curious

Did you do all those selections without using Pi?

Don't know what the n is here but looks like my bank would at least last considerably longer if I backed all Hayes runners EXCEPT those with blinkers on first time?

Crap, this is getting complicated. We should have a serious advantage if we can work it out though. I guess you'd have to add in whether or not the jockeys were wearing speed silks or not as well in calculating the wind resistance factor. Is that reported anywhere?

I'd just go with C = 2 x π x √((a2 + b2) ÷ 2) + (1 x barrier draw) for now.

I suppose that would depend on whether the start is on a bend or in a straight and if the latter, how close to the first turn and if the former, how close to the next straight? I think you'll need quite a few more variables in there to get a good approximation. Thommo will probably be able to help though.

Great news that someone in the family passed primary school maths. Why don't you ask her to explain the ecological fallacy to you. I've given up.

And also preferably one that raced 3 wide without cover in its last start, so we can apply the PI formula.

FTF, I'm wondering if we could get him to divide 22 by 7 and keep going till he reaches a rational number. The odds of success would be similar to the chance of him producing any rational ideas but it might keep him occupied for a few days.

No it's not. Pi is a constant.

How are you going with that remedial primary school maths Thommo?

Well done Weasel. Claim on heavy 11 obviously got it in the money.

I'm no lawyer Freda. While that would certainly qualify as misleading in my eyes, I don't think that is included in the application of this condition which seems to refer to the information in the "description" supplied. Elsewhere in the T&C doc, "description", while not specifically defined, refers to the description on the website and I think this condition applies to that only. E.g.: 5.8 You are personally responsible for a bid made by You. You may not retract a bid except for limited circumstances allowed under applicable law, for example, where the Lot does not materially comply with the description provided in relation to it on the Website. So, if that description describes the horse as a racehorse (when it couldn't be because of injury), or 'sound' (when it wasn't), this might apply. I think what was and wasn't said in the buyers due diligence process falls under the buyer's responsibility indicated in my earlier post relating to the Ts and Cs.

Maybe. Anyone else thinking this is already starting to go pear shaped?

Is that because the report will remain embargoed till after then and not much point him turning up if he can't talk about what's in it?

Yeahhh an absolute crack up thanks to Thommo, almost single handedly. Go BOAY.

I'm not disagreeing Thommo, I'm asking for evidence. Did they ask two customers/punters? Did they survey a large number? How did they come to that conclusion? Where's the beef? I know you worked at a chicken joint but you might remember this from your days in Ky.

Freda, I note that there is another provision in the gavelhouse Ts&Cs. You, as Seller: ..... (c) Declare that each Lot meets the description and parentage You supply; (d) Are alone responsible for the accuracy of the information that You supply under clauses 7.2 (a) (b) and (c) and if the information is materially misleading or inaccurate: (i) You fully indemnify Us against any action by the Buyer and any costs and expenses incurred by Us in connection therewith; and (ii) The Buyer is, without prejudice to the other remedies available to the Buyer at law (including to sue for damages or to sue for specific performance), entitled to cancel the sale and to a refund of all purchase monies paid in respect of such Lot from the Seller or from Us if We still hold the same.

Hahahaha!

Don't think he's questioning that. Think he's trusting that is the case. Last I knew David Hayes was a horse trainer. Mardigras is a punter.

That's what I said. It was driven by the HKJC. But where were punters asked about this as you claimed? Have you organised those primary school remedial reading and maths classes yet?

That's because I'm not aware of any evidence that HK punters were even asked and I don't believe a single thing you say and you never provide any evidence for your claims, even when asked. I think the HK Lasix initiative was driven by the HKJC, not punters directly. That is certainly in part because of the HKJC policy of total transparency which is driven by the idea that this will stimulate wagering. I'd be interested to see where HK punters were surveyed on the Lasix matter and what the results were if you have that data.

More bs. I suppose you wouldn't learn this working in a Kentucky Fried even if top equine vets were your customers. They base their fees on the clinical task performed and add on the price of any meds dispensed in the process. I've got 100s of vet bills to prove it. Never mind.

Might be a typo but I think you left the D off PD. The word is devolution.

I also noted that hat Wayne was primarily advocating for more better winter grass tracks in light of his experience with synthetics as a racing surface, and there also seemed to be a strong message that tracks and replacement tracks needed to be within 100kms of the horse population. In fact that all racing should primarily be within that sort of distance. There did seem to be general agreement that synthetics were a good training option but probably not justifiable where good well draining sand tracks were available.