'If we published the readings they would be misleading' - clerk defends decision to amend GoingStick reports before release

Thirsk's clerk of the course James Sanderson has defended the practice of amending GoingStick readings before publishing them and claimed many others do the same.

He believes the device gives different results at different tracks and that reporting bare results would cause confusion.

Sanderson, who is also Thirsk's chief executive, said in a podcast interview that he had knocked a point off the track's GoingStick reading for last Saturday's meeting.

"Barstewards sponsor a race here, they do a blog, and they challenged me on why I frequently haven't published GoingStick readings," he said. "I'm not a fan of the GoingStick, and the point I made is that if we published the readings as they came out of the ground they would be misleading.

"I asked Jack, who was interviewing me, how he would interpret a reading of 8.6 or 8.9, and he said fast or firm ground. I asked him what he thought the ground was here now, and he said genuinely good.

"Then I asked him what he'd expect the GoingStick to read and he said 7.2, but I said it was 8.6 and had been 8.9 at declarations. If I'd put those figures out, they'd have misled people – they don't expect them below five or above nine. It would cause confusion."

Since 2009 it has been a requirement of the rules of racing that for each fixture staged a reading is made available from the GoingStick, a device designed to provide an objective measure of the going. 

"The BHA say I must do GoingStick readings or face disciplinary proceedings, but I'm not going to put figures out that are going to mislead people or put them off running because they'll be misinterpreted by those who are not experts on the ground at Thirsk," said Sanderson.

"Unless someone is collating data from all 60 courses and analysing it over many years, it's pointless – there is no one-stick-reading-fits-all across the country."

Sanderson is convinced he is not the only one amending GoingStick reports and said: "If the Racing Post did an anonymous survey of clerks of the course and asked do they ever change the reading, or manipulate the process to get a reading they’re happy with, I'd be amazed if you didn't get 50 per cent or more saying yes. I know others do, I talk to them."

A BHA spokesman said: "The BHA is aware of comments made by Mr Sanderson regarding the sharing of GoingStick readings prior to race meetings and are looking into them. 

"We believe that sharing accurate GoingStick readings is important, as it provides important information for participants, bettors and fans about the condition of the course at a given time. 

"It has also always been made clear that GoingStick readings are not comparable across different venues, but rather should be considered in comparison to other readings from that same course. 

"If a different user takes responsibility for taking GoingStick readings then a slight difference to the average stick reading would also be expected. A given reading may well, therefore, lead to different official Going descriptions at different courses."

Now read these...

Willie Mullins prepares Plumpton army with Cheltenham heroine Kargese among entries as title race goes to the wire 

Giavellotto to miss Yorkshire Cup hat-trick bid as Marco Botti reveals new British target 

'When you’re riding for Willie it’s easy, isn’t it?' - perfect spare for ice-cool Cobden as Captain Cody leads home Mullins one-two 

Looking for free bets? Racing Post have got the best offers, all in one place. Visit racingpost.com/freebets to find out more.