As I’ve often mentioned in this blog and during my regular communications with members of the media, we always appreciate different opinions about our Club’s operations. And we always respect those professional journalists who have made dedicated efforts to research concrete facts on which to base their arguments in Club-related comments and criticisms.
On the other hand the situation becomes very different if any members of the media make misleading comments about the Club, or leave out the actual facts when putting forward their opinions. It becomes even more serious when a columnist deliberately indulges in unfounded speculation implying improper conduct on the part of certain racing officials, and chooses to question their integrity, without having established any reasoned argument at all.
As you may know, a columnist recently wrote in his columns accusing the Club of unjustifiably approving the importation of Business As Usual to Hong Kong as a Special Replacement horse. In his article when he referred to setting the first Hong Kong rating for Privately Purchased horses or Special Replacement horses, he claimed that: “The Handicappers usually deduct 17-18 points from the international rating of horses which have raced prior to import, making it as the initial Hong Kong rating of the respective horse.” In fact this is not correct as that is merely the columnist’s own perception or his guesswork. In reality it is the responsibility of our Handicappers to evaluate every imported horse, not just on ratings given by other racing jurisdictions but according to their own assessment. Hence, the columnist, based on his wrong interpretation and concluded that “For Business As Usual, he only had an international rating of 95, but his initial Hong Kong rating was at 85, just 10 points below his international rating. This is greatly deviated from the usual practice…” was totally misleading.
In this blog, we have earlier explained in detail the rationale of determining the initial Hong Kong rating of horses which have raced prior to import. I am not going to repeat it here again. Nevertheless, earlier this week the columnist wrote a couple more articles, naming a few more horses which in his view provided similar examples which support his case. Unfortunately, however, there were quite a number of flaws and discrepancies in both the arguments and facts he cited, which I think it needs more clarifications.
As for the three examples chosen by the columnist of horses whose dates of importation spanned the last five seasons, namely Victory Style, Super Baby and High Aim, there are differentials of 20 pounds, 14 pounds and 15 pounds. These variations clearly demonstrate that our assessment practices are not and have not been rigid, and that adjustments were made depending on our Handicappers’ interpretation of the form of the horses as individuals.
In my view, there should be no comparison between Business As Usual and the three horses mentioned, as Business As Usual won his final race in the UK, and his nearest victim won a 27-runner Royal Ascot handicap soon afterwards. In contrast, the horse Victory Style beat won only a minor five-runner race, in which two of the runners were totally uncompetitive. Super Baby won a maiden race, beating a previously unraced horse, which was itself beaten in another maiden next time out, while Super Baby was beaten nearly seven lengths in its final race before coming to Hong Kong, showing no improvement on its previous form. As for High Aim, he beat a horse which finished ninth in its only subsequent race, while the third, which had finished last in its previous race, was dropped five pounds after the race which the columnist highlighted, and then another pound after finishing third in her next race, before being beaten 11 lengths in her final race.
I think it is obvious that the chosen examples have no relevance whatsoever to Business As Usual’s case. And to make matters worse the columnist has left out these actual facts: omissions which would as a result have certainly misled any of his readers who were not themselves well informed.
The columnist in one of his articles also cited the current international ratings of the third, fourth and fifth placed finishers, namely Spa’s Dancer, Syrian and One Good Emperor, in Business As Usual’s final start in the UK in May 2010. But as I explained in my previous blog on 26 April, the decision to allow this horse to be imported as a Special Replacement was made in June 2010. So, the current international ratings of the above-mentioned horses are irrelevant to the decision made at that time.
Meanwhile, the information provided by the columnist has not been comprehensive enough, as in fact, Spa’s Dancer, the third place finisher beaten by Business As Usual in the race, finished nearly four lengths behind runner-up Ransom Note. Fourth placed runner Syrian was another five lengths behind Spa’s Dancer, with One Good Emperor – which is now racing in Hong Kong as Joyful Winner II and currently rated 70 – just behind him in fifth. It’s difficult to understand why the columnist should have left out the margins between the respective horses as these are surely relevant to any rational debate about the standard of the race.
The columnist wrote in his article, questioning the integrity of the Handicapping Team by saying “I wonder if one is giving an advantage to the other, or whether there is a transferral of interest between them……” and made his own speculation that “if the horse’s given such a rating so as it was eligible to be imported into HK and hence could fetch a good price in the horse-in-training sales”. As the CEO of the Club, I felt obliged to defend the reputation of our Handicapping Team and refute these unfounded accusations, especially after I have revisited those related facts myself and I found the ratings allocated to the horses in question all being reasonable and fair.
I fully understand and am aware of the importance of the monitoring role of the racing media, as they definitely help encourage us to strengthen our efforts to promote the better development of racing in Hong Kong. And there’s no doubt that we all in the Club respect the freedom of the press and hence criticisms from the media. But at the same time, those who perform this role, and especially when they accuse other people of improper or unprofessional conduct, they should try to the best of their ability to base their arguments on the facts, in life as a whole not just in their comments and reports which relate to racing and the Club. Otherwise, they could risk abusing that freedom should the criticisms they raise not be sensible and supported with reasonable grounds.
I hope with these further clarifications, it will help give you all a clearer picture and better understanding of the matter, and I hope you will agree that it is only good sense to dismiss biased and unfounded allegations which suggest any preferential treatment by the Handicappers, who always endeavour to make precise decisions which contribute to the Club’s policy of improving the quality of horses in Hong Kong, and who are well-respected worldwide.
This afternoon at Sha Tin Racecourse, you can also watch a batch of quality runners to contest in the Hong Kong Group 3 Queen Mother Memorial Cup (Handicap). Being one of our few 2400m races on Group level, for many of the participants it will be an important race ahead of the HKG1 Standard Chartered Champions & Chater Cup later this month, and the expected pace of this race is slow. This will give slight advantages for horses in the front of the field, and the runner’s ability to sprint at the end of the race is important. Super Pistachio should be able to lead, with Mighty High as main other pace influence. Mighty High is in very good form and despite the weight of 133 pounds, he should have a good chance to get a top-three finish. Jacobee is expected to be positioned in midfield and he should finish strongly. However, the 2400m distance could probably be a question for him, but I think he can still finish in the money. The horse to beat is Let Me Handle It, who is working very well and his pedigree and running style suggest the distance is not an issue for him. Carthage is for me an interesting outsider with a proven capability to stay for 2400m, when he won a listed race and ran second in a Group 2 over the same distance when he was in France.
The Wong Cup (Handicap) is expected to be run at a slow pace too, with Amityship in the lead. However, Tom’s Eighth is in terrific form and working very well. Despite carrying the top weight of 131 pounds, he should have a decent winning chance in this 1800m event. Other runners such as the in-form Goodview Successor, as well as the improving Eagle Spirit and Full Spirit, should be Tom’s Eighth main opponents in this race.
Comment
