Chief Stipe

Therefore you ride your horse accordingly. Flemington has a big sweeping bend and a 450m straight so you can get away with a slack tempo early.

I was being slightly facetious (if one can be slightly). I do recall being challenged on BOAY that old farmers didn't do what I suggested. They probably did but not at the regular intervals they do now and instead waited until there were signs of soil failure. I've been thinking about the optimal width a racing track that would enable a type of crop rotation. Surely at Riccarton you could split the track in half, rejuvenate one half (and race on the other) by applying organic matter and a crop like mustard or even lucerne then sow pasture after ploughing in and leveling. Then do the same to the other half. I realise that sounds hairbrained but...

Sorry I don't understand what your recommendation is? Water or not to water? I gather you collect rainwater to apply to your permaculture plots when required? You also must keep the soil structure healthy by the addition of organic matter. A bit like what modern farmers do when rejuventating their paddocks every four years or so.

So are you suggesting not to ever water a track?

How else do you test it? As for the track ratings I no longer have any confidence that what I read is the track rating is in fact the track rating. About time they starting doing what they do at the Metro tracks in Victoria.

Did anyone see the ride on Antino? A case of Blake Shinn showing some initiative.

It isn't "normal practice". It is a requirement.

Yes but not 20 surely.

I reckon it was one of Macdonalds poor rides in the Guineas and he has them from time to time. The lack of pace in the race didn't help and no Jockey was prepared to to step up. I think the bias argument is over rated.

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have galloped on the track one day prior?

This statistic is pointless unless you analyse the sectionals and other variables.

Caulfield track pattern review | RACING.COM www.racing.com The Melbourne Racing Club will review its track preparations after Saturday’s meeting at Caulfield where there were accusations of track bias. MRC chairman John Kanga and Caulfield track manager Sam Bennetts said an in-depth review would be conducted in the aftermath of the race meeting. “Our team will review and evaluate the track performance tomorrow, taking into account sectional timings and tempo, as well as other factors such as wind,” Kanga said. “Our aim is always to present a track that is fair for all runners, but track preparation is an imprecise science.” Bennetts, who was appointed to the position in May, said he had spent a lot of time thinking about what could have been done differently in the past 24 hours. “These days happen, but we don’t want them to happen on these big meetings. We will have an in-depth review of the full year, see what we can nail down and improve.” “We were happy with it at the start, but after race four things changed. There’s room for vast improvement on a feature day like this and the industry deserves better on these feature days.” Bennetts said the track raced on the drier side of what he anticipated which was demonstrated with the track upgrade after the fourth race. “We will look at the soil moisture component,” he said. Bennetts said they would examine the rail placements in the lead-up to the race meeting, which would include the winter months. Bennetts said the rail would be out 12 metres for Wednesday’s meeting, which is where it was last year. They were already putting water on the track. He said for the Caulfield Cup meeting the rail would most likely be at the 3m mark. Kanga said while a number of races were won by horses on the pace, Jimmystar and Bellatrix Star won from midfield positions and Antino from the rear. While some jockeys and trainers lambasted the track for playing to on-pacers, others such as Danny O’Brien gave it his support. O’Brien posted on X that it was the best track for the spring and Caulfield had rewarded on-speed tactical horses for 100 years.

Is there anything Chazza that you are not bitter and twisted about? Another post of fiction by you.

What do you expect? You ask the same dumb question on multiple sites with the inference that Colin Wightman has some nefarious agenda. The fact is he is concerned about the state of the two racing tracks at Riccarton on which his sizeable investment in bloodstock will race. It's a shame that many trainers and owners also affected feel too intimidated to publicly agree with him.

Yes in my opinion and from what I've heard the track ratings were well off. Yes you would expect a kinder track for jump-outs.

Really Lane? You posed a nonsense question. The same nonsense question you frequently post. If you had bothered to read the discussion about the Riccarton Track that has been happening for at least 10 years you'd fully understand what the problem is. The introduction of the AWT has exacerbated the problems as now the available resources are stretched even thinner. Quite frankly you appear to have little understanding of any of the issues facing those that provide the product.

That's a shame. GRNZ have lost a very good employee and advocate for the sport. Good luck for your future endeavours Liz Whelan.

Isn't that your answer for everything Lane? That there is "some sort of agenda"? Yes there is a an agenda and that is to draw attention to the state of the race track surfaces at Riccarton. There are many issues. One is the inconsistency and variability across both tracks. Another is the accurate reporting of the turf track firmness. I have real doubts that Riccarton was only a Good 4 raceday morning.

It was dark blue. I see someone has a beige one today. Nice change.

It was on her head.

It would be great to seem some transparency around how much that subsidisation is.

That went through to the keeper for me. In the good old days you could talk to the right people, get a start and the draw you wanted!

They don't actually @Gammalite. There was a notable example last year where the best sprinter in Australia was offered a slot by a Slot Owner but on the condition that the horse was SOLD to the Slot Owner. I'm not sure what the prize money share offered was but it certainly wasn't the full purse. Now there are numerous variations of how a horse gets into The Everest. Generally Waller, Godolphin and Coolmore have a horse good enough to start - they probably have 2 or some years more that would rank in the top 14 sprinters in Australia. They could do a deal with another Slot Owner to get another of their horses into the race. At the end of the day getting into The Everest is dictated by the big stables and big owners. The neogtiations that go on and the final deals are numerous and varied. As are the amounts that are "shared". Theorectically now that The Everest is a Grp 1 a Slot Owner could offer the owner of a mare that was the best ranked sprinter a start just for the glory of getting The Everest Grp 1 in their pedigress i.e. share NONE of the prize money.

Which from my Lincoln College AG-ECON101 days was called a non-tariff trade barrier!!