Freda
-
Posts
4,077 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
108
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Videos of the Month
Major Race Contenders
Events
Blogs
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Freda
-
Glad you asked, 'cos I was scratching my head too..
-
Fields at Manawatu 22 December - Sure Sign Something is Wrong
Freda replied to Chief Stipe's topic in Galloping Chat
Yes, Chief....but the reasons why/solutions are debated here and elsewhere....and by the look of things - and the speed of parliamentary process- there is SFA we at the coal face can do right at this minute. -
Bloody hell....you get the drift...
-
-
And isn't it great to see everyone odd their areas thinking a out tomorrow....unfortunately it is probably too late. ( I hope not )
-
Haha, yep. Bloody brilliant!
-
None...because they ARE successful. This one isn't.
-
Wasn't aware of any 'bike' promo....so can't comment...but pretty sure there is no Injured Jockeys' fund now - was once - but not now in this day of ACC. There are still odd, special payments on an individual as-needs basis..but not a fund that I am aware of, or certainly not one of any significance.
-
If he attended apprentice school how could he NOT be aware of the whip rules?
-
Thanks, you just answered my earlier query.
-
I'm still confused.
-
Will a horse hold the same rating across country/provincial/city?
-
And speaking as a trainer....the large teams of beautifully bred horses necessarily produce a lot of wastage. Sent to a less pressured environment with, often, an outside or paddock environment, many of these horses improve out of sight. It is not that they have developed better form because the opposition is crap, but they have enjoyed and adapted to very differing regimes. That is off the ratings topic I realise....but you did ask for an opinion.
-
Given there are greater numbers, generally, yes...but that is not the point is it? That superiority should be reflected in the ratings allocated but it isn't.
-
Which shouldn't, in itself, allow slipping on a well-manicured track with suitable drainage....vis. Flemington.
-
Tiered racing is suitable for Australia, it works well for them....it is here that it isn't applicable ...IMO of course..! That still doesn't mean there shouldn't be better stakemoney to reward the better horses - but the distribution has to be workable for the whole equine population. At the moment, it isn't. Ratings should provide a guide to the correct placement of a horse in a particular race...and Auckland horses should have their superiority reflected in higher ratings.
-
Again, we agree..up to a point. The rating of the horse should reflect its relative ability / perceived class. You are right that the Auckland form is perceived to be stronger, but if the ratings of the horses were done accurately there wouldn't be this anomaly. As I said, a R65 is an R 65...there shouldn't be a regional difference. If the ratings were done on the horse population as a whole, then the class difference would be reflected in the ratings given. When ratings are done on a race -by -race basis, then the whole system becomes skewed. The ratings system gets a lot of flak, it isn't hard to follow at all IMO - but its application is flawed here.
-
Yes, that's true enough...and so they should....but 'tiering' is not necessarily relevant inasmuch as the class of race, surely? A R65 horse is the same creature whether it be trained in Southland or Auckland....and if it is smart enough, will get itself out of that grade wherever it is. There are plenty of 'imports' south which DON'T measure up, never worry about that.
-
I reckon a flat structure increasing with grade of race across the board, but only in concert with affordability/revenue earned. Mardigras indicated the same on a different thread, he and Curious have given excellent ideas for models over time and I agree completely with their thoughts. Now, the dogs and I are off to the beach -where I don't have to think at all.
-
The need for a tiered structure baffles me, and given NZ's homogenous equine population, how can it be justified?
-
Yes, understand....doubling stakes would certainly help,and would signal some hope - but as an end result? I would like to think that it would be a good starting point. But without radical change to the funding model and putting the silly 'tiered' structure to rest, there will still be major inequity in stakes allocation...IMO of course....And unless costs, dates, programming, handicapping etc, etc, are addressed along with the stakes increase, we will still have a lumbering and inefficient model which, in itself, will still be an unattractive operation compared with our closest neighbours.
-
In a nutshell. We have to realise that any change to RB structure requires legislative action...so I suppose the apparent lack of action here is understandable...but increasing revenue is the ONLY thing that can arrest the decline in NZ racing. All the Mac's, Rita's and synthetic tracks in the world won't do anything , on their own, to achieve that.
-
Those who are trying to make a decent living kinda do take it seriously....fools they/we may be, for not moving on and/or doing something else.
-
I don't. It would have more benefit if it applied to the third year of study, not the first...many first years will only ever be that..so money wasted.
-
You may well be right...so...as WELL as the three codes, we have Racing NZ too...instead of a slimmed down and efficient body, we instead have an extra one? Presumably the RB will be slim and efficient..? No? Dear oh dear.
