History was made on Friday when, for the first time the initials ‘W’ or ‘WS’ appeared against a horse’s name on racecards, indicating a first run after a wind operation. If that wasn’t historic enough, yesterday saw the first winner to carry the new disclosure. It was Boite in the 2.15 at Taunton – just in case it ever comes up in a pub quiz.
It’s impossible to say to what extent the markets were influenced by the rule change, but what is clear is that the added bit of information has been welcomed by punters. The views from trainers, on the other hand, has ranged from dismissive – ‘It will just make punters more skint than they were to start with. It’s a complete and utter load of nonsense’ Evan Williams, to questioning the value of the requirement – ‘Punters will find they’re not always as successful as we hope’- Alan King.
Without a doubt wind surgery is not always successful and given that it can involve a range of veterinary procedures, the simple declaration is of limited use, without further detail. However, as I have previously written I support greater transparency in the sport and welcome the move. I find the patronising view of some trainers unhelpful – ‘they don’t often work, which will confuse the punters even more’ Kim Bailey. By and large those who back horses are not stupid. They will appreciate the limited value of the added detail and will be able to make their own informed assessment as to its weight. As reluctant as I am to be seen supporting any comment from Matt Chapman, I can only agree with his view expressed on The Opening Show, that punters will be able to gauge the importance of the information in time.
The recent quotes from trainers are slightly less hysterical than those that accompanied the British Horseracing Authority’s announcement of the requirement, which was generally greeted with outright hostility. I spoke off the record with a trainer at the time, who after putting the party line of the disclosure requirement being of little if any value, went on to say – rather undermining his previous statement- that if anyone was entitled to detail that may give them an edge, it was the owners. Whilst I may not agree with that view, I can appreciate the wish to make those who pay the bills, feel like they are receiving privileged information. I suspect that this may be part of the truth of trainers’ reluctance to embrace the new regime and, if so, perhaps they should just be open about it.