curious

It's only NOT "abuse" and "cheating" based on flawed definitions. You asked and that's my opinion.

They can't see the whip infringements on the clearest of days, so they'd love that to give them another excuse to allow the abuse and cheating to continue.

I think that's plain wrong. Many of them tried (ask @Reefton) but "I raced 90" prevailed with the support of the big club beneficiaries who control NZTR.

I'm struggling with that comment. I think that's exactly what they don't understand.

I'll take a shot at that question and probably be shot down but I'd say it's because those clubs are no longer funded in proportion to what the product they produce generates and they have no funding provided for infrastructure maintenance and development because the NZTR leadership have wasted all that on stakes.

The NZ Racing Board (now TABNZ), if that's what you mean, operated the TAB. I'm not clear what that has to do with NZTR operating costs?

https://www.dazn.com/en-NZ/home

I think that's because a lot of horses can't because of the camber? They can't get round the corner at full speed.

I might have dreamed it but I thought I saw or heard that somewhere. Don't think it's ever in the guide as it's a pop-up.

Where did you see that? Supposed to go live about 2.15 I thought?

Except it's reportedly 6.3m to 13m over 10 years if I'm reading correctly. Meanwhile, cumulative inflation about 35%

I think his figures exclude special projects funding which is not really an operating expense. It's a transfer of funds to a contingency reserve and strategic capital pool.

On the other side of the ledger, one major cost at least, has been moved off the code financials and that is what is now the RIB.

So in the last decade NZTR operating costs have gone from $2200 per race to $5400 per race. How could this happen? It is not producing any positive outcomes is it? It's surely not sustainable? https://www.theoptimist.site/author/thepessimist/

Looks like yours has too @Huey lol!

Could this race overshadow the Melbourne Cup? Sold out. 50,000 capacity on course. TAB reporting turnover to date double last year. I'm intrigued. Might even watch it live for the first time.

I guess because they have experienced synthetic tracks that have not been properly maintained and prepared, so fair enough. A lot of those are using sand and dirt tracks instead though which are probably worse.

Yes for racing.

Yes, an odd comment from Ellis when synthetics are significantly safer than grass.

You are the one nit picking. I said one grass training track. The course proper is not used for training, just trials sometimes and racing. There are 250-300 horses in work there. You said that TA bring their 2yos up on grass tracks. It seemed a reasonable question to ask how that might work at Cranbourne. I'm not knocking Cranbourne as a training facility. I think it's excellent. In fact I might send a horse there later in the year.

I understood that they had stopped the inducements but could be wrong.

That only shows one grass track aside from the course proper doesn't it?

I'm not sure. They may stay but not bet so excessively unless they are excluded or attracted by some unregulated off shore outfit?

I found a few things quite interesting in this report. One was that sportsbet have agreed to stop using commissioned VIP managers who offer significant inducements to get and keep the biggest losing customers betting. I'm guessing that was part of the settlement arrangement with Austrac. You'd think that might mean that Entain will have to do the same since all the remaining claims involve the actions of VIP managers and those sort of inducements without appropriate checks as to where the customer money was coming from. Another surprising figure is that 2/3 of bookie revenue comes from 2% of customers. That is presumably primarily those big losers that have VIP managers. If Entain does reach a similar agreement and/or if Australia implements the review recommendations, I wonder if similar will happen here?

I don't get a paywall at the above link?