mardigras

I love that rule. Because in general they are referring to 'negatives'. However, if you take the rule seriously, every trainer would be charged at every horse start. This is about a future event, not something that has happened in the past that may affect the performance of the horse. According to you, being 3 wide may affect the performance of the horse. Running over a different distance than before, may affect the performance of the horse. Running on a different track, may affect the performance. But what is clear, no matter how much information you get, it won't affect the performance of your punting, loser.

I'm still yet to read what this has to do with racing integrity. Probably because it has nothing to do with racing integrity. If trainers want to share information because they think it may help retain punters and their betting, good on them. If they don't, that should be their choice. But it isn't an integrity function.

Cheers chief. Not good situation for racing. More perhaps to come.

I'm still waiting to read what the integrity issue is that isn't already covered under the rules of racing. Anyone? Such a big issue supposedly. How is it an issue for racing integrity?

Good to see that just because other organisations do stupid things, you think NZ should do them also.

Bad luck for trainers then. I don't see many complaining in Europe.

Because they've listened to too many stupid people like you. Explain one aspect of change in tactics which is related to race integrity?

Can you give us the number/percentage of black type in Ireland. And the same for NZ and Oz. Cheers. SW&P may be poor, but no worse than NZ handicapping. And as I said, all black type should be WFA since the idea of black type is to find the best horse. 'Iconic' handicaps can run for whatever money they like, but there is zero point in black type handicap racing.

I hope you don't run a business that way. You're now suggesting they aren't employed to do a job already and that you can just add extra work to staff and it doesn't cost you, because you think they're doing sfa most of the time. I wouldn't want to work for you. Why would you want a unit tasked with racing integrity to administer something that has zero to do with racing integrity? Why not ask them to bake you some scones if they're doing sfa most of the time. Or maybe run some face painting for the kids at the races.

Who pays for the trainer's time? Who pays for the investigation time? Nothing comes for free. There is always a cost. Maybe I'll give a trainer a horse to gallop. He's already doing that for another. Won't cost me anything.

Clearly to you. Not to me. Weather can have dramatic consequences with 2yo's especially. Good to know these things, although you still haven't shown us how they help with punting.

It's a shit thread then? Why don't you just not read it? And any others along with you. Can you tell me, at which point did it become a shit thread?

Like you comparing a race where the horse had given up with a race where it hadn't. Next. And I hope you don't consider those times 'proof'. That's proof that Lisa Allpress made her run faster than the start before then. Give us proof, not supposition.

They already do that, and if you look at the cost of the RIU, the industry certainly pays for it. Change of tactics has no relationship with integrity. Only in your useless mind. An industry struggling, and you want owners to pay even more.

0.5 in a handicap race. To be effective, they should consider running races with a top weight around 62 down to 52. 1 point per kilo or similar. And proper handicapping of performance.

I'd estimate about $10 per notification. Someone has to pay, so I guess the poor owner can just cough up some more. 3 - 4 minutes of time from the trainer and the steward each. Yep, $10 easily. Not even counting monitoring/checking the outcome of the change. And what will the industry get back from that. Your last line - sfa. I'm pretty confident that if the rule exists, they will have to monitor it. Any that don't comply, more time. More expense.

On your simple basis then, she ran faster every other start. Since per 100m, she was faster in every start than she was in the last one. Which I would say means she was running faster. So, no, she didn't run FASTER.

He can't prove anything. Just pulls shit out of his backside. It's all speculation. There is no evidence she ran faster, and if there was, I'd be more inclined to say it was because of Lisa Allpress. The horse may just run better for her.

And there shouldn't be any black type handicap racing. What a joke that is, albeit not funny.

And as a system, it's certainly not as stuffed as the handicapping one.

Don't see anything wrong with it. Trainers of horses entering know the rules. Next you'll complain about WFA.

More post race stats I see. Can you do this pre race. Post race is just bollocks. You do that well.

Your statement was wrong. End of story. Just like usual

Yes Sandpiper - a trivial fix. But alas, there are many things that are not accurate or poor from a UI perspective. NZ customers shouldn't have been expected to beta test this site. Whilst some may claim there are many software companies that will use customers to beta test, that Is generally by choice, not forced upon the entire customer base.

You mean like O'Reilly Cyrus getting blinkers on first time in the Karaka Million as the 2nd fav. And you raved about it (along with your raving of the hot fav). Both smashed. It's hilarious that every horse you actually have ever put up with blinkers on first time. Not a single one of them has won. But they do alright after the races when you post them. Even on this site, 1 horse that you actually put up pre race with blinkers on first time. Loser. Not bad. This thread has shown you up to be a fraud. Anyone claiming the things you do would easily put some selections up pre race. The fact you don't is very telling.