Stop the hand-wringing. Racing should compete with the betting exchanges, says Geoff Chapman.
Suddenly, "someone" has decided that racing shall become the custodian of morals and ethics in the community. Anyone that believes this simplistic drivel is depriving some village of its idiot.
Betting exchanges are about to be put back on the mainstream agenda, with Racing NSW to call a press conference next week to highlight perceived problems with the revolutionary gambling medium. Apparently, there will be TV commercials to heighten awareness of the so-called problem.
What's going on? In most commercial business (including racing), to be the most successful you must come up with the best methods and ideas.
Robbie Waterhouse wrote in this space on May 14 of the problems engulfing punting and prizemoney, so I won't repeat them here.
However, no one has suggested a solution.
I believe, as with most things in racing, there is an obvious solution. As Betfair is a good and popular product (and it obviously is, otherwise we wouldn't be worried about it and no one would use it), why don't the metropolitan race clubs of Australia start their own betting exchange?
It seems painfully obvious that no amount of legislation or pontificating by "learned men" is going to stop the internet, inter-territory or SP bookmaking organisations. Therefore, the only solution is to "build a better mouse trap", that is, our own betting exchange. This would effectively stifle most punting competitors (and would have the umbrella of legality).
If such a proposal fits into the "too-hard" or "too time-consuming" agenda for the relevant committees, then they could accept submissions on how to set up and operate the exchange business. Hopefully, proposals would come from someone (unlike our TAB hierarchy) who understands gamblers, punters and racehorses.
Such people could be found to manage the business for a pittance, compared with the TAB takeout. After all, you don't have to be smart to be successful, just employ smart people.
If there are political reasons the TAB should have the game to itself, set up this betting exchange offshore or change the legislation. As I understand it, it's all computerised, so you could run it from anywhere.
You would already be cognisant of the multiple advantages of racing owning its own betting exchange. Predominant among these would be that racing would keep most of the profits, unlike its deal with the TABs, which pay out money earned in the industry to shareholders.
Non-contributors have outlived their usefulness in racing. They have had a good deal, made plenty of money at racing's expense, so now it's time to move them out.
With more money flowing directly to racing, this will effectively eliminate the dictatorial role the TAB holds on the direction of the sport. The TAB can still bet the exotics (i.e., quinellas, trifectas etc), but it will no longer be "pulling the strings" and will be unable to continue to stand over the clubs (e.g., on matters such as where to run race meetings, Sky Channel, the type of races that have most turnover etc). We might even have meetings with a couple of races longer than 1600 metres! And with the TAB, its take and its shareholders out of the picture, the commission of any racing-run exchange would drop to about 8 per cent or less.
If this happened, just imagine the increase in betting turnover, which would probably grow to exceed Hong Kong's and would give many other forms of gambling a decent work-out as well.
It would make no difference to the Government, because it would receive more in tax revenue from increased turnover, and the owners of the product (racing) would receive much more. In fact, I'll wager it would attract a considerable amount from foreign punters.
To say that punters "laying" horses, which is part of the betting exchange model, affects the integrity of racing is a figment of some steward's imagination (and that of all other opponents of betting exchanges). When AMP lost $5 billion, HIH about $5 billion, the NAB $400m (the list goes on), did you hear anyone speak about the integrity of the stock exchange?
No, because if you weren't involved, you didn't care. I remember a favourite saying of Joe Buckman's (a former clerk of the course, wit and raconteur), who said that if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the only one that yelps is the one that gets hit! So financial disaster hasn't stopped people buying and selling shares, and miscreants on a racecourse won't stop people punting.
Bookmakers have been laying horses since racing began - are they all crooks every time a favourite gets beaten? Why can't punters lay horses they think can't win (you can, after all, take put options on shares any time).
If there are 20 horses in the Doncaster and 19 can't win, why can't the punter lay one that he thinks can't win? His chances of a collect would be far greater than trying to back the winner. It's all gambling, isn't it? Isn't a racecourse an outdoor casino? Can't the punter back his opinion?
Punting is primarily about options. Fortunately, everyone is an expert, hence its appeal. How many times have you heard it said, if "so and so" wins, I'll drop my tweeds at 9o'clock on Monday morning in Martin Place. Well, with betting exchanges, one won't observe such undesirable consequences - the punter can lay the horse for whatever he can afford to lose.
If there are "dead-uns" in a race, let the stewards sort it out - that's what they're paid for and the rules support them unequivocally. When clubs have their own betting exchange, you'll have a good idea when a horse is "laid over the gap", and perchance the stewards could have a pre-emptive "chat" to the appropriate jockey and connections before the race. Now wouldn't that create some confusion?
And please, spare me the hoary old chestnut, that it will require a change in government legislation to get it under way. If that's the case, do what Russ Hinze did - fix it forthwith.
Therefore, racing clubs, grab the bit. This is the big get-square with the "jolly green giant" and a chance to do something tangible for racing. There's no point moaning and whining about ethics, principles and legalities and all those other pious notions that your opposition don't cater for.
Hop in and give yourselves a shot at racing history and by so doing regain the direction and control of what was a great industry.
Dr Geoff Chapman is a former leading trainer in Sydney. He trained two AJC Australian Derby winners.
web page
Suddenly, "someone" has decided that racing shall become the custodian of morals and ethics in the community. Anyone that believes this simplistic drivel is depriving some village of its idiot.
Betting exchanges are about to be put back on the mainstream agenda, with Racing NSW to call a press conference next week to highlight perceived problems with the revolutionary gambling medium. Apparently, there will be TV commercials to heighten awareness of the so-called problem.
What's going on? In most commercial business (including racing), to be the most successful you must come up with the best methods and ideas.
Robbie Waterhouse wrote in this space on May 14 of the problems engulfing punting and prizemoney, so I won't repeat them here.
However, no one has suggested a solution.
I believe, as with most things in racing, there is an obvious solution. As Betfair is a good and popular product (and it obviously is, otherwise we wouldn't be worried about it and no one would use it), why don't the metropolitan race clubs of Australia start their own betting exchange?
It seems painfully obvious that no amount of legislation or pontificating by "learned men" is going to stop the internet, inter-territory or SP bookmaking organisations. Therefore, the only solution is to "build a better mouse trap", that is, our own betting exchange. This would effectively stifle most punting competitors (and would have the umbrella of legality).
If such a proposal fits into the "too-hard" or "too time-consuming" agenda for the relevant committees, then they could accept submissions on how to set up and operate the exchange business. Hopefully, proposals would come from someone (unlike our TAB hierarchy) who understands gamblers, punters and racehorses.
Such people could be found to manage the business for a pittance, compared with the TAB takeout. After all, you don't have to be smart to be successful, just employ smart people.
If there are political reasons the TAB should have the game to itself, set up this betting exchange offshore or change the legislation. As I understand it, it's all computerised, so you could run it from anywhere.
You would already be cognisant of the multiple advantages of racing owning its own betting exchange. Predominant among these would be that racing would keep most of the profits, unlike its deal with the TABs, which pay out money earned in the industry to shareholders.
Non-contributors have outlived their usefulness in racing. They have had a good deal, made plenty of money at racing's expense, so now it's time to move them out.
With more money flowing directly to racing, this will effectively eliminate the dictatorial role the TAB holds on the direction of the sport. The TAB can still bet the exotics (i.e., quinellas, trifectas etc), but it will no longer be "pulling the strings" and will be unable to continue to stand over the clubs (e.g., on matters such as where to run race meetings, Sky Channel, the type of races that have most turnover etc). We might even have meetings with a couple of races longer than 1600 metres! And with the TAB, its take and its shareholders out of the picture, the commission of any racing-run exchange would drop to about 8 per cent or less.
If this happened, just imagine the increase in betting turnover, which would probably grow to exceed Hong Kong's and would give many other forms of gambling a decent work-out as well.
It would make no difference to the Government, because it would receive more in tax revenue from increased turnover, and the owners of the product (racing) would receive much more. In fact, I'll wager it would attract a considerable amount from foreign punters.
To say that punters "laying" horses, which is part of the betting exchange model, affects the integrity of racing is a figment of some steward's imagination (and that of all other opponents of betting exchanges). When AMP lost $5 billion, HIH about $5 billion, the NAB $400m (the list goes on), did you hear anyone speak about the integrity of the stock exchange?
No, because if you weren't involved, you didn't care. I remember a favourite saying of Joe Buckman's (a former clerk of the course, wit and raconteur), who said that if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the only one that yelps is the one that gets hit! So financial disaster hasn't stopped people buying and selling shares, and miscreants on a racecourse won't stop people punting.
Bookmakers have been laying horses since racing began - are they all crooks every time a favourite gets beaten? Why can't punters lay horses they think can't win (you can, after all, take put options on shares any time).
If there are 20 horses in the Doncaster and 19 can't win, why can't the punter lay one that he thinks can't win? His chances of a collect would be far greater than trying to back the winner. It's all gambling, isn't it? Isn't a racecourse an outdoor casino? Can't the punter back his opinion?
Punting is primarily about options. Fortunately, everyone is an expert, hence its appeal. How many times have you heard it said, if "so and so" wins, I'll drop my tweeds at 9o'clock on Monday morning in Martin Place. Well, with betting exchanges, one won't observe such undesirable consequences - the punter can lay the horse for whatever he can afford to lose.
If there are "dead-uns" in a race, let the stewards sort it out - that's what they're paid for and the rules support them unequivocally. When clubs have their own betting exchange, you'll have a good idea when a horse is "laid over the gap", and perchance the stewards could have a pre-emptive "chat" to the appropriate jockey and connections before the race. Now wouldn't that create some confusion?
And please, spare me the hoary old chestnut, that it will require a change in government legislation to get it under way. If that's the case, do what Russ Hinze did - fix it forthwith.
Therefore, racing clubs, grab the bit. This is the big get-square with the "jolly green giant" and a chance to do something tangible for racing. There's no point moaning and whining about ethics, principles and legalities and all those other pious notions that your opposition don't cater for.
Hop in and give yourselves a shot at racing history and by so doing regain the direction and control of what was a great industry.
Dr Geoff Chapman is a former leading trainer in Sydney. He trained two AJC Australian Derby winners.
web page
