Appearance money affects earning power of horses

Press, 16 August 1978, Page 28

Appearance money affects earning power of horses

By

G. K. YULE

The payment of appear-1 ance money to horses which finish further back than fourth or fifth is becoming a growing practice at trotting meetings in New Zealand, but the scheme has come under fire in some quarters. And in both Australia and the United States there has been widespread controversy in recent months on the same subject. The majority in the United States oppose any scheme whereby appearance money is paid out of stakes, while in Australia there is a growing feeling that such payments are to the detriment of the industry.

At last month’s annual meeting of the Canterbury Park Trotting Club, the president, Mr W. G. P. Cuningham, described appearance money as "an exercise in futility.’’

Mr Cuningham said that appearance money must inevitably down-grade the place-getters’ share of stake money. When such payments are added to a horse’s stakeearnings they do not really represent its true record for both record and sale purposes. He hoped such a scheme would not be introduced by the clubs racing at Addington. The Kurow Trotting Club paid back $l5 to owners of horses contesting CO races at its annual meeting on Monday and finishing further back than fourth. In other races the club paid back $2O.

In all cases the amount repaid to those horses finishing further back than fourth was the same as the acceptance fee for the various events. The amount paid to those unplaced horses was reflected in the stakes won by the first four to finish. In maiden events the total stake was $l6OO, of which the winner received $930, the second horse $2BO, the third horse $l4O, and the fourth horse $7O. The New Brighton Trotting Club will run a maiden race with a stake of $l6OO at its

meeting on September 2 and the acceptance fee will be $l2. The break-down of the stake is $lO4O, $320, $l6O and $BO. And, when fields are smaller than the maximum safety limit, the clubs retain the appearance money not paid out. Generally it is accepted that the object of racing a horse is to win stake-money, preferably the greatest amount possible by finishing first. But, where clubs pay appearance money, the earning power of horses finishing in the first four is reduced. In the case of a horse starting 20 times during a season in races carrying a stake of $lOOO end finishing first three times, second three times, third three times and fourth three times, his stakewinnings would be 43000. Assuming that there were

14 starters in each race and those finishing further back than fourth receive $lO, the same horse starting 20 times and receiving $BO for unplaced performances would finish the season winning $2780. The winner of each race takes a full penalty under the present handicapping system and there should be as much incentive as possible to win. Horses should not be subsidised from stakes to make up numbers in races. It is not in question that owners have had to contend with sharply-increased costs, which must surely give emphasis to the fact that stakes for the first four place-getters should be as great as possible. Horses incapable of paying their way are of no use to their owners or trainers and even less to trotting clubs and the public. Many of those who demand appearance money conveniently overlook the fact that it is the better, whether on or off-course, who keeps racecourses open. He does not get a cent back if the horse he backs finishes fourth or further back and he has to contend with rising costs, too. Perhaps clubs would be better advised to pay a travel subsidy or reduce acceptance fees for everyone and concentrate their efforts on providing the highest stakes structure possible in an endeavour to encourage owners to retain their horses for racing in this country. It seems as though too much emphasis is being placed on developing a “welfare state” in trotting at t>> expense of the horses which provide the entertainment and attract the public to racecourses.