Noodlum

No my reading of the article is that NZTR/RITA are doing the review. Presumably ALL punters are paying for it.

What's the bet that the consultants reports are not published! FFS we can't even see turnover figures anymore!!!! Does Hughes play golf? If she does that puts the three of them together most weeks on a course just north of Petone? Hint: NOT a racecourse.

What do Saundry, Holden and Hughes actually do? Collectively with salaries, perks and expenses they suck more than $1m out of racing. For what? What do we get?

That's not correct. Country clubs subsidise the big three - Auckland, Cambridge and Addington.

Neither applied consistently. But that aside which behaviour had the potential to have the most negative outcome? Did CJ extinguish anyones chances?

He who casts the first stone gets it thrown straight back at them that's my philosophy! Yes I do have an agenda - to see consistency in the application of the rules. If the rules are going to be applied then they should be applied to everyone! A classic case is the example that started this topic. Why wasn't Telfer asked about Jack Ryan? A Junior Driver's explanation was sufficient. Where you piss me off Galah is you are quick to make inferences and play the holier-than-thou but are INCONSISTENT in doing it! 99% of your posts are along the lines of ......"oooh there's smoke over there....."

Apparently so!

Inconsistency AGAIN! 3 days for ending a horses chances in a way that could have had worse outcomes in terms of harm. How many days did CJ get again?

Yes. It is their job. If the RIU can find time to hide in hedges then why not chase up drivers and trainers if the issue is important! The irony in this particular case is the boring pole completely detaching from one of Purdon's horses causing some disruption to those horses having to pace over it. He should have been fined for that regardless of how it happened! The other issue (the biggest issue) I have is the inconsistency. Did they ask Telfer the trainer of the favourite Jack Ryan in the first race what he was going to do? No. Instead they accept the explanation of a Junior Driver! Go figure!!!!! Obviously Blair Orange's explanation wasn't good enough! If you are going to get all antsy about questioning Trainers about "what they are going to do" then be consistent about it.

Pardon wasn't expected to "attend" just answer the phone or return a call. As pointed out the stewards weren't particularly proactive at following up soon after. It seems even on the night they couldn't be bothered walking down to the stables! So much for its importance.

Typical sanctimonious self-righteous response from the galah. The RIU are hardly consistent - whats it matter what profile the trainer has? The matter was a nonsense in the first instance.

I can't see how the "new" approach is of any value. From the report there were reasons offered why the horses may have not performed on the night. But how does knowing what a trainer "intends" to do help or even change anything?

Why didn't they ask him at the hearing? Pretty obvious what changes he'd make. Make sure the boring pole is securely attached and remove it from the other. Are there other examples where a trainer has told a Steward what he intends to do to fix a problem on race night? Most trainers I know go home and think about it first.

What was the outcome of the "investigation into the performance" of the two horses?

I didn't deny anything. It is just another way of showing you that what you first quoted is a statistical nonsense at this stage of the season. UDR's are a bit pointless anyway. If you were serious about finding something of statistical significance then you would compare the average UDR's for the top ten for this year vs the previous years you quoted and then compare one individual stable in terms of its current relative performance. I suspect that that type of analysis is beyond you.

Why? Come out and say what you think the reason is!

Which is?

Oh an I see the All Stars are doing better in total Stakes than most.

I'm just saying it's too early to infer any statistical trend. As for your post it's not clear what you are inferring. Can you clarify? Perhaps everyone else has lifted their game.

Is that for the calendar year or since 1 August? If the latter a bit pointless doing a comparison as we are only 6 weeks in. They would only need to achieve their average strike rate for the rest of the year to be above their two lowest years.

Were the pools at Methven commingled?

But if it hasn't gone ahead it hasn't been spent. I would assume that the money is sitting in Treasury's bank account and will be released as required. I imagine there is a lot of planning and environmental consent hurdles to get over first.

Is the breathalyser test evidential or do they take a blood test?

They are the same! Except for not being able to use credit if your visa account has no positive balance.

How many were tested?