curious

Entain will no doubt stay but whether or not they can generate enough profit to sustain funding for racing in 4 more years at even half current levels is another question.

I agree. There's no reason.

Scandinavia is a small corner of the racing world – yet when it comes to the farcical whip debate once more dominating headlines in Britain, perhaps it is worth looking to the Nordic region to find a meaningful example. Back in 1986, when I was publishing Scanform, a form book covering all races in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, a ban on the use of the whip was introduced in one of these jurisdictions (Norway). It was a political decision, made by the Ministry of Agriculture – and it was irreversible. Like the majority of racing professionals, I was convinced the change would cause problems and be detrimental to the sport. How wrong I was. The change actually helped save the sport in a country where it has been up against it on several snowy fronts for more than a century. Without any question, the prevailing feeling at the time was that races staged without use of the whip would lead to fluky, less formful results with horses underperforming and showing little consistency. As the ban came into force in Norway, the whip was still allowed in Sweden and Denmark. Thus we so-called experts also thought that horses would show improved form when shipped from Norway to compete in the neighbouring countries – and others might be reluctant to put in a good effort at the finish when returning to whipless events at home. We were assuming these things – and we had a lot of support, particularly from riders, though the whip ban had come to stay, both in Thoroughbred racing and on the much bigger harness racing circuit. However, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Slowly but surely we had to admit that we were badly mistaken. We had made assumptions based on theories, not facts, nor on any tests. As the seasons went by the new rules were put to the test. Horses showed the same consistency as in the past, favourites were winning at about a 30% clip, like they had always done – and what about those shippers we thought would run so much better when being whipped? Well, in short, hardly any of them did. Yes, there were a few examples of horses running better in Sweden than they did in Norway – but so few that we had to confess; we were probably dead wrong on this point as well. That a handful of horses did better at Täby Galopp, a flat US-style oval, than around the undulating Øvrevoll, could easily have more to do with the track configurations than with the whip. Handicap figures showed that the form was just as reliable in races without the whip. There was absolutely no evidence supporting the theory that jockeys need to use whips to make horses run as fast as they can.

Didn't hurt turnover in Norway. Or Sweden. Or France or Germany where there is a 5 strike per race limit. Did you not read the article I posted above?

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Good question. I can think of no reason nor find any evidence.

Also means that tracks would get a good safety test at trial speeds before racing gets underway.

Thanks. I'm a member if you need another vote I won't hold my breath though. It does seem a low cost solution given stipes, gates, cameras, commentator etc. are already there. Down here in Canterbury, assuming regular jumpouts get underway now at Rangiora, the combination would be a reasonable outcome.

I reckon so.

Where are or what are the "much improved signs"?

Yes but they could do the same thing before grass meetings routinely. From memory, the CJC recently did, although they won't run full trial meetings on the grass track.

The other thing that it raises is the possibility of running 2 or 3 trial heats on race days like this before the meeting but do so on a regular basis. That might mitigate the dearth of grass trials and thereby reduce owner costs. Because full sets of gates are available larger heats can also be run where required.

Well they've ended up with 17 noms for 2 heats before the races tomorrow. 2yo heat was deleted.

A priority for this year in the SOI. One of the 5 main focus areas is "ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE REVENUE GROWTH" Under that, a key strategy is: Develop a flexible and responsive strategic planning process to optimise race programming, pattern races and stakes in order to maximise wagering revenue. I wonder where they are at with that.

Yes, that was my point really. Keep the premier level and merge the industry and feature levels into one, with stakes adjusted accordingly. That would be a start to sorting the programming issues and wouldn't cost a cent.

No I don't. They've ignored the issue for years and it goes back to well before the AWT's were even mooted, though that seems to have worsened the programming issues along with the persistence with tiered racing as it is currently structured.

I can't see them spinning anything at all.

At least they have the Foxton option next week.

Fair point. It's not like the maiden fields are oversubscribed and you'd need starting points, though some will need trials for education. Also begs the question what the inept programmers are doing programming synthetic trials when there is little trainer demand.

Anyone spotted the trial fields for Riccarton tomorrow? Seems to have mysteriously disappeared off the calendar but no notice from NZTR to date.

Probably doesn't make any difference anyway and it's definitely painful and cruel. https://theconversation.com/10-reasons-to-stop-whipping-racehorses-including-new-research-revealing-the-likely-pain-it-causes-149271

Certainly is cruel. And as far as I know doesn't make them go any faster than they can. If you have some evidence suggesting otherwise I'd be interested to consider it.

I did get it

Did you mean proceed?