Chief Stipe

Is there much difference per 1 tenth of a point? E.g. 5.2 vs 5.3?

Where is the evidence they are pushing it? Perhaps they are just assuming that people want Fixed Odds as that is the most popular option. Either way the punter needs to specify otherwise how does the Tote operator know? Then again how many people don't use their phone app to make a bet? What proportion of oncourse punters don't know to specify the bet type? Does it matter to new punters who are just there for a day out? LOL in many respects they are likely to get a bargain if they bet early as often the Fixed Odds meander towards the tote odds. In many respects wouldn't it be in ENTAIN's interest to promote the tote? A bigger tote pool gives them more opportunity to lay off closer to start time.

Probably both us but the difference is I don't really care as much as you do obviously.

LOL here we go again your fall back - psycho-analysing! I thought you would be all across this as a partner in the site and your extensive IT background. Quick to poke the borax like a prat when it suits your agenda but when the boot is on the other foot...keep spinning.

I'm looking silly? @Comic Dog has you on full Spin!

It's not an "argument". Track ratings are important for a number of reasons. For example if I'm a trainer and I've set my horse for a R65 1200m at Trentham but I know it will have issues on a very firm track. On raceday morning the track is rated a Soft 7 and I say "great perfect". The horse lines up and they run 1:07.4 (after adjusting for the hand timing). My horse feels the track badly and can't keep up. I now have a sore horse to take home and its upcoming programme screwed. Isn't that a bigger problem than the track being a holding or puggy Heavy 10? BTW that example I used is based on fact.

Oh dear @Pete Lane surely you can do better than that. Really "a portion of our hardware infrastructure" "caused a major technical issue throughout the South Pacific" ?! LOL.

What's your hypothesis? Do you think that Trainers have gone through a learning curve with how to use the AWT in their training regimes? If there is a variation in fatality or injury rates between Cambridge and Awapuni and Cambridge has a lower rate what would you suspect is the cause?

But neither of those subjective terms are measures of firmness. In terms of firmness a Heavy 10 is very very soft. You didn't read what I wrote. I acknowledged variation between tracks and but that you can calibrate the measurement per track to deliver consistent ratings where in terms of firmness a Soft 6 at Riccarton is a Soft 6 at Riverton. Most of us know that the ratings at Riccarton and Trentham are suspect regardless of any variation in the respective tracks.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it is a new practice just that the science supports the practice of stressing horses at an early age to prolong their racing. However that is where the stats presented by Massey may be skewed e.g. what was the training history of the fatalities reported?

Who in the industry asked for a report the largest part of which is a Literature Review probably done by a graduate student! It is not impossible to calibrate your measurement systems to ensure that when a Soft 5.5 is published it is the same as any other track. With a single measure being the result of multi-factor measures. Variability in the measure doesn't help trainers or punters alike. As W Edwards Deming said - to paraphrase: "If you can't remove the variation then you can't shift the mean". That is if you don't reduce the variation then you can't improve things.

Oh thanks for clarifying @Pete Lane - I guess we all have a different understanding of...what was it?... "Just to let everyone know I have bought Pete Lane onboard as part of the RC team in a partnership."

Not a problem Ross. I've taken the liberty of putting up the official description. Mauve, black seams (body & sleeves), scarlet cap with black seams

Hi Ross - do you have a written description as well? Are the colours just one colour?

want to provide advice on the best way forward for the industry From a breeder or owner or punter perspective? I've always wondered where these guys were when our racetracks were heading downhill? Did they offer any advice about the Iconic redevelopment of the Ellerslie track? Will they "advise" that stakes at the top end are raised further? Shouldn't this "powerful" group provide advice to NZTR and HRNZ rather than trying to tell ENTAIN how to suck eggs when it comes to generating wagering revenue?

I'm surprised @Pete Lane you haven't posted the offical communique from your vendor.

It is suspect and I doubt there has been any attempt to normalise it for the very reason there isn't enough collarborating data. Hell @curious we have been banging on about this lack of data and its inconsistency for a very very long time. I always had a hope that what we thought we were seeing was wrong. So will Riccarton and Trentham get away with what they have been doing going forward ( @Dark Beau ) ? As we have been saying theorectically Trentham has been unsafe for two reasons - the track has been rock hard and has been rated as not. The latter makes it hard for trainers to make informed decisions about the safety of their horses. I'm surprised other forums have been apologists for this problem. Not that many will connect the dots between the report and reality. One concern I have is that we will become fixated on producing a Soft 5 track which isn't necessarily a safe track. Firmness is only one metric and shouldn't be the sole one.

Hi Scooby @Comic Dog and @Pete Lane! Bit of pot kettle going on now isn't there!

No Stats alone are not misleading - if the data is flawed then the stats are flawed and the decisions ensuing are flawed. What it does highlight yet again how important it is to standardise the measuring of track ratings (essentially firmness) across the country and to enforce Quality Control standards. I would have thought that this would have been one of the prime responsibilities of NZTR, the National Track Manager and local track managers. Even Horse Welfare and Safety have a need for accurate data. The NZ data Massey University used in their report is suspect at best.

Geez @curious this type of data might cut the mustard in social science but... Take the Track Condition measure for example - hardly a quantitative metric largely subjective in this country. Have they taken the Trentham and Riccarton data out of the analysis? We know their track ratings are BS. For that matter have they taken Trentham's times out of the data? They've even taken the average track rating down to two decimal places - really? The Firm track stats are from two meetings?! Does it seem logical that a 3.7% increase in speed results in over a 100% increase in fatality rate? I wonder if they would release the raw data. I'm afraid they are drawing the wrong conclusions from suspect data which will lead to poor decisions.

But isn't like saying speed or race time is an accurate measure of the firmness of a track? Let alone correlating it with safety.

How do they "tighten" it? Run a roller over it? Or is it the action of horses galloping on it? Or weather? If it is horses galloping on the surface would the track "tighten" during the course of a race meeting?

The correlation between speed and injury seems rather spurious in my mind. I'm not sure the statement that horses are running faster on synthetic vs turf tracks stands up either.

Eagle Farm gets unexpected Super Saturday after Queensland Derby Day washout www.racenet.com.au Eagle Farm will host a 10-card Super Saturday of racing next weekend, with a bumper three Group 1s to be staged following the abandonment of four races on Queensland Derby Day on Saturday. Jockeys complained of poor visibility at Eagle Farm after persistent heavy rain during the day, forcing officials to abandon the Derby meeting after five races on Saturday on another wet day in Brisbane. The jockeys met after the running of the Group 2 BRC Sires' Produce (1400m), won by Cool Archie on a Heavy 10 track, before voicing their concerns about visibility in the awful conditions at Eagle Farm. It means Group 1 races the Kingsford Smith Cup (1300m) and the Queensland Derby (2400m) will be rescheduled to next Saturday at Eagle Farm, with the Queensland Oaks (2200m) for 3YO fillies to be run as per normal on that day. The Fred Best Classic, which offers the winning three-year-old a golden ticket into the Stradbroke Handicap in two weeks, will now be staged on Wednesday on Doomben. However, the Group 3 Fred Best will now be run over the shorter distance of 1350m instead of 1400m. The winning trainer of the Fred Best will need as much time as possible to prepare their horse for the Group 1 Stradbroke (1400m) on June 14. Just five of the nine races on Saturday were contested before RQ officials decided to abandon the key winter carnival meeting after the jockeys voiced their concerns about the poor visibility on the track. "We work with the riding group and obviously the rider and horse welfare is the No.1 priority when it comes to these issues," Racing Queensland chief steward Josh Adams said. "We felt the track was safe but it was the visibility and the kickback which ultimately resulted in the remainder of the card being cancelled. "Hopefully the rain goes away and we can run the rescheduled races under fine conditions next week." Martin Harley after riding Cool Archie to victory. Picture: Trackside Photography • Kiwi import at home on heavy track in dominant Eagle Farm win To accommodate the three rescheduled races from Derby Day, a Benchmark 90 Handicap and Class 6 Handicap due to be contested at Eagle Farm next Saturday will be shifted to the Sunshine Coast next Sunday. All scratchings will be reinstated for the rescheduled races. Brisbane Racing Club will honour all general admission tickets from Saturday for the Eagle Farm meeting on next weekend. Weather in Brisbane should fine up from Tuesday and little rain is predicted from then onwards for the rest of the week.

We have come full circle. Some stables appear to have better adapted horses as well which brings us back to early training of yearlings and 2 yr olds. The science literature shows that horses that have undergone early age preps have a greater racing longevity and less injury than those that don't. Carefully Training an early 2 yr old on an AWT may actually be an advantage. As long as it was a properly maintained AWT.