'Aftercare Grade' to Be New Component of HANA Track Ratings

Horseplayers who want to factor in how well–or poorly–a certain track treats its Thoroughbred population before deciding whether or not to bet that track's product will soon be able to refer to a new analytical rating system that will assign grades to tracks based on the scope and effectiveness of their aftercare initiatives.

The new ratings will be included in the upcoming 2018 release of the increasingly popular Track Rating System, which has been published by the Horseplayers Association of North America (HANA) every year since 2009.

The scoring could take the form of an A-through-F letter grade or a 1-through-100 percentile rating. Either way, the system will assign the highest rankings to best-practice tracks while failing the jurisdictions that make little or no aftercare effort.

Jeff Platt, the president of HANA, confirmed in a Tuesday phone interview that the changes are in the works.

HANA's annual Track Rating System has evolved over the past decade from being an interesting compilation of hard-to-find, bettor-centric takeout and handle information into a widely referred-to pari-mutuel marketplace snapshot whose methodologies incorporate other quantitative factors such as field size and simulcast signal distribution to come up with rankings of all North American pari-mutuel Thoroughbred venues.

Bettors now increasingly refer to the HANA ratings to see which tracks give them the most bang for their buck, and industry executives have collectively become more and more cognizant of their track's placement on the list.

Platt said the idea for trying to quantify seemingly subjective aftercare initiatives into a reliable, analytical score that reflects what is really going on behind the scenes came to him earlier this spring when he was disturbed by reports out of Louisiana about Thoroughbreds bound for slaughter, and at times being “ransomed” from kill pens by unscrupulous middlemen.

“I started getting reports that horses were showing up in kill pens as the Delta Downs meet was winding down,” Platt said. “But it wasn't just Delta–it was every track in Louisiana, that their horses were ending up there.

“What I'm reading on social media is that there's a whole black-market economy going on where these kill pen operators know they can get three or four times market value for a horse for somebody wanting to rescue it than they can if they take it across the [United States] border and process it for meat,” Platt continued. “And there's something very inherently wrong with that. When a Thoroughbred racehorse, within a few days of its last race at a meet that's winding down, ends up in a kill lot, that's a red flag that something is very, very wrong with our game.

“My impetus behind this is to put a spotlight on these practices in the hope that there will be a concerted effort between racing commissions and track owners to implement accredited aftercare programs and to educate and make every horsemen on the grounds aware that if you have an unwanted horse, you need to get it in the hands of an accredited aftercare program,” Platt explained.

Platt said he was not at liberty to divulge the exact algorithmic structure of how the aftercare ratings would be created, referring to the process as being mathematically akin to “a secret sauce.” But he did shed some light on which tracks might be in line for high or low ratings.

“In racing jurisdictions like New York, Maryland, Kentucky and California, where they have well-established, accredited aftercare programs, tracks in those racing jurisdictions are automatically going to get an A-plus or a score of 100, depending on whether we issue a letter grade or a percentile. A track like Delta Downs? Unless something has changed drastically in the last few days that I'm not aware of, they're going to get a low score.

“And other states where there are mixed reports of horses disappearing from tracks and ending up in kill lots? I won't mention specific states because we're still working that out. We're still trying to get verifiable information. But those tracks are going to get D scores, or C-minuses at best,” Platt said.

Platt acknowledged that HANA is being extra cautious in compiling the aftercare ratings prior to releasing the 2018 version of the full list. The annual ratings generally come out in April, and the list is now four-plus months late in being made public because of the tweaking of the new aftercare component. (You can view the 2017 ratings here).

“I've got them on hold,” Platt said. “I bear the responsibility for not getting the 2018 rankings out yet. I'm going to get [the aftercare ratings] as right as we can possibly get them before we hit the 'submit' button and make the links public.

“It's not going to be perfect the first time around. And I'm going to take a lot of flak and negative feedback if I get it wrong,” Platt summed up. “But I'm willing to put my neck out there and go out on a limb in the hope of shining a spotlight on it. And if I do get a rating wrong, and somebody calls me on it and they can show me [evidence for] a higher grade, I'll make a change and give them a higher grade.”