curious

Any updated thoughts on that now @Thomass?

As I've said above, the point is to confirm the track condition at that stage of the day.

I would assume so.

Page 2 of 2 A Club must submit fully completed Race Meeting Track Information Sheets to NZTR ahead of each meeting as per the times outlined at the bottom of that document. A Club must ensure that the Racecourse Manager or their delegate has inspected the track in person both 48 hours and 24 hours before the start of the race meetings and again by 6.45am on race morning. A Club is encouraged to arrange track gallops on the course 48 hours prior to the race meeting. A Club must arrange for a track gallop on the course on the morning of the race meeting to reconfirm the declared track rating, unless this is not practical

They don't gallop in front of the stipes. It's before track conditions are confirmed. Can't say I've ever seen it not done or that someone cant tell me who rode them so I can get an opinion. but it might be difficult at the likes of Trentham.

Also that losers (most punters) have more wins and lose more slowly.

I'm sure they must have. It's mandatory, though that is to confirm track condition. It's not much use for confirming track safety 6 hours later. I've never seen them gallop horses prior to the first unless it's a trial or planned exhibition gallop.

Stakes levels and turnover do have a direct correlation in my view. At least they did last season.

Sorry, for clarity that should read optimise the turnover to stakes ratio (which in turn will optimise overall turnover).

That would've been early morning, 6am ish.

As MF reported. Prior to Race 1 some of riders expressed concerns with sections of the track after several rain showers prior to the beginning of the meeting. A track inspection team of Stewards and riders inspected those areas of the track and following this inspection riders then met independently before advising Stewards that in their view the meeting should proceed.

Too late now. You should have said earlier.

My only criticism, how did even one race get run on that track? I accept that it was showery and weather may have altered conditions near to racetime.

The obvious change the data suggests is the redistribution of stakes funding so as to optimise turnover isn't it?

Well, that's the point isn't it. We all have to make our assessments based on the data available. Turnover to stakes IS a valid metric for indicating how we are doing with respect to wagering revenue cf. a major expense variable. So, I don't agree that it's pointless comparing the two and the variability between different days with different stakes inputs.