mardigras

The blinkers wearers often don't see the bird until it is to late. Then bang, and that is often followed by the jockey switching routine. The bird rule doesn't apply to blinker wearers, when they win.

I especially like the blurb about Sandown. Rail is in the true position as it was at the last meeting. Sometimes a jockey will switch horses during the race. The leader can win here. When seagulls are around, beware as your horse may take fright so best to have your mount steered along the part of the track where there are less birds.

I certainly like punting them, after they've won as well.

Why do they need all the fluff/opinion. And not just put out the facts. Must be catering for those punt by numbers, punters.

You know this how? You've done a study on horse response to the whip? Whip causes horses to not run as well. France as per the topic, allow 5 strikes. So 5 strikes makes a difference. Yeah sure. They run for 2 miles and then suddenly they run better/faster because of 5 strikes with the whip. I'm not sure who is kidding who. Our rules are 19th century. Just look at jumps racing here. Horses persevered with that are out of contention and beaten.

Why. Why wouldn't they bother. What impact do you actually think the whip has? I don't know what you mean by larger punters - and I certainly don't bet with the TAB. My subjective view of the NZ TAB, there wouldn't be any larger punters betting with them. So changing the whip rules would have no effect since they're not there now.

I'd happily bet with no whips allowed at all. I'd expect most would.

Stop being a total loser and a total dickhead.

Good stuff. At least we can see who is prepared to put up his own ideas before the races. The resident 'writer' is too scared to do that because he's totally useless and a fraud.

as often is, a top day of racing, but never easy.

So these are John's four - what about some from you? Or were you planning to take credit for them if they did well, and if they didn't, just say they were someone else's selections?

I don't know. But I think the ground is pretty soft in the UK and over 20% of their races are won by 0.2L or less. Amazing to think that that many races could be decided by under one rating point less being given to the second placed horse in any of their handicap races - according to you. Actually - around 37% of handicap races would change as to the winner based on your claims if the handicappers had made just a single point adjustment difference in favour of the second horse. Not to mention all the 3rd,4th,5th placegetters that would win if given a 1.5L leg up.

I expect 0.2L is ample given the number of races won by 0.2L or less.

They certainly have done a good job of bastardising racing. Well done France! Let's introduce discrimination in order to combat supposed discrimination.

Nope, the idea is stupid and an insult. You seem to want to use racing as a vehicle to change aspects of a countries behaviour/views. Why not change the behaviour/views at the country level? You're happy to stuff the principles of racing in order to ultimately have no effect on a country's views. I don't arb. But then, you are so simple, you can't even work that out.

Simply not possible. Harassed yes, humiliated, no.

If you don't think that the idea is an insult to women, I can't help you.

As I said, you like things simple. You'd be in favour of NZTR paying Karaka Millions $1m towards restricted races. Keeps the breeders happy, they keep breeding. Keep them racing. If they go good, the rest will moan, funding will go, then it's all good. Sound familiar?

So you want to stuff racing due to cultural gender issues? Getting more female jockeys to participate might be a worthwhile idea. This way is not. It is bastardising racing (not to mention an insult to women).

This shit does my head in. It's NZTR, Thomass, Newmarket rolled into one.

So sort them out. Not make crap decisions. Don't right a wrong with a wrong.

Yes, is a total joke.

Nope, never said that. But with Newmarket, you have to keep things very simple and never look at the full picture. Things like revenue are best keep out of any discussion he is involved in.

Maybe he knows his stuff. But he is still wrong if he thinks a bet has takeout deducted from it. I've done no backtracking. I don't have to, I just produce the racing rules. And the rest just make stuff up. There's nothing difficult about this. Which highlights how sites like this bring people in (like you now) that think things because they've never bothered to read the rules. But if you can show me the backtracking, please do.

Yep, for that small inconsequential period. I thought the TAB was a going concern. And over a year, if you keep taking more from other punters, you seem to think they'll just continue fronting up with the money. That's naive. The annual report will tell you it doesn't happen. Next you'll be telling me that if I bet $10 million on the tote this year, the TAB gross profit is going to go up by $1.5 million, even if I turned that $10 million into $10.5 million. Now that is funny. By the way, when I said you were wrong, that was in regard to saying that taking 15% of a pool is the same as saying that you have contributed 15% to the TAB revenue from your bet. It isn't a confidence thing. It's a fact. That is not correct. If you can't understand the difference, there is little point having further discussion on it. If you are right, please show me where it states the TAB is deducting the takeout from my bet.