Doomed

It actually did make more sense than most of the others. The Feilding track was sold for good money because there was demand for it to be used for housing. The money was supposedly to be used to improve Awapuni. Unfortunately Awapuni just pissed it all away, which is certainly a lesson to us all. Many of the other closed tracks such as Motukarara, Rangiora, Waikouaiti, Blenheim, Hokitika, Winton, Wyndham and many others appear to have achieved nothing at all.

Some Aussie group 1s are a bit suspect these days due to all the distorting races. That Tancred field last week was a mere shadow of the race in its earlier years. In NZ people would be saying it should lose its group 1 status.

That does tend to indicate a consolation format rather than divided equally. So there is still no indication why some are consolation and some are equal.

My own assessment is that there seems to be one rule for the SI and another rule for the North. No one has been able to add anything to disprove that.

It is the modern way. Rugby seems to be following the same path.

I always find it a shame that no one from NZTR ever comes on here and interacts with people to clarify some of the simpler questions. I'm sure there is a really simple answer to this query that someone could answer in a sentence or two. And it may make total sense. There seems to be a total unwillingness to interact with real racing enthusiasts. It creates a them and us syndrome.

Where do you suggest this quality will come from?

Winning a Group 1 in NZ probably wrecked her value.

The problem with running at Addington is that it looks terrible with 2 people and 3 dogs sitting in the stands. At least Timaru should get a better crowd and a bit more atmosphere.

Good to see the big award go to a couple of battlers. An inspiration to us all.

Probably the best $25,000 open race we have seen for a while. Dare I say it, better than many of the $50,000 open races that go around.

I don't follow that logic at all. The Riverton race could easily have been split into two even fields, both at $40,000. Likewise the Puke race could have been split into a higher and lower division. The lower division would have started at rating 62 and been run for $25,000. My point is that someone decides to either split them into two even fields with the same stake, or split them into two races based on ratings with different stakes. I am fully aware that when they run with two different stakes the lower staked race has a lower rated top weight. I was asking how they decide which approach to take.

I don't really see any problem with the Pearl series. The races seem to be reasonably well spread and mostly at lower grade meetings so it gives an astute trainer an opportunity to pick up a few extra dollars for their owners. It all helps, and seems to be much better than having one race with a big stake.

I find some of the intricacies of racing rules etc quite fascinating. This one has always interested me. In the SI when there are heaps of noms at a feature meeting, which often happens as the programming is so bad, and they magnanimously decide to split a race into two the second race usually runs for a reduced stake. For instance Riverton last Saturday where one rating 65 1,600m raced for $40,000 and the other for $25,000. In the NI both of the split races seem to race for the same original higher stake. For instance this weekend at Pukekohe where both 65 1,600m races run for $55,000. Would the club be putting in the extra $30,000 so the second race isn't run for the usual $25,000?

I seem to recall HRNZ already fires $100,000 or so into the $1m race, so they are probably already putting some into the trot as well. I haven't seen the races mentioned anywhere, but I presume there is quite a lot of excitement in the harness world? When and where are the races on? I'm in Auckland next week, I could pop along to Alex Park to have a look, although I suppose tickets are all sold out.

It is appallingly badly written. You wonder how much the author is paid and how much their superior who proof-read it and approved it is paid. It may not seem important to some people, but surely a more professional image is expected from people charged with running a multi million dollar industry. It really is hard to have much confidence in their competence. Just one totally random example: "Un-retirement of horses We believe due to the increase in stake money have noted an increase in horses being unretired and are in need of a Return to Racing Policy." It is an incredibly sloppy look.

Still one of my great regrets. I was never even short listed. Looked like a lot of fun.

Legarto hasn't really come up this season, like many of our 3yos over recent years. Seems to have lost some of that brilliance. Still done ok though. Won that $500,000 bonus for placing in a couple of races, and won the Dyke. Probably a safer option than heading to Aussie earlier. Lets hope she bounces back next season.

Perhaps follow the harness racing approach, where maidens race for higher stakes than winners. Certainly an unusual approach, but must be working as harness racing is booming countrywide.

I was just thinking some of the races would be struggling if it wasn't for the Pitmans boosting the numbers. Some of these types of meetings are really missing the late Paul Harris.

With all the gimmick races going around it would be nice to see a race restricted to SI based jockeys. Possibly even a race for SI apprentices. Are there enough SI apprentices to do that?

I agree totally. And when they do get a meeting to ride at half the field is ridden by carpetbaggers.

Usually.

Yes, I was just about to say those are Peter McKenzie's colours. Possibly Mr Illusion.,

Not really my style TAB. I don't mind your posts. You often put forward an interesting viewpoint. It would be a pretty boring and pointless place if we all had identical opinions and weren't open to listening to others with divergent opinions.