curious

A prediction to me, is an informed opinion, NOT a fact, as it hasn't happened.

I agree with that. Retrospectively giving undue weight to a factor that doesn't deserve it is a recipe for disaster. That's where a lot of punter and even trainer believed myths are founded and perpetuated but fraught.

Here's an AI view on that question. AI differentiates between fact and opinion using a combination of techniques, but it’s not perfect. Here’s how it generally works: 1. Source Analysis Fact: Comes from verifiable, authoritative sources (e.g., official statistics, peer-reviewed research, reputable news). Opinion: Often found in editorial content, blogs, or statements attributed to individuals or groups. AI checks metadata, domain reputation, and context clues to classify the source. 2. Linguistic Cues Facts often use objective language: numbers, dates, measurable claims (e.g., “The NZ Derby was won by Zonda in 1997”). Opinions use subjective markers: “I think,” “should,” “best,” “amazing,” or emotionally charged adjectives. AI models are trained to detect these patterns. 3. Cross-Verification AI compares statements against trusted knowledge bases or multiple sources. If a claim is consistent across reliable sources, it’s likely factual. Divergent or speculative statements are flagged as opinion. 4. Confidence Scoring AI assigns a probability score based on evidence strength. High confidence = fact; low confidence or conflicting sources = opinion or uncertainty. 5. Context Awareness Some statements mix fact and opinion (e.g., “New Zealand played well because they dominated possession”). AI splits the factual part (“dominated possession”) from the subjective part (“played well”). Limitations AI can misclassify nuanced language or sarcasm. It relies on training data and source integrity—bias in sources can affect classification.

A lot of bookies already use it don't they, especially for sports? I'd say it's only a matter of time, if it's not already being piloted and refined.

Be interesting to see what happens if the TAB start using AI to do their initial FO market pricing.

To some extent it probably depends which AI you use though they all seem to manage to get things wrong or misunderstood. I wouldn't use any that didn't cite sources. Who won the 1997 NZ Derby Copilot said: Copilot The winner of the 1997 New Zealand Derby was Zonda, a bay gelding sired by Zabeel. He delivered a commanding performance, winning the Derby by an impressive margin of over four lengths.wikipedia+1 Would you like me to also share Zonda’s career highlights and major wins?

Well both La Crique and Legarto are nominated.

This is from @Thomass original example. It was repeated 4 times and on the first occasion the horse clearly reacted by shifting its head to the side. I don't see how you could possible argue that this is accidental.

I don't see anything ambiguous about it. I've never noticed an issue with that rule as far as application of the whip to the shoulder goes. May be post a pic of an example where that is being breached so we can see what you mean?

Then you should read the rules before you claim they are a mess, though I agree that they are. No use forward of the horse’s shoulder or near its head.

There's nothing wrong with it is there?

I suspect this is what Entain see and have had enough of. NZTR have persisted for at least 2 decades while the industry shrinks. Sports meanwhile continue to invest in improving their product. https://bitofayarn.com https://bitofayarn.com

And should get it in my view. Especially now that sports seems to be driving TAB revenue growth with racing making little contribution. Racing's claim to the lions share is really only historic, though Winnie is protecting it.

They want more now.