curious

Exactly.

It may be the clubs responsibility to provide them, but under bulk funding, it's NZTR's responsibility to fund that.

Don't agree. The whip rules and ensuring that they are enforced is the remit of NZTR as with all other rules.

And pointed at the Everest again next year.

Don't think many would disagree with that but it's one thing recognising it as a bottle neck and another, NZTR doing anything about it. Messara clearly saw it as a problem in 2018 and recommended that over 6 years, through the 25/26 season, we rationalise to 28 tracks and spend $190m upgrading infrastructure at those remaining 28. As far as I can see all that has happened 6 years later is they have hired a consulting group to come up with yet another venue plan.

Were those GPS generated times? What has happened about that data?

Flank use is not explicitly prohibited by the HK rules.

Old? It was verified in that race wasn't it? Canheroc was beaten 7.4l and 1.2 secs. Doubt that had much to do with the 6kg weight difference though.

I see Punters.com described it as "cheeky" noting we only got the front on camera view of the next 1200m start.

Yes. Interesting. I thought it was a top run as I have almost all his steadily improving recovery runs. Top job by the Rogerson team imo.

That's because the useless stipes didn't take any evidence to test @Thomass proposition. How long can it go on?

That sort of shit here goes on all the time, especially early in races, eliminates other horses chances and is ignored or met with a slap on the hand. No wonder that Entain are getting tired of NZTR's performance.

I'd have to see the head on but I think you were the one watching a different race.

@ about 39.15. "If you could change anything in horse racing right now, what would it be?" John Francome: "I'd certainly ban the whip"

Had another look but that's what it looked like to me. Nearly clipped heels though it looked like Cannon Hill also had shifted inwards slightly. Laid in again at the 200, under pressure?

What did they miss?

JMO Gamma, But I think they can try hard without bashing horses and it should be stopped.

G Rooke (SHARP ‘N’ SMART) - Admitted a charge in that he struck his mount eight times prior to the 100 metre mark. After considering submissions the Adjudicative Committee imposed a suspension of G Rooke’s licence to ride in races from the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 31 December up to and including racing on Tuesday 6 January, 5 national riding days and in addition imposed a fine of $2000 Hopefully this shit will stop once they bring in the DQ rule.

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?