NSW grading....becoming a joke

[p plater]

Have a look at this race this Saturday night

Race 2 TAB.COM.AU PACE 5:52 PM http://www.harness.org.au/images/print.gif Pacers. non winners $12500 in last 4 starts & no better than M2. Also eligible M3 which have not won $8500 in their last 4 starts. Also eligible M4+ which have not won $2000 in their last 4 starts. RBD. Prizemoney: $12,240 1609 METRES FIRST4, TRIFECTA, QUINELLA, EXACTA MOBILE START



Restricts M2 horses with winning form (winning $12,500 last 4 starts) then opens it up to M3's plus M4's + and you get a final field consisting of M1 to M12.
To add insult to the M2s they made it a RBD.

What a joke.....Shane, how do you place a horse under these conditions?

[p plater]

Shane, thanks for your input. It sounds like horses are being moved to other States where the trainer can place the horse, this was an art by some in the past.
Under this new system,you as a trainer have no say where you nominations finish up, as highlighted in the opening of this thread.

I see they are at it again next Tuesday in the last race, a front of C5 to C9 (which is to big imo) then open to C10 or better with conditions. Result a race for C5 to a whopping C23. Field of 10.

A closer look and there is 2 races front C2/3 with C4/5 with conditions but only 7 starters in each. No each way.
Why not put the 2 C5 runners from the last into the C2/3 races and have 3 races with 8 starters.

[p plater]

Have a look at this race this Saturday night

Race 2 TAB.COM.AU PACE 5:52 PM http://www.harness.org.au/images/print.gif Pacers. non winners $12500 in last 4 starts & no better than M2. Also eligible M3 which have not won $8500 in their last 4 starts. Also eligible M4+ which have not won $2000 in their last 4 starts. RBD. Prizemoney: $12,240 1609 METRES FIRST4, TRIFECTA, QUINELLA, EXACTA MOBILE START



Restricts M2 horses with winning form (winning $12,500 last 4 starts) then opens it up to M3's plus M4's + and you get a final field consisting of M1 to M12.
To add insult to the M2s they made it a RBD.

What a joke.....Shane, how do you place a horse under these conditions?


And the winners is GAIUS CAESAR (http://www.harness.org.au/ausbreed/reports/hraonline.htm) a M8

[p plater]

I am sorry if I broke the rules with my last entry, which was deleted.
Let me say that any discussion on my thoughts in this matter or others who wish to set me straight on the reasons this type of grading decisions are so great, please do it on this forum for all to see.

[p plater]

I have not made a comment for some time on this topic but I feel another stupid grading has been made next Saturday night at Menangle.
Race 3 a heat of the M1 to M2 with conditions.
There on the new 2nd row sits Monifieth a M9
A quick look at his last 9 starts show 8 Group 3 starts for 3 wins and a 2nd plus a Listed Classic start. Total prizemoney for the 9 starts $ 60,800.

[DRUIDRACING]

Hi Bailey ...question how would you grade horses...........I think there is no grading system that will appease all participants....It must be hard to place horses as my trainer found out. We only have a small team and with work restrictions we can only go racing when things are organised. We went to the races on 3 occasions and the races only ever suited one of the horses, however to get race fitness we had to race and try and find races that suited the others. I like to see my horses race and it cost $$$ i cant wait 4 weeks to find a suitable race. one horse who won his first race was then to get a run was placed in a R1 and better race and got to race a c4 and ran last as expected went good tho 58.6 last half. the horse won a Mo just recently. What can we do ???

[p plater]

Steven, the example of your horse a R1 racing a C4 is the problem. Your trainer would not pick that race but the handicappers are only worried about field sizes and change the conditions to suit. Your trainer at the time of nomination has no idea this will happen, he would expect your horse to race other R1's to maybe R2's.
As you say "your can't wait 4 weeks for a suitable race" your expenses are weekly. The handicappers don't care about that, no concern for you to be able to cover your costs in a winnable race, just change the conditions so the race has more starters eg also R3 or better than have not won $6000 in last 4 starts...your trainer didn't know that.
Lack of numbers has caused this but if they persist they will have owners like you leave the sport and buy a greyhound.
Victoria don't have this problem, their program clearly states the grades.
Nominate in NSW and you have R0 or better...C2 or better....M1 or better and you play lotto each week. Take race 7 at Menangle this Saturday night a C3-C5 with added conditions, now race includes 4 horse C6 to C10. The owners of the C3's would be wild....but the handicappers don't care because they made it PDC.
They must restrict the spread to 2 grades....it might cause some pain in small fields for a short time but owners and trainers will come back.
Advertise races for horses that have not won $000 in last 5 starts at least everyone involved knows the condition on nomination

[Messenger]

Am I right in thinking that this system was supposed to be about reducing the number of long odds on faves? And if so, has that happened?
(I much prefer the Vic system where YOU pretty much determine what race you are in)

[Sofoulis]

I agree with you on this matter Bailey. Whilst we may own the horse and the trainer train the horse - we do not have much control about what types of races the horse competes in. I believe the rationale behind the handicappers looking to bolster field sizes is sound in their mind (bigger fields with less odds-on favourites = higher turnover = more funds for the industry), but unfortunately, it isn't as simple as this. Bigger field sizes + lack of control over racing = another great reason NOT to own a horse = less horses = reduced fields or races = lower turnover = vicious downward spiral.


If they want higher numbers, try:
1. stop slogging importers with an "import fee" (which is an illegal tax in my view anyway given free trade arrangement with NZ)
2. allowing the use of whatever products they permit in the US (my limited understanding suggests the US allows medication to be used to assist bleeders? - I could be wrong on this, but if it is right, wouldn't this extend the racing life of our horse population?)
3. stop advertising to the converted and hit mainstream so NEW people are involved.
4. consider significantly changing the prize-money allocations. The difference between restricted, country, metro and group race stakes is absolutely ridiculous in my view.

[p plater]

Am I right in thinking that this system was supposed to be about reducing the number of long odds on faves? And if so, has that happened?
(I much prefer the Vic system where YOU pretty much determine what race you are in)

That was the theory Kev, it hasn't worked so now they want 12 horse fields to increase turnover.

The Vic system is much better and well supported....compare that to the up coming Penrith program....if you have a C2 who will you race?

Race programme

PENRITH Thursday 24 September 2015 (Night meeting)

Nominations close: 9:30 AM Monday 21 September 2015 Acceptances: 1:30 PM Monday 21 September 2015 Race fields available: 4:00 PM Monday 21 September 2015 Search Programmes (http://www.harness.org.au/programme-search.cfm?state=nsw) Race code Start Race name Total Stakes Class Metres
Draw Other conditions PEC24091501 MS THREE YEAR OLD PACE $5,100 3YO,
3C0 Only. ,
1720
PBD/WOE NO CONCESSION CLAIMS PEC24091502 MS C0 PACE $5,100 3YO+,
C0 Only. ,
1720
PBD/LTW NO CONCESSION CLAIMS PEC24091503 MS C1 PACE $5,100 C1 Only. ,
1720
PBD/SEX
PEC24091504 MS C0 & BETTER PACE $5,100 C0 Or Better. ,
2125
DIVIDED CONDITIONS The HRNSW Handicapping Panel will frame race conditions and select race fields from the nominations received. PEC24091505 MS CLAIMING PACE $5,100 Claim not exceeding 5000.00,
2125
PBD/$L4 NO CONCESSION CLAIMS

[p plater]

I would welcome comments on this interview.
Answers some questions on priority
http://www.harnessmediacentre.com.au/trotstv/tvvideos/21157

[p plater]

I have not made a comment for some time on this topic but I feel another stupid grading has been made next Saturday night at Menangle.
Race 3 a heat of the M1 to M2 with conditions.
There on the new 2nd row sits Monifieth a M9
A quick look at his last 9 starts show 8 Group 3 starts for 3 wins and a 2nd plus a Listed Classic start. Total prizemoney for the 9 starts $ 60,800.

Amanda Rando on this weeks Menangle Mail reads

"The best for Amanda is Monifieth in race three. Despite his seventh-placed effort last week, the seven-year-old gelding still ran a decent time and is extremely well graded for this challenge"

[aussiebreno]

Shes a Jackson yesterday at Wagga race 2. C3 up against C0s and C1s. Odds on and won comfortably. Top effort from the handicappers there.

[Richard prior]

G'day Brenno, I just can't get my head around this Handicapping system, The only real value would be in the Exotic's and I'm sure that the Betting agencies wouldn't be real happy with a Handicapping certainty like Shes a Jackson being a C3 up against the CO's and C1's, Really surprised that she didn't start shorter.

[Gtrain]

That's her grade. A mare with a claimer is a c1. Nothing outrageous there. She was drawn 9. Anything that increases racing opportunities for mares must be maintained.

[Richard prior]

Thanks for that Grant, I should have had a closer look, Didn't realise she had a claimer on board and drawing 9 is tough, When you look at the all over picture it's a pretty good option for mares and I'm all for giving racemares increased opportunity's.

[p plater]

Well the Interdominion nominated Monifieth now a M10 won a heat of the M1-M2 last night with a leg in the air....What a surprise.
I understand the talk in the stables was all about how he got a start in the first place. Apparently other trainers wanted to put their horses in the race once they saw him in but
were told no chance, even though some were only M3.
I'm told one trainer said he is losing owners for new horses because of this grading system, they are looking at Queensland and Victoria to race.
Another made a comment that the 3 horses that got a start with grades above the M1-M2, being Monifieth, Machtavish and Ideal Scott all from the McCarthy clan...interesting.

[p plater]

It's nice to see this weeks Metro Meeting having races with horses racing within their grades.
Except for the carry over from last weeks fiasco with Monifieth M10 racing in a M1-M2 final.

But a closer look might tell the story of what this grading system is doing to the sport in NSW.

Saturday night's races for pacers include a final, 2 MO races, 2 MO-M1 mares races a C3-C5 race and an Open pace
The final and the C3-C5 have 12 and 11 starters the rest only fields of 10, even though the new policy is 12 horse fields.

2 things stand out. 1) Advertised M0 and M0-M1 mares plus the C3-C5 races were well supported. 2) Where are the M2 plus horses.

I think the answer to 2 is that these horses have been scared off due to the presumption they will be used to make up races against the true FFA pacers.

The handicappers have created this with their "conditions" they add AFTER nominations to make up fields.

Please go back to the Victorian model.

[Messenger]

Trying to catch up here Bailey - so an M2 was advertised but not filled (or isn't that how your system works anymore) - Correct?
I am not sure we have many M2 only races down here (it is a bit of an inbetween class isn't it)
I notice there are six M2 horses going around on Friday night - how many more would there be that wanted a race
I do agree that the Vic model is much more preferable to owners and their new preferential racing may be a better way to even out races

[p plater]

Trying to catch up here Bailey - so an M2 was advertised but not filled (or isn't that how your system works anymore) - Correct?
I am not sure we have many M2 only races down here (it is a bit of an inbetween class isn't it)
I notice there are six M2 horses going around on Friday night - how many more would there be that wanted a race
I do agree that the Vic model is much more preferable to owners and their new preferential racing may be a better way to even out races

Kev,

To understand the Owners and trainers frustration here is the advertised race(s) for M2 or better for 3rd October.

PCM03101503 MS PACE (GROUP 3) $30,600 M2 Or Better. ,
2300
DIVIDED CONDITIONS The HRNSW Handicapping Panel will frame race conditions and select race fields from the nominations received. Please note: Division 1 prizemoney will be $30000 , Division 2 will be $20000.Division 3 will be $12000.

[DRUIDRACING]

bailey are you a punter ? then you should be rich picking all these horses that get in races via the rules. in the early days of the gallops rating benchmark you could pick the better rated ones but not so much now. this system is in place so trainers have no alternative but to use it and when possible to their advantage but then bad form may miss the race you should win by being balloted out.

[p plater]

Hi Steven,
Yeah I have a punt but not to any great degree.
Maybe you have misunderstood my stand on this matter. It appears the industry in NSW is making its decisions purely to increase betting turnover, from the CEO's comments to increased race sizes. No doubt the idea of the Handicappers framing the race conditions AFTER nominations was to ensure races stood up, fair enough no major problem with that. The problem lies imo, they then apply conditions to allow horses way beyond the base of a race to compete, as highlighted recently with Monifieth a M9 at the time of nomination being allowed to compete against horses coming through the grades in a M1-M2 heat for a Group 3 final for M1-M2, that's what the program stated.
We see it every week these add on conditions. But this is driving Owners and Trainers up the wall, they have no control in the placement of their horses. It was not that long ago when trainers could map out a program for their horse knowing the class of horse and possible barrier position at the time of nomination. As trainers say "no gut buster" and some trainers were outstanding at placing a horse. That has now gone with the C2 or better and M2 or better lotto that now prevails.
NSW needs to allow owners and trainers to place their horses, let them feel they have an input and encourage involvement..we need more owners to boast our racing stock which in turn will increase race sizes and turnover.

[DRUIDRACING]

Im not sure the field sizes will make to much difference to turnover but i may be wrong. The average punter dont look at the class of the horses they look at the price as i see it. i would like to know what % of turnover is from Fixed betting.
the class system as I see it does keep horses in the system longer with the drop down system. with all the problems from various avenues i would imagine that the pool of horses would have reduced by now thus C2 or better races framed by the authority allows them to program the races from nominations. I have taken a sample of over 4500 horses predominately residing and racing in NSW and found CO 35% C1 20% C2 9.5% C3 6% C4 4% C5 1.5% C6 1% and C7+ 2.5% so working on my figures all 25% of horses are C2 or better. so the horse pool of C3 and C4 is very low thus it would be very hard to frame specific races without conditions. 4% of horses raced win a MO. I recall that Western Australia at regional centres had a problem with too many C1 class horses and not enough races. In a nutshell Im glad im not trying to frame race programs.

[gregcattell]

so your happy to race a co up against m5 horses

[Messenger]

Maybe this is why there were far more Stand Start handicaps in the old days with horses coming off 100m+
Stand Starts are certainly one way of mixing classes more fairly so maybe the predominance of the mobile is a major part of the problem which is probably the result of punter preference/turnover figures

[Messenger]

A look at Swan Hill tonight is probably a good example of why NSW are trying something

R.1 $217k winner Linda Lovegrace going around at $1.04 in a C0 (probably no surprise the field shrunk from 11 to 7 with 4 savvy scratchings)

R.6 $198k C14 M5 Uncle Wingnut going around in a C6+ against 3 M0's and 1 M1 On paper it appeared to be a good race but as might be expected, despite doing all the work, Uncle was too strong

ps Only a 6 race program (43 starters) is a worry in itself

Results http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=QB220915&ms=vic
Fields http://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=QB220915&fromstate=vic

[DRUIDRACING]

I may be wrong but field sizes are shrinking, could this be a flow on effect from the new class system, low horse numbers, time of year ? Bathurst fields last night were poor for this great track. Only 5 heats of the Canola cup $30k race one heat less than last year. Maybe thats why Bathurst had smaller fields.

[Rex Horne]

I read with interest your condemnation of the NSW handicapping system and I make the following comments.

You talk about the horse Monifieth in a heat of the M1/M2 that also had conditions. The horse won the heat with a starting price of $2.20 (hardly a short priced favourite).

In the final the next week the horse started at $2.40 and came 3rd. The best starting price for harness racing is between $1.90 and $2.50.

If this horse was so much better than the rest of the field it would have started at $1.10.

A horses' last 5 to 7 starts is more important than its M class or C class and the best person to work that out is the professional handicapper.

The divided handicapping system is used for 2 or 3 races of an 8 race program and most often is for C2 and better and M2 and better.


Year on year the new system has provided:

Less odds on favourites (an 8.2% decrease).
Larger field sizes (8.7-9.2).
Average turnover per race was up $5,600 in the last financial year and is up a further $1,300 per race in this financial year.
The percentage of winning owner partnerships increased from 48.0% to 50.7%
The percentage of winning trainers increased from 55.5% to 57.4%.
The percentage of winning drivers increased from 49.7% to 54.2%.
I do not think there will ever be a perfect grading system but do firmly believe it is more flexible than what we had and it is working.

Rex Horne
Chairman HRNSW

[Messenger]

Thanks for the info Rex. The odds would seem to be a great indicator of whether the horse had a huge class advantage. I suppose the fact that the horse had won a Gp3 FFA and a Listed FFA in his last 7 starts caught some people's attention. The figures provided (along with the 14% increase in midweek prizemoney) are figures that appear to be going in the right direction

[aussiebreno]

Do we have a problem with horses who have been consistently in a grade not just for 5 or 7 starts but 40 starts being disadvantaged by horses who were in a higher grade for 40 starts then dropping back on the basis of 5 or 7 and once again beating the horses who have been in that lower grade for 40 starts?

[DRUIDRACING]

thank you rex and adam fairley on explanations and information about this system. more of this information please!! then the participants can understand if the system on the whole is achieving its goal,

[p plater]

Rex, welcome aboard.
The purpose of this tread was to highlight the support or lack of it to Owners and Trainers.
They are the ones putting their money into the sport. Without them there is no sport.
Mix with these people on a social basis and you get the feeling they think they are being shafted and could leave the sport in NSW.
Gone are the days of being able to determine where and when to race their horses in grades they consider to their advantage to get a return on their investment, this is now determined in NSW by the "Professional Handicappers" as you put it.
The recent Monifieth selection would put a doubt on that title.
Here's your Pub Talk, 2 races series were advertised, a MO with heat and final plus the next week a M1-M2 heat with final with NO CONDITIONS.
The handicappers added the conditions after nominations closed to include higher graded horses...comments: How could they do that! They're killing the sport! Would not have nominated!
Would it surprise you to know that of the finalists in the M1-M2 event, none had recorded prior to the heats a personal best time better than 1.52.1. Their times ranged from 1.52.1 to 1.54.2 and that's lifetime.
Then we have Monifieth. a M9, a winner of over $148,000 last season which finished weeks prior, his last 7 starts, as you indicate is taken into account for selection by the "Professional Handicappers" include 6 Group3 races and a listed Classic, he won the Golden Mile, he had 3 starts over the 1609 with personal times of 1.51.7 twice and a 1.52.1 with prizemoney of $42,300. The "Professional Handicappers" stuffed up and upset a lot of Owners and Trainers.
Secondly, all the changes being made are directed to the turnover, this is evident in your response with turnover figures, plus increased field sizes, adding sprint lanes and a new financial cost to withdraw a horse after nomination released. I wonder why that happens.
Rex, your efforts to create the "Best" track in Australia and the fairest (all runners off the front) has now been prostituted and the reason given, to increase turnover not to help the Owners or Trainers.....as I said before, without Owners and Trainers there is no sport.
Under the current handicapping system of C2 or better and M2 or better it has become a lottery every week, all in the hands of your "Professional Handicappers".

[Race For Fun]

^ Right on the money Bailey. I thought the job of the handicapper was to handicap the horses that the trainers decide are best suited to a particular race. No one can place a horse when the powers that be move the goal posts after nominations have closed. To my mind the handicapper is making up races that are easy to fill (the wider the classes the easier it is to get larger field sizes). But in my opinion most trainers want to race horses roughly the same class (this is where the lack of horses shows up). In my opinion.

[p plater]

In the interest of fairness and accuracy, it has been made known to me that the M1-M2 series did have conditions attached to it.
n
PCM12091502 - M1/M2 HEATS (MS)
of $21420.
M1 To M2. PBD/M. 1609 metres. Also eligible M3+ which
have not won $5000 in their last 4 star ts. Also eligible
horses that nominated for 03 and received a ballot.
Horses must nominate for both races to be eligible. Final
of $30000 to be conducted on the 18/09/15 HRNSW
Heats & Final conditions

Fair enough, but does that really allow a seasoned horse like Monifieth (only $4800 in last 4 starts) to be considered for M1-M2.
Maybe Rex like many others would think a greater number of starts should be taken into consideration, regardless of last 4 only.
I don't wish to put words into Rex's mouth, I only mention this due to Rex's comment.
I think its interesting from my look at the results of that meeting, there was no race 03 so the M1-M2's were lucky not to have plenty of FFA horses involved.
As Toni said, it's easy to fill a field when you widen the class of runner.

[Messenger]

Like many I cannot help but think the words "the horse has been well placed" is now a thing of the past in NSW and one that many owner/trainers are going to have trouble coming to terms with. It just doesn't seem right that the handicapper has all the say when he does not pay the bills. I think the handicapper could be best used to determine barriers if NSW was to adopt a preferential draw system. I know you have 10 across at Menangle which can negate the draw to a certain effect but does it have to be 10 across? To even out a field could a handicapper decide runners X, Y & Z are to start off the second line regardless of field size?

[bbd]

Like many I cannot help but think the words "the horse has been well placed" is now a thing of the past in NSW and one that many owner/trainers are going to have trouble coming to terms with. It just doesn't seem right that the handicapper has all the say when he does not pay the bills. I think the handicapper could be best used to determine barriers if NSW was to adopt a preferential draw system. I know you have 10 across at Menangle which can negate the draw to a certain effect but does it have to be 10 across? To even out a field could a handicapper decide runners X, Y & Z are to start off the second line regardless of field size?

Hi Kev,

Putting runners on the back row is NOT a handicap at Menangle (and perhaps plenty of other places too). Inside the second row will most times put you behind the leader or at worst 3 back. A lot of drivers would consider that the perfect place. In any case, it stops the lesser performed horses getting down to the pegs so they can have some cover.

[Messenger]

I agree Col that SR1 and SR2 can be fancied barriers but maybe not so much SR3 and SR4 but you are right that I am struggling to come up with alternatives LOL

[Messenger]

NSW are not the only state having trouble evening out the grading. Check out Race 4's : C6 or better at Melton on Friday. I think a couple of them would be wishing that they had opted for the C5-6 Last at Shep on Wed which only has 6 runners.

http://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=MX021015&fromstate=vic#4

[p plater]

NSW are not the only state having trouble evening out the grading. Check out Race 4's : C6 or better at Melton on Friday. I think a couple of them would be wishing that they had opted for the C5-6 Last at Shep on Wed which only has 6 runners.

http://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=MX021015&fromstate=vic#4

There is the difference between States, Vic nominates the grades C5-C6 at Shep and C6 or better at Melton. Trainer can choose their best option. Full marks for running a 6 horse field.
NSW would have the base nomination as C3 or better and the Professional Handicappers would make up a full field with changed conditions to suit them. An example was yesterdays Menangle last race a C6-C12 field of 10 selected, run won by a C11

[Messenger]

I suppose it is full marks for running a 6 horse field but with only 6 horses in the C3-4 as well, I do not know if it is good business. No doubt if it was in NSW they would have gone with two C2-3's (as there are 12 in a C2) and made it a C4-6

[broco]

A good example for this thread are the young nsw fields for friday.
From memory the program available to trainers was, the place of origin final (riverina horses who qualified at wagga and central west horses who qualified at bathurst only 2 heats conducted), a 3yo race, a C0 and that brilliant blight to trainers the C1 or better where the handicappers make your races up.
Now there were 20 available C1 horses in the nominations so instead of having 2x C1 events giving all 20 C1 horses a run in their own grade they split this into 3 races, a C1 mares with 8 in it, a not won more that $1300 in last 4 no better than C1 with 10 in it and then in all their wisdom they decided to make a C2 which have not won more than $4000 last 4, C3 which have not won more than $1500 last 4, oh and to make the field up also eligible C1.
Now here is where the joke becomes evident that those 2x C1 horses Somart and Artegra were being used to make a field up, neither horse has won a race in over 10 starts, whereas many of the C2s and C3s they are asked to race against have won multiple races in their last 10 , so why should they be made race out of class?
Well our horse somart had been unlucky enough to earn $1650 in place money his last 4 and artegra $2250 in his last 4, but to add insult to injury these horses were not even afforded the luxury of a pbd/c they got an rbd with C3's to draw inside them.
We pulled our horse out before acceptances but if you dont see the noms when they come out your stuck in a race that your horse is outclassed in and if scratching are forced to take a minimum 7 days (another farcical rule that I wont get into).

Yes we have been on the other end of this with another horse hurrysound finding himself down in grade a few times not that it ever suits him stuck on back row draws and the leaders walking.

Oh and dont speak out about it because your horses will draw as far out as they can possibly be put, but seeing as though our horses very rarely see a suitable draw I guess writing this cant see them draw out any further than they already do.

[DRUIDRACING]

can anyone add up our johny jet $12,600 in the last 4 starts..........it states $4000..........what am i missing ?

[broco]

Also eligible C1 which with the concession claim gifts the horse into the race

[p plater]

Monique's comments highlights the problem the NSW trainers/owners now face with this "Professional Handicappers" panel.
Their main aim is to increase field sizes. The addition of C1 runners to that field was purely that.
Where is the consideration for the Owners cost in placing a horse out of class. In Monique's case her horse,in her opinion, was totally outclassed in that field and she would cover her costs by the $120 starters return for unplaced runners if it remained in the field. Deduct the driver fee and the cost of a 140km return trip to the course and she can keep the rest. Big deal.
If she or her trainer had nominated for that race, knowing the conditions, no problems but they are not given the chance in this new lotto nomination system.
I say again, it is for the punting dollar not for allowing owners to make a few dollars and reinvest in new stock. They will kill off the owners.

[DRUIDRACING]

Any one know how the RBD are generated ie computer program, lotto drawer or some other means...i see the Hawkes were having the same trouble with the draws in the gallops.

I know another trainer who has been racing hasnt drawn any better than 6 or back row with one of his horses. last 4 starts.

[broco]

Go through our draws its enough to give you a real good laugh, at the moment the "computer" must have us set for 7, nice draw for some unless you have bold front runners.
Its apparently computer generated, we all know computers have glitches, im told these dont and cant.
Its not just my imagination, try masons falls he drew a decent gate his first start for me, looked capable of winning a race and never drew a gate after it.
Our horses near fall over if they get anywhere near the inside of a front row they have no idea what it looks like.
7x runners from last monday to this coming monday 2x 5, 2x 7, 2x 8 and 1x 9 that cant all be just bad luck?
I would love an answer for such draws for all our runners, I would like to watch our runners drawn out of a hat for a few meetings and see if our luck really is that bad and then maybe it wont be such a hard pill to swallow, because week after week I see other stables consistantly drawing 1s and 2s

[broco]

For those on here following our draws, another 2 starters at young on friday both have drawn 9 lol.
Im not just picking out our bad draws to show these are the only draws we seem to be able to get, if these really are random with no computer virus or whatever wouldn't you think we could fluke 1,2 or 3 once in a blue moon?
I know we all have our share of bad luck on the draws but this is becoming a laugh, horses are going sensational all the same but ah what might happen if they did fluke a gate?