Track chaos exposes racing’s oversight failure
Racing NSW and Racing Queensland should take some of the blame for the situations, which led to a questionable track at Hawkesbury and a postponement at Rockhampton on the weekend.
The standalone and feature-meeting idea of taking racing away from the metropolitan area has been a successful part of racing in the 21st century, but the clubs need help to ensure they meet city standards.
Provincial and country clubs have smaller staffs and are not set up for Saturday racing, which remains the sport’s premium product.
The focus is heightened on them, so it would be a smart move to have some oversight on them.
Regulators should take some responsibility in the lead-up to meetings to help ensure the best experience for punters on and off course. They should have a team that works in concert with the clubs to help them.
Racing NSW has three consecutive Saturdays at Hawkesbury, Gosford and Scone, and a small team to consult on tracks and on what is required for media and punters, like on raceday, to sharpen the experience.
In Sydney, the ATC has a huge number of track staff and doesn’t always get it right, but they know what works. That knowledge could easily be shared to make sure the better racing surface is presented.
The Rockhampton situation was unacceptable, as it took until stewards arrived at the track for wet patches in the straight to be identified. If there had been a forward party from Racing Queensland, it may have averted the problem.
The meeting, which is now on Tuesday, will be down on turnover and mostly cost the industry money.
Hawkesbury review after disappointing track
Hawkesbury chief executive James Heddo was left as disappointed as punters with the way the western Sydney track played on Saturday.
The prospect of a hard track saw Hawkesbury overwatered in the lead-up to its standalone meeting and it was there for all to see on Saturday.
“We are reviewing it and realise that we only get one chance a year to have the focus of punters on us,” Heddo said. “We got it wrong.”
“We have spent nearly $2 million of our own money in track and infrastructure improvement in the past year, including a new drainage system.”
“We wanted to show what a good track we have, but that didn’t happen.”
“We understand racing is our core business and we will continue to invest in it. We have $6 million in the bank, so the money is there to make improvements.”
There have been suggestions that an aerator could be purchased to take the sting out of the hardness in the track.
“It could be something we will look at, but we are looking at everything,” Heddo said.
Row over ‘smart punter’ crackdown
It appears an inability to profile cash punters at its EBTs is at the heart of the bans on several TAB customers last week.
Betting agencies use bets placed on accounts to profile punters for patterns, and it is how they restrict customers and offer promotions.
However, the EBT situation offers a unique challenge for Tabcorp, where there is no real interaction or identification. It is often how bigger punters can place bets without being tracked.
A group of punters were sent a letter about being outside the risk appetite of the company and it’s understood that many among them no longer hold accounts with Tabcorp.
The letter was remarkably similar to the one sent to Josh Fewkes by Racing and Wagering Western Australia after he claimed he was blocked from collecting winning wagers.
“Tabcorp has determined that continued dealing with you is outside its risk appetite and that you are therefore banned permanently from accessing Tabcorp’s wagering services,” the letter read.
“This decision has been made in good faith, consistent with Tabcorp’s regulatory and compliance obligations and for the purpose of managing and mitigating its risk.”
Tabcorp trains all its staff in compliance and risk mitigation through online training modules that have remained almost unchanged for the past decade, including questions on AUSTRAC compliance.
The EBT network, comprising more than 3,700 machines, is also profiled. Machines have different limits across the country and punters have been known to travel hundreds of kilometres to find “a good machine”.
The ability to place a bet has become an issue over the past 20 years, as betting agencies have shifted from bookmakers to risk-mitigation agencies, to the frustration of professional punters, who are unwanted.
Profiling punters has always been part of bookmaking for centuries, but in the past it has been used as information to form better markets, in the ultimate battle of supply and demand.
The idea of restriction, of course makes the business more profitable, but it also denies the industry revenue via racefields fees. Regulators have not taken an approach that maximises their revenue.
They have allowed online bookmakers to have lower minimum bet rules than on-track, even though their profits are many times bigger than on-course bookies.
It would be hoped that Tabcorp’s push for a National tote could solve some of the problems for punters with greater liquidity in tote pools, as something they have highlighted in selling the product to regulators.
But is it time that regulators push back on betting agencies to do what their core business is and take bets?
Scarf and Wolfden takes to the dogs
A few clubs could learn a bit from The Gardens, which embraced online betting sensation Ben Scarf and the Wolfden, as part of their Calcutta for the 715 last week.
Social media content is the best way to get known these days, and with the help of Ladbrokes’ Glenn Munsie, they told some stories to punters and also bought dogs in the Calcutta.
It is a different world and while racing often talks to itself online, Scarf and Wolfden have broader cut through.
