Two of the three lowest percentages of winning favourites occur at bookmaker owned tracks: Crayford (27.5%) and Romford (27.7%). Ample evidence for an ‘anti’ or forum troll, (it’s hard to tell them apart) to justify claims that bookmakers are setting out to cheat punters by creating trouble strewn races on their own small circuits.
Let’s tackle the ‘bookmaker owned’ element first by throwing in non-bookmaker owned, Kinsley (27.7%), Yarmouth (28.9%) and Perry Barr (29.5%). As for the ‘track size’ factor, tiny Mildenhall has 41% winning favourites and Henlow has 45.5%.
For that theory to apply we would also see the big circuits like Hove, Sittingbourne and Swindon as favourite’s paradises? In fact they come out at 30.8%, 31.7%, and 32.5% respectively. As for that famous venue where it is supposed that the bookmakers can be found hanging from track lights by their satchel straps – Towcester – their winning percentage is within 1% of Peterborough (33.3% – 32.8%).
So if it isn’t stadium ownership, or size of circuit that is the determining factor, what is?
The evidence suggests that kennel strengths may be a more significant factor
Mildenhall have under 100 dogs available to grade, Henlow have been forced into three and four runner races for non-broadcast meetings earlier in the year, and Doncaster (35.5%) are struggling to keep a high race strength with a short term BAGS contract.
Interestingly, Harlow, who also struggled in the past, have rallied well, now stage 13 race cards on a Saturday and a winning percentage of 31.1%. While struggling Wimbledon – results admittedly skewed by the Derby – are at 38.7%.
It has been estimated that in an ideal world, a racing manager needs roughly 10% more runners available than are needed. If the surplus is too great, dogs don’t get enough races leading to irate owners and trainers.
But too few runners and competitive racing is the first casualty. A failed betting market is the second.
So far we have been talking about available runners. How about available greyhounds?
There has been talk of greyhound shortages for two decades. They haven’t happened, but for a variety of different reasons:
– the collapse of ‘flapping’ has eased the pressure on NGRC/GBGB tracks
– the easing of grading times to a point that virtually no greyhound is too slow to race.
– an increase in red tape to qualify new greyhounds has ironically, and gratefully, encouraged trainers to persevere with injured runners, rather than replace them.
– the decline in breeding has seen many bitches kept racing for longer, and to a lesser extent, males not be packed off to stud
and . . . finally the extended racing careers of greyhounds careers.
Here is a glimpse at the average age of dogs racing at one track – Sunderland – in 2006, 2011 and 2016.
2006
The charts give the relative ages and starts with the narrow darker blue line at the back. This represents the oldest dogs on the strength. In this first chart, there were four runners whelped in the year 2000. Moving clockwise, there eight runners in the year of their fifth birthdays (2001 – red) and so on.
The vast majority of runners were whelped in 2003 (purple) and 2004 (light blue). Or 41% and 39% respectively – combined 80%.
2011
If we move on to 2011 the figure are 42% (2003 whelps) and 31% (2002 whelps) or a combined 77%.
2016
If we then move on to the present day, the table looks like this. The green and purple sectors representing 2013 and 2014 whelps now stand at 34% and 25% – a combined 59%. Furthermore the number of whelps in their fourth year – the green sector – has slowly risen from 14% to 23% and is now at 31%. In other words, there are now considerably more 2012 whelps on the Sunderland card, than there are 2014 whelps.
What does this all lead?
Personally, I think it is a clear indication that unless there is significant new funding, greyhound racing is not sustainable. In the first instance, a declining number of greyhounds will inevitably lead to uncompetitive racing. It might even tempt some unscrupulous – or desperate – racing manager to grade for trouble in racing. I have no evidence that it has happened, but when did lack of evidence ever stand in the way of the antis and the trolls?
Pushing back the average age of the racing greyhound, almost certainly by healing, rather than retiring greyhounds with minor injuries, has some great benefits in the re-homing arena. But it has a finite limit. You cannot run an industry with a reliance on five or six year old greyhounds.
It is time that the promises were kept and the big betting companies deliver on their internet betting responsibilities. While the Big Three point fingers at Betfair, they could apply far more pressure by paying up themselves and leaving Betfair isolated.
The trainers have done their bit by engaging the Greyhound Board. The Board is chaired by a man who the bookies were delighted to have as chairman of BAGS and the BGRF. If they don’t trust Tom Kelly to play with a straight bat, they can never trust anyone!
So stop talking about it guys and PAY UP!
