Archive
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Letter of the Week

Hear, hear

I really look forward to and enjoy Your Say each week, agreeing or disagreeing with various opinions. In the edition of January 25 I found myself in full support of every correspondent on a range of three popular subjects — dress code, track ratings and veterinary barrier inspections. I also agreed with Peter Battistella’s reasons for no longer attending the track.

On dress standards, how far does Adrian Dunn (18/1) want to go, for goodness sake? I agree with Dale Scott that the younger generation like to dress up in the latest fashions for a day out at the races. I believe I understand why this does not happen at other sporting events.

There has been criticism of racing as boring because of the time between events. However, does this gap between races not give the younger set a chance to socialise without missing any of the action? Thus they enjoy dressing to impress, particularly the opposite sex.

Does Adrian envisage athletic singlets, board shorts, thongs and tatts? I believe the clubs should introduce an optional summer code (smart casual) of tieless, collared, buttoned and tucked-in short-sleeved shirt, slacks and fashion shoes, and at other times of the year encourage dignity and respect by insisting on ties and jackets.

The other popular subject was Racing Victoria’s plan to change the wording of our track ratings to make them more comprehensible to overseas guests and participants.

As your correspondents to a man ask, what the heck is more descriptive of a track rating than our present 1 to 10 system? Even without a description, most punters can more easily appreciate the condition of the track simply by numbers.

Who cares about or needs a description? Slow, dead, yielding, soft … what do those descriptions tell you any more succinctly than a simple 1 to 10?

I have just returned from another trip to Europe and UK, and to have a punt there I have to go to the trouble of understanding their rating descriptions, particularly at this time of the year with inclement weather in that part of the world. So why should they not to have to understand ours — which, being numerical, are more universally comprehensible.

As for Ken Wood’s letter about barrier vet checks, I have written before that I believe it is totally unfair for a vet, under pressure and in the space of less than a minute, to decide what effect — physically and more importantly mentally — a barrier incident has had on a horse.

I have been watching this closely this season whenever I have not been away, and at city tracks in Sydney and Melbourne, Saturdays and midweek, I have not seen one horse undergo a vet check at the start and go on to win.

The only letter I have not covered from the January 25 page is Peter Morrish’s praise of one of Richo’s systems of the week. I have no idea on this subject, but good on you, Peter. I hope it’s a regular winner for you — but remember it’s the bottom line at the end of the season that will prove that.

Paul Connors

Brighton (Qld)

• Reply: Paul sent this letter before last week’s Your Say was published, explaining the planned track-rating changes in detail. To clarify again, the proposal that will be voted on later this year would retain the 1-10 system, the main difference being that the terms used to bracket those numbers would be reduced from five to four, with "dead" disappearing. A (rare) track rated 1 would now be "firm" rather than "fast". A track rated 2 would be "firm" rather than "good". Tracks rated 3 or 4 would be "good" while tracks rated 5, 6 or 7 would be "soft". Tracks rated 8, 9 or 10 will continue to be termed "heavy".

-
-
Today's Racing
Friday 29 March
Saturday 30 March
Sunday 31 March