Jimmie Says … There is a route to competitive fields

Building on last week’s position that the Mouttet Miles points standings of which an abbreviated list is published in the Track and Pools, clearly shows the ability quotient of the top four classes of horses in training, it stands to reason that this list should inform the number of races to be scheduled and distances at which they are to be run in order to have a 2027 racing calendar that is viable for both promoter and horsemen.

Whereas the expanded Mouttet Mile points-allocation list shows how many horses are available to provide competitive fields at the respective distances in the top four classes, a system that allots weight by ‘conditions’, not performance, and in which horses are allowed to drop class by way of not having won a race within a particular time, is as equally backward as six-horse fields in which only two runners have any realistic chance of winning.

After taking out the 14, or so, grade-one runners from the Mouttet Mile points-standings list, there might be 60 horses left from which to carve groups two (open allowance), three (overnight allowance) and four (non-winners of four races).

An average of 20 horses per group makes these categories of runners not much better than group one as far as numbers are concerned. If so, why are ‘conditions’ allowing proven grade-one runners, horses consistently earning and placing against their peers at the highest level, to drop class, further weakening field sizes, in order to compete against weaker rivals in the lower group?

Why are runners in groups one and two (open allowance) not being allowed to remain where they have ascended on ability, gradually lowered to the lowest possible weight against their peers of superior ability?

If a ‘conditions turnstile’ is created for the top two groups of runners, how on Earth, in a one-track jurisdiction, will there ever be enough horses in either group to consistently stage competitive racing, more so warrant huge purse money as a reward for winning races with two or three betting interests?

Races at the top three levels cannot be par-for-the-course, run every other raceday.

These events must be few but richer, marquee races for which owners should

be going head over heels to compete.

A rating-handicapping committee should be commissioned and maintained by Supreme Ventures Racing and Entertainment Limited (SVREL) Limited, assigned to create four groups of horses from the Mouttet Mile points standings.

This list should be published ahead of the 2027 racing season, informing owners and trainers, weekly, of the ratings (individual weight per group) of their respective runners with the intent of starting the new year with a stakes calendar showing all the races available, based on 2026 population, for groups one through four, at various distances, from January to December.

Wouldn’t a rating committee, as opposed to conditions, be able to equitably adjust the weights of an average nine horses per race in groups, one, two, three and four to afford every horse an equal chance of earning the next time they take the racetrack?

A most important point to note in the Mouttet Mile points allocation is that of the top 74 active runners in training, 34 are foreign-bred horses. Local-bred three-year-olds, who would have earned points mainly through age-group classic races, are represented by 13 horses, highlighting the inequity in ability of the general population against foreign-bred runners.

In order for owners of three-year-olds to support a local breeding industry, a route to redemption must be created, which cannot be ‘claiming’ or the option of being tortured by better peers for two consecutive years or, worse, foreign-bred horses after winning a maiden race.

Owners with average local-bred three-year-olds, acquired privately or at TOBA’s sale, should, after six unplaced runs as maidens, be allowed to join Group Five with topweight, allowing these horses to quickly and naturally find their competitive level at which they can earn, ending the hamster wheel of accruing expenses.

Horses in Group Five and below, up to Group Eight, the equivalent of classes E, F, G, H, constitute every horse in training that failed to make the list of 74 published. Why shouldn’t 90 per cent, or more, of races on every card not be made up of these horses, cutting out the various age-group and number-of-races-won ‘restrictions’ and ‘conditions’?

How can age-group restrictions and ‘conditions’ create equal chances for horses and connections to earn purse money in a one-track jurisdiction? How does a horse winning its second race automatically make it the equal of all other maiden winners, warranting level weight when they cross paths, regardless of manner of victory and quality of rivals they had faced?

A three-year-old could have won in a very poor line-up, clocking 1:17.0 for six furlongs, the same day the future Jamaica Derby winner posted 1:12.0. What on Earth would warrant both horses to be in the same event, ‘non-winners-of-two-races’, when they next race, made even worse sharing topweight?

No matter how much purse increase is granted, if the opportunity for majority to earn is non-existent, the cry for increased purses will be as perennial as the grass.