What is the state of the going at Thirsk before the track’s meeting tomorrow evening? In a well-run racing industry, this should not be a trick question, but it does rather feel that way after James Sanderson, the track’s clerk of the course,admitted in an interview last weekthat when it comes to GoingStick readings – the numbers that professionals and punters alike rely upon as an objective guide to the state of the ground – he feels at liberty to massage the data as he sees fit.
Sanderson told an interviewer from the Barstewards Enquiry podcast, which is a sponsor at his track, that he had knocked a point off the actual reading from his GoingStick before publication ahead of Thirsk’s meeting on 12 April. He subsequentlytold the Racing Postthat he had done so because “if we published the readings as they came out of the ground they would be misleading”, and added for good measure that he does not believe he is the only clerk of course that routinely tweaks the numbers.
“If the Racing Post did an anonymous survey of clerks of the course,” Sanderson said, “and asked do they ever change the reading, or manipulate the process to get a reading they’re happy with, I’d be amazed if you didn’t get 50% or more saying yes. I know others do, I talk to them.”
This news came as something of a shock to the National Trainers’ Federation (NTF), which said Sanderson’s comments would “be a cause of great concern to trainers”, but perhaps as rather less of a surprise to the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF), which has been harbouring its suspicions for some time.
“There’s a lack of trust in the GoingStick and going readings in general,” Sean Trivass, the HBF’s chair, told the Post. “We have to question whether racing overall wants to get together and provide accurate going descriptions for people to bet on, because it doesn’t feel that way.”
The GoingStick, which was designed to provide an objective, numerical companion to the descriptions like “good-to-firm” and “soft with heavy patches” that had been in use for generations, first arrived in British racing in 2003. Since 2009, the Rules of Racing have required tracks to publish a reading ahead of every turf fixture.
Unlike the penetrometer, its French equivalent, which measures penetration of the turf after a vertical drop, the GoingStick records both penetration and the shear force required to pull the stick back to a 45-degree angle.
This is intended to be a more complete measure of the forces at work on the hooves of a galloping thoroughbred and could in theory come up with a number between one – where a horse would be swimming – to 15, which would be akin to the main runway at Heathrow. For practical purposes, though, a reading of around five would be the point at which heavy ground becomes unraceable, while 10 would be seen as the upper limit for safety in the other direction.
Roughly two-thirds of the UK’s 1,450 annual racing meetings are run on turf, and while casual punters may take little notice of GoingStick readings, more committed backers – the ones that keep turnover rolling from one week to the next, at meetings like those at Thirsk that keep the whole show on the road – see accurate information on the going as indispensable. It is, quite simply, a cornerstone of serious form study, which also impacts on analysis of race times, winning margins and much more besides.
Trainers, meanwhile, make daily decisions about whether or not to declare an entry to run based on GoingStick reports. “Falsifying this information may have led to incorrect decisions being made by trainers who will be seeking to act in the best interests of the horses in their charge,” Paul Johnson, the chief executive of the NTF, pointed out last week.
Sanderson’s comments also highlight a potential conflict of interest facing officials when they take GoingStick readings, as there is little sign that he has ever felt a need to add anything on. Instead, any correction is down, not up, so that the published figure suggests that the going is easier than the reading implies.
Increasing numbers of trainers and owners are reluctant to run on going that, while it fits the British Horseracing Authority’s stated aim of “good-to-firm”, is possibly on the faster side of the description. Racecourses, meanwhile, are ever more reliant on the money flowing into their coffers from media rights deals with online bookmakers. The deals are based on a percentage of online betting turnover, and turnover is intrinsically linked to field sizes.
Sign up toThe Recap
The best of our sports journalism from the past seven days and a heads-up on the weekend’s action
after newsletter promotion
Clerks of the course are thus under significant, and probably increasing, pressure to do what Sanderson believes at least half of his colleagues are doing already – adjusting the raw data from their GoingSticks.
As yet, the BHA has made only a brief response to Sanderson’s comments. Prod its reaction with a GoingStick, in fact, and it would probably register something around 3.5 – very, very soft.
“The BHA is aware of comments made by Mr Sanderson regarding the sharing of GoingStick readings prior to race meetings and are looking into them,” a spokesperson said.
“We believe that sharing accurate GoingStick readings is important, as it provides important information for participants, bettors and fans about the condition of the course at a given time.
“It has also always been made clear that GoingStick readings are not comparable across different venues, but rather should be considered in comparison to other readings from that same course.”
That, as it stands, is nowhere near good enough.
There isa decades-worth of GoingStick data online. The sport deserves an answer as to how much of it, exactly, needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt, and also how the BHA will restore the credibility of perhaps the most important single data point in racing.