albion park has slowed down dramatically in recent time.
all for the bett i think

albion park has slowed down dramatically in recent time.
all for the better i think

It's when tracks are prepared like concrete dogs get hairline fractures and yeah when track surface is hard until a loose spot on a bend dogs get injuries too

Hi Geoffrey,

There was a dog last Thursday in race 10 called Rippin' Grace who's pedigree I had a bit to do with I'm proud to say, who ran 34.57 over 600m at Albion after hitting the running rail too, I might add. You wld've thought she cld even go a little faster.

The TR there for the 600m trip is 34.43 and as exceptionally fast as Grace is, I'm not convinced they've succeeded in slowing the track down too much. The next few wks will tell with the top quality chasers lighting up the place.

Albion was always a strong dogs track and I know that from the days I did a lot of form there, so you are right re your point about the stronger dogs. Cheers.

N.B. I have no other connection to Rippin' Grace.

CLARITY

Thursdays program at Albion Park was highlighted by the Group 1 Flying Amy yet the track condition was a real talking point when the dust had settled.

In recent months, times at Albion Park have been appreciably slower than what had been posted 12 or so months back.

When times in the 29.50s were commonplace at AP, the Clegg Hammer rating for the track was as high as 10 but the surface is now prepared to range between six and eight essentially softer under foot and safer for racing.

Safety is always a priority yet the lack of disclosure around track conditions for owners, trainers and punters alike is just appalling.

Imagine if punters betting on Saturdays Stradbroke Handicap meeting at Eagle Farm were denied track condition reports!

Punters need to know how a track is expected to race before placing a bet and, for way too long, administrators have treated punters like mugs.

Theres no reason whatsoever why post-meeting analysis (of times) should not be published by stewards (in meeting reports) and for form guides to convey that message to punters in terms of form transparency.

The wagering dollar is in decline (just ask Racing Victoria) and thats due to higher taxes.

Higher taxes ensure bookies increase margins (lessening the return to punters by lower odds) and that, like increased poker machine take outs, sees a punter lose his money at an accelerated rate.

Without reinvestment, turnover drops which, at the end of the day, sees less return to industry and prize money is the first casualty.

The November 2013 decision by regulators to increase (gouge) take outs on exotic markets facilitated a sharp decline in Trifecta, First 4 etc pools and history is repeating itself.

Responsible Gambling ads which have recently been foisted on every medium are a complete furphy and only appease those trying to make themselves important the anti-gambling lobby.

Id expect not one single punter has ever taken credence of the RG messages and how many rusted-on smokers are deterred by adverse advertising. The real answer (for poker machine players and the three racing codes) is for Govt to decrease take outs and let people win more.

Paul,

"The industry as a whole would be far better off if we weren't so obsessed with times and track records. Surely animal welfare is the greatest priority, not how fast we can make the racing surfaces." ...no truer words said, obvious to most, but still our industry persists with the "obsession" ...when will people realise, fast dogs will always be fast irrespective of the surface they run on ...it would just be nice if those fast dogs careers were prolonged, and not curtailed prematurely due to "doctored" surfaces, all in the name of semaphore spellbinding glory!

Hi David, I had a chuckle at this analogy.

I have a minor share in a racehorse that raced a few weeks ago at a fairly central but provincial track in Victoria. I got to the meeting later in the program and on sighting our trainer asked him what the track conditions were like. He said he asked a jockey that rides for him who rode in the first race and the jock said "a Heavy 11"

Of course there is no such rating. The worst rating is a Heavy 10 (as you may know).

The meeting started as a Heavy 8 and the stewards changed it to a Heavy 9 after race 3.

The trainers take their horses to the meeting thinking they can handle that track, but when they find out the correct rating once there, most think that as they are there already, they may as well run.

The race clubs are worried about too many scratchings if they were to declare the correct track rating from the word go, and appear to be still thinking for the short term gain.

I know Peter sighted the Straddy in his article, but nothing much has really changed. The pro's of course wld know the 'correct' track rating after they analyse the meeting but punters are still pretty much left in the dark with racehorses. Cheers.