One of the big subjects of the summer was the apparent seeding bias during the English Derby at Nottingham.
The perception was that the outside boxes were at a huge disadvantage, which was caused by the type of traps used by Nottingham, plus, possibly an issue at the first two bends which saw wide runners wiped out. In addition, suddenly nobody wanted the red jacket.
As we can see below, those views seem to be backed up by raw statistics. In the 62 races leading up to the final, traps two three and four accounted for over 67% of wins.
However, if we look at the 56 races from this year’s Boylesports Irish Derby, see something of a mirror image. The same boxes accounted for just 42% of winners.
If we refine the comparison to just the two middle boxes, we end up with 43.55% v 23.22%.
One more. You have a 19% chance of winning from combined traps five and six at Nottingham compared to a 23% chance of winning from traps three and four at Shelbourne.
There is an even bigger seeding bias that I don’t recall being publicised. In the 2018 Irish Derby, traps five and six combined produced exactly 50% of the winners.
I am aware that Nottingham promoter Rachel Corden has a significant weight of statistical evidence proving that tracks with alternative starting traps have their own biases similar to Shelbourne.
Nottingham expert Mark Pierrepont says: “I watch as many races at Nottingham as anyone and I don’t see a bias against wide seeds. There weren’t many wide seeds entered and, in my opinion, the reason that the outside box statistics are so low was because by the latter stages, you ended up with so many middle seeds drawn out wide and they couldn’t cope.”
It is worth reflecting that of the original 192 Derby entries, only 23 were wide seeds – 12%. Two made it to the semi finals – 16.66%.
Nothing fuels greyhound interest more than the possible return to racing of Towcester.
In a passing attempt to resemble a real journalist, I have done a bit of research and have come to the following conclusion. That is all it is. I am not reporting fact here – only a personal interpretation of the current circumstances based on information that I have managed to acquire.
I believe that there are fruitful negotiations taking place between Henlow boss Kevin Boothby and people acting on behalf of Towcester. As far as I am aware, there is not yet an agreement in place, though I could be wrong.
I am fairly confident that if Boothby does take over, he is unlikely to secure a SIS contract in the immediate future. To understand why, it is worth noting that although greyhound folk would love to see Towcester re-open, the UK retail betting industry don’t share that passion.
They are margin led and would be much more likely to respond to option to do a deal with Kinsley, Nottingham or Yarmouth to name but three of the ARC stable.
In addition, there are currently no available slots on SIS, nor any likely to be, until next summer. While ditching one of the Irish tracks would be an option, the Irish deals with SIS are reckoned to be considerably cheaper than their UK counterparts.
The most likely option, I am guessing, is that Kevin Boothby will rent Towcester for one/two meetings per week from early next year. He would do so, purely as a greyhound enthusiast, providing he could break even or make a small profit.
For the owners of the racecourse, they might as well collect some rent for the place while, just as importantly, see their asset return to becoming operational once again.
However, having studied the racing strengths for some of the other tracks in the region, the mopping up of even 150 greyhounds by the Northamptonshire venue could prove significant.
According to the AA route planner, there is 345 miles between Newcastle and Hove dog tracks.
So I am a little perplexed to see why it should be an issue over a clash between puppy competitions at the two venues.
Now, I should stress, nobody is acting unreasonably. Hove want to protect the sponsors of the Seasons Scaffolding Puppy Trophy, which has been in the Calendar for months and is due to start in early October.
Nor am I suggesting that they are kicking off at Newcastle who are belatedly due to announce a new sponsor for their Cat 1 Northern Puppy Derby. Nor – am I having a pop at the open race planning committee who are simply doing their best to enforce the rules.
The real issue – the mechanism for open race planning probably needs a shake.
Maybe it is the proliferation of open racing. Maybe it is an increasingly gridlocked traffic system. Or too much racing. But trainers aren’t traveling like they once were.
Hove itself offers a good example. Last Thursday they staged 11 opens, of which five had empty traps, and there were only five visiting trainers. Excellent prize money, superb facilities and well prepared racing circuit. If Hove can’t attract them, what odds the rest?
Would Newcastle really take runners away from Hove? I don’t think so. If you fancy taking on the Geordies on their own patch, you’d better have one worth the journey.
But conversely if I was a Southern owner of a promising, but yet unproven youngster, I’d be heading to the seaside hoping that the real pigeon catchers were all heading up north.
