curious

No WD. Not at all. What I am arguing is that the rationale for synthetics with respect to reducing abandonments was based on scheduling more winter races/meetings on the AWTs where they are much less likely to suffer weather related abandonments rather than so that last minute transfers of abandoned grass meetings could occur. That scheduling is already in place at 2 of the 3 AWT venues this winter with Awapuni presumably to come on stream next winter. I have already shared my thoughts at the time here and elsewhere on the PGF funding, particularly of Riccarton. The PDU was clearly not happy as you suggested, to fund it stating that ""The proposed Riccarton Park synthetic racing track is located in Christchurch City, which is ineligible for PGF funding," The PDU "assessed that the project did not meet the PGF's criteria" and it was "unclear as to the extent the proposal would increase productivity", despite likely benefits of job retention and security for industry workers" Unfortunately (from a taxpayer perspective), due to some political shenanigans of the coalition government and a very fuzzy process, the funding eventually materialised from a subsequent application. So, now we have them, we need to make the best use of them that we can and somehow ensure they are well maintained. Aside from the racing they certainly are a great training asset.

The application to the PGF clearly did not argue anything about transferring meetings. It actually gave as a rationale on the reduction of abandoned meetings: Abandonments avoided through a combination of increased meetings on Synthetic surfaces and improvements to efficiency of scheduling.

I agree that abandoned meetings were used as a justification but my take on that was that meetings on the AWTs once in place were much less likely to be abandoned, not the suggestion that John Allen makes there about transferring grass meetings to AWTs. I think that meeting abandonments will in fact decrease for that reason once the AWTs are all up and running and I agree with John Allen's comment that for that purpose they needed to be built closest to the main horse populations.

I don't know where that idea comes from Huey. I went back and had a look at some of the announcements but can't find anywhere that is suggested. What was suggested is that meetings programmed for AWTs are much less likely to be abandoned due to weather and therefore overall abandonments should be reduced once more winter racing is programmed on the AWTs. I'm not sure that transferring scheduled grass meetings to an AWT would be feasible or pragmatic anyway, except perhaps from the grass track at the same venue as the AWT. Riccarton is the only one in that position at the moment.

To me that argument is totally illogical, at least if you only use it in the winter. Most horses racing at that time of year are obviously winter gallopers, slower types generally needing heavier tracks to be able to keep up. Transferring races from heavy grass tracks to an AWT where they are running 1.09/1.22 and change is not going to be any use to them at all and once connections work that out they are just going to scratch many of them upon transfer. It may be a somewhat specialist surface but is generally more likely to suit firm track horses that can run time. As far as back up is concerned it therefore seems more likely that the AWTs would be a better back up for abandoned summer meetings, not winter ones.

It's hard to think of a NZ card that I would get up for 3 hours in the middle of the night all week to watch and it is definitely little to do with the stakes which are an obsession here.

The problem may be that shortly there won't be anything for the haves to have.

This seems grossly unfair to those who renewed and paid for licences early. Presumably, the credit will be refundable for those who do not renew for the 23-24 season? See above. "The licence renewal fees for the 2022-23 racing season will be funded by NZTR. Those who have already renewed their licences will receive a credit for the next season."

You can if if you are superb judge of pace. https://loveracing.nz/RaceInfo/50593/8/Race-Detail.aspx

Diamond Girl another example last week. Last early. Not much pace. Kept going forward 3 and 4 wide the whole way. Wins well.

Only had 4 runners on the coast in my life for a win and 3 placings. Most recent raced on the pace. The other 3 settled last and ran home. That's on 3 different tracks including the cack hander.

Ryan Elliot's ride on Masetto the other day a good example. No pace on. Went forward at the 1000 3 wide. Flat from the 700. Best horse wins.

I'm afraid I'm not that clever Huey and don't spend a second trying to figure out how a race will be run, what time, where horses might settle or anything like that. There are other clever punters however who do that very well.

THE MOTIVATOR (BB Hong) - Became awkwardly placed near heels passing the 900 metres and when being steadied shifted out clipping a heel blundering and unbalancing the rider, shifting outwards abruptly making firm contact with HIGHLAND FLING which was taken out onto SURCHARGE with HIGHLAND FLING clipping a heel and falling dislodging rider J Laking. HIGHLAND FLING (J Laking) - Crowded clipping a heel and falling dislodging its rider passing the 900 metres. Underwent a post-race veterinary inspection which did not reveal any obvious abnormality.

Maybe, or maybe a horse behaviour education issue. Sometimes the brakes or steering don't quite do what they are supposed to.

Exactly. From my data, what tends to happens once that perception establishes is that trainers tend to line up more front running type horses at those venues making it more likely that the best horse in any race is a front-runner. Therefore, it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. The good thing from a punting perspective is that means that on occasion when the best horse is not a front runner, it is much more likely to be at value while still just as likely to win.

Well, I don't see it that way. I actually do quite well betting at Ruakaka I think partly because of that belief meaning horses expected to lead being overbet. I backed 3 winners there yesterday, a good day and only one of the 3 led. I tend to think that so called leader biases are more likely because of the way races are run than anything to do with the track. As to my other points, if you believe that the track has a leader bias, why would you take a horse there that can't lead? That doesn't make sense. It would be the same as taking a horse that doesn't like heavy tracks to race in a bog at Trentham for example or if a punter bet on one. It's the nature of the game to try and race and back horses on suitable tracks isn't it?

I'm curious what makes you think it has a leader bias? If it does, so what? That should be evident to owners, trainers and punters? Why would it be a problem if it's just the nature of that track?

That may be true on a month by month or annual interim basis but Tim Mills originally said estimates were 55-60,000 per year for the AWT maintenance but he was clear that excluded amortising the cost of the prospective complete relaying at the 12 year point, which might perhaps add another 100k per year.

That should do it. I'm curious to know whether numbers training have increased at either Cambridge or Riccarton subsequent the addition of the AWTs. Any info on that for Riccarton Freda? Or Cambridge anyone? I can see that Riccarton now probably does need 600 in work to bring their training operation into the black, especially with the additional costs of maintaining the AWT. But as noted, where the heck would the extra 400 come from?

Must be a mistake. Increases for the period of 3 April until 26 August 2022: Feature Days – Open - $32,500 to $35,000 R74 - $27,500 to $30,000 3&4YO - $25,000 to $30,000 R65, MAAT, 2YO - $22,500 to $30,000 Maiden - $10,000 to $15,000 https://loveracing.nz/News/36862/NZTRBoardsgrowthplanlauncheswithstakesincreasesandinfrastructureboost.aspx

Up 4% on what?

I don't recall him ever riding at Waverley but I could be wrong.

I wonder how many cigars it took him to get to 86?