curious

This bloke wasn't bad either of the ones I've seen but sorry RM, she's the best.

Funny. I always thought that John Wheeler, Tony Pike and Kerrin McEvoy were professional trainers or jockeys. This thread is about using down in grade info for punters to make money as you claim they can. Professional punters make money from punting, not riding or training horses. You seem very mixed up these days.

3 wide without cover is often fastest but you are too thick to notice or know that.

The professionals that rubber stamp you Thommo are not professional gamblers. They are wannabe media types that couldn't make a living betting on racing, just like you. So they earn a crust training horses, writing about them, tipping them or whatever. Have you topped up your betting account for the week?

Not well by the look of things. You'd think the dictionary definition would help but I agree it's doubtful he'll understand it. Might need to revert to a lower level remedial reading class.

Yeahh, and I'm also not sure how he accounts for or measures the psychological and behavioural factors associated with the horse's response to being in tight quarters between horses or between a horse and the rail. Presumably, he will have some way of quantifying and adjusting for that as well. Hopefully, we'll get the low down on this before long in relation to one of his post race winning selections.

Yeahh, well that's justThommo. He thinks it's all to do with Pi. Obviously (to most of us), and particularly the European jockeys you refer to, we also know about centrifugal force and inertia. This is way beyond Thommo's remedial math's classes though. That's clear because he keeps running round in smaller and smaller circles until he falls over again in the false belief that's the fastest way home.

I give up. Why?

The jumpers don't have too many options but 17 noms for 3 flat races?

Serendipitously, I'll be there and could go. Probably won't bother though if I don't have the report to digest a couple of days before at least. Be a complete waste of time.

I don't see how we can pose questions about a report we haven't seen. Will that be released prior to the Q&A session so that informed questions can be presented to Winnie and Messara (if in fact the latter is also going to be there)? If not, the whole thing seems a bit pointless.

They need to fix it. There's also the issue of no root development in the new grass. That tells me the track and soil structure is totally stuffed. Love how he talks about churn. Won't be much of that from punters if they keep trying to race on it. The only strategy they seem to have is gallop on it and hope and reseed grass where it didn't root before. I could fix it in 18 months but it needs one of these applied.

No. That description is reserved for Jackson. Think we'll just call him 12th man Rutherford. Wonder if he ever batted or kept on a pitch that had just had 50mms of sand applied.

If I were still riding track work, I can't imagine I wouldn't have noticed 2 inches of sand on the main track, even if riding two or three tracks inside that. The whole thing is completely implausible. The interview simply conspired with the bs and never raised the obvious 'how come no-one noticed?' question.

He's playing much more like the bottom of the order. Maybe 12th man.

I fail to see how no-one could have noticed an application of 2 inches of sand to the centre of the track as you say. If not while it was being applied, surely within 24 hours. If I were getting 4mm of sand applied to my lawn and they put on 50mms, I'd be on the phone no later than daylight the next day. Doesn't add up.

What I don't understand about the Te Rapa fiasco is why, when they realised the sand over-application error, they didn't vacuum it back off and start over?

....and that's about it!

That's not the Rule, just in case you are still having trouble with your remedial reading class. It is a guideline issued as an NZTR directive and it specifically states that it DOES NOT affect the generality of the Rule, which I cited above. The guideline says that there is no numerical limit on the number of times that a horse may be struck in the final 100. It is at the rider's discretion. That does not mean they can be excessively thrashed in breach of the Rule.

Why not? The connections can file an information with the JCA (on a raceday) can't they? The whip rule is clear. Surely there are grounds for a protest if a horse is narrowly beaten by one where there has been excessive use. What rule prevents it? 3) A Rider shall not: (a) use a whip other than a padded whip of a type, make or model specifically approved by NZTR, in a Race or trial (including a jump-out or test for certification purposes) or trackwork; (b) strike a horse with a whip in a manner or to an extent which is: [Amended 1 May 2015] (i) unnecessary (ii) or excessive (iii) or improper; (c) strike a horse forward of its shoulder; and/or (d) during a Race or trial (including a jump-out or test for certification purposes), use or carry more than one padded whip.

Yes. That's the way to do it and the stipes won't do it. The connections need to.

Like Ms Peintour in the Del Mar Oaks in a moment. Surprisingly $61 NZ Tab.

Ran 1.17.4 actually. 9.7 seconds the last 200, if you believe their clock, but never managed to win a Group 1 (from memory). But yes, I think she could actually, even though she's not a 1400m horse. Remember Longchamp is downhill.

I think I saw her telling Hughie that yesterday. "You've gone too soon Hughie. Now we're wasting energy covering all this extra ground. Let's just wait for the 200 when I can see the winning post and we'll go from there. Won't be a problem."

The planes fly both ways RM