Basil

St Basil?! I like it Brodie, I like it a lot — a very nice touch indeed. Not exactly on the money, sadly, but well played all the same (although I'm a bit surprised that a self-described capitalist such as yourself would be quoting Mao). Should I change my posting name accordingly?😄

I was curious to see how long it would take someone to post this, and lo and behold it's happened while I'm logged in (although my odds-on favourite was Brodie, with his alter-ego Chief only a distant second). This bit is revealing: "(Don Bates) felt unwelcome at the races because of flak towards him over informing the RIU instead of keeping it in-house." The freemasonry of the fraudsters...

Ah, but losing the All Stars *is* one of the greatest things to ever happen in Brodie-World, along with: • unrestricted fixed odds betting for everyone • unlimited whipping of horses • sacking and silencing of Martin van Beynen • disestablishment of HRNZ and NZR • programmes with nothing other than maiden races • abolition of the vote for women and so on.

OMG, just look around you! This hear-no-evil-see-no-evil mindset that's so prevalent in the harness industry is what's killing it. Circling the wagons only ever has one outcome... Everybody repeat after me: Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. Harness racing's wounds are self-inflicted and blaming the media is just shooting the messenger. I trust that's now clear (although I suspect for many on here it won't be).

The sad fact of the matter is that too many harness participants got away with far too much for far too long, and now the chickens are coming home to roost: 100+ years of overly-friendly reporting has been replaced by something a bit more honest. If the harness industry wants to change that, it needs to take its head out the sand, stop scapegoating a 'few greedy cheating individuals', and recognise that there's a deep and systematic problem which needs to be rooted out. In short, The Galah is right and no amount of playing-the-victim is going to change that.

Chief, given that everybody knows Brodie is your BOAY alter-ego (Mr Hyde to your Dr Jekyll), this seems like a shameless bit of self-promotion.😄 Incidentally, Thornley has been very anti- any kind of concerted covid action from the start. He may well be right, but at this stage, where the data are so incomplete, it's impossible to tell. So I wouldn't be giving yourself/Brodie too much credit just yet...

Sorry Noodlum, but all your exercise shows is that there isn't a helluva lot of doping being *caught*. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

"People with visions should go to the doctor." (Helmut Schmidt)

https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/racing/forbury-park-be-closed-trotting-club-relocate Inevitable I guess, but still a bit sad for those of us who spent many nights parking the car in Plunket St and then wandering along to Victoria Rd.

Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. The calculation I described is: p.$4.7mill - C where p is the probability of a horse jumping the current fence and killing someone, and C is the cost of building the sort of fence you describe. I don't know what p is, but since the event's never happened it's obviously very small. So let's be generous and say it's 0.1%. Then the expected benefits are $4700 — could your fence be built for less than that?

It's unclear (at least to me) from this poorly written article whether the racing clubs have actually done anything dodgy, but what's certainly clear is that the local residents aren't happy with them! https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/124325407/residents-near-proposed-north-canterbury-racecourse-quarry-let-down-by-racing-club

I'm afraid that's completely wrong (although it does seem to be a very common error these days, so you're not alone). The cost of any expenditure always has to be weighed against its expected benefits, which in this case is the infinitesimal risk of a horse doing what you suggest multiplied by the value of a statistical life. I'd be very surprised if this were anywhere close to the fence cost, but perhaps you have some data that suggest differently.

The emphasis on integrity and a code of conduct is welcome, albeit long overdue. I suspect it'll be a hard sell in some quarters though...

I thought you were joking about the paedo involvement, but then I see this list and realise you weren't. Interesting. Still, everybody deserves a second chance, and it doesn't necessarily make him wrong on this topic (even though I think he is).

OMG (and I feel slightly queasy just saying this), I agree with Brodie.😄 The one bit I don't agree with though is blaming Ardern. Lightweight though she may be, in this she is, sadly, just reflecting the 'will of the sheep people'. Those of us who think repeated lockdowns are a cure worse than the disease are very much in the minority.

Yeah, having arrived at 1100 hours (don't ask why!) and then watched every race from about the 150, we were all asking the same question. Because being on the rails seemed to be just as important as being handy, I can only assume that drivers in the running line but in the back half of the field decided they were on a hiding to nothing and so decided to depend on dumb luck. Understandable perhaps (damned if you do, damned if you don't), but I agree it makes for very boring racing. Other observations on the day: • 25 minute gaps between races was excellent, so many bouquets to who ever decided on that; • Methven facilities are pretty spartan these days, which is ok, but the lack of any substitute for the demolished public grandstand makes it a challenging watching course (down at the fence, there are lots of blind spots); • the experts who claim we're in a child obesity crisis would have had their eyes popping out of their heads at the sight of the Kidz Kartz — I swear some of the drivers looked heavier than their horses!

Time for a little lesson in research design. In attempting to test a hypothesis, one is always exposed to a variety of problems, including statistical bias, i.e., the possibility that the parameter you're trying to estimate (in this case the mean of the number of dangerous incidents in a race) is higher or lower than its true value. Far from 'admitting' such bias, I've simply pointed out that any possible bias in this case — if it exists at all — actually strengthens the researchers' conclusion. Why? Because if whip use actually enhances safety, then the inclusion of whip-yielding apprentices (who are likely to be less 'safe' in general) in open races should make the observed 'safety' difference between open and apprentice races greater still. That even after this the estimated difference is zero makes the result stronger, not weaker. Having taken a quick look at the paper itself, and as someone with considerable experience in empirical research, I can confirm it's certainly evidence for the view that whip usage doesn't enhance safety and that it follows established scientific methods. That you personally don't like its conclusions doesn't undermine its validity.

Yes, stewards' reports are somewhat subjective, but hard to see why they would be systematically biased in one direction or another. With a big enough sample, this isn't a major issue. And what do you suggest should be used instead? As for the comparison issue, that's precisely the point. It's actually a rather clever, and obvious, identification strategy. Any possible bias resulting from differences between apprentice and senior jockeys would work in the opposite direction — towards finding more dangerous incidents in the (non-whip-yielding) apprentice races. You asked for scientific evidence and were provided with it. Simply dismissing it out of hand, without even reading it, because you don't want it to be right isn't a very convincing argument.

Well, go on then Chief — enlighten us.

Fantastic effort by Majestic Man in the Dullard Cup — made the rest of the field look second rate. Must have appreciated not having Sundees Son sitting outside him.😄

Actually, all I did was quote what you said in this very thread, as well as another live one. Now you've tried to walk it back a bit, which is fair enough, but all that's done is confirm what I suggested: that your racing world-view is "I think trainers and drivers should basically be allowed to behave how they like without interference from rules and that the true enemies of racing are those who seek to publicly hold them to account. Along, of course, with the TAB." On that, I'm afraid, we'll just have to agree to disagree. While it's certainly true that the RIU and TAB are far from perfect, and at times have let racing down badly, the real, and bigger, problems lie at the coalface.

Crikey, have I got this right? You think that: • whip rules should not be enforced because drivers find them "difficult" • alcohol limits for drivers are dumb and should not be enforced (unless the drivers in question are absolutely blotto) • "integrity" is something racing doesn't need to be concerned about • but the TAB offering a single exclusive deal to a big punting group is the end of western civilisation as we know it! Which is a collection of views you're perfectly entitled to hold, but one that, imho, vividly illustrates why racing is a sunset industry.

I don't really disagree with any of this, but the whole thing still seems like a bit of an over-reaction. It's just one race, and offering an exclusive contract is hardly unprecedented in wider financial circles — try getting your bank to offer you the same deals as those they give to inter-bank traders and trading professionals.

I know it must seem like this to harness industry insiders, but it misunderstands van Beynen's role. He's an *investigative* reporter, which means he's employed to, well, dig up dirt. And the sad fact is that harness not only keeps showing him where to dig, but hands him the shovel as well. Blaming him for harness's poor public image is like blaming Bob Woodward for Watergate. At the risk of being stoned, I'd also point out that van Beynen is far and away the best journalist remaining at The Press (admittedly that's not saying much these days, but he'd have stood out in an earlier era as well). If he thinks Harness should be hounded, then those involved in the industry should ask themselves why, and what they should do about it. Continuing down the same path will just provide him with more ammunition.

This is a good question, to which I don't know the answer (although I can think of a few, none of them that convincing). But as JJF has pointed out, there is (apparently) a forum on which it can be directed to the CEO TAB. Which would seem the appropriate place to ask it.