Yes, Bathurst R1, sprint lane gets the cash! great drive, straight up the inside........never spent a zac!
You have no choice but to throw them in when they are drawn there! I have not seen a race yet where the fence runners could not get a run!
BATHURST - SPRINT LANE ON TRIAL! Summary of last nights races!
R1 - Horse 2F sprint lanes to beat leader. Without sprint lane, may not have won.
R2 - Leader collapsed, 2F got off fence @ about 500M, just plodded for 3rd.
R3 - Leader & 2F got beat nearly 30M.
R4 - Leader won, 2F dropped out.
R5 - Leader tiring before the turn, 2F off fence at 400M, went 4 wide in STR to win! DID not wait for sprint lane!
R6 - Leader ran 2nd, 2F dropped out.
R7 - Leader won, 2F 2nd, 1st half nearly 66secs, then sprinted last QTR, 2F used sprint lane but had every chance....sprint lane not required.
R8 - Leader won, 2F every chance, ran 3rd beaten 7 metres, horse 1-2 dived to SL at turn to run 2nd!
R9 - leader won, 2F every chance beaten 6 metres.
"My thought" on meeting....Sprint Lane definitely not required!
Don't have a problem with sprint lanes on a big track in fact I'd like to see a sprint lane at Menangle it would provide more maneuverability for horses coming from the back in the field but definitely a front runners nightmare. Sprint lanes at small tracks like Gloucester Park would just be too much of an advantage.
Are you serious?.......if any track needs a SL it is Gloucester Park!.......the aim of the SL is for the fence runners to get a run instead of going to the line hard-held! At Menangle the straight is 350 metres long, and you can come 10 wide if you want to, what more manoeuvring room do you want??
Talking about maneuverability at Menangle watch I'm Victorious in 2013 Chariots blocked for a run all the way up the straight. Just because it's a 350 metre straight doesn't mean every horse gets a clear run. I think GP would have a higher proportion of winners coming from the sprint lane than any other track and many would say that's an unfair advantage.