speculus
05-25-2006, 11:23 AM
At first glance this may look a crazy idea. But on closer scrutiny, I hope you will agree this might be a novel first step to that Utopian ideal—fair and clean racing, especially in countries where jockeys are at the receiving end of the public ire for real or imagined reasons.
Horse racing, as a sport, has a unique distinction—it is the only sport that is subsidized by the gambling money. It is another matter that despite this well-known fact, punters all over the world are almost always dissatisfied with the running of the races. It is not uncommon to hear cries of “fixed”, “cheats”, etc. after a race, and in most cases, the accusing finger points to the jockey.
Racing, like any other sport that involves millions of dollars, will have its share of crooks, and they will, at least in countries where unscrupulous bookmakers operate books, always attempt to make a fast buck at the cost of the serious student of form. Only a constant vigil by people who understand racing in all its intricacies—and who also have a steely resolve to guard the interest of the punting community—can improve the image of the game. The fact that racing has, among its followers, an extremely high percentage of losers as compared to winners only makes the matter worse. Human psychology is such that people simply love to believe that they lost their money because someone played unfair, or resorted to malpractice.
Punishments have lost their sting
At a recent dinner with horse racing buffs, the conversation wandered to the topic of malpractice in racing—real as well as perceived.
Everyone who joined the discussion unanimously agreed about one thing: The value of punishment as a deterrent has eroded considerably over the years, and it is no longer an effective tool to curb malpractice.
The observation is very interesting—and sadly, very true.
It is perhaps time to infuse racing with innovative and creative ideas that will, despite this handicap, keep alive hopes of fair and clean racing.
I have done my share of lateral thinking (literally!), and come out with this solution.
Redistribute the purse/stakes
In the absence of fear of punishment, the only way to encourage fairness is to reward it handsomely—in monetary terms!
Let us introduce meritocracy in racing.
Better the performance, bigger the share of the prize money—that should me the mantra.
If fairness in racing has to be summed up in just one sentence, it has got to be this:
Every horse must try to finish as close as possible to the one in front, and as far ahead as possible from the one behind.
Then why not reward horses only on these two parameters? Why give a predetermined, fixed sum to the winner, the runner-up and others down the line?
Let every horse be rewarded proportionately, depending upon how it has scored on the above-mentioned two parameters only.
Yes, redistribution of purse money may prove to be the key to fair and clean racing.
Money makes the mare go
If a horse displays its superiority by winning the race by a huge margin, say 10 lengths, it is only fair he gets a lion’s share of the purse money.
But if he wins narrowly in photo finish, let the runner-up eat up a sizeable chunk from his share, no complaints!
After all, a meritocracy must reward in accordance with the merit displayed, shouldn’t it?
The concept of a ‘Reference Horse’
Interestingly, the ideal can be achieved without inviting protests from horse owners and professionals, who may actually stand to benefit as much (if not more) from re-distribution of purse in a fair manner than the ordinary punter will benefit from fair racing.
An innovative purse money re-distribution formula can inject an element of genuine competitiveness among horses. More than the formula, it is the logic behind it that is important. This formula is not written in stone, some reader can come out with a better formula than the one I am proposing—the debate will only be better for the sport.
In each race, there will be what we will call a ‘reference horse’ which DOES NOT GET A PENNY from the purse.
Only those horses finishing ahead of the reference horse will be eligible to share the purse—and only according to a formula that will give proportionate weightage to the lengths (verdict) by which each horse has beaten this reference horse.
In a way, the entire purse for the race will be distributed based only on how each horse has fared vis-à-vis this ‘reference horse’.
Surely, this calls for an accurate definition of the ‘reference horse’.
Here it goes: The Reference Horse is the horse finishing last (if there are four or less runners), or the horse finishing fifth (if there are five or more runners).
Note: I race in a country where only the first four finishers stand to gain purse money, but I am told in some countries, as many as six horses are sometimes entitled for the share of the prize money, in such cases, needless to add, the reference horse will be the one who finishes seventh.
Anomalies eliminated
At the outset, this interesting definition eliminates some nonsensical anomalies that make a mockery of the concept of competitive racing, especially in smaller fields.
When there are four or less horses in a race, even the horse finishing last takes home some money. Now, why should it be allowed a share of the purse?
For beating none?
This malady stands corrected under the proposed system, as in such cases the horse finishing last now becomes the reference horse, and does not earn any prize.
Another interesting consequence of this novel rule is that it transforms a two-horse race into a WINNER-TAKES-ALL contest, introducing a greater incentive for an all-out effort to win from both the participants.
A simplistic example
Consider this simplistic example as a demo.
If the verdict of a race between the first five horses reads thus: Won by 3L, 5L, 1L, 4L; then the first four horses have beaten the Reference Horse (fifth horse) in this manner—winner (by 3+5+1+4 = 13L), second horse (by 5+1+4 = 10L), third horse (by 1+4 = 5L) and fourth horse (by 4L).
Thus, the Reference Horse has received a cumulative beating by (13+10+5+4) = 32 Lengths.
In other words, the winner’s share of the cumulative beating is (13/32) or 40.63%,
the runner-up’s is (10/32) or 31.25%,
third horse’s is (5/32) or 15.62%,
fourth horse’s is (4/32) or 12.50%.
Then wouldn’t it be logical that they share the purse money in the same way?
We must never lose sight of the fact that the basic theme is to make each horse and rider run to the best of their ability.
We are dangling a carrot, in the form of real, hard cash, in front of each horse and rider that will make a sizeable difference to their share of the booty, if they can gain a length or two over their rivals before passing the winning post.
If $100,000 is on offer as total purse for the race, the above formula distributes the money as follows:
The winner: $40,630;
runner-up: $31,250;
third: $15,620;
fourth: $12,500.
Distributing the purse as per the percentages based on performance looks like a good idea. But it can be made better by linking even greater incentive for an all-out performance.
Can we make them run faster?
You bet we can.
So we propose another rule that should now really make them fire on all cylinders. Isn’t it only fair that even among those who earn a share in the purse money, the horse which gets beaten should lose a part of its purse to those who finish ahead of it?
How about introducing a “4 percent (of earnings) per beaten length” PENALTY to be deducted from a horse’s share and credited to horses finishing ahead of it?
The logic is: Any horse which takes a cumulative beating of 25 lengths DOES NOT deserve to take home any money.
At “4 percent per beaten length” penalty, such horse loses all of its earnings (25 x 4% = 100%), and obviously cannot take home anything.
To make things clearer, lets us stick to the above-cited example.
The fourth horse was eligible to get $12,500.
Under this new scenario, it now shells out 4 percent (for 1L) or $.500 to the third horse, 24 percent (for 6L) or $3,000 to the runner-up, and 36 percent (for 9L) or $4,500 to the winner, Thus it is deprived of $8,000 from its earnings of $12,500 and ends up winning only $4,500.
Similarly, the third horse whose earnings of $15,620 are enhanced to $16,120 (thanks to $500 received from the fourth horse), now loses 52 percent (20 percent to the runner-up and 32 percent to the winner) and is left with only $7,738.
Applying the same formula, the runner-up’s earnings of $31,250 shoot up to $37,424, of which it loses $4,491 (12 percent) to the winner for a three-length beating at his hands.
The final distribution will look like this:
Winner: $54,829; runner-up: $32,933; third: $7,738; fourth: $4,500.
Isn’t the formula complicated?
Is it, really? With computers slaving for us, it is just a matter of writing appropriate software, and the earnings can be computed and flashed on screens within microseconds after the judge declares his verdict.
The greatest advantage of the system lies in the fact that jockeys, most of whom get not a very great amount as riding fee (and who are generally accused and abused for less-than-optimum performance) finally get a chance to boost their earnings substantially if they go all-out, as even a length gained or lost can make a sizeable difference to the commissions earned by them.
I think if a rider has reason to believe that he is going to earn even a couple of thousand dollars extra every racing day by simply being honest and working hard, there is a good chance he will not fall prey to the shady designs of the crooks who try to lure him with lucre.
If the stick has lost its effectiveness, it’s time we try the carrot.
Horse racing, as a sport, has a unique distinction—it is the only sport that is subsidized by the gambling money. It is another matter that despite this well-known fact, punters all over the world are almost always dissatisfied with the running of the races. It is not uncommon to hear cries of “fixed”, “cheats”, etc. after a race, and in most cases, the accusing finger points to the jockey.
Racing, like any other sport that involves millions of dollars, will have its share of crooks, and they will, at least in countries where unscrupulous bookmakers operate books, always attempt to make a fast buck at the cost of the serious student of form. Only a constant vigil by people who understand racing in all its intricacies—and who also have a steely resolve to guard the interest of the punting community—can improve the image of the game. The fact that racing has, among its followers, an extremely high percentage of losers as compared to winners only makes the matter worse. Human psychology is such that people simply love to believe that they lost their money because someone played unfair, or resorted to malpractice.
Punishments have lost their sting
At a recent dinner with horse racing buffs, the conversation wandered to the topic of malpractice in racing—real as well as perceived.
Everyone who joined the discussion unanimously agreed about one thing: The value of punishment as a deterrent has eroded considerably over the years, and it is no longer an effective tool to curb malpractice.
The observation is very interesting—and sadly, very true.
It is perhaps time to infuse racing with innovative and creative ideas that will, despite this handicap, keep alive hopes of fair and clean racing.
I have done my share of lateral thinking (literally!), and come out with this solution.
Redistribute the purse/stakes
In the absence of fear of punishment, the only way to encourage fairness is to reward it handsomely—in monetary terms!
Let us introduce meritocracy in racing.
Better the performance, bigger the share of the prize money—that should me the mantra.
If fairness in racing has to be summed up in just one sentence, it has got to be this:
Every horse must try to finish as close as possible to the one in front, and as far ahead as possible from the one behind.
Then why not reward horses only on these two parameters? Why give a predetermined, fixed sum to the winner, the runner-up and others down the line?
Let every horse be rewarded proportionately, depending upon how it has scored on the above-mentioned two parameters only.
Yes, redistribution of purse money may prove to be the key to fair and clean racing.
Money makes the mare go
If a horse displays its superiority by winning the race by a huge margin, say 10 lengths, it is only fair he gets a lion’s share of the purse money.
But if he wins narrowly in photo finish, let the runner-up eat up a sizeable chunk from his share, no complaints!
After all, a meritocracy must reward in accordance with the merit displayed, shouldn’t it?
The concept of a ‘Reference Horse’
Interestingly, the ideal can be achieved without inviting protests from horse owners and professionals, who may actually stand to benefit as much (if not more) from re-distribution of purse in a fair manner than the ordinary punter will benefit from fair racing.
An innovative purse money re-distribution formula can inject an element of genuine competitiveness among horses. More than the formula, it is the logic behind it that is important. This formula is not written in stone, some reader can come out with a better formula than the one I am proposing—the debate will only be better for the sport.
In each race, there will be what we will call a ‘reference horse’ which DOES NOT GET A PENNY from the purse.
Only those horses finishing ahead of the reference horse will be eligible to share the purse—and only according to a formula that will give proportionate weightage to the lengths (verdict) by which each horse has beaten this reference horse.
In a way, the entire purse for the race will be distributed based only on how each horse has fared vis-à-vis this ‘reference horse’.
Surely, this calls for an accurate definition of the ‘reference horse’.
Here it goes: The Reference Horse is the horse finishing last (if there are four or less runners), or the horse finishing fifth (if there are five or more runners).
Note: I race in a country where only the first four finishers stand to gain purse money, but I am told in some countries, as many as six horses are sometimes entitled for the share of the prize money, in such cases, needless to add, the reference horse will be the one who finishes seventh.
Anomalies eliminated
At the outset, this interesting definition eliminates some nonsensical anomalies that make a mockery of the concept of competitive racing, especially in smaller fields.
When there are four or less horses in a race, even the horse finishing last takes home some money. Now, why should it be allowed a share of the purse?
For beating none?
This malady stands corrected under the proposed system, as in such cases the horse finishing last now becomes the reference horse, and does not earn any prize.
Another interesting consequence of this novel rule is that it transforms a two-horse race into a WINNER-TAKES-ALL contest, introducing a greater incentive for an all-out effort to win from both the participants.
A simplistic example
Consider this simplistic example as a demo.
If the verdict of a race between the first five horses reads thus: Won by 3L, 5L, 1L, 4L; then the first four horses have beaten the Reference Horse (fifth horse) in this manner—winner (by 3+5+1+4 = 13L), second horse (by 5+1+4 = 10L), third horse (by 1+4 = 5L) and fourth horse (by 4L).
Thus, the Reference Horse has received a cumulative beating by (13+10+5+4) = 32 Lengths.
In other words, the winner’s share of the cumulative beating is (13/32) or 40.63%,
the runner-up’s is (10/32) or 31.25%,
third horse’s is (5/32) or 15.62%,
fourth horse’s is (4/32) or 12.50%.
Then wouldn’t it be logical that they share the purse money in the same way?
We must never lose sight of the fact that the basic theme is to make each horse and rider run to the best of their ability.
We are dangling a carrot, in the form of real, hard cash, in front of each horse and rider that will make a sizeable difference to their share of the booty, if they can gain a length or two over their rivals before passing the winning post.
If $100,000 is on offer as total purse for the race, the above formula distributes the money as follows:
The winner: $40,630;
runner-up: $31,250;
third: $15,620;
fourth: $12,500.
Distributing the purse as per the percentages based on performance looks like a good idea. But it can be made better by linking even greater incentive for an all-out performance.
Can we make them run faster?
You bet we can.
So we propose another rule that should now really make them fire on all cylinders. Isn’t it only fair that even among those who earn a share in the purse money, the horse which gets beaten should lose a part of its purse to those who finish ahead of it?
How about introducing a “4 percent (of earnings) per beaten length” PENALTY to be deducted from a horse’s share and credited to horses finishing ahead of it?
The logic is: Any horse which takes a cumulative beating of 25 lengths DOES NOT deserve to take home any money.
At “4 percent per beaten length” penalty, such horse loses all of its earnings (25 x 4% = 100%), and obviously cannot take home anything.
To make things clearer, lets us stick to the above-cited example.
The fourth horse was eligible to get $12,500.
Under this new scenario, it now shells out 4 percent (for 1L) or $.500 to the third horse, 24 percent (for 6L) or $3,000 to the runner-up, and 36 percent (for 9L) or $4,500 to the winner, Thus it is deprived of $8,000 from its earnings of $12,500 and ends up winning only $4,500.
Similarly, the third horse whose earnings of $15,620 are enhanced to $16,120 (thanks to $500 received from the fourth horse), now loses 52 percent (20 percent to the runner-up and 32 percent to the winner) and is left with only $7,738.
Applying the same formula, the runner-up’s earnings of $31,250 shoot up to $37,424, of which it loses $4,491 (12 percent) to the winner for a three-length beating at his hands.
The final distribution will look like this:
Winner: $54,829; runner-up: $32,933; third: $7,738; fourth: $4,500.
Isn’t the formula complicated?
Is it, really? With computers slaving for us, it is just a matter of writing appropriate software, and the earnings can be computed and flashed on screens within microseconds after the judge declares his verdict.
The greatest advantage of the system lies in the fact that jockeys, most of whom get not a very great amount as riding fee (and who are generally accused and abused for less-than-optimum performance) finally get a chance to boost their earnings substantially if they go all-out, as even a length gained or lost can make a sizeable difference to the commissions earned by them.
I think if a rider has reason to believe that he is going to earn even a couple of thousand dollars extra every racing day by simply being honest and working hard, there is a good chance he will not fall prey to the shady designs of the crooks who try to lure him with lucre.
If the stick has lost its effectiveness, it’s time we try the carrot.