joint venture company, Phumelela Gold Enterprises (PGE), which controls all media and information rights emanating from the two entities, owns and controls the industry’s broadcasting and publishing interests, as well as totalisator co-mingling activities and internet sites, and is responsible for developing the jointly-owned international business. This is the foundation on which South Africa’s worldwide reputation as a pari-mutuel facilitator has been built.

The first indication that the old colonial country at the tip of the African continent had a technological capacity that very few could rival came in October 2002, when Saftote betting pools on the Breeders’ Cup meeting at Arlington Park were co-mingled with those of the host tote operator. “That enabled South African punters to bet into the huge US pools, and demonstrated Phumelela’s ability to participate on the global horseracing and betting stage,” says Mehl, with justifiable pride.

However, the traffic is not all one way, and four and a half years on, this year’s Dubai World Cup experience demonstrated how far, and how fast, Phumelela has come in advancing its capabilities as a host for co-mingling bets. Over R36.7m (£2.57m) was bet in global tote pools handled by Phumelela, of which R32m (£2.24m) arrived via 56 individual tote sources in the US and Canada, compared with R17.43 (£1.22) on the same day the previous year. Other betting centres connected to the service in Johannesburg were in Holland, Austria, Germany, the Isle of Man (where Phumelela has a secondary hub), Spain, Russia, the West Indies and Tasmania. More than 400 outlets in South Africa also bet on the meeting through Saftote.

Remarkably, at least to those who can only look in from the outside, the UK Tote system does not penetrate the same internet language as Phumelela’s can. The UK Tote operated its own pool on the Dubai World Cup, which throws up a further irony, since many of Phumelela’s customers that day also co-mingled bets on the Kempton meeting that was going on almost simultaneously. Phumelela redirected win, place and exacta bets on Kempton to the UK Tote, but due to various limitations hosted trifecta and quartet bets itself, declaring its own dividends. John Stuart, Phumelela’s director of international operations, reflects: “Hosting the global tote pools on behalf of the Dubai Racing Club is a substantial undertaking, but it’s a responsibility that we’re immensely proud of.” Live pictures go with co-mingling like bread and cheese, and Kempton’s appearance on the same programme as Dubai came down a path trodden originally by Stuart’s energetic predecessor, the late Derrick Wiid, who was largely responsible for forging the link with Attheraces in 2003 that first brought UK racing into South Africa.

The following year, after the UK’s daily satellite racing coverage had fallen apart, Racing UK was born, with 30 tracks in the fold, and Phumelela joined as its international partner. Phumelela also retained rights to other UK meetings for showing, and, more importantly, betting on in the local market of 400 shops, three call centres, the internet and mobile phones, and race tracks. UK racing is the mainstay of South Africa’s imported product, but events also come in from Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, France and the US, as well as more local fare from Mauritius, Kenya and Zimbabwe. “Our growth strategy depended on international racing,” Stuart explains. “South African racing alone was boring for punters, with a race every 30 minutes. Now we have an event every ten minutes, and the aim is to provide a round-the-clock service. Our betting shops are open from 10am to 10pm, but the internet has no boundaries, and we recently had our first race, from Hong Kong, at 6.30am. “Simulcasting was our only option, and that feeds into everyone down the line. Our prize-money increases are earned from simulcasting, and that means the whole industry benefits, from local horsemen to jockeys and stable staff.”

The UK also presented South Africa with its first opportunity to export its racing pictures, when in the mid-1990s bookmakers realised they needed something to keep mid-morning punters in their shops on Saturdays, before the afternoon programme began. South Africa provided the answer, and proved the saviour when a foot and mouth epidemic closed much of UK racing for a period in 2001.

The Racing UK link prompted Phumelela to create Racing International, a pictures and data television product that now covers four-fifths of the world, by Stuart’s estimation, and is seen in 30-plus countries, fostered most recently by the introduction of a 48-hour declaration system in the UK. However, co-mingling is the key, and Phumelela works on the back of a tote system bought off the shelf from leading US supplier Amtote. It has net pool pricing capabilities, dealing with any major currency through exchange-rate software, and supports scan-type bets such as the Pick6 and Superfecta, while each country pays its own local tax rate, to avoid double counting.

Stuart says: “Our vision is to have the global switch, to provide connectivity to any legal betting operator anywhere in the world, with royalties being paid to the host track.” The development of a race every ten minutes on Racing International has produced a 50 per cent increase in turnover over the last five years to R4.8 billion (£336m) in 2005-6. Stuart explains: “There are two parts to our business. Exporting pictures abroad gives us the opportunity to earn a royalty from betting, traditionally a margin of 3-4%. At the same time, bringing bets into our own pools means we pay the royalty but earn the full margin from the tote, which on average in South Africa is 24%.”

Looking ahead, Stuart is working to make Racing International a 24/7 horseracing channel, with prime content supported by a global tote system. He reasons: “Without betting, there’s nothing, and we have to create the premiership of horseracing and tote betting to take on competition from legal and illegal bookmakers, the sports betting market, casinos and websites. “If we reach the ideal, racing will get its fair share out of the market, and a tote system delivers the money to ensure that racing is the survivor in the long term.”

The Asian Racing Conference – from a trainer’s perspective

By Howard Wright

Attending industry conferences and seminars, especially those staged overseas, as a media reporter can be hard work – honestly! – but when you come across speakers at the top of their game, who can put over concise points in layman’s language, the tedium of long days, and sometimes even longer nights, wafts away on a breeze of simple understanding.

 Derrmot Weld was invited to address the Asian Racing Conference, held in Dubai in January, in order to bring a horseman’s perspective to the session headed ‘Global series – what have we learnt and where to now?’ In ten minutes, he did far more than that. He gave an audience of 400-plus delegates – only a single handful who were or had been trainers - a master class in travelling horses around the world, and how to be successful along the way.

 No better presenter could have been found. From his base at the heart of Irish racing on The Curragh, Weld has created a unique record. He is the first overseas trainer to have annexed two Melbourne Cups, which alone would make the description fit, but he is also the only European trainer to have logged a winning run in a leg of the US Triple Crown.

What lies behind the success of this thoughtful, serious man, whose few words make more sense than some who have written whole chapters on their specialist subject? There is no single factor, he said. Rather there are nine aspects that he considers when assessing whether, and how, to travel a horse abroad. They are:

* Horse – “He has to have the ability to compete at the top level; he must be adaptable to ground and have the right temperament, and he has to be sound. It’s no good if you take an unsound horse, hoping it comes right on the day. In my experience, it rarely does.”

*Jockey – “Bring your own if he’s top class, or get the best locally.”

*Food – “Bring your own if at all possible.”

*Water – “Dehydration is the single biggest negative factor in travelling. Make sure you get it right.”

*Staff – “You need trained, experienced travellers, good work riders, and staff with the confidence and knowledge to report to you accurately.”

*Farrier – “Very important. Around the world there are some good farriers, but one false move can undo everything.”

*Veterinarian – “This is where dehydration will be reported, and he will watch all the tests and look at the blood picture. Make a mistake, and you pay for it.”

*Medication – “I agree with strict rules, but it’s important for the trainer to be aware of the rules from country to country, even from state to state in the US.”

*Quarantine – “Dubai has an excellent facility and is more straightforward than most. Australia has improved, but effectively it still takes nearly a month and could be brought forward. The US is a worry, and facilities at many tracks need to be improved.”

There, in handy-sized bites, is the check-list of a qualified equine vet who has climbed to top of the trainers’ ladder. There was, however, a bonus to the presentation, a bone of contention dug up when Weld was asked to nominate the single biggest improvement that would foster greater international competition.

“We’ve got to standardise the quarantine rules, which differ between Europe, the US, Asia and Australia,” he said. “With modern technology, it can be done, because blood testing for infectious diseases is far more efficient than in the past.”

In a moment, the theme was set, at least from the perspective of the go-ahead trainer with aspirations on the world stage.

The conference wended its fascinating way, discussing a myriad of topics of general concern to racing and betting administrators, from co-mingling bets in overseas pools and designing new racecourses, to standardising rules on stewarding and identifying the main threats to the success of horseracing in the future.

Virtually all impinged on the business of training to some degree, but none seemed to have the immediate significance of the quarantine issue, which came up again, and again.

Adrian Beaumont, director of racecourse services for the Newmarket-based International Racing Bureau, named “a shortening of the quarantine period for racing in Australia” among his three wishes to make life easier for horsemen tackling the global calendar.

Other areas came under Beaumont’s scrutiny – Dubai being one, with the impact of its Carnival on the length of time that horses are likely to be away from European stables – but Australia came in for special attention with regard to two new, high-value series, the Global Sprint and Asian Mile Challenges, which include legs in Australia.

Beaumont explained: “The quarantine rules pertaining to Australia are stricter than any other. For example, European runners have to do 14 days’ pre-export quarantine, and 14 days’ on arrival. That meant runners in the first leg of the Global Sprint Challenge on 3 February would have needed to be in quarantine no later than 28 December to allow for flight schedules. Thus, unless race clubs can persuade the Australian authorities to shorten the length of the quarantine period, it is difficult for their races to come anywhere other than at the start of a series, as quarantine could conflict with previous legs.”

The consequence, Beaumont explained, was that including Australian races from January to March in a series could mean trainers in the Northern Hemisphere considering them as being at the end of a campaign for their top horses, who may have started their racing season from the previous April to June. Not ideal, was his unequivocal message.

Beaumont, whose job involves helping trainers through and over the various problems thrown up by international travelling, turned his focus on to “governmental and racetrack attempts to thwart the spread of diseases,” pointing out that one of the methods was to ban the import of horses from affected countries.

“This is certainly true of countries with African horse sickness,” he said, “and restrictions were also put in place by countries affected by swamp fever and foot and mouth, even though the latter cannot be transmitted by horses. More recently, there have been problems with West Nile virus, which had implications in 2006 for horses with a multi-country itinerary. In particular it affected horses that ran at the Breeders’ Cup in Kentucky. Any horse who ran there before going on to Japan, such as Ouija Board, needed to be vaccinated twice, at an interval of three to six weeks. Similarly, horses that were due to run in Hong Kong after the Breeders’ Cup had to return to their home stables for 15 days, before a blood sample could be taken and sent to America to test for West Nile virus. Only when that was clear could they travel to Hong Kong.”

Weld’s reservations were becoming clearer by the minute. However, as any balanced reporter knows, there are two sides to a coin, and it was not long before the heads of Weld and Beaumont were being addressed by the tail-side of the argument from Dr Patricia Ellis, animal health advisor to the Australian Racing Board, a director of the racing analytical laboratory in Victoria and secretary of the international movement of horses committee, a body set up by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities.

A formidable array of appointments for an equine veterinarian with nearly four decades of experience, ranging from government to private sector, from racetrack to teaching. She does not mince words.

Dr Ellis, who was involved in the work that overcome obstacles enabling Weld’s pioneering Melbourne Cup winner, Vintage Crop in 1993, to set a new pattern, told delegates: “Yes, illogical, unscientific and inconsistent import conditions are causing problems that need to be resolved. But so do unrealistic expectations and perceptions.”

On the specific charges that had been thrown her country’s way, she countered: “Australia’s quarantine arrangements have attracted unfavourable criticism, but Australia is free from equine influenza, and its import controls reflect this. I make no apology for them.

“The Australian government and its racing authorities don’t want a flu outbreak that would shut down racing and other equestrian events for several months. They have understandable concerns for racing and non-racing stakeholders outside the international racecourse fence.”

On the broader issue, referring to the Dubai conference’s headline slogan, she said: “It’s time for a reality check. In the context of ‘Racing Without Borders’ what do you really mean, what do you want? As racing authorities, do you want to import foreign horses directly from their home stables without vaccinations, tests or official health certificates, and allow them to mix freely with local horses? Or do you want to ‘race across borders’ with science-based risk management, according to international standards, applied consistently, and which respects differences in country health status?”

There seemed to be only one answer from Dr Ellis’s tone, as she added: “Measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases have to be a compromise between the need to conduct a successful event, with as wide a number of competing nations as possible, and the need to provide adequate safeguards to protect the health status of the animal and human populations of the importing country. In some countries, racing is not the only game in town. The safety and status of competition horses, and the need to prevent economic loss and unfavourable reflection on a country’s health standing and veterinary services, are as important factors as caring for the indigenous racehorse population”.

“Harmonisation of international issues such as handicapping, stewards’ decisions, rules of racing and race planning are directly under the control of racing authorities,” Dr Ellis explained. “Import conditions are not. They have to be negotiated government to government. Perhaps this is why the issue of ‘quarantine’ – thought I would prefer to speak about ‘import controls’ and ‘health safeguards’ – causes such angst.”

The target for change is clear, according to Dr Ellis. “For success in expanding international borders, co-operation with government is critical.”

However, she went on to warn: “Sometimes success has a very long lead time.” And using an even more stunning one-liner, “Success has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan,” as a preface, she added: “Persistent and polite requests from international trading partners engage the attention of governments, and assist local racing authorities to negotiate safe international exchanges of racehorses. The World Animal Health Organisation sets the minimum international standards for trade. If we want standardisation or harmonisation of quarantine procedures, we must engage in the development of these standards.”

Perhaps Dr Ellis should invite Dermot Weld to join her when she next tackles the World Animal Health Organisation.

The Asian Racing Conference – from a trainer’s perspective

ATTENDING industry conferences and seminars, especially those staged overseas, as a media reporter can be hard work – honestly! – but when you come across speakers at the top of their game, who can put over concise points in layman’s language, the tedium of long days, and sometimes even longer nights, wafts away on a breeze of simple understanding.

Dermot Weld was invited to address the Asian Racing Conference, held in Dubai in January, in order to bring a horseman’s perspective to the session headed ‘Global series – what have we learnt and where to now?’ In ten minutes, he did far more than that. He gave an audience of 400-plus delegates – only a single handful who were or had been trainers - a master class in travelling horses around the world, and how to be successful along the way. No better presenter could have been found.

From his base at the heart of Irish racing on The Curragh, Weld has created a unique record. He is the first overseas trainer to have annexed two Melbourne Cups, which alone would make the description fit, but he is also the only European trainer to have logged a winning run in a leg of the US Triple Crown. What lies behind the success of this thoughtful, serious man, whose few words make more sense than some who have written whole chapters on their specialist subject?

There is no single factor, he said. Rather there are nine aspects that he considers when assessing whether, and how, to travel a horse abroad. They are: * Horse – “He has to have the ability to compete at the top level; he must be adaptable to ground and have the right temperament, and he has to be sound. It’s no good if you take an unsound horse, hoping it comes right on the day. In my experience, it rarely does.” *Jockey – “Bring your own if he’s top class, or get the best locally.” *Food – “Bring your own if at all possible.” *Water – “Dehydration is the single biggest negative factor in travelling. Make sure you get it right.” *Staff – “You need trained, experienced travellers, good work riders, and staff with the confidence and knowledge to report to you accurately.” *Farrier – “Very important. Around the world there are some good farriers, but one false move can undo everything.” *Veterinarian – “This is where dehydration will be reported, and he will watch all the tests and look at the blood picture. Make a mistake, and you pay for it.” *Medication – “I agree with strict rules, but it’s important for the trainer to be aware of the rules from country to country, even from state to state in the US.” *Quarantine – “Dubai has an excellent facility and is more straightforward than most. Australia has improved, but effectively it still takes nearly a month and could be brought forward. The US is a worry, and facilities at many tracks need to be improved.” There, in handy-sized bites, is the check-list of a qualified equine vet who has climbed to top of the trainers’ ladder.

There was, however, a bonus to the presentation, a bone of contention dug up when Weld was asked to nominate the single biggest improvement that would foster greater international competition. “We’ve got to standardise the quarantine rules, which differ between Europe, the US, Asia and Australia,” he said. “With modern technology, it can be done, because blood testing for infectious diseases is far more efficient than in the past.”

In a moment, the theme was set, at least from the perspective of the go-ahead trainer with aspirations on the world stage. The conference wended its fascinating way, discussing a myriad of topics of general concern to racing and betting administrators, from co-mingling bets in overseas pools and designing new racecourses, to standardising rules on stewarding and identifying the main threats to the success of horseracing in the future. Virtually all impinged on the business of training to some degree, but none seemed to have the immediate significance of the quarantine issue, which came up again, and again. Adrian Beaumont, director of racecourse services for the Newmarket-based International Racing Bureau, named “a shortening of the quarantine period for racing in Australia” among his three wishes to make life easier for horsemen tackling the global calendar. Other areas came under Beaumont’s scrutiny – Dubai being one, with the impact of its Carnival on the length of time that horses are likely to be away from European stables – but Australia came in for special attention with regard to two new, high-value series, the Global Sprint and Asian Mile Challenges, which include legs in Australia. Beaumont explained: “The quarantine rules pertaining to Australia are stricter than any other. For example, European runners have to do 14 days’ pre-export quarantine, and 14 days’ on arrival. That meant runners in the first leg of the Global Sprint Challenge on 3 February would have needed to be in quarantine no later than 28 December to allow for flight schedules. Thus, unless race clubs can persuade the Australian authorities to shorten the length of the quarantine period, it is difficult for their races to come anywhere other than at the start of a series, as quarantine could conflict with previous legs.”

The consequence, Beaumont explained, was that including Australian races from January to March in a series could mean trainers in the Northern Hemisphere considering them as being at the end of a campaign for their top horses, who may have started their racing season from the previous April to June. Not ideal, was his unequivocal message. Beaumont, whose job involves helping trainers through and over the various problems thrown up by international travelling, turned his focus on to “governmental and racetrack attempts to thwart the spread of diseases,” pointing out that one of the methods was to ban the import of horses from affected countries. “This is certainly true of countries with African horse sickness,” he said, “and restrictions were also put in place by countries affected by swamp fever and foot and mouth, even though the latter cannot be transmitted by horses.

More recently, there have been problems with West Nile virus, which had implications in 2006 for horses with a multi-country itinerary. In particular it affected horses that ran at the Breeders’ Cup in Kentucky. Any horse who ran there before going on to Japan, such as Ouija Board, needed to be vaccinated twice, at an interval of three to six weeks. Similarly, horses that were due to run in Hong Kong after the Breeders’ Cup had to return to their home stables for 15 days, before a blood sample could be taken and sent to America to test for West Nile virus. Only when that was clear could they travel to Hong Kong.” Weld’s reservations were becoming clearer by the minute.

However, as any balanced reporter knows, there are two sides to a coin, and it was not long before the heads of Weld and Beaumont were being addressed by the tail-side of the argument from Dr Patricia Ellis, animal health advisor to the Australian Racing Board, a director of the racing analytical laboratory in Victoria and secretary of the international movement of horses committee, a body set up by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities.

A formidable array of appointments for an equine veterinarian with nearly four decades of experience, ranging from government to private sector, from racetrack to teaching. She does not mince words. Dr Ellis, who was involved in the work that overcome obstacles enabling Weld’s pioneering Melbourne Cup winner, Vintage Crop in 1993, to set a new pattern, told delegates: “Yes, illogical, unscientific and inconsistent import conditions are causing problems that need to be resolved. But so do unrealistic expectations and perceptions.” On the specific charges that had been thrown her country’s way, she countered: “Australia’s quarantine arrangements have attracted unfavourable criticism, but Australia is free from equine influenza, and its import controls reflect this.

I make no apology for them. “The Australian government and its racing authorities don’t want a flu outbreak that would shut down racing and other equestrian events for several months. They have understandable concerns for racing and non-racing stakeholders outside the international racecourse fence.” On the broader issue, referring to the Dubai conference’s headline slogan, she said: “It’s time for a reality check. In the context of ‘Racing Without Borders’ what do you really mean, what do you want? As racing authorities, do you want to import foreign horses directly from their home stables without vaccinations, tests or official health certificates, and allow them to mix freely with local horses? Or do you want to ‘race across borders’ with science-based risk management, according to international standards, applied consistently, and which respects differences in country health status?”

There seemed to be only one answer from Dr Ellis’s tone, as she added: “Measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases have to be a compromise between the need to conduct a successful event, with as wide a number of competing nations as possible, and the need to provide adequate safeguards to protect the health status of the animal and human populations of the importing country.

In some countries, racing is not the only game in town. The safety and status of competition horses, and the need to prevent economic loss and unfavourable reflection on a country’s health standing and veterinary services, are as important factors as caring for the indigenous racehorse population”. “Harmonisation of international issues such as handicapping, stewards’ decisions, rules of racing and race planning are directly under the control of racing authorities,” Dr Ellis explained. “Import conditions are not. They have to be negotiated government to government. Perhaps this is why the issue of ‘quarantine’ – thought I would prefer to speak about ‘import controls’ and ‘health safeguards’ – causes such angst.” The target for change is clear, according to Dr Ellis. “For success in expanding international borders, co-operation with government is critical.” However, she went on to warn: “Sometimes success has a very long lead time.” And using an even more stunning one-liner, “Success has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan,” as a preface, she added: “Persistent and polite requests from international trading partners engage the attention of governments, and assist local racing authorities to negotiate safe international exchanges of racehorses.

The World Animal Health Organisation sets the minimum international standards for trade. If we want standardisation or harmonisation of quarantine procedures, we must engage in the development of these standards.” Perhaps Dr Ellis should invite Dermot Weld to join her when she next tackles the World Animal Health Organisation.

Who is Controlling Racing's TV signals?

For all the differences between the horseracing and betting landscapes in Britain and North America - size, history, administration and race and bet types, - one similarity of principle has emerged over the last five years. The live televised racing scene has crystallised into two entities, and the impact on both the foundation and prosperity of the sport and the availability of its betting facilities has been thrown into the blender.

In Britain, the 60 racecourses have lined up equally between the two cable and satellite broadcasters - Racing UK (RUK), with 30 tracks on board, and At The Races (ATR), with 29, but soon to become 30 when the new venue of Great Leighs attains its long-awaited completion. In North America, the dominance and extensive exclusivity of TVG has been challenged by the major corporate racetrack owners Magna Entertainment Corp. (MEC) and Churchill Downs Inc., which have jointly formed the cable and satellite broadcaster Horseracing TV (HRTV), shutting out TVG from coverage of their many high-quality courses.

Into the mix have been catapulted bookmaking, advance deposit wagering and online betting facilities, the biggest attraction for the public and the most significant cash provider for racing outside the deep pockets of racehorse owners. What will come out at the other end, and when, is impossible to say with any certainty. Interested parties have their own views, based on which side of the divide they sit, but it would take someone akin to a soothsayer, let alone an experienced industry observer, to imagine where the path will lead. The road-makers are still at work, using different maps to plot their separate ways, and sometimes giving the impression they are making up the journey as they go along.

Two examples of intricacies that can only ripen confusion and spread uncertainty are worth recording, before attempting to untangle the web spun by rights-holders seeking to manage content to best advantage. Ascot, Britain’s best-known international venue, lined up with At The Races when the second coming of that daily satellite broadcaster emerged from the ashes of a failed venture known as Attheraces in June 2004. At the time, as Ascot negotiated with its bankers over loans to service a £200 million redevelopment scheme, huge uncertainty surrounded previous rights, which may have meant Ascot having to repay a significant sum. Partly to allay the fears of financial institutions, Ascot fell in with ATR, and was given a five per cent stake in the company for its allegiance.

However, the contract, which runs until 2012, did not include pictures supplied to betting shops, and when these came up for renegotiation earlier this year, Ascot decided to jump on to the back of another media rights horse. It sided with Amalgamated Racing - Amrac for short - which had set up a joint venture with the stock market-quoted betting-shop services provider Alphameric to introduce a new channel, Turf TV, offering pictures from aligned courses to off-track bookmakers. Until then, for 20 years the betting industry had had only one company to deal with, Satellite Information Services (SIS), which took pictures from Racing UK courses under contract, and by sub-contract from At The Races’ courses through an organisation called Bookmaker Afternoon Greyhound Service (Bags). Bags has outgrown its title by owning horseracing rights and covering evening racing, while ATR controls no betting-shop picture rights in Britain, but it does use SIS to produce its programmes on a daily basis, and has a contract with it to distribute pictures into betting shops in overseas territories such as Sri Lanka.

Confused? You soon will be… Explaining the decision to go with Amrac, Ascot’s finance director Janet Walker says: “We believe Amrac is the best vehicle for racing’s commercial relationship with the betting industry. And the decision has no impact on our separate satellite media rights arrangement with ATR, and should in no way be interpreted as a negative reflection on our relationship with that company.”

In North America, the picture began to get decidedly murkier in March this year, when Churchill Downs bought a 50 per cent stake in HorseRacing TV, which had previously been owned wholly by Magna. It was the biggest in a series of deals that the two sides concluded at the time, and out of the arrangement came the formation of another joint venture called TrackNet Media Group, through which one partner’s horseracing content would become available to the other’s various distribution platforms - Magna’s advance deposit wagering (ADW) site XpressBet, Churchill’s similar newcomer TwinSpires.com. TrackNet would also deal with providing content, from pictures to betting availability, for third parties, it emerged. These were to include racetracks, OTBs, casinos and other ADW operators - but not TVG, it seemed; well, not without a groundbreaking change of heart. HRTV immediately took over coverage of Churchill Downs, and as contracts run their course, it picked up exclusive rights to Arlington Park on August 6, Fair Grounds in November and Calder on January 3, 2008. It was not long before the consequences became clear. The 2007 Kentucky Derby was shown exclusively on HRTV and bet on through TwinSpires and winticket.com (whom Churchill Downs subsequently purchased). TVG and its wagering partner Youbet did not get a look-in. The same applied to the second races in the US Triple Crown, the Preakness, run at Magna-owned Pimlico, but come the last leg, the Belmont, exclusivity returned to TVG, under its contract with the New York courses. Just before the Kentucky Derby, a contributor to the Turf’n’Sport website was moved to remark: “At the best possible time of the year for generating positive horseracing buzz, the industry has succeeded in turning on itself and creating negative headlines.

At a time when online racebooks that offer betting on all major Thoroughbred tracks continue to make inroads, and at a time when the World Trade Organisation has ruled America must open up horse betting to offshore racebooks, the existing companies are bitching at each other.” The punchline summed up: “How long will it take horseplayers to catch on and simply move their accounts offshore?” He clearly is not the soothsayer identified earlier, who might supply the answer to what will come out of the mix. But he does have a point.

A similar observation holds good in Britain, though with a different emphasis. At times the two sets of particular circumstances in Britain and North America do run along parallel lines, but at others they are subtly interlinked and completely separate. The differences, and some of the connections, can be seen in the betting arena, where HRTV and TVG have their own direct outlets, but Racing UK has a joint venture and At The Races remains corporately aloof while relying on bookmaker partners to provide one of 30 income streams. The key in Britain is Turf TV, the betting-shop channel set up in part by the Racing UK courses, which flickered into life with six exclusive members (including Ascot) and a small percentage of betting-shop supporters, mainly small independents until the Tote joined up, but none of the four majors, which account for 80 per cent of the UK estate.

On January 1, Turf TV will be bolstered by 25 other RUK courses. The split will be equal - just as it is in the choice facing satellite viewers, who need two TV accounts to cover the field - and the dominant bookmakers, who have lined up solidly behind SIS and the status quo, will have to decide whether they can survive on half rations for their horseracing coverage. On that decision could depend a large slice of British racing’s future prosperity. The situation in North America depends on whether racecourse and betting operators choose TrackNet or TVG. It seems they cannot have both. In each case, the participants have made their positions clear.

Robert Evans, president and CEO of Churchill Downs, told a shareholders’ meeting: “I understand our objectives on occasion may ruffle a few feathers. That is one of the things about competition. It is not really our intent just to go out and be disruptive. Our intent is to compete aggressively and to attract more customers to our business. There are always a few potential consequences when you challenge the status quo.” In response to the Kentucky Derby impasse, TVG general manager David Nathanson said: “We attempted to negotiate with TrackNet Media and its owners in good faith, but thus far have not seen any terms from them indicating a strong desire to reach a mutually beneficial long-term agreement. We remain open to negotiating an agreement that is in the best interest of the racing industry, the respective parties and, ultimately, the racing fan.”

In Britain, Turf TV has become the dividing line between broadcasters and rights-holders Racing UK and At The Races. RUK executive chairman Simon Bazalgette reflects: “Historically British racing has not been good at being commercial about negotiating its media rights, and has allowed third parties, such as BSkyB (the satellite provider) and the bookmakers, to get a lot of the economic benefit. Now racecourses can manage the business themselves, keeping more of the commercial benefit in racing and having greater control over the presentation of the sport. Turf TV is a great deal for the racecourses.” ATR chief executive Matthew Imi takes a dispassionate view of Turf TV, since betting-shop rights do not figure in his company’s portfolio. “It will be interesting to see how it works out, but we’re not threatened by Turf TV,” he says. “The most fascinating aspect is not whether Turf TV gains any material traction among the big bookmakers, but what the net effect will be on British racing. For us, though, it’s a valuable opportunity to concentrate on our core business, which is to exploit our partners’ rights. Getting together in the UK with Racing UK is not on our radar.” It might not be war, but for the moment, and maybe for the foreseeable future, it clearly is every man for himself.

HOW THE TELEVISION BROADCASTERS LINE UP NORTH AMERICA HORSERACING TV (HRTV)

Owned by: Joint venture of Nasdaq-listed Magna Entertainment Corp. (MEC) and Churchill Downs Inc. Operates: Subscription national cable and satellite TV horseracing network. Live racing content is acquired by sister company TrackNet Media Group. Estimated coverage 11 million homes. Racetracks covered: 70-plus Thoroughbred, harness and Quarter Horse tracks, including Santa Anita Park (California); Churchill Downs (Kentucky); Gulfstream Park, *Calder (Florida); Lone Star Park (Texas); Arlington Park (Illinois); Pimlico (Maryland). International: UK tracks on Racing UK. MEC operates off-track betting network, and national account wagering business XpressBet. Churchill Downs recently opened online national account wagering service, TwinSpires, and more recently acquired account wagering operator AmericaTAB and affiliates. Overseas coverage: Racing World channel in Britain, joint venture with Racing UK. *effective January 3, 2008 TVG Owned by: Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc., global multi-media and technology company, including loss-making TV Guide magazine, in which Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has 41 per cent stake. Operates: Subscription national cable and satellite TV horseracing channel, and online betting network. Estimated coverage 50 million homes. Racetracks covered: Turf Paradise (Arizona); Del Mar, Fairplex Park, Hollywood Park, Los Alamitos, Oak Tree (California); **Calder (Florida); Prairie Meadows (Iowa); Ellis Park, Keeneland, Kentucky Downs, Turfway Park (Kentucky); Meadowlands, Monmouth Park (New Jersey); Ruidoso Downs, Zia Park (New Mexico); Aqueduct, Belmont Park, Saratoga, Yonkers Raceway (New York); Emerald Downs (Washington). International: Japan, UK tracks on At The Races. Some contracts with tracks owned by HRTV partners due to expire over next year. Has arrangement with online account wagering operators Youbet and The Racing Channel. Overseas coverage: At The Races in Britain, through arrangement with TRNi and the Dubai Sports Channel in the UAE. **through January 2, 2008 BRITAIN RACING UK (RUK) Owned by: 30 British racecourses, split Jockey Club Racecourses (50%), Chester, Goodwood, Newbury, York (sharing 25%), 11 smaller courses (sharing 25%). Owns all rights, including terrestrial TV, except for licensed betting offices (belong to Amrac, see below and facing). Operates: Subscription national cable and satellite (via BSkyB service, part of Setanta Sports package) TV horseracing channel, with links to small number of bookmaker partners; international channel, Racing World, in partnership with MEC and Churchill Downs; licensed betting-office channel, Turf TV, set up by Amalgamated Racing (Amrac), joint venture between Racecourse Media Services (separate company owned by RUK courses and Ascot) and betting-office provider Alphameric; overseas delivery of pictures and data from RUK courses in association with South Africa-based racetrack and betting operator Phumelela. About 200,000 subscribers (including Setanta, forecast to grow to 1 million when Premiership football comes on stream in Autumn 2007). Racetracks covered: Aintree, Ayr, Bangor, Beverley, Carlisle, Cartmel, Catterick, Cheltenham, Chester, Epsom, Goodwood, Hamilton, Haydock, Huntingdon, Kempton, Ludlow, Market Rasen, Musselburgh, Newbury, Newmarket, Nottingham, Pontefract, Redcar, Salisbury, Sandown, Thirsk, Warwick, Wetherby, Wincanton, York. International: France, Dubai, occasional other major races; HRTV (see above) coverage of North America on separate channel, Racing World. Overseas coverage: North America, joint venture with HRTV; Australia, jointly with At The Races; other territories, partnership with Phumelela (South Africa). AT THE RACES (ATR) Owned by: broadcaster British Sky Broadcasting (46%), racetrack owners Arena Leisure (46%) and Northern Racing (2%), and racecourses Ascot (5%), Newton Abbot, Plumpton and Ripon. Owns all media rights of participating courses except licensed betting office and terrestrial TV rights. Operates: National cable and satellite (part of Sky Sports package) TV horseracing channel, with links to bookmaker partners. ATR courses shown in betting shops through agreement with Satellite Information Services (SIS), which sub-contracts rights from Bookmaker Afternoon Greyhound Service (Bags). BSkyB subscription platform covers 8.5 million homes in UK. Racetracks covered: Ascot, Bath, Brighton, Chepstow, Doncaster, Exeter, Fakenham, Folkestone, Fontwell, Hereford, Hexham, Kelso, Leicester, Lingfield, Newcastle, Newton Abbot, Perth, Plumpton, Ripon, Sedgefield, Southwell, Stratford, Taunton, Towcester, Uttoxeter, Windsor, Wolverhampton, Worcester, Yarmouth. (Great Leighs will become 30th on opening). Plus all 27 Irish courses. International: France, Dubai, Germany, occasional other major races; TVG (see facing) coverage of North America. Overseas coverage: North America, arrangement with TRNi, through to TVG; Australia, jointly with RUK; other territories, distribution by SIS.

The future of dispute resolution - alternatives to the usual legal process

Disputes about horses and money are all too common in the racing world. The legal process is not a good way of settling disputes it can be costly, lengthy, antagonistic and uncertain. Therefore other ways of settling disputes have been sought. Walking away from a problem may work but it all too often returns twofold. Arbitration To solve a problem by simple negotiation (i.e., with no intermediaries and no legal processes) is a blessing but unfortunately such cases are rare as people often become entrenched in a dispute protecting a “point of principle.” In the USA and increasingly in Europe the costs of legal proceedings have become astronomical. The most common form of legally binding dispute resolution is litigation through the courts before a judge who must be seen as being disinterested and unbiased and where each party is given a fair opportunity to: 1. Present his/her case. 2. To know the opposing case, and 3. To answer it. An arbitrator can be chosen by both parties to act as the judge in their dispute. The traditional legal process has no procedure that allows the parties in a dispute to discuss their respective cases with frankness and openness without giving away their bargaining positions. The unsatisfactory factors of the traditional legal processes have led to the development of alternative dispute resolution the aim of which is “a process for finding a solution that the parties can live with.” Negotiation is the commonest way that disputes are settled. It is only when direct negotiation breaks down that some other means of reaching a settlement is required. Mediation Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) where the parties select an independent third party, or neutral who will assist the parties to reach an acceptable solution. The mediator discusses the problem with both parties together and also separately in private sessions called “caucuses”. These private caucuses enable the mediator to use his or her imaginative problem solving skills to encourage frank and open discussions for both parties. The mediator is there to guide the parties to their own solutions. The mediator is not there to make judgements but to act as an honest broker rather than a judge. Mediation may be brought to the attention of the disputants by solicitors, by a colleague who has experience of mediation as a method of alternative dispute resolution or by the courts. There are court mediation schemes in many larger cities and an increasing number of civil cases brought to the courts are directed back for mediation. It should be emphasised that over 80% of mediations are successful, that the cost of mediation is dramatically less than litigation and also that the proceedings are confidential. It should be noted that parties directed to mediation by the courts, who decline the mediation process, may be charged costs by the court even if they win their case. The process of mediation is that the mediator meets and introduces himself to the two parties. Each party nominates a spokesperson who can be the disputant, the insurer, or friend or a solicitor or barrister. The mediator will then ask each party to outline their side of the dispute, the so-called “initial opening statement”. All parties are present and the mediator listens to both statements. The mediator then separates the two parties and speaks to them both individually. These private sessions are called caucuses. The first caucus tends to be for a relatively short time but then the caucus can be for variable lengths of time in order for the mediator to ascertain the facts, explore both parties evidence and opinions. The mediator explains that he will not reveal any information to the other party unless he is given specific permission to do so. The mediator is not a judge but merely acts as a catalyst exploring alternative methods by which the dispute might be solved. These mediation hearings are “without prejudice”. This means that in the event of the dispute not being solved then the evidence and discussions cannot be mentioned at any subsequent legal trials. It should be emphasised that the vast majority off mediations (>80%) result in a successful outcome and both parties will find common ground and the mediator produces a short conclusive statement which both parties sign. What subjects of disputes can be mediated? For trainer disputes can arise from numerous quarters from the initial purchase of horses, syndicate disputes, partnership disagreements, personal injuries, employment disputes, farriery problems, problems with builders over stables, all-weather gallops etc. The list is endless. Throughout Europe racehorse trainers face the same problems. The marvellous “old-fashioned owners” who even when faced with the worst of luck would murmur - “Oh well, that’s racing!” - are all too rare these days and in the age of modern syndicates there is often a “closet barrister” or a syndicate member who cannot accept that “accidents happen” and who are determined to prove that every piece of bad luck must be someone’s fault and that somebody “definitely needs pursuing”. In my experience, modern trainers may be accused of “ducking and weaving” but they are merely trying to avoid the left hook that often comes from the most unexpected quarter. As they search the world for a horse that may be a “hidden gem” with some “form” which might enable it to compete with the best there are inherent risks. As an equine veterinary surgeon I have been dispatched to far-flung corners of the globe to “vet” such horses and on the whole such entrepreneurial owners have benefited greatly. Galileo, Tulipa and Cobbett have arrived from Warsaw racetrack and acquitted themselves with great aplomb, but for every success there have been some disappointments and the buying and selling of racehorses is often fraught with the possibilities for a dispute. For the “Veterinary Defence Society” (VDS) the purchase of horses represents the biggest single area of problems for the equine veterinary surgeon and the VDS does a very fine job in looking after the interests of veterinary surgeons in this very complicated area. One thing is certain and that is that in the life of a modern European trainer disputes will and do occur from the relatively minor – “How come I was fined by the Jockey Club because the vaccination in the passport was a few days out, and the horse couldn’t then race for a further twenty one days while this problem was rectified?” To the high-profile and well-documented dispute between Coolmore and Sir Alex Ferguson over the ownership of Rock Of Gibraltar. Mediation can take place even when a court date has been set. The costs of mediation are likely to be a fraction of the costs of a court case. In the unusual event of mediation not reaching a satisfactory conclusion then a court case can always occur. The mediation process is one in which a compromise agreement is made i.e., it is not a win/lose situation but a solution that both parties can live with. Some contact details: The Veterinary Mediation Association – www.veterinarymediation.com

New European legislation could prove costly for racehorse transporters

THE enforcement of new European legislation next spring may come as a costly blow to racehorse transporters. The regulation aims to safeguard animal welfare by radically improving conditions during transport, but the racing industry feels that existing standards are already sufficient and the innovations amount to only red tape.

The “Animal Welfare During Transport Regulation” was first drafted by the European Commission in November 2004, primarily with the desire to safeguard livestock being moved for slaughter. There have been countless horror stories involving these poor beasts, who are often subjected to shockingly cramped conditions and treated with little dignity. Racehorses, however, are another matter entirely, but the bill will have a knock-on effect unless an exemption clause is brought in.

Animal transporters (not racehorse transporters) undertaking journeys of over eight hours will be forced to fit satellite navigation systems into newly built vehicles from next year, while all vehicles must have the equipment from 2009. There is also a stipulation for air conditioning. Drivers and staff will need to achieve competency certificates. The total cost of improvements, upgrades and other compliance is thought to total up to £20,000 / €29,000 per vehicle. For both racehorse transport companies and private individuals, this will come as a serious financial blow. It is thought that the governments of Ireland and France will be lenient when it comes to enforcing these regulations. This is no surprise in the case of the former, given the long-standing desire to protect its racing industry for economic, social and political reasons. Britain, however, is another matter, and there are plenty who feel that the overzealous manner with which the detail of EU regulations are adhered to is to the country's detriment.

Kevin Needham, who runs BBA Shipping And Transport Ltd, feels that the needless astringency of the new rules will result in only one reaction. "Operators will ignore them," he said. "Bring a prosecution will be so difficult; there is much the authorities will need to prove. This is nothing but a source of irritation and annoyance." "Every horse box we build nowadays is different to the one before. The whole process is geared towards the operator. Whatever facility you want can be added, and the standard of boxes nowadays is a lot better than in the past. We are not driving lorries with cart springs around anymore, now we have modern chassis with air suspension."

According to Needham and other executives in the same sector, it behoves transporters to move racing and breeding stock with the greatest possible care already. "It matters to everyone who moves thoroughbreds that they get to the races in the best possible condition. Optimum performance depends on it, and our customers rightly will not stand for anything less." Merrick Francis of the Racehorse Transporters’ Association is optimistic that a differentiation will be made between racehorses and other livestock that will overt the situation. "It is still all up for consultation and interpretation by DEFRA [the department for environment, food and rural affairs] but there is reason for optimism that a practical solution can be found," he said.

The pivotal point of this situation is that the EU has listed the changes as 'regulations' rather than 'directives'. This allows the British government far less flexibility, though, according to the Racehorse Trainers’ Federation chief executive Rupert Arnold, they are doing what they can. "DEFRA is trying to be as flexible and helpful as possible. I think that we can find a way through this, but there are areas such as with competency certificates and the regulations applying to journey times and distances that need clarification," he said. One thorny issue of the new regulations is that of competency certificates, which will be required for both drivers and their assistants. Many transporters feel strongly that it is ridiculous to ask a box driver of 40 years experience to pass a test conducted by someone else with far less knowledge of the trade.

Furthermore, there are new controls preventing horses being transported below 0C and above 30C, but trainers who set off for the races early in the morning could not help but offend this stipulation. Most punitive of all is the rule that pertains to the angle of slope of a horse box's ramp which would immediately outlaw a huge number of existing lorries. Cathy McGlynn, the European consultant for the British Horseracing Board, is attempting to assuage these and other frustrations for the racing industry. And the good news is that she is making purposeful headway. "We have been working hard at this for four years, consulting with Rupert Arnold and Merrick Francis and the civil servants. Our dealings with DEFRA have been constructive," she said. "The chances are that domestic racehorse transporters will not be too hard hit, but those firms operating on the continent will have to comply. Details are still to be sorted out." McGlynn concurs with those who feel that the high standards of welfare common throughout the racing industry need no improving upon. Like Arnold, she is particularly frustrated at the rules pertaining to permissible temperature. "There is just no scientific basis for this regulation. If there were, it would be a different matter, but there is no proof of any welfare issue at temperatures outside those which they state." "In some parts of Europe, for example, it is below zero for half of the year. Introducing regulation that cannot be adhered to is futile," she said.

The fact is that this issue took horns from the disgraceful state in which horses for slaughter have been treated in countries such as Hungary and Poland. The International League For The Protection Of Horses and the RSPCA are entirely justified to have taken action over this issue, and the legislation is a step forward in this sphere. But penalising racehorse transporters seems invidious. Needham is particularly irritated by the intransigency of the EU to differentiate between the two situations. "It is a case of one size being made to fit all. The regulations are made from the meat-horse perspective. Nobody is going to jeopardise a Sadler's Wells filly with a foal at foot, for example," he said.

Furthermore, the directive is also looking for all loading ramps to have a 20 degree loading angle and for all boxes to have a minimum headroom of 75cm (roughly 30 inches) above the withers. There is no way that small operators can take on the significant extra expenditure to modify existing boxes, and most will choose to run the gauntlet. Racehorse transportation has taken a quantum leap forward in tandem with the increasing internationalisation of the sport. Gone are the days in which European horses were not in a fit state to compete at events such as the Breeders' Cup. And the awareness of optimum international travel, coupled with the great strides made in other equine sports, have had a knock-on effect in raising domestic standards. "Arthur Stephenson used to send his horses to Cheltenham and back (500 mile round trip) in a day, and horses can still travel long distances, get off the box and run well," Needham says. "Traffic is a bigger problem nowadays, however. Our boxes going to Ireland can get stuck on the A14 for hours. Forward planning can overt this to a degree, such as traveling at off-peak times where it is practical. There are always unforseen delays though. Finding a solution to awkward problems is a daily problem for transporters."

In addition to the new regulation, all horseboxes sold after May 1st 2006 are now fitted with Digital Tacographs, to record driver’s hours and from October 1st 2006 all horse boxes have to be sold with a “Euro 4” specification engine. “The idea behind the new specification engine is to reduce engine emissions even further” says George Smith of George Smith Horseboxes. “However, they’ve been cleaned up since 1990, the new specification is simply to reduce both Nitrous Oxide and soot this is impossible unless you use either an AD Blue System or exhaust gas recirculation”. The cost – approximately £3,000 (€5,000). Naturally, vehicle manufacturers are advising us to buy new boxes before the new regulations come into force!

Are the six newly upgraded Group One races for fillies and mares in Europe worthy of their status?

Well that is too soon to say, but there is a significant difference between the newly upgraded “f&m” events and how other races that have earned Group One status over the years. The key word is “earned” of course, as a race cannot, under normal circumstances, be upgraded unless it has earned it through attracting high quality fields.

Still, the upgrading of six races to Group One in 2004, was triggered mainly by the wish to improve opportunities for fillies and mares. Such a factor would almost certainly not be allowed much emphasis in discussions concerning upgrading races for males. Ruth Quinn, racing director at the British Horseracing Board, said at the time: “I am delighted to be able to announce these considerable improvements to the race program for fillies and mares. We want to offer every encouragement to fillies to extend their racing careers in Britain”.

What Quinn was actually saying, between the lines, was that the BHB were anxious to stop the export of potentially high class broodmares to the US, where better purses and black type opportunities in Graded handicaps make it more viable to continue a filly’s racing career before retiring her to the paddocks. So, two years ago, Europe offered a greatly improved program for fillies and mares aged three and up, including these new Group One races: Falmouth Stakes 1 mile (England) Sun Chariot Stakes 1 mile (England) Matron Stakes 1 mile (England) Pretty Polly Stakes1 1/4 miles (Ireland) Prix d’Astarte 1600 metres (France) Premio Lydia Tesio 2000 metres (Italy) Interestingly, these six were also the only races upgraded to Group One status that year.

How far off having earned the status were some of these new championship “f&m” races? The two in England are perhaps the two strongest and, as it has been won by stars like Sonic Lady and Al Bahatri, many would argue that the Falmouth Stakes was long overdue its upgrading. But the year before being staged as a Group One for the first time it was won by Macadamia – who had won the Royal Hunt Cup off handicap mark 93 three weeks earlier. She was improving of course, and two starts later she ran second in another Group Two, the Sun Chariot Stakes. That day, she was chasing Echoes in Eternity – who had not even been given the mark 100 by the BHB handicapper for her Listed win at Yarmouth just over two weeks earlier.

At the time, many would argue that these were weak Group Two events. Twelve months later they both held Group One status, as the European Pattern program underwent some major changes: - 23 new Group races were introduced, 21 as Group 3 events and four as Group 2 events. - 17 of the 23 races were restricted to fillies and mares aged three and up (three were for juvenile fillies). - 17 Group races were upgraded. Six races went up to Group One status, ten races went up to G2 status and one race went up to G3 status. - 11 of the 17 races were restricted to fillies and mares aged three and up (two were for juvenile fillies). Excluding the juvenile races, no fewer than 28 of a total of 40 new / upgraded races were contests restricted to fillies or fillies and mares. It is also interesting to note that, despite having given 40 races an elevated status, the European Pattern Committee downgraded only six events.

The Pattern Book had either been, or become, imbalanced. After such a shake-up in 2004, it was no surprise when only minor changes were made prior to the 2005 season. Four races were upgraded and two races were downgraded that year, including the Prix Lupin (a previous Group One race which was withdrawn from the pattern to allow the French Derby to be run at 2100 metres). Over the two-year period, no other race was downgraded from Group One status.

Is the European Pattern Committee gambling when upgrading as many as six fillies & mare races to Group One with one throw of the dice? Not if enough owners decide to keep top class fillies in training. They are the ones taking the financial gamble and, as one is striving to see fillies that have already won in Group One company stay in training, purses play a crucial role. The lure of prize money must not only outweigh the lure of a sale of the filly, or a sale of her first yearling, it must also be big enough to over-shadow the risk factors involved in keeping a valuable filly in training. Funds were added, as the Falmouth and the Sun Chariot both jumped up from £58,000 to £116,000 in value when being upgraded. That was the financial reward as Attraction took the first Sun Chariot Stakes carrying Group One status. Two weeks later the mare Chorist picked up £81,576 for finishing second to Haafhd in the Champion Stakes (Gp1) – where she was the only female runner. She had earned just shy of £110,000 when beating her own sex in the Pretty Polly Stakes (G1) at the Curragh earlier in the season. Chorist’s second in the Champion probably enhanced her broodmare value more than what was the case for Attraction when she won the Sun Chariot. This simply because Attraction had already won three Group One races. When a filly with such an impressive CV stays in training, one has to say that the enhanced program has already given positive results.

Though what will the enhanced program achieve in the long run? Will it make more and more Group One winners stay in training, or will it simply create more (party sub-standard) Group One winners? The big breeding operations, with Juddmonte at the forefront, will never stop sending numerous fillies to continue their racing careers North America, and a filly like Attraction – owned by the Duke Of Roxburghe – would never be exported in any case. In the 2004 Sun Chariot, Attraction beat Chic and Nebraska Tornado, giving the race the look of a solid Group One. Last year’s edition was won by Peeress, who beat Sumitville and Musicanna. That was hardly a genuine Group One finish but it is too soon to assess the success or failure of the upgrading this event.

Overall, the new Group One races seem to have got off to an adequate start. The continuation is perhaps more important. Will they all be deserving continued Group One status in about five years’ time? And if not, how difficult will it be for the Pattern Committee to downgrade one or two of them? Such a move will probably very difficult. Racecourses, trainers, owners and breeders combine for rather a formidable pressure group, and they will all be interested in keeping these races at Group One status. Even if they should become numerically strong enough to be self-destructing quality-wise, producing below par championship races, and in turn produce below par Group One winning broodmares.

A total of 85 Group One races were staged in Europe last year. 19 of these were races restricted to fillies (for 3-year-olds or 3-year-olds plus). In other words, 22.35% of all Group One races are for the fairer sex only. These are races that give the girls protection from competition with males. It is easy to see how the decision to upgrade six such events was a major change. Nevertheless, fillies and mares who race exclusively in their own division are still not offered anything as big a slice of the cake as they are in USA. North American racing has long had a lucrative program for fillies and mares. The US racing circuit will be staging 104 Grade One races in 2006, of which 39 are restricted to fillies and mares (excluding those for juveniles). This means that 37.5% of all Grade One events are “f&m” races and, not surprisingly, a great number of female runners stay in training well past their 3-year-old season. What it also means, however, is that US trained fillies and mares are rarely seen competing with males at Grade One level.

This is a feature that has always played an excellent role on the vivid and colourful stage called European horseracing. The true championship races should always involve clashes of sexes, as well as clashes of generations. If the increase in upgrading of European Pattern races restricted to fillies of mares continues, clashes of sexes may well be a rarity. If not a thing of the past altogether. An ‘Arc’ or a ‘Jacques le Marois’ without a top filly involved would not be quite the same, would it? It would not be as competitive. Many will argue that this would be a small price to pay, in return for seeing more top older fillies in training over a period of two to three years.

Maybe so, but more Group One races will always mean more sub-standard Group One races. And increasing top level opportunities for fillies and mares will have a knock on effect also on some of the established Group One events open to both sexes. The Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe and the King George VI & Queen Elizabeth Diamond Stakes are not likely to be vulnerable in the foreseeable future, though races like the Prix d’Ispahan, Sussex Stakes, Preis von Europa and Champion Stakes could easily lose some big players of the fairer sex. Many of them will be campaigned exclusively in “f&m” races. So, without throwing out an unnecessarily early opinion on these new developments, perhaps one can offer this (provisional) theory: Giving the filly & mare division significantly increased protection can have positive effects, but overdo it, and negative side-effects will be part of the bargain.

The European Horserace Scientific Liaison Committee

Anyone heard of it? No? EHSLC? Still no-one? Thought not. Neither its full nomenclature nor its clumsy acronym elicits anything approaching a visceral response amongst racing professionals. This does not sound a sexy topic for discussion or debate – those at the Racing Post would surely agree, given that mention of this body has popped out from between their covers just twice in the past four years. If, in a private moment of extreme narcissism, you have ever ‘Googled’ yourself, I can guarantee that, however insignificant you are, you will find more references in cyberspace to you and your namesakes than to EHSLC.

This is curious. Rightly, racing preoccupies itself with the notion of integrity: maintaining a veneer of absolute probity is understandably this or any sport’s ne plus ultra. While we’re counting, integrity issues have warranted no fewer than 926 RacingPost articles in the corresponding period, yet the collective whose purpose more than any other is to ensure horses perform on a level playing throughout the five major European racing nations field barely warrants more than a couple of lines. It strikes me that the organisation whose mission statement is to “harmonise technical doping control policies and procedures… [and] to engender cooperation between the member countries in research underlying the suppression of doping” likes to keep a low profile.

Fortunately, Trainer was able to track down Peter Webbon for assistance. Webbon is happily rather less of a shrinking violet (91 Post mentions, in case you are interested) and is also what is commonly referred to as a ‘key player’ at the EHSLC. Dubbed ‘The Enforcer’, Webbon is now one of the sport’s most powerful individuals. Currently the Jockey Club’s director of welfare and science, he will assume overall control of racing’s integrity remit in April when he becomes the first chief executive of the newly branded Horseracing Regulatory Authority. When the appointment was announced, Toby Balding declared: “He will be brilliant. He is a very informed and switched-on operator. He will be excellent at the job.” Webbon and outgoing Jockey Club head Christopher Foster have been among senior administrators from several racing jurisdictions across Europe to have collaborated with independent expert pharmacists, chief veterinary officers and analysts in driving forward the work of EHSLC.

“The organisation started in 1992 as a joint initiative between representatives of Great Britain, France and Ireland,” explains Webbon. “In 1997, or thereabouts, we brought Germany and Italy into the fold. In order to maximise our effectiveness, we tend to work not as one single body that meets from time to time, but rather in smaller groups and working parties that are able to put forward suggestions and scientific findings to the relevant governing administrators who are then able to execute policy decisions.”

Implicit is a welcome recognition that horses compete internationally on an increasingly regular basis and, thus, there is an obvious danger that misunderstanding and misapplication of medication when abroad can occur. By harmonising drug thresholds and releasing data on detection times, the theory goes that unfortunate disqualifications can be avoided. Within this, more nuanced disparities also need to be ironed out. Webbon cites Scandinavian racing’s absence from EHSLC: “Although fewer British trained horses run in Scandinavia, they do tend to compete in the bigger races on a more regular basis than was the case. In Sweden, for example, the regulations state that there is a specific period of time before a race when certain drugs may not be administered under any circumstances, irrespective of whether a test returns a positive result. Theoretically, the authorities can ask to see the medication records of any trainer and disqualify a horse that actually tested clean and which, under domestic regulation, would be a legal competitor. This is a situation that we are striving to eradicate in EHSLC countries.”

There are those who would argue a “when in Rome” policy – that it behoves the trainer to familiarise himself with foreign regulations. It is surely realistic nowadays, however, to expect a certain level of assistance from, and cooperation amongst, the governing bodies when time constraints impinge so heavily on the busiest yards. There is, after all, evidence enough to suggest that trainers already feel a sense of disenfranchisement when it comes to doping policy. Rupert Arnold, the experienced chief executive of the National Trainers’ Federation, has concerns over the manner in which policy changes precipitated by the work of EHSLC insinuate themselves into the rule book.

“The first key issue on testing,” says Arnold, “relates to the sensitivity of tests and whether procedures are changed. We feel we get very little feedback from the regulators unless we push hard for it. This comes to a head when a rash of positives presents itself, as was the case with clenbuterol last year when trainers were contacting us to say that they weren’t doing anything different.” Arnold advocates the introduction of something akin to the current American model in this respect. “In the United States,” he says, “Horsemen’s associations tend to agree to a testing protocol with their particular state regulators where everybody knows exactly where they stand. If modifications occur, the associations are consulted.

One EHSLC inspired initiative concerned changes to the Jockey Club’s C7 Code of Medication Practise. There were subtle, but significant, alterations into which we were allowed no input – the Jockey Club just went about their job.” According to Peter Webbon, EHSLC will release a lumpy pack of information to show the fruits of its labour over the last seven years that will coincide roughly with this publication - it is hoped that this goes some way to assuage Arnold’s worries. To do so, however, it must be clear, palatable and accessible; not a straightforward task given the complexity and volume of the material at hand. Such a release will gauge the productivity and the utility of EHSLC.

As Webbon concedes, however, measuring its success and efficacy is an almost impossible task as a security body is essentially only informed by its failures. Rather as British intelligence was lambasted for its failings in the aftermath of the London bombings, so a body such as this is only truly scrutinised when there is a spate of dope test failures or a single event that is in some way deemed newsworthy.

In order to be accorded any credit, it must release its own findings and seek to present a positive impression. Nobody hoists the bunting for MI5 when we all manage to travel home safely on any given day. It is here that we arrive at the interesting pragmatic reality of EHSLC. Certainly, its basis in science and the advancement of drug testing technology and harmonisation is sound, but where it is most potent is in its capacity to protect racing’s image and to manage our expectations. That is, to keep us feeling warm and fuzzy when dark thoughts of racing’s besmirched integrity invade the sport’s collective consciousness. Look no further here than the EPO ‘raids’ of January 2002.

Martin Pipe, Paul Nicholls, Venetia Williams, Len Lungo and Alan Jones were visited simultaneously early one morning – each and every horse was tested only for presence of the performance enhancer EPO, of which there had been extensive speculation at the time, and each test returned negative in double quick time. This was the first time such testing had been carried out without prior warning to the trainers involved and was presented as new policy enlightened by the collaborative power of EHSLC – Britain was merely aligning itself with pan-European policy whilst, according to Peter Webbon, “safeguarding the industry.” Incidentally, “no horse in Britain has ever tested positive for EPO.” I am not suggesting that such unannounced out-of-competition ambushes are bad per se – there are now about a dozen that take place quietly each year – nor positing that they do not act as some form of deterrent to would-be cheats.

This particular instance, however, was no more than an exercise on the Jockey Club’s part to allay fears of widespread drug abuse. To suggest that they attempted to keep this out of the public eye is folly – this was the whole point and was realpolitik at its most brazen, with its deliciously press friendly rhetoric of ‘dawn raids’ and so forth. EHSLC, of course, facilitates such exercises by providing a collegiate ‘research based’ backdrop to proceedings. This is simply how any government operates – the Jockey Club (or HRA) is New Labour and EHSLC is the European Commission, “moving to strengthen practical cooperation between member states,” with its working parties, delegations and information networks.

When asked whether he is confident that racing has actually been made tangibly cleaner, Webbon is far more the pragmatist than the utopian. “You would have to be very naïve,” he suggests, “to think that we will find every illicit drug out there, but there are new technologies that are sure to act as deterrents.”

The interesting development cited may indeed make some think twice, namely the storing of samples (rather in the manner of a DNA database) so as that new technologies may revisit these some years later with the potential for different results. While he recognises the difficulties that could ensue here – the disqualifications and reallocation of prize money, not to mention the overwhelming bloodstock implications – Webbon outlines the possibility that this could uncover systematic breaches of regulations if more than one re-tested sample from the same yard was to betray a concerted effort to flout the authorities.

This is ostensibly admirable, but to what extent is this appeasement? What would happen if a swathe of retested samples came up positive? Would the consequences for the sport be sufficiently cataclysmic for this to be brushed aside? These are suggestions that would, I have no doubt, be vigorously denied, but presentation of an untarnished sport is obviously crucial, particularly at a time of impending financial Armageddon for racing. And this is fundamentally why I question any overarching international racing body such as EHSLC.

Each member state, and particularly racing’s present Britain, is consumed by perfectly understandable self-interest – lofty visions of consensus and ideas-sharing are often undermined. In this case, it appears that suggestions are made, but individual administrators can use or ignore them at will. Why is it, for example that Italy, in common with America, regularly tests for ‘milkshakes’? (Excess drenched doses of bicarb to reduce fatigue in horses). While, in Great Britain, according to Peter Webbon, “a few of these tests for excess CO2 were carried out pre-race a few years ago, but we’ve got the kit in the lab if we want to use it.”

The current EHSLC press release regarding detection times is most welcome and is not before time. In addition, a desire to harmonise doping procedure is a commendable one. It is hard, however, to conceive of the EHSLC as a unified force for improving racing’s integrity. Rather, it is a useful management tool and adjunct to an increasingly well-oiled Public Relations mechanism.

Trainer’s Comment - Christian von der Recke

This summer the Football World Cup will take place in Germany. Teams from Africa may play teams from South America. It is unlikely they'll talk the same language and the games may well be refereed by Asians who speak neither French nor Spanish! But, they all know the rules they are playing by.

You see, wherever international football, rugby, cricket, basketball or golf (to name but a few sports) uniform rules of sport are in place. Not like racing! In 2005, I raced horses in no less than fifteen different nations. Hand on heart, I needed to memorise rules that differ from country to country. Horse Racing is now a global business, it really needs to adopt an international rule book, thought out properly by professionals so that wherever we race we are racing under the guidelines of the same rulebook.

The European All Weather Series is a great idea and offers owners and trainers the opportunity to race for a valuable pot of money from February to May. However, through no fault of the courses that are running the series, the whole concept of bringing together the European All Weather nations is nearly halted by the varying rules from country to country.

Lets try and run a "mythical" horse in each of the races. Here are just a few of the problems we might face:

France

We enter the horse to run on the date given for entry deadlines. But, wait for it, the horse entry is voided because we didn't enter the horse eight days earlier than stated. The horse we entered is not based in France! So, we enter at the forfeit stage and now have to pay a premium to run. On raceday it is only by chance, we find out that we have to declare the horse to run. We declare the horse to run and with earplugs.

Germany

We make it into the parade ring where we are told that we are not allowed to run with cotton wool earplugs. The stewards are also not going to let us run as the horse has no hind shoes on. We are scratching our heads - this wasn't even an issue in France! England Like France we remember to declare the horse on raceday. But, we didn't have to do this in Germany! The horse runs without hind shoes and no one has asked anyway.

Italy

We present the necessary customs health papers at the border and are allowed into the country. Nothing unusual about this, the papers are needed whenever you ship horses into a country outside your home country. Our papers get lost between the border and racecourse but we aren’t concerned, as they were only for border officials when we travelled in France or England. On arrival at the course we aren't allowed into the stable area as we can't find the customs health papers. Why does the racecourse need them? They were only valid at customs and have nothing to do with the racecourse!

Sweden

We win the race! However our celebrations are short lived as the jockey used his whip inside the final furlong! This is not allowed in Sweden.

Now as I've said this is purely a "mythical" situation but it does show how diverse the rulebook is across Europe. I'm sure that any trainer who races overseas will sympathise with the idiosyncrasies I've highlighted. But how do we go about getting an international rulebook set up?

Under the auspices of which authority would this be introduced? Should racing have a world governing body, just like in other major sports? Perhaps the answer is staring us in the face! Each October the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities meet in Paris. Their website states that one of the main objectives of the federation is to coordinate and harmonize the rules of the member-countries regarding breeding, racing & wagering.

As trainers, we should lobby our own country representatives to help bring about the harmonization. We must have voice heard and it’s obvious that the governing organisations need to ask our opinion on such an important matter.