Racing, like any other sport that involves a lot of money, will have its
share of crooks and they will always attempt to make a fast buck at the
cost of the serious student of form. Only a constant vigil by people who
understand racing in all its intricacies and who also have a steely
resolve to guard the interest of the punting community can improve the
image of the game. The fact that racing has, among its followers, an
extremely high percentage of losers as compared to winners only makes
matters worse. Human psychology is such that people simply love to
believe that they lost their money because someone played unfair, or
resorted to malpractice.
Punishments have lost their sting
At a recent dinner with horse racing buffs, the conversation wandered to
the topic of malpractice in racing.
Everyone who joined the discussion unanimously agreed about one thing:
The value of punishment as a deterrent has eroded considerably over
the years, and it is no longer an effective tool to curb malpractice.
The observation is very interesting and sadly, very true.
It is perhaps time to infuse racing with innovative and creative ideas
that will, despite this handicap, keep alive hopes of fair and clean
racing.
I have done my share of lateral thinking (literally!), and come out with
this solution.
Redistribute the purse
In the absence of fear of punishment, the only way to encourage fairness
is to reward it handsomely in monetary terms!
'Better the performance, bigger the share of the prize money' should be
the mantra.
If fairness in racing has to be summed up in just one sentence, it has
got to be this:
Every horse must try to finish as close as possible to the one in
front, and as far ahead as possible from the one behind.
Then why not reward horses only on these two parameters? Why give a
predetermined, fixed sum to the winner, the runner-up and others down
the line?
Let every horse be rewarded proportionately, depending upon how it has
scored on the above-mentioned two parameters only.
Yes, redistribution of purse money may prove to be the key to fair and
clean racing.
Money makes the mare go
If a horse displays its superiority by winning the race by a huge
margin, say 10 lengths, it is only fair he gets a lion's share of the
stakes money.
But if he wins narrowly in photo finish, let the runner-up eat up a
sizeable chunk from his share, no complaints!
After all, a meritocracy must reward in accordance with the merit
displayed, shouldn't it?
The concept of a 'Reference Horse'
Interestingly, the ideal can be achieved without inviting protests from
horse owners and professionals, who may actually stand to benefit as
much (if not more) from re-distribution of stakes in a fair manner than
the ordinary punter will benefit from fair racing.
An innovative purse money re-distribution formula can inject an element
of genuine competitiveness among horses. More than the formula, it is
the logic behind it that is important. This formula is not written in
stone and if some reader can come out with a better formula than the one
I am proposing, the debate will only be better for the sport.
In each race, there will be what we will call a 'reference horse' which
DOES NOT GET A PENNY from the purse.
Only those horses finishing ahead of the reference horse will be
eligible to share the purse-and only according to a formula that will
give proportionate weightage to the lengths (verdict) by which
each horse has beaten this reference horse.
In a way, the entire stakes for the race will be distributed based only
on how each horse has fared vis-à-vis this 'reference horse'.
Surely, this calls for an accurate definition of the 'reference horse'.
Here it goes: The Reference Horse is the horse finishing last (if
there are four or less runners), or the horse finishing fifth (if there
are five or more runners).
Note: In races, like the graded ones, wherein as many as six horses are
sometimes entitled for the share of the prize money, the reference horse
will be the one who finishes seventh.
Anomalies eliminated
At the outset, this interesting definition eliminates some nonsensical
anomalies that make a mockery of the concept of competitive racing,
especially in smaller fields.
When there are four or less horses in a race, even the horse finishing
last takes home some money. Now, why should it be allowed a share of the
stakes?
For beating none?
This malady stands corrected under the proposed system, as in such cases
the horse finishing last now becomes the reference horse, and does not
earn any prize.
Another interesting consequence of this novel rule is that it transforms
a two-horse race into a WINNER-TAKES-ALL contest, introducing a greater
incentive for an all-out effort to win from both the participants.
A simplistic example
Consider this simplistic example as a demo.
If the verdict of a race between the first five horses reads thus: Won
by 3L, 5L, 1L, 4L; then the first four horses have beaten the
Reference Horse (fifth horse) in this manner-winner (by 3+5+1+4 =
13L), second horse (by 5+1+4 = 10L), third horse (by 1+4 = 5L) and
fourth horse (by 4L).
Thus, the Reference Horse has received a cumulative beating by
(13+10+5+4) = 32 Lengths.
In other words, the winner's share of the cumulative beating is (13/32)
or 40.63%,
the runner-up's is (10/32) or 31.25%,
third horse's is (5/32) or 15.62%,
fourth horse's is (4/32) or 12.50%.
Then wouldn't it be logical that they share the purse money in the same
way?
We must never lose sight of the fact that the basic theme is to make
each horse and rider run to the best of their ability.
We are dangling a carrot, in the form of real, hard cash, in front of
each horse and rider that will make a sizeable difference to their share
of the booty, if they can gain a length or two over their rivals before
passing the winning post.
If Rs.100,000 is on offer as total purse for the race, the above formula
distributes the money as follows:
The winner: Rs 40,630;
runner-up: Rs 31,250;
third: Rs 15,620;
fourth: Rs 12,500.
Distributing the purse as per the percentages based on performance looks
like a good idea. But it can be made better by linking even greater
incentive for an all-out performance.
Can we make them run faster?
You bet we can.
So we propose another rule that should now really make them fire on all
cylinders. Isn't it only fair that even among those who earn a share
in the purse money, the horse which gets beaten should lose a part of
its purse to those who finish ahead of it?
How about introducing a "4 per cent (of earnings) per beaten length"
PENALTY to be deducted from a horse's share and credited to horses
finishing ahead of it?
The logic is: Any horse which takes a cumulative beating of 25
lengths DOES NOT deserve to take home any money.
At "4 per cent per beaten length" penalty, such horse loses all of its
earnings (25 x 4% = 100%), and obviously cannot take home anything.
To make things clearer, lets us stick to the above-cited example.
The fourth horse was eligible to get Rs 12,500.
Under this new scenario, it now shells out 4 per cent (for 1L) or Rs.500
to the third horse, 24 per cent (for 6L) or Rs 3,000 to the runner-up,
and 36 per cent (for 9L) or Rs 4,500 to the winner, Thus it is deprived
of Rs 8,000 from its earnings of Rs 12,500 and ends up winning only Rs
4,500.
Similarly, the third horse whose earnings of Rs 15,620 are enhanced to
Rs 16,120 (thanks to Rs 500 received from the fourth horse), now loses
52 per cent (20 per cent to the runner-up and 32 per cent to the winner)
and is left with only Rs 7,738.
Applying the same formula, the runner-up's earnings of Rs 31,250 shoot
up to Rs 37,424, of which it loses Rs 4,491 (12 per cent) to the winner
for a three-length beating at his hands.
The final distribution will look like this:
Winner: Rs 54,829; runner-up: Rs 32,933; third: Rs 7,738; fourth: Rs
4,500.
Isn't the formula complicated?
Is it, really? With computers slaving for us, it is just a matter of
writing appropriate software, and the earnings can be computed and
flashed on CCTV screens within microseconds after the judge declares his
verdict.
The greatest advantage of the system lies in the fact that jockeys, most
of whom get a paltry sum per ride (and who are generally accused and
abused for less-than-optimum performance) finally get a chance to boost
their earnings substantially if they go all-out, as even a length gained
or lost can make a sizeable difference to the commissions earned by
them.
I think if a rider has reason to believe that he is going to earn even a
couple of thousand rupees extra every racing day by simply being honest
and working hard, there is a good chance he will not fall prey to the
shady designs of the crooks who try to lure him with lucre.
If the stick (punishment) has lost its effectiveness, it's time we
try the carrot.
