curious

Exactly. Lasix has been used to mitigate EIPH damage for decades. Any raceday residual in non-therapeutic or performance enhancing amounts is a nonsense and should not be penalised.

I don't think deduction is a strength of yours Thommo. Possibly because you don't have much to deduct from.

Just to be clear, the NZ figure above is fatal injuries incurred during a race where the horse was euthanised or died on the raceday. The comparable raceday fatal injury for the US is in the 1.3-1.5 range for horses dying within 72 hours of the race where the injury was sustained. When you get through your remedial reading classes Thommo, read the WP article again. You may realise that the 8.3 deaths reported for Baffert is the number of horses that died while in his care in Ca. per 1000 starters during that time, not the number that sustained fatal injuries or death during a race. I doubt the comparable figure is known for NZ and I certainly haven't seen it reported. It could well be higher as that would include horses butchered, shot or euthanised upon retirement from racing. All I was trying to point out is that the WP chart reports data that is totally meaningless and from which no conclusion can be drawn with respect to the difference between the trainers listed. It is typical media distorted sensationalism for the gullible like you Thommo.

.73 deaths per 1000 starts

Maybe. I make the significance of the difference in death rates between Baffert and Ponde to be a P-value = .99. Between Baffert and O'Neill it's .598 FYI, in case you didn't pass high school maths which seems likely, a p-value <.05 is considered moderately significant. <.01 solidly so. This is nowhere within cooee of that. Just meaningless nonsense. The only drug conviction of any count was close to 50 years ago.

And the Washington Post needs to get their statistician to recheck the levels of significance of the variance in their deaths per starter list which I note are conveniently omitted from the article.

Agree but whether that is a good idea or not, while to be encouraged everything being equal, is a matter of professional judgement.

Long established in my view.

Yes, parents and guardians have rights but that does not include making decisions for children that they are capable of making for themselves. Would you insist as a parent on say your 14yo daughter having an abortion if she chose not to? You are living in some other era.

"Under the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights 1996, the Health and Disability Commissioner1states “a child may consent themselves [to health treatment] if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and maturity to understand fully what is proposed”. van Rooyen, A., Water, T., Rasmussen, S., & Diesfeld, K. (2015). What makes a child a'competent'child. The New Zealand medical journal, 128(1426), 88-95.

Well the HDC doesn't agree with you nor a 15 year old opinion.

Again it's the law and you can consent to have an abortion/termination at any age. If you are able to understand the nature and consequences of a termination, health professionals must maintain your privacy and not tell your parents.

You may disagree but that's the law and has been since the early 80s. There are no doubt dodgy doctors as there are dodgy lawyers, dodgy plumbers and dodgy horse trainers etc. There are also childrens' rights and the Gillick test which requires a high level of understanding and decision making competence.

Of course. The Gillick principle surely applies as with all health matters. But I don't really see how anyone, child or adult, can be considered to be giving or have given informed consent for this when at the best, they are not given accurate information, especially since to a large extent no-one has that.

At this stage it would seem to make sense to wait until the AWT is up and running as an alternative surface before renovating the main turf course, especially given the reduction in alternative venues to accommodate that.

Yet they raced on the inside all day at Wangers on Saturday I think. And it came back from an H10 at nom time to a S8 on the day.

Dry and Christchurch aren't a good mix at the moment.

Good it was only 2 million I suppose.

Worse, when I go to the link and enter my renewal and entity numbers I get this. 3 attempts. Any ideas?

Not good so far. Clicked the 3 line https emailed licence renewal link and it took me to the Loveracing homepage. The alternate renewal link below works but isn't live because of a full stop at the end. You'd think someone would check the functionality of these things before they send them out.

That net revenue generated by TR continues its long term decline and thereby the direct funding the industry generates for itself. Pretty hopeless situation as far as I can see and with escalatinig operating costs, particularly from the likes of the AWTs

Nope. Dead wrong. Net revenue is the appropriate metric.

That would just exacerbate the disaster. Can you not see that net revenue should be what the codes are rewarded for rather than GBM? Rewarding GBM will almost certainly contract the business.

Exactly. A monocular focus on GBM like JJFlash seems to have is a recipe for disaster such as we have. All successful punters know this. If I have 100 bets at a 20% GBM, that is far worse a bottom line result for me than 200 bets at a 14% margin. It's not rocket science to anyone that understands the wagering business.

What gives you the faint hope?