Basil

Nope. Including the current emergencies, the NI stable representation is exactly at historical Cambridge levels — 41.4%. If none of the emergencies start, it'll actually be a bit lower than usual at 38.2% (6 of the 8 emergencies are from NI stables). One slightly complicating factor is where the Dunn horses sit. The above numbers count them as SI. Assigning the two that have raced mainly in the NI to the NI changes the percentages to 43.1% and 40.0% respectively. So still nothing in it, in other words.

That bloody thing was always breaking down — it was the horse and cart for me!

I too will go for B (although C is tempting). Back in the day (i.e., many years ago), a few of us sometimes used that drain as water jump preparation for the cross country season. We always thought it was particularly considerate of the club to put it there for us...

It would certainly explain why the TAB is reluctant to engage with him!? The Gambler Who Cracked the Horse-Racing Code Bill Benter did the impossible: He wrote an algorithm that couldn’t lose at the track. Close to a billion dollars later, he tells his story for the first time. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-03/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code

While the opportunity for Lazarus to race in the US is potentially exciting for existing racing fans, I see this as bad news for NZ racing generally. I know these things can change quite quickly, but the departure of Lazarus, coming on top of Heaven Rocks and Vincent, along with Ultimate Machete and Dream About Me both being under a cloud, and Field Marshall racing in Oz, the open class pacing ranks look likely to be as thin as I can remember. Perhaps worse, the departure of a champion like Lazarus puts the kibosh on general media coverage of Harness. And that's worth far more than the even betting fields his absence will likely create. No criticism of the owners — I would have done exactly the same — I just think it's a shame for NZ racing.

In another thread, I see that Brodie has been making the argument that the connections of SI horses that have little chance of running in the money are likely to think twice about traipsing all the way to Cambridge for this year's Jewels. Although not directly related to the point he was making, this got me wondering about the historical distribution of starters, winners, draws etc, across the two islands and the two courses. So, having had a spare couple of hours to kill, I've engaged in a bit of trainspotting... TOTAL (ASHBURTON AND CAMBRIDGE COMBINED, 2007-2017) SI stables have comprised 65.6% of the starters, 68.7% of the winners, and 69.7% of the placegetters (2nd and 3rd) NI stables have comprised 33.8% of the starters, 31.3% of the winners, and 28.3% of the placegetters (where SI+NI doesn't add up to 100%, it's because of the presence of Oz horses) The average winning barrier draw is 6. ASHBURTON SI stables have comprised 72.0% of the starters, 68.5% of the winners, and 71.3% of the placegetters (2nd and 3rd) NI stables have comprised 27.6% of the starters, 31.5% of the winners, and 25.0% of the placegetters The average winning barrier draw is 6. CAMBRIDGE SI stables have comprised 57.7% of the starters, 68.9% of the winners, and 67.8% of the placegetters (2nd and 3rd) NI stables have comprised 41.4% of the starters, 31.1% of the winners, and 32.2% of the placegetters The average winning barrier draw is 6. What can be inferred from all this? • Unsurprisingly, SI representation is higher when the Jewels are held in Ashburton than in Cambridge, with the reverse being true for NI stables. • Despite this, the SI winning and placing %ages are basically the same at both courses, suggesting that marginal SI horses don't travel to Cambridge and are replaced by marginal NI horses (i.e., there is a 'Brodie Effect'!) • Given the disparity between NI and SI representation, overall industry travel costs could be reduced (by, very roughly, 10%) if the Jewels were held in the NI every 3rd year rather than every 2nd year. • Despite impressions to the contrary, inside barrier draws have been no more important (at least for winning) at Cambridge than at Ashburton. Discuss.?

A couple of observations on this. One, a few mates and I have attended every Ashburton Jewels, precisely because it's not at Addington and we can enjoy a boot party out in the car park. So switching to Addington, even though we could now walk to the event, will result in an immediate loss of four patrons. Two, I also expect the distance to be changed to 1950m (personally, I'd prefer the classic distance of 2400, but that starting point is even worse at Addington), but the mile starting point isn't quite as simple as "inside draw great, outside draw terrible". After all, if the mobile barrier went slowly enough, then the reverse would be true because the outside horses would be at or near top speed while the inside horses would be walking (this was exactly the problem in the 70s). There must be a "sweet spot" mobile speed that evens things up...

Certainly interesting times at RC. I regularly enjoyed a good argument with Brodie, but more recent arrivals seemed to want to eschew debate and just go straight to personal abuse. When the so-called moderator started to pour fuel on the fire, I felt it necessary to say something, i.e., that a moderator was supposed to calm things down, not stir them up. For that, I was effectively banned. I don't know who Mr Scooby is, and I don't believe I've ever met him, but he would appear to be a most singular individual.