HRNZ programmers made to look silly

[the galah]

So,in the last fortnight hrnz have programmed and run 2 2year old races at addington.

So they cut the stake of the race 2 weeks ago due to such a small field. .

well,tonights race,had even less,only 3 starters and they left the stake the same..

essentially,the winner of the 3 horse race earned $2750 more than the winner of the 4 horse race.

why,because thats the way hrnz progrmmed it to be.they said the stake is based on the number of acceptors,not the number of starters.

and you see,that of course means any trainer could essentially accept with a horse that they have no intention of starting, to make sure HRNZ pay out the higher stake.you can't blame any trainer for simply being too clever for hrnz.Mind you that doesn't seem too hard the way they programmed it.

So what was going on with the stipes not giving the dalgety trained Roger That any stand down.

surely,for the sake of tranparency the stipes should have told people what the exceptional circumstances were which meant he got off with no penalty .

Don't they know that Dalgety,after roger that won 2 weeks ago,had reported on his website that roger that was not going to run tonight and was going out for a short break.

So whats going on there.Can't the stipes work out that people may ask questions why they decided roger that wasn't to get a scratching penalty?We can giess why,but maybe thats why they are saying.

Hrnz really don't seem too clever sometimes.

Edited 16 hours ago by the galah

[the galah]

I've been thinking.

whats the point of scratching penalties.

Its the most inconsistently applied rule in nz harness racing.I've posted about it many times listing endless examples.

Hopefully someone looks into why the stipes gave roger that no stand down.

On the face of it,it appears that preferential treatment has been given,simply because the trainer is a big name and possibly Hrnz were complicit in the deception.

thats what it appears anyway.

Its a very,very poor look.

If not,simply state why.

Edited 2 hours ago by the galah

[Gammalite]

53 minutes ago, the galah said:

I've been thinking.

whats the point of scratching penalties.

Its the most inconsistently applied rule in nz harness racing.I've posted about it many times listing endless examples.

Hopefully someone looks into why the stipes gave roger that no stand down.

On the face of it,it appears that preferential treatment has been given,simply because the trainer is a big name and possibly Hrnz were complicit in the deception.

thats what it appears anyway.

Its a very,very poor look.

If not,simply state why.

Yes , I think mostly they don't penalise with a vets certificate. Vet only has to put in one or 2 words for a trainer as to why an Accepted runner has scratched. Vets a pretty loyal to their customers. Sometimes a trial needs to be run by said horse if stewards order it, but we have plenty of trials they run like workouts between our races Tuesdays and Thursdays.

A shame for the Handicapper trying to put on 2 year old races for you. They need to start now as is near the end of summer.

I said to Brodie about the 8 2 year olds that lined up at Pukekohe in 2 heats last Tuesday trials.  so hopefully a race or can put on for them March sometime.  

Our Albion 2 year-olds normally go a few weeks at the Tuesday day meetings,  where no one is betting much at all,  and they (the 2 year olds) can scramble around and learn their craft. I see one of these is on Next Tuesday Race 1 Albion for $9000 . a nice 7 horse field of first starters,  which is just right to avoid any tight racing on them.  so less likely to make errors.