Chief Stipe

The Starter isn't responsible for the "Starters Card" - all he has to do is pick it up at the beginning of the day. Like a lot of things in the "Manual" it is ambiguous who is actually responsible for collating that information. I would suggest it is the Stewards/RIU who seem to have the right to approve or not approve behind the gates gear. Given that they are then maybe it is one of them who should be responsible for giving the All Clear.

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 1, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Davidson, against Class A Rider, Miss K Williams, the rider of IWONDERWAI, alleging careless riding near the 1200m, in that she permitted her mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of TORMUND which was ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 2 an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Davidson, against Class A Licensed jockey, Miss S Wynne, the rider of SECRET RUNNER, in that she permitted her mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear dictating ELVA inwards crowding MAGICAL MYSTERY which ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(2) and Use of the Whip RegulationsFollowing the running of Race 8, Laser Electrical Timaru Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr P Williams, against Licensed Junior Driver, Miss LM McKay, alleging that Miss McKay, as the driver of TALL POPPY in the race, “used her whip on more occasions than is permitted inside ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

View the full article

View the full article

View the full article

Aside from there being no deaths at Otaki the races were all won by favourites bar one.

I'm not. What I am doing is providing a rational and logical argument that the manual and the process it describes is inadequate. That approach isn't the meaning of spurious. Now let's try and extend your focus away from that red button if we can. Do you think that there is a lack of resources behind the gates prior to the red button being pushed? (Assuming the button is red of course. It might be green for go.)

Agree. Freda do you think the amount of individual attention horses are now requiring behind the gates has got out of hand?

What is the optimal ratio? I would say that 8 isn't enough in the scenario you describe. In the overall scheme of things the additional cost is minimal.

Dumb jockey but even dumber you. It might explain how your chosen bet lost AFTER the race but wouldn't have altered your horses chances BEFORE the race. In any event in situations where the inside is "off" jockeys will normally act accordingly and avoid it. Again you have no control over that. More importantly you will find that the condition of a small proportion of the track will not have altered horses chances and their outcomes. For example just as many favourites win when the inside is "off" as when is "on".

Read the manual and you will see the whole process is flawed. That has been my argument. The last point I was making is that often the last error is a culmination of factors in a flawed system. I now realise that this is beyond your comprehension. Your use of the word spurious in this context only serves to highlight that. I've never argued that the Starter didn't make a mistake when pushed the button when he did. However I have put forward a rationale why that mistake was made. Many are making assumptions on what actually happened behind the gates. My contention is that the mistake is the outcome of a flawed and under resources process. With regard to resources did you know that a race meeting can start with only 8 barrier attendants working? Isn't that problematic in itself when more and more horses are requiring individual care?

I don't see the point in what Thomaas is requesting. So what if you have this information? It doesn't materially alter the chances of horses relative to their price. More importantly only the jockeys could use this information to any effect. As a pinter you have no control over what they do. Well not legally.

Can you stop playing the man and contribute some substance to this very good and informative debate? In future any posts like this one will be moderated.

I didn't say it wasn't your business "to care". However what you are told about the detail is up to Ricky and his family. As for the Schumacher comparison that is what the family wants and good on them.

As for the bush fire "victims" - isn't it drawing a long bow to say that someone who had a cardiac arrest while holding a hose is a "victim"? Again bad reporting by media and agencies. Interesting that they have arrested 24 people for lighting fires that have been blamed on climate change. But that is an argument for another Thread Topic.

You are missing the point. Some of the information on social media was wrong and was published by people whose reputation gave it credence. Why is it any of your business or anyone else's what is or was actually wrong with Ricky? I say no. What is more important to focus on his getting well and I'm sure his family and spokespeople will release information when they see fit. That is their prerogative.

Which would have been covered by the statement - "Ricky May has suffered a medical event and is in a critical condition." End of story. Anything else is pure sensationalism. Imagine if Trackside had said - "We understand Ricky is not breathing at the moment we'll get back to you in 20 minutes." Yes it is good news that he is on the improve.

https://www.racenews.bitofayarn.com/trio-of-drivers-injured-after-nasty-cambridge-smash/

https://www.racenews.bitofayarn.com/markham-driving-to-mays-call/

Agreed. I'll be really pissed off if the industry snag's a hunk of the Provincial Growth Fund. The industry used to stand on its own two feet (well with a walking stick) now it is lucky to be sitting on its arse. It is funny how that 30,000 to 40,000 people employed in the racing industry figure hasn't changed since I first heard it in 1981. Either the industry HASN'T shrunk in size or it has become LESS efficient.

Does it matter? You are only speculating Brodie and why does the fine details concern you? As I said or inferred in an earlier post some of the journo's social media reports were not good journalism. In these situations amateur oncourse experts would have been speculating and circulating rumour like wildfire. There was no need for journo's to publish some of those rumours particularly when they weren't even on course. What was wrong with just saying "Ricky is in a critical condition after suffering a medical event while driving in ....etc."?

I must admit I was a supporter of commingling as bigger pools looked more attractive and tended to remove the extreme variation in prices. I've since learnt that successful punters play those variations better than I do. Ironically we now have non-commingled races coming at us from left right and centre or rather places in the world I've never heard of. Right now with less than two minutes to go we have race 5 from somewhere called Turf Paradise with $156 in the Win pool. Yahoo I must get on! Mind you they are offering Fixed Odds.....now how does that work? In a small volume market do they limit the size of the bet? I'm wondering what the profit margin is on those FOB books. I still don't think commingling is a bad idea however I'm increasingly leaning towards the opposite. But I don't think it has been helped by FOB, higher takeout rates and other ludicrous steps taken by NZ TAB management. The pari mutuel tote was the Golden Goose and everything they have done has killed it - well not quite.

Racing and every stakeholder that is getting rogered by incompetent management. For the life of me I can't understand why the GM of Wagering hasn't been fired. Does he have pictures of certain politicians or industry leaders riding goats? When you start believing your own propaganda you are well and truly stuffed.