curious Posted June 1 Author Posted June 1 50 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: But neither of those subjective terms are measures of firmness. In terms of firmness a Heavy 10 is very very soft. You didn't read what I wrote. I acknowledged variation between tracks and but that you can calibrate the measurement per track to deliver consistent ratings where in terms of firmness a Soft 6 at Riccarton is a Soft 6 at Riverton. Most of us know that the ratings at Riccarton and Trentham are suspect regardless of any variation in the respective tracks. Yes. The correlation between penetrometer readings and speed is also established in the literature but obviously that is only useful if the penetrometer readings are taken and reported accurately. 1 Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 1 Posted June 1 24 minutes ago, curious said: Yes. The correlation between penetrometer readings and speed is also established in the literature but obviously that is only useful if the penetrometer readings are taken and reported accurately. Is there much difference per 1 tenth of a point? E.g. 5.2 vs 5.3? Quote
Special Agent Posted June 4 Posted June 4 So many ideas pop up and turn into rules with NZTR, like this bizarre trialling and vetting procedure if your horse hasn't raced within the previous 12 months. Now that it's in print that it appears 3 goes on an AWT is sufficient for a horse to be safely adapted to that surface, will it mean proof of 3 times on an AWT will be required before allowed to race on such a track? Quote
Freda Posted June 4 Posted June 4 7 hours ago, Special Agent said: So many ideas pop up and turn into rules with NZTR, like this bizarre trialling and vetting procedure if your horse hasn't raced within the previous 12 months. Now that it's in print that it appears 3 goes on an AWT is sufficient for a horse to be safely adapted to that surface, will it mean proof of 3 times on an AWT will be required before allowed to race on such a track? Really? I must have missed that part. Quote
curious Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, Freda said: Really? I must have missed that part. Anecdotal data indicates that 2 -3 runs on the synthetic surface are sufficient for the horse to acclimatise (adapt their gait) to the surface. Because horses naturally run faster on the synthetic surface with longer strides (~20cm longer), it is anecdotally reported that acclimatisation runs should be conducted with the horses “on the bridle”. This would provide sufficient load cycles to train the limb without exposure to peak forces Edited June 4 by curious 1 Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 4 Posted June 4 15 minutes ago, curious said: Anecdotal data indicates that 2 -3 runs on the synthetic surface are sufficient for the horse to acclimatise (adapt their gait) to the surface. What the F?! We are basing policies on "anecdotal data"?! BTW "anecdotal data" is an oxymoron. Have we got social scientists running the cutter? Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 4 Posted June 4 19 minutes ago, curious said: Because horses naturally run faster on the synthetic surface with longer strides (~20cm longer), it is anecdotally reported that acclimatisation runs should be conducted with the horses “on the bridle”. This would provide sufficient load cycles to train the limb without exposure to peak forces What times are they running on the AWT compared to the shutes at Trentham and Riccarton? Quote
curious Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: What the F?! We are basing policies on "anecdotal data"?! BTW "anecdotal data" is an oxymoron. Have we got social scientists running the cutter? What policy is based on that? Quote
curious Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: What times are they running on the AWT compared to the shutes at Trentham and Riccarton? I don't think we have any straight 1000/1200s on synthetics for comparison do we? Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 4 Posted June 4 22 minutes ago, curious said: What policy is based on that? Where did you copy the quote from regarding anecdotal data? Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 4 Posted June 4 44 minutes ago, curious said: I don't think we have any straight 1000/1200s on synthetics for comparison do we? What's a course being straight or having a bend in it got to do with the hypotheses that increased speed = increased injury and three runs on a surface adapts a horse to run injury free. Arguably running on a consistently maintained AWT would be safer than running on a misreported hard Trentham shute. I don't understand why people don't see the contradiction or irony of the focus on the AWT and the blind eye elsewhere. Meanwhile the NZTA is more worried about moving rails. I'm surprised they haven't made preferred policy statements on irrigation as well. 1 Quote
curious Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 16 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Where did you copy the quote from regarding anecdotal data? The synthetic report in the head post. Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 4 Posted June 4 27 minutes ago, curious said: The synthetic report in ⁸the head post. Which further undermines the reports credibility. It flip flops between a literature review of mixed veracity science to quoting anecdotal data. No doubt Massey University have secured funding for "ongoing research" to quantify some missing data. Hopefully for the new season we will see the uniform implementation of a track rating measurement system calibrated by track and Quality Control managed. A must will be a measure of variability across and between tracks. Quote
Special Agent Posted June 4 Posted June 4 Quite simply there are very few who have read the entire report, let alone understood it, and frankly the more you read the more silly it becomes, a little like the ever increasing rules and regulations NZTR put out. It is quite disappointing the obsession about what the NZTA are or are not saying or doing. A lot of the comment is unfounded. Another obsession is what jockey Kate Hercock has to say about tracks. I find it ironic that she rode in New Caledonia recently where track conditions and h & s go right out the window. 1 Quote
Freda Posted June 4 Posted June 4 Don't profess to be an expert here, and as always happy to be corrected. But i would be very doubtful that 3 workouts would sufficiently impact changes in bone density and/or tensile strength. Better than nothing i guess.... 1 Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 4 Posted June 4 1 hour ago, Freda said: But i would be very doubtful that 3 workouts would sufficiently impact changes in bone density and/or tensile strength. Better than nothing i guess.... Defintely not in a 5 year old gelding. That stone was cast when it was a 2 year old. Quote
Special Agent Posted June 5 Posted June 5 Who would read that stuff kindly quoted above by Curious before unleashing it on the public, do you think? I see someone describing Michael Guerin's material as dribble x3. More and more offerings from NZTR and any associated organisation would be dribble to the power of, I don't know ... pick a number. It is very hard to take anything from them of supposed importance seriously. I thought acclimatization was reference to weather. Now it seems it refers to a horse's gait. Now that horse's gait can be rectified, and according to the report the horse's limbs can be trained to withstand pressure from the synthetic surface by giving it 2-3 workouts in a non-competitive setting, as it suggests working on the bit. Does that sound like bullshit to anyone else? Whatever amount was paid for the report was money wasted. I can't believe anyone could read that report and not laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Am I alone in this thinking? Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 5 Posted June 5 42 minutes ago, Special Agent said: I thought acclimatization was reference to weather. Now it seems it refers to a horse's gait. Now that horse's gait can be rectified, and according to the report the horse's limbs can be trained to withstand pressure from the synthetic surface by giving it 2-3 workouts in a non-competitive setting, as it suggests working on the bit. Does that sound like bullshit to anyone else? YES big BS. Fundamentally I think that is the biggest problem with the track developments in the last 10 years or so. The horse should be first and I'm not sure many of those in decision making positions actually know what the horse wants. I'm not talking about dishing up a Soft 5 every day but providing a safe track which can be a Good 2. I had a share in a horse that won the Taranaki Cup on a Fast 1 - first in NZ I believe. In 52 starts there weren't any injuries from hard and fast tracks. Quote
Freda Posted June 5 Posted June 5 1 hour ago, Special Agent said: Who would read that stuff kindly quoted above by Curious before unleashing it on the public, do you think? I see someone describing Michael Guerin's material as dribble x3. More and more offerings from NZTR and any associated organisation would be dribble to the power of, I don't know ... pick a number. It is very hard to take anything from them of supposed importance seriously. I thought acclimatization was reference to weather. Now it seems it refers to a horse's gait. Now that horse's gait can be rectified, and according to the report the horse's limbs can be trained to withstand pressure from the synthetic surface by giving it 2-3 workouts in a non-competitive setting, as it suggests working on the bit. Does that sound like bullshit to anyone else? Whatever amount was paid for the report was money wasted. I can't believe anyone could read that report and not laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Am I alone in this thinking? No. Quote
Chief Stipe Posted June 5 Posted June 5 Come on @Special Agent and @Freda what were you expecting from the report? Quote
Special Agent Posted June 5 Posted June 5 15 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Come on @Special Agent and @Freda what were you expecting from the report? To be fair, not much. But this is utter garbage. If any licence holder is going to swallow this, OMG what are you on? Quote
curious Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 11 minutes ago, Special Agent said: To be fair, not much. But this is utter garbage. If any licence holder is going to swallow this, OMG what are you on? What exactly is wrong with it? Quote
Special Agent Posted June 5 Posted June 5 4 minutes ago, curious said: What exactly is wrong with it? For starters Curious, do you honestly believe a couple of little canter arounds will condition a horse's legs/bones for a flat out gallop at speeds they may never have experienced before? Quote
Special Agent Posted June 5 Posted June 5 7 minutes ago, curious said: What exactly is wrong with it? Do you think the questions and problems have been addressed? Quote
curious Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 1 minute ago, Special Agent said: For starters Curious, do you honestly believe a couple of little canter arounds will condition a horse's legs/bones for a flat out gallop at speeds they may never have experienced before? Where does it suggest that? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.