Nowornever

If you strip harness racing back to first principles, the decline in numbers is not mysterious or cyclical, it’s mechanical. People are leaving because the economics no longer work at the entry and middle levels, and nobody new is replacing them because the risk profile is irrational. Owners and trainers are not walking away because they’ve lost interest in horses or racing, they’re walking away because the money going in versus the money coming out is no longer defensible under current conditions. The sport keeps trying to fix the problem at the surface level by talking about marketing, promotion, engagement and “telling our story better,” but none of that matters if participation itself is financially unsafe. You cannot market your way out of a broken economic model. The root cause is that there simply isn’t enough money circulating among the people who actually supply the product — horses, trainers, owners — and the way stakes are currently distributed makes that worse, not better. At the moment, the stakes structure is designed for a healthy, growing sport where new horses and new people are constantly coming in behind the established ones. In that environment, heavily rewarding winners makes sense because losing participants can be replaced. In a shrinking sport, that logic collapses. When you have fewer horses, fewer trainers, and fewer breeders every year, concentrating money at the top accelerates the exit of everyone else. The result is exactly what we are seeing now: fewer participants doing more work, burning out faster, and leaving gaps that are never filled. The key mistake is treating stakes purely as prizes for success instead of as an economic tool to sustain participation. Winning should still matter, but participation must matter first. If finishing sixth or eighth in a standard race leaves a trainer and owner materially worse off than staying home, the system is telling them very clearly that development, learning and patience are not welcome. That is fatal for new owners, new trainers, and young people trying to establish themselves. A basic fix does not require more money, only a different split of the money already being paid. The simplest workable model is to divide every race stake into two parts: a participation component and a performance component. The participation component is paid evenly to every starter, while the performance component is distributed traditionally based on finishing position. For example, take a typical $10,600 race. Instead of paying over half of that to first place and token amounts to the rest of the field, the race could be structured so that around 35–40 percent of the total stake is allocated to participation. In a ten-horse field, that participation pool would be divided equally so that every starter receives a meaningful payment simply for competing. That payment should flow primarily to the trainer and owner, not be diluted through traditional splits, because it is designed to offset the real costs of keeping a horse in work and getting it to the races. The remaining portion of the stake is then paid out through the normal finishing-order structure, ensuring that winning still matters and quality is still rewarded. Good horses and good trainers continue to earn more over time, but the gap between winning and losing is narrowed enough that losing no longer forces people out of the game. Under this model, trainers gain predictable income every time they supply a starter, which directly addresses the issue of stable viability. It becomes rational to race horses through grades, to give young horses time, and to support owners who are learning. Owners, meanwhile, see their costs partially offset even when their horse is beaten, which changes the emotional and financial experience of ownership. Instead of every non winning start feeling like money wasted, it feels like progress being partially funded. Importantly, this structure does not eliminate incentives for excellence. Trainers and owners who win still earn more overall because they collect both the participation payment and the higher performance rewards. What it does eliminate is the current situation where the bottom half of the field is effectively subsidising the top few runners through repeated losses. In a declining sport, that transfer is destructive. This kind of stake rebalancing also has second-order benefits that are currently being ignored. Trainers are less likely to scratch horses for economic reasons, which improves field sizes. Better field sizes improve betting liquidity and confidence. Bettors respond to depth and competitiveness far more than they respond to marketing campaigns, and turnover improves naturally when the product becomes more predictable and robust. The same logic applies to attracting new owners and trainers. Right now, entering the sport requires absorbing significant losses before any competence or confidence can be developed. No rational young person looks at that and decides to jump in. A stake model that rewards participation gives newcomers breathing room. It turns early ownership and early training into an apprenticeship rather than a financial stress test. None of this punishes winners in any meaningful sense. Elite owners and trainers are the least sensitive to marginal reductions in winning prize money because they win repeatedly and at scale. New and mid-level participants are the most sensitive to repeated small losses. If the sport continues to design itself around the preferences of the strongest participants, it will continue to hollow itself out underneath them until there is nothing left to compete against. Harness racing does not need to abandon excellence or ambition. It needs to recognise that sustainability comes first. Stakes must keep people in the game before they reward people at the top of it. Until the economics are rebalanced so trainers and owners can survive without winning every second start, the vicious circle will continue regardless of how well the sport is marketed.

I used to have a decent go on a good Auckland night with full fields and the pick six a few years ago but it is a complete waste of time these days. FFS - seven races with an average field size of 7.8 So many trainers have left the Auckland area or downsized or given up because of one reason or another and never been replaced by the younger generation. Sign of the times with stakes not keeping pace with inflation. It is just not worth it for the guys with no big owners to keep paying the bills which go up every year. HRNZ are delusional if they think they can bring back the glory days using the plan they are currently going with. Stakes vs expenses coupled with a poor racing product for punters is a downward spiral that will take North Island racing out completely in the next 20 years if not sooner.

I laughed at the whale tipping out Insarchatwist on Sunday. He obviously isn't taking drivers into consideration when he tips one. Was a solid lay for me.

If those are the fields for near peak season then I hate to think what they might be like in the winter months. Half a dozen races of 6 and 7 runners looking likely maybe even less.

When the fastest last 400m is 32.6 and worst 35.7 and they are running 2:17 MR it is definitely NOT a Good track even if they are two carts out.

Entain still says fine and track good at Taupo after Race 5 yet it has been raining and times suggest dead at best. Which clowns are running the show today.

Aussies are taking over. Its not what you know its who you know.

Yes they want more turnover but if that turnover comes at the expense of a lower yield then no they do not want that. If the TAB turns over $1 billion at a 20% yield, its gross profit is $200 million. Now remove restrictions. Turnover lifts to $1.4 billion, but with smarter money in play the yield drops to 13%. That produces a gross profit of $182 million. So despite an extra $400 million in turnover, the TAB actually makes around $18 million less. That’s why TAB operators obsess over yield, not just turnover and why lifting restrictions isn’t automatically the answer to lifting turnover.

January is the first month there are no end of month rebates for Entain Elite customers so that will be having an impact on turnover as well. The bigger punters will wait to see what offerings they get at the beginning of February in the way of bonus bets etc and if it isn't up to expectations then I suspect turnover will go way lower in the coming months.

Seems they are doing quite well shooting themselves in the foot without having to throw them on the bonfire.

Hey Brodie they do look at this site after all lol. Website updates - fixed odds and Harness 5000 Fixed odds prices have been temporarily removed from the HRNZ website due to a technical issue impacting functionality. Work is underway to make the necessary improvements and fixed odds are expected to return to the website once a solution is implemented. The fixed odds are still available on tab.co.nz.

When Greg Oconnor asked Peden about recent turnovers last night on the box seat Peden reacted like a man who had just opened a power bill he wasn't expecting. Out came the familiar “economic downward pressure” explanation for the disappointing numbers. I suspect most punters were behaving much like I was. The bad turnover was in fact the result of smaller fields than usual probably due to bad programming, so I turned over barely a quarter of what I normally would over that period.

It is interesting to note the stewards for Hawera were K Coppins (Chairman), S Mulcay, C Lomey, B Bateup

How this race was not called off or horses who were badly hampered not late scratched is anybody's guess. These days if a horse falls at most tracks and continues running in the field the race is called off immediately. Guess they didn't get the memo at Hawera. To me it looked like Kate Coppins was more interested in looking at what other drivers closer to the fence were doing rather than steering her own horse straight and in doing that drifted into the horse Becker causing her own horse to gallop and dislodge Beckers driver. I thought she would have gotten a holiday for the drive. I would like to see the head on for clarification.

How did they have Leap To Fame 1.50 vs 2.20 Kingman at Shepparton when Kingman had sat outside him and beat him over distance in their previous two clashes with worse draws and had the better draw this time. I thought the 2.20 was a gift.