SYDNEY contributor PETER MAIR makes a sensible suggestion about multiple runners in races from big stables but the chances of it happening with the likes of Chris Waller in Sydney are a million to one.
Here’s what he had to say:
‘RACING administrators could and should tip a bucket of cold water on a smouldering policy issue – and limit the acceptance of multiple runners from one stable to run in the same race.
Today (Wednesday) at Canterbury — a low-grade, midweek meeting — two races illustrate the need for a display of common sense.
Race 2: A 1200m scamper for two-year-olds — had 16 acceptors of which seven are from the one stable. Three have been scratched, including two drawn out in barriers 14 &15. Of the four still scheduled to run — one is the even money favourite while the odds for the other three average more than 15/1. If those three run 8th to10th, the prize-money paid will total some $5,000.
Race 5: A benchmark 64 run over 1550m – had 16 acceptors with a maximum of 10 to start. One stable had six runners accepted, of which the four likely to run, at average odds of more than 7/1, would be paid prize-money of some $6,000, even for finishing 7th to 10th.
The ‘take’ from total betting turnover on the races themselves may not cover the prize-money paid — almost certainly the additional turnover on the one-stable also-rans would not cover the payouts for running down to 10th.
Put simply, the situation so illustrated is so clearly unsound it demands a commonsense response.
There is a moral-hazard posed by ‘multiple runners’. Australia has shown no inclination to bracket all in the one tote-number — as happens in some countries.
As for alternative responses — ideally, the number of runners to be accepted from one stable could be limited to two…………. and that ‘could’ might be read as ‘should’.
However, if more than two are still to be accepted to run — only two would be eligible to receive any prize-money.
Perhaps the administrator appointed to sort out the ATC could recognize and address the obvious need for a response.
