curious

Yes. Bernard at least, appears to have used some poetic licence!

It does say from "next month" not the 1st of the month. Benefit of the doubt? Or have they kicked off with a porkie? Watch this space. TAB Trackside joins Spark Sport Stable 18 July 2019 The TAB is pleased to announce it has partnered with Spark Sport to show Trackside 1 and 2 on its digital platform. From next month coverage of all live racing, along with pre and post-race analysis, live odds and feature shows will be shown to a new mainstream audience alongside tennis, football and later this year the Rugby World Cup. “This agreement provides a great opportunity for showcasing domestic racing through broadening the access to, and the audience of TAB Trackside,” says TAB General Manager of Media and International Andy Kydd. The sports rights market in New Zealand has changed significantly over the past five years, and earlier this year the TAB entered into a non-exclusive agreement with SKY NZ, providing the TAB and the racing codes greater opportunity to grow audience and get content to new viewers. “It also provides the basis for a partnership opportunity for us to explore other non Trackside content residing on this platform, such as a pop-up destination for extended coverage of our feature racedays,” says Kydd. The TAB’s core wagering customers will continue to be serviced in retail via SKY NZ.

From Spark Sport: Ragu Y: Spark Sport has partnered with the Racing Industry Transition Agency (formerly the New Zealand Racing Board) to show TAB Trackside on Spark Sport Ragu Y: However, we do not have a start date yet!

Maybe the addition is just delayed?

Nor can I find it. Racing is not mentioned in the list of covered sports.

If you want to try this they have a seven day free trial. https://help.sparksport.co.nz/getting-started/about-free-trial/how-does-the-free-trial-work Scroll to bottom of page.

The issue for me Sandpiper is that it might prevent better horses, not eligible for the million from running. Let's say you and I both have a Derby contender. Mine has beaten yours on the two occasions they have met and looks the better horse. Yours runs third in the million and is exempt from the ballot. My homebred colt gets balloted. That hardly seems fair to me.

Bugger. I thought he was only into inflatables.

Do you have contact details for those two Hesi?

Shouldn't be listed either for the same reason.

I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to have stake money from a restricted race like the Karaka Million included for Derby entry purposes.

Yeahh... Thommo's's having a 'mare isn't he? Of course your comments above don't concur with the claim that some of us think that weight makes no difference. Perhaps we should run a poll Hesi to see if we can work out who they are talking about. Seems to have run out of arguments on the topic and fallen back on the stakeholders won't have a bar of it. I think you'll find those are the same stakeholders who are squealing the loudest about the low stakes levels and wanting the taxpayer to rescue them from their own stupidity. The only one at NZTR that I ran across who understood was former chief handicapper Brett Scelley. He told me at the preliminary meeting before we did that analysis what we would find with respect to weight spread and the female allowance. Made me wonder why they were asking us to do it when the chief handicapper already knew. Didn't believe him? Of course he left a year later (pushed?) and has been successfully plying his trade for the last 4 1/2 years at the HKJC as the Handicapping & Race Planning manager. Maybe found he had the tools there to handicap properly? Now I think I need a drink before I can face reading any more of Thommo's nonsense.

Kind of a stupid question really. Not sure how you could come up with any other sensible answer.

Thanks mardi. Yes, it does seem problematic for the reasons you state and I'm also not clear on the exact methodology especially in relation to pricing. Beaten runners is a problem as you say because of horses without chance not being persisted with. Similar problem to using beaten lengths in any assessment.

Oops sorry. That's not where I saw that. Right person. Wrong article. Here's an example though. https://blog.betway.com/horse-racing/further-willoughby-analysis-of-the-effect-of-the-draw-on-the-betway-chester-cup/

Yes, and it appears that none of the remedial classes, holidays with the princess (inflated or deflated), nor any other interventions have worked. A question though for you and any of the other clever people here. I note that in the James Willoughby articles that I posted there, in the female allowance one he has used Impact value to adjust expected chance for number or runners in each race analysed. Exactly what you and I did when we examined the NZ handicapping data pre and post the rating changes for NZTR. Except that we were able to go a step further by using current ratings as a proxy for ability as well. Something that he wasn't able to do leading to considerable caution in his conclusions. My question though is that I see in the earlier study on the 3yo allowance, he has used beaten runners to achieve the same thing as the IV. In your opinions is that as accurate a measure/correction for expected chance due to number of runners per race?

For those who missed it.

Might have won if he could have had a claimer on! Be a big chance if he came for the cup.

Too good.

3 Recommendations 3.1 Amend the Racing Act 2003 to establish a single statutory Racing Integrity Board (RIB) to oversee the functions of the RIU and the JCA. 3.2 In consultation with the Racing Board and Racing Codes dissolve the RIU limited liability company and transfer the delivery and oversight of RIU functions to the Racing Integrity Board. 3.3 Establish a funding approval mechanism which enables the Racing Integrity Board to set and Racing Board (or its Wagering successor) to approve integrity budgets from Class 4 Gambling money. 3.4 Transfer responsibility for the management of the contract with the NZRLS, including the provision of capital funds for laboratory equipment, to the Racing Integrity Board. 3.5 Amend the Racing Act 2003 and rules of racing to allow race day admitted charges to be determined by the stewards 3.6 Have all defended charges heard by a centralised JCA panel in scheduled, centralised non-race day hearings. 3.7 Establish specialist animal welfare positions in the RIU to take the lead role in monitoring animal welfare. 3.8 Have the RIU review the relationships with MPI and RNZSPCA and develop formal mechanism (by way of MOU) for appropriate triage of animal welfare investigations. 3.9 Have the racing codes develop an online facility for recording non-race day injuries and veterinary treatment. 3.10 Establish a specialist position within RIU to monitor, investigate and review participant welfare. 3.11 Have the RIU review their confidential hotline and work with the codes to establish whistle blower provisions. 3.12 Have the RIB review the current RIU business processes against the recommendations made in the Stokes review. 3.13 Have the RIB review staff training and development models to ensure appropriate training is delivered and milestones established for career progression 3.14 Have the RIB review RIU organisational structure and staff distribution for optimal effectiveness and efficiency

Yes, sad really. Seems to be talking to himself again too.

I'd say reincarnated as the self appointed expert mardi refers to?

Oh no. They run proper handicaps in some places still? Been a while since we had that here.

For the entertainment?

Besides, I wouldn't call it a pay wall exactly. The above mentioned sports I would say are behind a paywall because they require a subscription. Trackside channels are free to air if you have a sky dish. You can either rent a decoder from sky for $18.70 a month or buy your own for about a hundred bucks. Can't see anyone who can't afford that contributing much to racing turnover.