The Horseracing Bettors Forum notes with disappointment the SPRC’s report on the consultation process around the starting-price system in British horseracing.
The starting price is an important phenomenon for many bettors, not least occasional and recreational ones, and it not only needs to be fit for purpose but the body which administers it needs to be fit for purpose also. HBF continues to have misgivings on both scores.
The SPRC states that “only” 15 responses were received, but one of those was from HBF, which had recently been established with the assistance of the BHA to represent the perceived interests of the millions of people who bet on British horseracing each year.
HBF not only sought and received input from the public on SPs, it made its recommendations known to that publicbefore the deadline.
The SPRC identifies the 2015 Grand National over-rounds as a “catalyst” – some described it as “being shamed into acting” – for the launch of its consultation, rather than the numerous instances highlighted to it previously. It then seeks to dismiss some of the legitimate concerns about the SPs on that race by describing it as “unique”.
The SPRC’s citing of over-rounds-per-runner in the Grand National is disingenuous. As has been proved, including to the SPRC itself, over-rounds-per-runner are highly correlated with field size: when you get larger fields you should expect smaller over-rounds-per-runner.
Comparing the over-rounds-per-runner on a 39-runner race already described as unique with British races in general, for which average field sizes are much smaller, reflects poorly on the authors.
It can be wondered whether the consultation process itself was valid when the body responsible for it declared at the outset what a good thing the existing system was.
That was unlikely to encourage anyone considering making a submission to expect a fair hearing for alternatives, and the SPRC’s conclusions suggest any such scepticism may well have been justified.
Nonetheless, HBF is encouraged by the SPRC‘s support for the HBF proposal to widen the sample of on-course bookmakers used to determine the SP and for the HBF proposal for greater efforts to be taken to ensure the anonymity of those who constitute the sample.
HBF wouldlike it to be put on record that it is opposed to the proposal of including so-called satellite rings in the sample.
These rings usually exist“for convenience”, often well away from the main betting,andpeople pay a premium (sometimes a massive premium) for that convenience. Their inclusion in the SP sample would not be justified and would be sure to drive up over-rounds significantly.
The SPRC concedes throughout the report that it does not have the requisite power or resources to make meaningful change in some areas. This should be a cause for concern, unless you believe (as the SPRC itself apparently does) that there is little room for improvement.
HBF hopes that this report acts as a spur – a catalyst, even – to British racing to push for more credible and comprehensive administration of the betting environment than exists at present.
Simon Rowlands
Chair, Horseracing Bettors Forum