My 2007 One Loft Race Dashboard – A Statistical Analysis

Furlonge (Arizona Federation)

Email: steve@irishsyndicatelofts.com

The notion and popularity of one loft racing is gaining momentum without regard for ethics, background checks, standards and constructive feedback. This article is not an attempt to discredit any organization or judge the maintenance of the standards of honesty, integrity and sportsmanship – but to document a few important statistical observations from 2007 one loft races.

For the 2008 season thus far, we have already seen disastrous results with bad loft management practices and decisions. One loft clearly over-trained, another under-trained, another chose to use natural alternatives to routine medication, another has not provided frequent updates, and yet another has not provided a result sheet and it has been two days since the race. Training toss postings should speak volumes and the reader should use this information to make decisions as to which one-loft events to avoid for 2009.

Definition of “unethical”

Not in accordance with the standards followed in a business or profession

The Gold Standard

A One Loft Race is a business for profit. So what are the “standards” followed in the one loft pigeon racing business? The only standard I have heard is the so-called “Gold Standard” that refers to shipping 50% of the birds entered to the final race. A “Gold Standard” should mean much more than that. Are one loft race managers acting in accordance with standards for housing, feeding, medicating, reporting inventory, training, and maintaining accountability? Who is keeping score? Interestingly, the chemical symbol for Gold is ‘AU’.

A Gold Standard should require an organizer to make many more guarantees than an entrant. For an entrant, the Gold Standard only requires two guarantees i.e. ship healthy birds and pay the dues when called upon. Without a Gold Standard, organizers have adopted various monetary policies i.e. buybacks, sponsorships, pool/entry cuts, auction top birds, high perch fees, inadequate feed/supplements/medications, minimal road miles, and other various attempts at budget-balancing.

Statistical Methodology

In the absence of any guidelines, a diligent data collection effort was undertaken based on twenty-one major one loft races in the USA (including MDPR and Europa Classic for comparisons). They were graded in various categories. To be fair, I have used percentages so as not to identify and discriminate. Sadly, only sixteen of those had sufficient published data to complete the analysis. I also added a Bonus category for the extra things that lofts do to differentiate themselves:

1. Percentage of birds settled,
2. Percentage of birds shipped to 100 miles,
3. Percentage of birds shipped to 200/250 miles,
4. Percentage of birds shipped to 300/350 miles,
5. Accurate and Frequent Inventory updates,
6. Percentage of birds shipped that returned on the day of final race,
7. Percentage of birds shipped that returned on final race,
8. Bonus points:

For frequent website updates, vet updates, video release/webcam, hospitality feedback on race day, race day updates for non-attendees, GPS tracker on board, not waiting for tailwinds to release, not bringing birds back to shorter distances, holding birds if conditions are abnormal, accepting feedback, detailed accounting, quick payouts, etc.

	%birds	% birds	%birds	% birds	Inventory/	Final Race	Final Race	Bonus	Final
	Settled	100 mile	200 mile	300 mile	Training	% birds	% birds	Points	Points
					Updates	returned	on day
Loft 1	89	75	72	55	100	83	42	80	596
Loft 2	99	75	66	61	90	77	27	80	575
Loft 3	88	74	60	59	100	58	18	100	557
Loft 4	97	91	75	74	70	58	13	30	508
Loft 5	90	58	57	56	80	55	55	40	491
Loft 6	95	65	29	35	95	77	54	40	490
Loft 7	88	68	58	53	90	52	38	40	487
Loft 8	90	82	72	60	80	55	18	20	477
Loft 9	98	77	70	58	100	37	11	20	471
Loft 10	87	75	59	51	90	34	32	30	458
Loft 11	96	59	54	49	100	36	34	30	458
Loft 12	90	87	42	37	100	28	14	50	448
Loft 13	81	55	52	34	40	70	63	50	445
Loft 14	99	73	56	36	50	57	20	10	401
Loft 15	95	48	33	27	100	35	32	20	390
Loft 16	70	61	57	32	70	32	32	20	374
AVERAGE	90.75	70.1875	57	48.5625	84.6875	52.75	31.4375	41.25	476.6
MEDIAN	90	73.5	57.5	52	90	55	32	35	474

Observations

Why would you enter a race that has multiple occurrences of these practices?

1. Charging a buyback/bond fee for a bird that did not make the final race.
2. Lack of inventory and general updates - with the advent of the Internet and electronic clocks, there is absolutely no excuse. Any score less than 90 above is unacceptable.
3. Non-refundable entry fees due before a short qualifying race.
4. Withholding inventory until entry fees are paid in full.
5. Inflated inventory to lure entrants into thinking it is a big race.
6. Waiting for tailwinds to re-schedule 100 – 200 mile training/races.
7. Losses as much as 30% before even the first training toss without any accountability and notification.
8. Bringing birds back to shorter distances and then having a blow-home.
9. Poor training / loft management (including over-training) leading to huge losses.
10. Some lofts have shipped only 48% of the birds entered to 100 miles.
11. Some lofts have shipped only 29% of the birds entered to 200 - 250 miles.
12. Some lofts have shipped only 27% to 35% of the birds entered to the 300 - 350 mile stations. It should be no surprise that those lofts only had 11% to 14% returns on the day.
13. Bonus points: Any score less than 80 above is unacceptable. The data shows that the top three lofts went the extra mile.
14. Last year, a GPS tracking device was secretly placed on three separate races. One major race clearly did not go to the advertised distance. On another it was questionable why there were multiple stops close to the release time.
15. Lofts are now issuing 1099s without detailed accounting sheets that at a minimum should show the amounts taken in and amounts paid out.
16. Providing kickbacks (in the form of free entries, specialized treatment, etc) to entrants (who are sponsors) that promote the race. These should be advertised or it is a conflict of interest.
17. No basketing lists.
18. Deliver what you promise! Do not promise video releases if you cannot deliver!
19. No live or delayed and online clocking. Do what your competition is providing!
20. Re-banding of dead/sick pigeons unknown to the entrant.
21. Slow to payout and using this year’s entry to pay last years capital;

Actual payout is always significantly less than the advertised payout;

Payout will not cover entry fees if there are big first drops.

22. No vet updates, frequent cultures and dropping analysis.

Conclusions

The state of one loft racing in the USA leaves much to be desired unless entrants become more vocal and demanding. It is quickly deteriorating into a lose-lose situation for both organizer and entrant. In the absence of any standards, and based on my statistical comparison, a list of races to participate in cane be narrowed through this selection criteria. There remain a handful of outstanding one loft races that excel in each of the above criteria for 2007.

One possibility of stepping in the right direction towards a “gold standard” in my opinion would be to be above the median (and/or average) score for each of the graded criteria. Statistics however should not be the sole criteria or reason to enter a one loft race. But it will be easier to persuade me to enter a race that can achieve the following based solely on statistics.

Settle > 90% of the birds;

Send > 73% of the birds to a 100 mile trainer/race;

Send > 57% of the birds to a 200 mile trainer/race;

Send > 52% of the birds to a 300 mile/final race;

Should have a perfect score for inventory/website updates;

Final race > 32% of birds shipped return on the day;

Final race > 55% birds shipped return in race time.

Bonus points > 90

This article would be incomplete if I did not commend the Million Dollar Pigeon Race and the crew at Winners Cup USA and the CBS Mercedes Classic in random order for running the top three races statistically for 2007. It should be noted that I am not on the buddy system with any of these lofts. I have declined to identify the lower performances, rather I leave it as an exercise for both reader and one loft manager to do due diligence for 2008 and 2009.