mardigras

The 'researchers' and Thomass. It won't matter what the horses wear.

The 'research', in so far as racing performance, is worthless. But the blinkers on study is going to make great reading all the same.

Yep, under-rated generally. Well done.

Very clear Thomass is wrong. But that is hardly a startling revelation.

Get them to do the same study on the treadmill with blinkers on. Let us know the results. Cheers.

Pretty charts, was Charchi Arcola one of the horses in the sample? barryb, take note of that if you want to back that horse again.

Best you put up the a trial report then, since none of what you wrote states that 1kg in a race equates to anything. What you put up seemed to suggest what difference in oxygen was needed at varying weight over varying distance. I certainly hope there is more than that. Please get them to explain how they determined what speed to run the treadmill at for each horse. Can't wait. Let us know how they decided what speed the horse should run at in order to measure the impact of the weight. You're so stupid, you've gone with a report on physical impact to horse, not performance impact to horse. It's like talking to a 3yo. Put the report up since so far it is evidence of SFA.

wasn't me but I did back him.

I haven't accepted what you claim since In a race, I know it is not the case for horses generally. One out of 50,000 it may be. But I expect I know it for that horse. You do form the way you've been taught. By losers. Which is why you lose. Answer my question. Why wouldn't the horse's that race each other in 1 million instances, not reflect on average what you claim? Surely it would based on your 'evidence'.

I haven't seen the report. Only what you put up. I certainly accept the factual information. It would be the correlation (which I've only seen from you) that is wrong. You certainly cannot correlate oxygen consumption with any form of impact to race day performance. And you cannot correlate treadmill times with any form of impact to race day performance. What you may be able to is correlate energy consumption under controlled situations. Which from a punting perspective is useless. As I would certainly expect it to be easily possible that a horse carrying an extra kilo running flat out on a treadmill to travel more than a length less over 3200m. That 'research' can't help a punter - except for those punters that use it to make money off the punters like you that believe the research related to races.

You really are stupid. I'm not saying the research as such is wrong. It is the relationship with the research and the impact to a horse in a race that is wrong. You know, the impact of weight to a horse in a race. Because there is nothing in the research to support it. Which is why you've been hoodwinked. Which is why you lose. You believe things that don't correlate.

Thanks. I said I needed a good laugh. I read it. And I wept ... for you. I use actual horse performance. On track, for the same horse. You use a treadmill. Stick to your treadmill. I'll stick to winning. I wonder how many races are run with a horse running on a treadmill? Perhaps you could give us those stats, Mr lover of stats. You've been hoodwinked again, and you don't even know it. I especially loved the bit about oxygen consumption. I'll ask you a simple question. If you take two horses that race each other, and then both race each other at their next starts, over say 1 million instances of that, would the theory average out to what you claim in respect of relative performance to relative carried weight? If not, why not? I wouldn't use that method, but it is a simple one across a large sample which takes care of varying scenarios the horse's race under. Real horses, in real races. Since when I punt, I punt on real races, not treadmill races - and I punt before the race starts.

Where have I stated weight is massive? The only time I think weight has any impact is in getting into a race. Which I have mentioned in regards things like getting into the Melbourne Cup. Certainly not while the race is running. Please put up a post from me stating such a thing, outside of the idea that more weight is better as per above.

I do leave it to the experts. I am an expert when it comes to punting, verifiably so. Which is why I call you out on all your trash. I don't question trainers doing what they do. I leave training to them, but we are usually talking about punting, and the two are different topics. Back to your post. You referred to changes about 'allowances' and stated something was already planned. Seems you don't know what. Par for the course with you.

So, be explicit. Which of a to d is going to happen? A) the 3yos are going to be weighted higher B) the 3yos are going to be weighted lower C) the comparison against 'benchmark' weights is going to be removed D) some other option Can't wait to hear. If it's D, please elaborate.

Put up the link to this review. I need a good laugh. My evidence is based around actual horse performance, no guesswork, and is peer reviewed. I don't even consider weight in such a fashion. It is of such low impact, and any such metric is a generalisation anyway. Stick to your stats, the TAB needs you.

Who are you referring to? Hopefully not Cross Counter. Weighted at a point relative to a derby winner 0.5 kilo lighter, 0.5 kilo higher than an oaks winner and 0.5 kilo below a multiple G1, multiple G2 winner. A horse that had won a single G3 race and second in a G2 race. I like the less convictions idea with Cross Counter. A horse that was injured at Werribee, missed a weeks work, never having raced on a track as soft as that before and never over a distance longer than 2400m and UP in grade. That pretty much brings every horse racing into the 'less convictions' category. I'll add those to the 'formula'.

Evidence says he would have still lost. Those without evidence suggest stupid things like 1kg = 3/4L.

Another couple of days of brilliant Flemington racing. Sad about cliffsofmoher. And the rain was extreme which was slightly disappointing. It was easily the most rain I've experienced at the track in the 20 odd years of cup attendance. But wow, the ability to recover so quickly was amazing. As expected, the European horses are just too good, although I thought Our Charles Road ran well - fitness possibly being an issue due to interrupted prep. Godolphin horses have really delivered the entire carnival. Brilliant. I expect we'll see more European 3yos entered from here on in.

I doubt they would do it for any horse. But who owns it should never be a consideration. Given the outcry over there about NH horses, I doubt even more so they would eliminate a NZ/Aus bred horse if it meant a NH horse was next in line.

I'd say Sir Charles Road will get in for sure. Zacada might be a candidate for discretionary removal although they may not exercise that right.

And Red Verdon under an injury cloud.

I have no hangup with gaming agencies. i am simply talking the facts about the assistance the various governments give to the racing industry. Fact 1. The Australian government take from the industry. (Excluding any taxes paid by participants) Fact 2. The NZ government gives to the industry. (Excluding any taxes paid by participants) Direct assistance. NZRB IS direct assistance. Government money, given to the industry. Every time you read the paper and see the stake on offer, think government direct assistance. Does that help. Now you will be able to read about NZ direct government assistance every time you look at the details of a race. As for your other fluff. Who gives a toss. I'm pretty sure NZ and Australian tax payers do similar. They do get it back by way of hospitals, education etc etc. Or do you think the taxes from racing industry people should be special and directed just back to them. So the model in Australia is the governments take from the industry. And in NZ the government gives to the industry. And when a government in Australia decides to take a little less, you think the NZ government should therefore give a bit more. Interesting stance. I know NZ is very heavily sided with massive social welfare, but that is getting ridiculous. Where do I sign up?

Try English remedial classes would be my suggestion.

What has it got to do with tax legislation. It's a business. It has zero to do with tax and everything to do with the business model.