Friday, 15 May 2015
Last week I went along to the BHA presentation and discussion at Newbury Racecourse on the growth strategy for British racing. Nick Rust. CEO of the BHA, led the discussion, supported by Rod Street of Great British Racing. It was a lengthy morning in front of 150+ attendees, a number of whom it has to be said are fully paid-up members of the cynical brigade. Personally I think it is really important to give credit to the BHA for setting up these briefing sessions. The leaders of racing are extremely committed to getting everyone in the industry behind the growth strategy in a really collaborative and positive way. One of Nick’s key messages was that this must be a “self-help initiative”, since no-one is going to bail out British racing and we’re certainly heading into a difficult five years. It is the first time I have had contact with him, and you couldn’t help but be impressed by his open style.
Because of the importance of the growth strategy, I am going to cover it in some detail in this and the next two blogs. Part 1 looks at the overall context of the strategy (I didn’t detect anyone disagreeing with the BHA’s analysis); Part 2 summarises the proposed initiatives and road-map (based on the work of the pillar strategy teams launched by Steve Harman last year, which consulted with over 300 key stakeholders); and then Part 3 will be a critical appraisal of the overall approach, the areas which are relatively non-contentious, those which are much more likely to be challenged and also the areas I felt were seriously neglected.
Both presenters were determined to show that a lot of work has been under way, and that racing is a really important industry. 85,000 jobs are dependent on it; there is a £1.1bn core annual expenditure; on-shore and off-shore betting turnover is £10bn+; there were 1,429 fixtures in 2014, with 5.8m racegoers attending; prize-money was a record £130m, and we are the second-best attended sport after football. Great British Racing (admittedly with a paltry £1.2m budget per annum) has done a lot of work to raise the exposure of racing to the public; the British Champions series is a real success; 10-year sponsorship has been secured for the Derby; and an international network of ambassadors is encouraging inward investment. Not everyone at Newbury was comfortable with the “marketing jargon”, but a lot is clearly being achieved. Without any doubt the relationship with government is probably at an all-time high, as evidenced by the cross-party support for the “racing right” that was announced by the Chancellor in March. Having “one voice to government” really matters, and this is a notable success. Equally the work of the Horsemen’s Group / ROA in obtaining prize-money agreements with 56 courses has injected much-needed cash in a sustainable manner.
Unfortunately though, significant storm clouds are building on the horizon, and Nick Rust in particular made no attempt to conceal these. Horses in training, owners, betting and the traditional racecourse audience are all in decline. The return on ownership, which I have often emphasised in these blogs (and I put a question to Nick on that subject), is at a miserable 26p in the £, and is unlikely to move much. That poor return has disillusioned many owners. Not surprisingly there were 7% fewer horses in training over the last five years, and 15% fewer sole owners. Over the last ten years, there has been a persistent decline of £400m in the betting gross margin. Some racecourses are struggling with profitability, while virtually all trainers, breeders and jockeys outside the top tier are securing an inadequate return for their efforts. If that is not enough doom and gloom, the levy income may well drop to just £50m by 2017.
In effect, therefore, the growth strategy for British racing is a turnaround one. These trends must be reversed, with a clear requirement that the sport, through its own efforts and tapping new sources of funds, needs to generate at least an extra £100m over the next few years.
An explicit strategic framework was outlined, with four clear aims: improve the number attending racing and the quality of the experience; boost racehorse ownership; revitalise and innovate betting; improve media consumption of the sport in order to “make racing part of the nation’s fabric”. Based on the work in 2014, there are four growth pillars: customer growth; horse population, owning and breeding; racing and betting; ultra-high net worth individuals. In turn there are two foundation pillars: integrity and recognition; participant welfare and training. Finally there are five key enablers: government relations; the racing programme; racing’s future financial model; a community engagement strategy; and communications. The initiatives connected with these will be examined in Part 2 of this series on 1st June.
Friday, 1 May 2015
In the first part of the blog on 15th April we looked at the causes and diagnosis of ulcers. Fortunately they are easy to treat, although having said that there is some controversy over what to do next.
What is the treatment regime?
Omeprazole (trade name Gastrogard – although since that came off patent there are now other, cheaper drugs with the same active compound) is a highly effective inhibitor of acid secretion in the stomach of the racehorse. It is administered orally from a sachet or syringe. Some of it is destroyed in the stomach, but an amount is absorbed, circulates in the blood stream and acts back on the stomach. As a result it can be readily detected in a blood sample, which as discussed below can lead to disqualification. Godolphin’s Doonside Cup winner, Sky Hunter, was disqualified last season after testing positive for this drug. Normally a one-month course of treatment is recommended with the horse coming off it at least five days before racing. Ulceration can start again within that short period of time, so many vets recommend that the horse remains on a low dosage between races.
Can ulcers be avoided?
In theory yes, but in practice only with some difficulty, particularly in larger training yards. It needs amendments to stable management policy, particularly around feeding and turn-out. Ideally the horse should have access to feed on a continuous basis, and there are some innovations emerging now, particularly in Germany, whereby the horse can eat every hour, day and night, through special feeders. Increasing turn-out in paddocks or pens allows the horse to graze, and is now recommended for horses that are susceptible to ulcers. More controversially, some vets recommend a small amount of feed early in the morning prior to exercise.
But in larger yards it is unlikely that horses will be able to have that level of individual attention and ulcers are likely to form regardless of some stable management changes.
Should all racehorses be treated with Omeprazole, and will this affect race planning?
On balance I think I have been converted to that approach, and we may make that an OfO policy next season. One of our vets believes that rather than training horses, identifying ulcers and then treating them, a parallel programme of training and veterinary treatment should be adopted. So taking the example of Shantou Magic, who won his first race back after ulcer treatment, we may aim him at a race such as the Hennessy in the autumn. Six weeks prior to the race he would begin a course of treatment, stopping it in time to ensure that no traces remain in the bloodstream. After the race he would then go back on a lower dosage before his next outing. We might give him a mid-season break to relax and de-stress, then follow the same regime again, aiming at a spring target. This potentially means dividing the season up into three parts: racing and treatment in the first and third part, but a holiday in the middle. If this policy were adopted widely, it would have implications for frequency of NH races mid-season, because there will be no plans for horses to race at that time. Indeed this is starting to happen with some of the bigger yards dramatically reducing the number of runners in January and February. Of course, a trainer could be counter-cyclical to that approach and concentrate on those months.
It obviously also has cost implications for owners. Scoping and treating ulcers usually costs between £600 and £900, so if a dual treatment regime were adopted by OfO and our trainers it will put approximately £200 extra on the bill for each of our six owners. In the greater scheme of things that is not a lot of money.
Finally, is the treatment performance-enhancing, and what is the BHA policy?
This is very controversial. At the moment the BHA has a zero tolerance on the presence of Omeprazole in the blood of a horse on race day. Therefore a withdrawal period of at least three days is required, and most vets would extend that to five. At the moment it is on the list of prohibited substances and many in the sport, not least the National Trainers’ Federation, believe that because ulcers are an occupational hazard of training then the drugs to treat them should not be prohibited. A similar example would be the use of wormers, which are allowed. Ulcer treatment enables the horse to race to his potential, but doesn’t directly improve performance.
In a number of other countries the welfare argument has convinced the authorities to allow the drugs to be used. In Australia, medication can take place up to one day prior to racing; in Hong Kong, two days prior, and the Fédération Equestre Internationale allows treatment up to the day of treatment.
So there appears to be a strong case for relaxation of the zero tolerance policy in the UK.
Hope you found these two blogs on ulcers of interest. We’d be delighted to hear views and experiences, particularly relating to changes in stable management. If there are other veterinary subjects you would like covered in the blog, please let us know.