curious

It does seem a bit odd programming that slot race on the same day as a premier G1 race for 3yos.

Speaking of throwing cash about, I didn't hear anything about where it is coming from?

Yes. He's got it completely arse backwards. Punter interest provides the revenue that drives stakes, among other things.

You mean 23/24? Yes. That was planned due to Ellerslie being shut down etc. but I was meaning 24/25. Those draft dates should be about. Someone (from a club) may have them? Be interesting to see.

OK. Just wondered how you knew that Avondale had been issued dates?

Have you seen the draft dates for 24/25? I've seen the harness ones but can't find the thoroughbred ones.

Yes. I know that but I don't think it was a lot. I was really pointing to the fact that the inconsistency was already evident. It appeared to be cutting out on the inside from the 600 in the first and certainly in the straight whereas it was not a few metres out. In the second down the chute the inside horse was marking the ground the whole way down whereas the others a few meters out were not. That's not satisfactory for any race day, let alone Trentham's biggest and makes a mockery of NZTR's SOI objective: Racing surfaces and tracks are consistent, safe and well maintained across the short, medium and long-term, leading to safer racedays for both horse and rider, as well as increased confidence in wagering Gore was also a Soft 6 and raced evenly across the track for 11 races. I certainly won't be betting at Trentham next week if that's what they are going to dish up.

Except the inside was cutting out before the rain.

IFNDOUBTGETOUT (L Allpress) - Stewards concluded an inquiry today into the reason for the gelding being checked near the 600 metres. After interviewing riders involved and reviewing video footage, which proved inconclusive, no further action was taken with the lack of pace through the middle stages found to be a contributing factor.

Agree. Watch American and UK racing. There's a thing about it here. I'd much rather see my horse sitting 3 wide if that's where it lands, traveling comfortably within itself, than being dragged back or pressed forward using it up early.

Did it occur to you that irrespective of barrier draw, there may be another explanation for there performance. Perhaps there were other better horses in the event?

One could argue that it is more stupid to take one back in behind in a race with no obvious speed or leader expecting anything different. It appeared to me that both, Not Guilty and Bonny Lass at least had the opportunity to go through to the lead at about the 1000 and ensure a stronger tempo but elected to take up and stay in behind. The ones bouncing around behind were doing so because they wouldn't settle. As I see it, that's their problem. There is no rule saying the leader must set a strong pace. Sometimes they don't want the lead and are hoping something will go around them and take it up so they get a sit in behind. That didn't happen here. I don't see how you can blame the leaders. Their strategy worked and their riders have done the job for their connections and supporters.

What do you disagree with?

I think that pretty much confirms it was slow from the get go. First 600 36.10, last 600 32.41. So, so no reason to consider applying 638(4)(5). The leaders are entitled to set whatever pace they want and it was the intractable racing manners of those behind and perhaps the inaction of jockeys that created the debacle.

Yes. Good question. Several horses wouldn't settle with the slow pace and over-raced, some quite badly. Jockeys either chose not to do anything about it or were not in a position to do so.

You might be right, though to my eye, the pace seemed pretty even, albeit slow, the first 6-800. Sectionals will tell more. I didn't hear Tony suggest they'd suddenly slowed the pace, just that they'd got away with a slow pace.

It's in accord with the penalty guidelines. https://loveracing.nz/OnHorseFiles/Penalty Guidelines - Whip and Careless Riding..pdf

It's only on dissolution. They do not own the assets of any active club and can not force dissolution unless the club is no longer racing, whether that be on their own course or elsewhere. The code must also consider apportionment of any surplus funds to reflect any community interest in the assets. The latter, I suspect could turn into lengthy shit fights if not well handled. NZTR can not just take everything and do what they like with it. 24 Transfer of assets on dissolution of club (1) This section applies if a racing club is dissolved by any means (including under section 36(3)). (2) Subject to section 25, the assets of the racing club remaining after all creditors’ claims on the club have been satisfied vest in the racing code with which the club was registered. (3) The code must consider whether any action (for example, a payment) is warranted to recognise the community interest (if any) in any racing venue or venues of the racing club that are vested in the code.

Yes and this is a small, you might say trivial, thing. However it's all part of the image of our product that we present to the world and this one's an easy fix. I don't hear other sports commentators mispronouncing names.

The French was just the cited example. I don't really care if it's French, Mandarin or Swahili. It is not a hard job to find out if you don't know. 10 seconds

I well remember Reon walking around the back parade ring at Riccarton talking to handlers, owners and trainers about just that and making notes in his book. True professional. Blaming those that name the horses is just laziness.

If he doesn't know how to pronounce French then it's not hard to ask someone who does. I'm sure he knows dozens of people who do. He does not need to find the owner or trainer to do that.

I don't agree. A little effort to pronounce names correctly, whatever language, seems like basic professionalism to me.