mardigras

Nope, I'm not a breeder or a trainer. But if you are a trainer and you can't train a horse for 2000m first up, just tell us. I hope you tell your prospective clients as well. I tend to comment on things I know about. And leave the rest to whoever.

I've never said there are no flat races in winter in the UK. And I'm certainly not referring to any 3 horse races where runners have their first start in the wet over 2400m. I'm not arguing for the sake of it. I'm more inclined to challenge the way people think. Like you suggesting horses couldn't be ready for racing over 2000m+ in the timeframe. That's absurd. All these thoughts based on what people have come to expect here. For no reason other than that's what they do and have always done here.

Are you saying there won't be any horses - because YOU can't train a horse for 2000m+ in 8 weeks? Just say so next time.

Do you mean like the horses in the UK that have their first lifetime start over 2400m+ on a heavy track? Is that what you mean?

I'm still not understanding you. Why can't a horse race in NZ with 8 weeks prep time, first up over 2000m+. A simple answer would be good.

I see Fierement just won the Tenno Sho (G1) over 3200m in Japan. Hadn't started since December last year. I wonder how long it took to prepare him for this race. Won it last year fresh up also, from a prior run more than 3 months earlier. That's 3200m - G1.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying in 4 - 6 weeks (which is actually 8 weeks until scheduled racing), a horse can be prepared to race over 1200m or 1600m, but not 2000m. Is that what you are saying?

I'm not trying to offer anything other than what I did. I've read this thread and your posts are just playing silly games. That was all I needed to offer on the topic.

You got that right. Reading this thread and you are clearly playing silly games. I think that is what you do.

Why can't horses be ready for a 2000m+ race - even without a jumpout?

They better be quick with that - as that is all largely from the last 3 weeks, not 20+ weeks of the flu season. Maybe Aquaman can tell us why Sweden's unemployment numbers rose 18,000 in one week - when they had only 100 deaths, and no lockdown. 18,000 in one week - only 5 times the number for the entire equivalent month for the year before.

Aquaman said they're just made up to suit their agendas. Someone should have told them lower would have been better then. Sweden, a country where 50% of the households are single occupancy. One of the highest levels of working from home. Social distance suggestions in place. All things that would make it easy to carry on pretty much as usual. Yet unemployment through the roof, economy going down the toilet, and reported deaths over 3 times what they are for a bad season of the flu. Yep, working well.

I'm not worried about Sweden's deaths or cases. It's the economy. And it is going the same way NZ's is. Without lockdown. Funny eh? Lockdown or no lockdown. Makes no difference. The world is showing that perfectly.

Do you still think the UK is trending better than these others? Deaths (from worldometers). Days are days since 10 deaths.

It's just a virus. What I don't get with this guy is why he thinks the economic impacts of lockdown is any worse than no lockdown. Just like he surmises the health impacts from no lockdown are no worse than lockdown. He cites areas where the health situation is the same under differing setups. He can do the same thing with the economic impacts. What's happened in those countries/states economically where they have had different lockdown rules than NZ? What's happened in those countries/states health wise where they have had different lockdown rules than NZ? Of course, looking at the economic impacts of those countries with different lockdown rules, doesn't fit his agenda. So he uses some questionable methods (just like the opposite side do) to promote his own agenda and look solely at some health stats. There is simply no evidence to support lockdown is worse economically than otherwise. So just get on and enjoy some tranquility, rather than writing pieces like this that are equally as big from a propaganda standpoint as those that think the virus is worse. If we all have it and aren't dead, how cool. Of course 6 weeks ago, we didn't know we were all going to get it and what the outcomes would be. Like Aquaman states (even though his mate Donald doesn't seem to be agreeing with him anymore), it's probably just a bad cold or a minor flu. If we all have it, I'm pretty happy that the lockdown might have changed the mindsets of many NZers into how they can run a business and how to better prepare themselves for when something actually serious comes along. How cool is that?

He did. He said he formed his view from what Chris Waller has said about government funding. I wouldn't expect Chris to have a clue about how the two countries operate - he hasn't been here for many years, and he wouldn't be likely to know the arrangements between the betting operators and the state and federal governments.

Exactly - the government(s) in Australia are net receivers of money from wagering on Australian racing from the Australian racing industry. in NZ, the government is a net payer of money from wagering on NZ racing to the NZ racing industry Yet someone said 'Like they do in Australia' - mr gullible of the year.

I've never disputed those statements. Can you back track any faster? It is very clear that you thought the government in NZ should give more - as in 'Like they do in Australia'. And that being one of the reasons racing is doing better there. Which doesn't make sense because NZ government is giving more to NZ racing than the Australian governments give Australian racing. So how can the NZ government give more - be 'Like they do in Australia' when Australian governments give less? That is the statement that is false. Not an iota of fact in it. That is the reason you have had to run and hide. Your arrogance and your ego don't allow you to admit you got this so badly wrong. I just love it when people like you back track like a rat up a drainpipe. What a crack up.

ATA, your ego can't hack it. You were all gung-ho on this, and now you've ben smashed and all you can do is run away and hide rather than face up to it. You're living in a bubble - and not just for the last 5 or 6 weeks. Poor little arrogant fool.

You've gone quiet. Hasn't Chris got back to you yet? Talk about gullible.

This from someone who has shown himself to mock others when they admit a minor mistake. And here he is, calling all sorts of people arrogant etc. After a massive cock-up, he is incapable of admitting he is wrong. And he calls others arrogant. How sad.

Looks like we'll be waiting a while for our funding expert to provide these details to ATA. I'm really looking forward to seeing numbers even as high as $100m in a year. Victoria do a bit, even as much as $20m - $30m in some years. How much can they put towards things like infrastructure such as track upgrades and other track developments. Can't wait to see numbers around the $300m - $400m per year to bring them into line with NZ, relatively speaking. What's the hold up ATA, I'm getting bored waiting and playing with my train set?

Interesting article Chief. Sadly didn't see anything in it to help me decide whether lockdown was a positive or a negative from an overall health perspective. The parts in there about the economy I dismissed, since they are being caused irrespective of lockdown (as can be seen equally worldwide irrespective of lockdown measures). We're unlikely to know whether the lockdown was a positive or a negative from the health side of things, since it will be very difficult to quantify the health gains from the lockdown, and we will only have some data about the negatives from the lockdown. So we will be considering the negative of x against an indeterminate y. So just a guess.

Maybe. I don't really care whether we needed to or not from an economic perspective. I don't see it making any real difference to things in NZ. If we were in lockdown for 10 weeks, I'd be thinking the lockdown is maybe worse economically than no lockdown (possibly). We'd likely know more if that point comes about. At less than that, it sounds like a good chance to chill out for a while, relax and read a few books or get the garden sorted or other such simple options. I don't know whether lockdown is worse from a health perspective than no lockdown. There isn't sufficient data for me to formulate a view.

My post was in response to Yankiwi who suggested things were being reported as being better than they are.