mardigras

Makes no difference. I'd expect if the information was known as you suggest, the jockey would put the horse in the right place. If the information is not known, then I wouldn't be betting on the race. As far as Flemington is concerned, if you think the penetrometer is what decides the faster side, then you haven't bet there much. Wind speed and direction are far greater factors. And if penetrometer was the factor, why would any race split even though the readings outside versus in are basically always different. Are jockeys thick and don't realise what you've been going on about is so important that going to the wrong side has just cost them the race.

Sure did. And never posted again. Mostly due to dealing with ignorant people like you. I can see the same thing happening here since you've arrived.

If the punter thinks they have got overs, then I sure as hell hope they don't think they've got overs based on thinking something about the state of the track that is 100% inaccurate. Butif you bet like that, it does explain why you struggle with punting. Too impatient for one thing. Who bets like that. You?

Impossible to say I would have thought. Since overs relates to chance versus odds. If they had zero chance, then overs would be supplied by laying them. If they had greater than zero chance, overs would be a price exceeding the chance component. Simple really.

Again, you miss the point. Saying it once or twice is Ok. Repeating the same thing over and over as if you think that will help, just shows you don't understand people very well. You'd do well to stfu and let those with some credibility mention it occassionally. You aren't helping. Let's not forget the myriad of things you have pushed for, and none of them seem to have curtailed the downward spiral of NZ racing. And none of them have helped your punting. As for waiting til racing starts. Sure do. I generally don't bet on early races (outside of having a small interest for fun when at the track).

Exactly. Finally you understand. It might have helped if you had understood 100 odd posts ago on the topic on various sites.

I quite agree the punters should have the info. But your persistence with saying so is unlikely to achieve that. They'd be more like to not, just because of your inability to understand human behaviour, let alone animal behaviour. If you haven't worked it out by now, I'd suggest they think you are nothing more than a pain and therefore the more you write on a topic, the less they care about acting on it. As useful or otherwise that the info might be, it isn't likely to change the fortunes of the NZ racing industry. I have been known to have the odd bet and I ignore penetrometer readings. I take the blinkers off and see for myself, rather than be spoon fed something that may or may not tell you much useful.

You're kidding right. 9mm in 10 mins with out a lot of prior rain is nothing. Simply because 9mm is nothing. The amount of prior rain quantity had not been indicated - which I asked about.

9mm does not a quagmire make. Was there an extra150mm during the week?

Do you ever get sick of repeating yourself ad infinitum? Clearly not.

Funniest post ever. I left as I said to him at the time, there is little point responding to a person of limited intellect who just makes stuff up as he feels. He doesn't like being wrong yet you would think he would have got used to it by now.

I didn't bleat on and on at all. You did suggest that racing needed to be close to the population. Then made some astronomical leap about races being shifted internationally. Maybe when you said for NZ to progress it needs to be close to the population we are meant to take it literally and you were wanting to move NZ racing to Shanghai. That is how bad your logic is. Move on given you are sick of this. I am not confused about what I am promoting. I am promoting less racing in NZ. And most of that reduction from the tracks such as Ellerslie, Te Rapa, Awapuni, Trentham. I don't know Moncur and have no wish to. I haven''t promoted anything in relation to Moncur so I have no idea where you got any idea about what I think of him.

I am starting to see why you didn't get very far with Moncur if the level of logic applied to your application in any way resembles the level of logic you have applied here.

As curious states, appropriate races should be run where the appropriate horses are. Not where the people are. As that makes sense from an industry logistics point of view. From a revenue generating point of view, the location should be again where the appropriate horses are for the level of race and ideally the appropriate racing surface for the race - in order to maximise the level of field and the level of punter interest from anywhere. Perhaps you think people in NSW don't bet on the Melbourne Cup given it is run around 900km from Sydney. The only other time location becomes important is due to 'event' status where hospitality becomes a major factor and even then, it isn't always the case. Ever been to Warrnambool in May? That's only 270km from Melbourne. And in NZ, we have very few with any status.

who are the 'bodies that currently seem to be ignored' Turny? And what ills are you referring to?

Cut 1000 races from the calendar. 2 meetings on Saturday remain. One Wednesday and one on another day depending on time of year. Cut the big tracks primarily. Cut a lot of the larger stakes as chief suggests (the bigger clubs don't want to run that many races with lower stakes anyway so they will happy to forego those dates.). Smaller clubs still get dates. Still run 8 - 9 races. Schedule racing based on availability. Freeing up overuse of tracks. Attempt to schedule to obtain competition for spots in races. Improving event quality. Better quality, on better conditioned tracks - better interest. Less cost due to less race days.

Why couldn't he simply tell NZ that the industry is too big for itself. Cut the races, not necessarily the tracks. NZ gallops is not sufficiently large racing wise to operate with anywhere near 3000 races sustainably - certainly at this point in time. They want to keep all the racing, have all the stakes and yet have no interest to fund it.It wouldn't matter if there was only 5 tracks. There would still be no money for the races.

Couldn't disagree more. Proximity of people to racing in NZ will have and does have no impact. Ask yourself, why do NZers bets more on Australian racing when they are a lot further away from it.

NZ Racing needs to spend money on infrastructure. Given Reefton's thinking, they couldn't put money into building a new track since it doesn't have any race dates - even though putting money into Foxton is a cheaper and more sensible idea. The stakes might be stuffed but not half as stuffed as the tracks.

If they decide to follow whatever Messara recommends, I don't think any agitation from certain corners will make a scrap of difference. I'm not defending the Foxton track. I'm defending their right to have money spent on it from any sources available to them. Especially in light of what has happened in NZ racing during its period of isolation and particularly in relation to the tracks nearby which are substandard.

I hope his recommendations do not refer to any individual racetrack but rather what is needed from a facilities point of view. And if that happens, I suspect Foxton could well be one of the very 'facilities' that would enable any possible recommendations to come to fruition.

its seems highly appropriate behaviour to me. If it is deemed to need some changes before being granted a race date, I think it would be well advised to go about achieving that. Clearly the status quo isn't working for NZ racing. Given the entire future of racing in NZ is uncertain, I hope you are not involved in spending any industry money anywhere since on what you wrote, it would clearly be of extremely dubious benefit. However, I disagree that it is of dubious benefit since money has to be spent somewhere to try and remove or improve that uncertainty. I'd rather it was on Foxton than most other places with current racetracks and/or current race dates.

Perhaps those items should have had the following questions asked of NZF. 1. Why? Do you not think the government should earn any revenue from the industry it largely funds? 2. Are you going to shift money from higher end races to do this. That is where it should come from. 3. I don't understand how the first part would lead to the second part. Can you expand? 4. Can you expand on the plans. If they involve increasing stake levels, where is the money going to come from? 10. Can you expand on this . What is the modest share given the NZ racing industry doesn't earn any net revenue yet seems to be given $150 million per annum. What unreasonable attacks are you suggesting exist?

Thanks chief. It would have been simple if he just said that. Perhaps, if what has been suggested was said by a stipe over the weekend is true, BOAY/Mr Godber could also clarify the rule for the stipes as well since it would appear that the stipe did have some confusion

Is he a politician. Perhaps a question to ask might have been, would what Pike did in Australia be considered to be breaking the rules in NZ rather than waffling on about rule numbers and what he finds confusing. From what I've read, that would be breaking the rules. Where is the confusion?