Going, Going, Gone: Racing's Ground Truth Crisis

Going, Going, Gone: Racing's Ground Truth Crisis

When James Sanderson, Clerk of the Course at Thirsk, admitted on a podcast that he routinely alters GoingStick readings before publication, he only confirmed what the racing cognoscenti have long known: the system designed to bring objectivity to ground assessment has become another layer of racing theatre.

From Scientific Promise to Institutional Farce

Back in December 2003, the Jockey Club unveiled the TurfTrax GoingStick with considerable fanfare. After 60,000 test readings and collaboration with Cranfield University, this technological marvel would finally standardise how racecourse conditions were measured and reported.

The GoingStick measured both penetration and shear forces—a sophisticated approach to replicating a horse's interaction with the turf. Tony Goodhew, then the Jockey Club's Director of Racecourse Licensing, promised "accurate and consistent readings to suit punters and racing professionals alike."

Two decades on, that promise lies trampled in the home straight.

The French Alternative: The Pénétrométre

While British racing struggles with GoingStick integrity, our French counterparts have long employed a different device—the Pénétrométre. This instrument, officially adopted by France Galop in the 1990s, measures only vertical penetration resistance rather than the dual penetration-and-shear approach of the GoingStick.

The Pénétrométre works by dropping a standardised cone-tipped metal rod from a fixed height and measuring how deeply it penetrates the turf. The penetration depth is then converted to a numerical scale ranging from 0-5.0, with lower numbers indicating firmer ground. For context, 3.5 approximates Good ground, while 2.0 would indicate firm conditions.

Crucially, French authorities publish raw readings without clerk adjustments, and the measurements are taken at multiple points around the course with all results displayed publicly. This transparency creates a verifiable record that's difficult to manipulate—a stark contrast to the British approach.

Critics suggest the Pénétrométre's single-dimensional measurement fails to capture the lateral forces experienced by galloping horses, but its supporters point to its consistency and credibility among French punters, who generally have higher confidence in official going reports than their British counterparts.

The Inconvenient Truth

Sanderson's confession wasn't shocking—it was merely surprising in its candour. He argued that publishing actual readings would be "misleading" because they don't reflect the "true" going at Thirsk. The irony is palpable: the objective measurement designed to eliminate subjective bias is being overridden by... subjective bias.

What's more telling is his admission that he aims for "Good" ground rather than the BHA-recommended "Good-Firm" for flat racing. Why? Because faster ground decreases field sizes. This isn't just an administrative preference—it's a deliberate contravention of the rules driven by commercial imperatives.

The Data Void

Perhaps more damning than the manipulation is the neglect: in 2024, the BHA via TurfTrax has published GoingStick readings for just 3 of Thirsk's 20 meetings. Even the most casual form student would raise an eyebrow at a 15% strike rate.

This statistical vacuum raises profound questions about the regulatory framework. Is anyone actually monitoring compliance? Has the GoingStick been quietly downgraded from mandatory to optional? The silence from BHA offices High Holborn has been deafening.

Beyond Field Sizes: The Deeper Implications

For handicappers and professional punters, ground falsification creates ripple effects throughout racing's ecosystem.

First, it distorts the form book. Races allegedly run on "Good" ground that was actually Good-to-Soft create false impressions of horses' capabilities. A horse running poorly on supposedly Good ground might be unfairly judged as non-versatile, when in fact it simply couldn't handle the undeclared cut.

Then there's the breeding angle that rarely gets mentioned. With most clerks systematically producing softer ground than the historic British racing standard, we're unwittingly reshaping the thoroughbred. Selective pressure now favours horses that handle ease in the ground, potentially compromising the breed's historical speed and soundness on faster surfaces.

Most concerning for serious players is the information asymmetry. Connected insiders who walk the course or have relationships with groundstaff often possess the actual ground truth, creating a two-tier market where the informed extract value from the misled.

The Structural Conflict

At the heart of this issue lies an institutional conflict that would never be tolerated in other sports or gambling markets. Clerks of Courses are incentivised to maximise field sizes while simultaneously being trusted to provide objective assessments that directly influence those field sizes.

Imagine if Premier League referees were paid based on how many goals were scored, or if bookmakers could adjust the official results after the final whistle. The concept would be laughable, yet in racing, this equivalent arrangement is simply business as usual.

The BHA's Regulatory Hesitancy

The Authority's tepid response to Sanderson's admission exemplifies a deeper problem within racing governance: the reluctance to enforce rules that might inconvenience powerful commercial interests.

While administration will vigorously pursue trainers over trace medication positives or penalise jockeys for marginally excessive whip use, systematic falsification of the fundamental racing surface data receives the bureaucratic equivalent of a shrug.

This selective enforcement creates cynicism throughout the sport. If the rules only truly apply to some participants some of the time, why should anyone respect them?

The Market Response

Professional punters have, of course, adapted. Many now maintain their own ground databases, accounting for weather, watering practices, and the tendencies of individual clerks to fudge readings higher or lower. Some syndicates even deploy course specialists solely to assess actual ground conditions independent of official reports. Proform for example provide their own going metrics based on times and can monitor corrections on a course by course basis.

The resultant betting markets have evolved to price in this uncertainty. It's no coincidence that overrounds on exchanges have gradually increased for races where ground conditions are most consequential. When crucial information can't be trusted, margins widen to account for the risk.

The Independent Assessment Solution

The remedy is straightforward: remove assessment power from those with conflicting interests. The BHA could establish an independent team of soil scientists and going specialists who visit courses, take standardised readings, and publish unaltered data.

The technology already exists and works—it's the human element that's corrupted the system. Independent assessment would restore trust, create consistent datasets for form analysis, and remove the temptation for manipulation.

The cost would be negligible compared to the integrity gained. If stewards can be independent, why not going assessors?

Racing's Choice: Evolution or Erosion

Racing faces a crucial juncture. Will it embrace genuine transparency and standardisation in ground assessment, or continue with the current charade where official reports are treated as marketing rather than facts?

For a sport increasingly competing with other gambling opportunities that offer full transparency and consistent conditions, the choice should be obvious. Every missed opportunity to address these fundamental integrity issues accelerates racing's slide toward irrelevance for serious players.

The Final Assessment

The GoingStick represented a genuine attempt to modernise racing and improve information quality. Its failure isn't technological but institutional—a reflection of racing's reluctance to prioritise integrity over commercial expedience.

Until the ground beneath the horses' hooves is honestly reported, serious players will continue developing workarounds, casual punters will remain disadvantaged, and the sport's credibility will continue its slow deterioration.

Sanderson's candour, however misguided, has inadvertently performed a service by bringing this open secret into public discussion. The question now is whether racing's leadership has the courage to enact meaningful reform or will simply wait for the story to fade, hoping the next going controversy is just around the final bend.