The Flat Earth Society strikes again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mango

I suppose that's something they would have to way up, would a makeover be worth seeing a few more dances or would the money be better off being spent where they will be dancing for a long time to come.

---

These were also my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mango

I suppose that's something they would have to way up, would a makeover be worth seeing a few more dances or would the money be better off being spent where they will be dancing for a long time to come.

---

Mango I guess that would depend on where you think the long term dancehall should be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzy

Jamie I don't care who comes up with the good ideas or who obtains the bouquets for them so long as good ideas are implemented!

---

[VVV] That's very altruistic of you Dot.
Now & again I'd like to see the credit given where it is due, that's all. Some encumbents have over the years become extremely adept at grabbing bouquets & dodging brickbats however. Things that work will invariably be their ideas and theirs alone while those that fail, well, they were the spawn of others and from the outset, doomed to fail.
Industry Consultation has far too often code for Pick the brains of all those who bother to turn up & if, from the huddled masses an unexpected gem is unveiled the default position is snap it up & run with it like you were born with the notion.
Don't you think it would make for a very pleasant change for someone to come out & say "Well, we went along to the meeting at Upper Cumbucta West and old Fred, he stood up and spoke about such and such...and we thought that what he suggested was a good idea so we picked it up and we ran with it"...or whatever. When was the last time you saw that happen?

I don't question what you say here Jamie and yes it does and doesn't happen as you say but at the end of the day does it really matter so long as good things get done and wrong choices get discarded. Does any one person ever really come up with and implement an idea all on their own? I think we all know that they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzy

. Does any one person ever really come up with and implement an idea all on their own? I think we all know that they don't.

---

[VVV] G'day Dot,

I wouldn't be too quick to jump aboard that perenially leaky boat.

Post the EI outbreak here in NSW, do you recall ever paying an Australian Horse Industry Council levvy via HRNSW for the clean-up of said outbreak?
Don't sweat it if you don't recall because it didn't happen...but apparently not without a rather diligent effort being made by the then CEO of the then Australian Harness Racing Council in order to make it so.
This it appeared was a one man policy development/decision making process at work, one which it was said stood to cost the Industry plenty and the fact that it was alive and well and in place and ready to roll but ONLY CAME TO LIGHT BY SHEER ACCIDENT is an extremely disturbing thing, one that occasionally still pisses me off to this very day.

An Industry participant's mate was a Federal MP at the time & saw some horse related legislation come across his desk which as it happened was set down for its 1st reading that day.
Knowing of his mate's involvement in Harness Racing the MP phoned him from Parliament House in Canberra to get a bit of background/input on it. Not having heard anything about it, the participant listened intently and it was then that the alarm bells began to ring.
A quick call around revealed that virtually nobody, anywhere knew anything about it...not at a local nor even at a State or Inter State level.
It was only at the 11th hour that the plan for a National Clean Up Levvy was scuttled...one that would have seen Horse people paying to clean up a disease outbreak that the Government of the day had been responsible for creating...and with the double edged sword of revealing those who were in place to look after our best interests to have apparently inexplicably been lining up to sell us down the river...for God only knows the reasons why. Perhaps it was to cultivate some political favour? Perhaps to simply secure an invite to the next Ministerial Cocktail Party? Who knows. In Harness Racing terms it was approaching treasonous in my book.

So Dot, having read the above, no doubt you'll find it within yourself to forgive me if now and again I seem to view some things with a rather jaundiced eye.

I have just read the presentation sent out by HRNSW that was used at the roadshows. Some points of interest for me are;

1. Funding increase ($1.1M from FY11 to FY13) seems a bit mediocre given that there are 150 additional meetings, trackside gaming revenue & increased wagering via TAB Fixed Odds.
2. Fully support the move to centralised programming - this is a no brainer in my opinion. Make it happen Sam!
3. Great to see $2M being invested on plant, equipment & track works. The safety of participants & horses is paramount. The better quality tracks we have will also generate more competitive racing.
4. Some quick decisions need to be made on the 'potential projects'. If all of these get caught up in red tape or people putting personal interests ahead of the sport this will be a crying shame! Some these will certainly evolve the industry so they must expedite a couple and get it done.
5. I understand the economic rationalisation behind the changes to the number of race meetings etc. This needs careful ongoing review, particularly in regional growth areas.
6. Handicapping is an interesting subject. My view is why can't we have both? Surely a model where class and conditioned races existed would be exciting and diverse. All we need to do is play around with the mix to understand what balance generates the most competitive fields.
7. I would support a controlled trial of seeded barriers draws. This is certainly worth investigating if it can make races more competitive.
8. I don't support the idea of nominating for a meeting instead of a programmed race. Too hard for trainers to have their horses at peak on race day if they only find out distance 4 days before.
9. User pay licensing should be bought in for restricted license holders. Any A class license holder should pay upfront. The administration of this needs to be simple and cost effective.
10. Strategies & Concepts: Not sure how much each of the points were elaborated on but I thought this lacked innovation. As I have said before evolution is critical and you only achieve this through the development of new strategies and concepts. Of the 6 points raised nothing stood out as being overly exciting. Prize money growth = obvious, Fillies & Mares Schemes & Incentives = obvious, GWS Track = This is the only real innovation albeit very controversial, Sprint Lanes = pros/cons, Breeders challenge series = good.

Overall a step in the right direction.

I don,t know the full extent of the presentation BUT if your point No.8 is correct then it is a case of BACK TO THE FUTURE. That is how you used to nominate before the late Eightys', nominate for a programme and after the fields were drawn up, the handicappers would lump all those that didn't get a start into a conditioned race that encompassed those that missed out.
It was rubbish then and it will be the same now.

Wasn't the plan for those nominate for the meeting and let the handicappers sort them out option that it initially be used for/applicable to R meetings only? Incidentally Lee, that EXACT thing happened here in NSW back when the EI outbreak occurred & not only did much more competitive racing result but during that period TAB turnover actually went UP & quite significantly so.
It was an extremely valuable real life tested and proven lesson that sadly was apparently lost on virtually all and sundry because no sooner had the EI outbreak been mopped up than things went back to the way they had been previously...with every silo town & dung hill programming their own races...and surprise, surprise, turnover duly retreated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triple V

Wasn't the plan for those nominate for the meeting and let the handicappers sort them out option that it initially be used for/applicable to R meetings only? Incidentally Lee, that EXACT thing happened here in NSW back when the EI outbreak occurred & not only did much more competitive racing result but during that period TAB turnover actually went UP & quite significantly so.
It was an extremely valuable real life tested and proven lesson that sadly was apparently lost on virtually all and sundry because no sooner had the EI outbreak been mopped up than things went back to the way they had been previously...with every silo town & dung hill programming their own races...and surprise, surprise, turnover duly retreated.

---

G'day Jaimie

I don't think that nominating for a meeting is the way to go, I am however fully supportive of a centralised approach to programming with full on conditional racing. i think trainers should have the ability to place horses and the North America model looks well suited here. I think there needs to be some form of ceiling on the conditions so as to avoid the more dominant dropping back against the weaker horses. The idea of $ earnt in their last 6, 5 or 3 starts is one way, however, without care it is possible for horses competing at the higher level to sneak into a weak event and basically dominate. In many of the North American programs they include conditions which make earners, of say more than $50k lifetime as an example, ineligible. I think this would be the way to go, there's endless conditions that can be written whilst still giving trainers the ability to plan and place horses, and whilst also ensuring that like races like.

Regards

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Croatto

G'day Jaimie

I don't think that nominating for a meeting is the way to go, I am however fully supportive of a centralised approach to programming with full on conditional racing. i think trainers should have the ability to place horses and the North America model looks well suited here. I think there needs to be some form of ceiling on the conditions so as to avoid the more dominant dropping back against the weaker horses. The idea of $ earnt in their last 6, 5 or 3 starts is one way, however, without care it is possible for horses competing at the higher level to sneak into a weak event and basically dominate. In many of the North American programs they include conditions which make earners, of say more than $50k lifetime as an example, ineligible. I think this would be the way to go, there's endless conditions that can be written whilst still giving trainers the ability to plan and place horses, and whilst also ensuring that like races like.

Regards

Mark

---

[VVV] G'day Mark,
I agree with all of that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of you nominate and let us sort it out, rather I was trying to highlight that during that EI outbreak period here in NSW we operated under full on conditioned racing principles (albeit with the composition of the fields being left to the discretion of the handicappers)...and competitive racing/like racing like/turnover wise it worked extremely well. The sooner that we finally change to centralised programming and a full conditioned racing basis here in NSW, the beter off we'll be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triple V

[VVV] G'day Mark,
I agree with all of that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of you nominate and let us sort it out, rather I was trying to highlight that during that EI outbreak period here in NSW we operated under full on conditioned racing principles (albeit with the composition of the fields being left to the discretion of the handicappers)...and competitive racing/like racing like/turnover wise it worked extremely well. The sooner that we finally change to centralised programming and a full conditioned racing basis here in NSW, the beter off we'll be.

---

Hi Jaimie

I didn't think you were. Actually, Goulburn held about 6 meetings under those conditions, and as you said, they were a roaring success in both the quality of racing and from the perspective of turnover.

Regards

Mark

The issue was not about centralised handicapping,it will come and probably not soon enough if you look closely at the 'same old,same old' that most clubs offer.
No.8 was about blind nominating for a meeting rather than a race/s. This method does not recognise that Standardbreds are similar to Thoroughbreds in that some are purely sprinters(1600m), middle distance (2000m) and stayers (2200+). We all know the faster class horses can win over all distances, but this is generally due to the speed of the race, a benefit not often offered to those in restricted grades.
Trainers should be able to place their respective horses where they are most able to get a return and not just be making up the numbers for the sake of the clubs.TAB.

Hi Lee
I agree totally that trainers should be able to place there horses where they have the best possible chance of getting a return for the owner who pay's the bill. I don't think any owner would be happy to see his horse in a race just to make up the number's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lethal

The issue was not about centralised handicapping,it will come and probably not soon enough if you look closely at the 'same old,same old' that most clubs offer.
No.8 was about blind nominating for a meeting rather than a race/s. This method does not recognise that Standardbreds are similar to Thoroughbreds in that some are purely sprinters(1600m), middle distance (2000m) and stayers (2200+). We all know the faster class horses can win over all distances, but this is generally due to the speed of the race, a benefit not often offered to those in restricted grades.
Trainers should be able to place their respective horses where they are most able to get a return and not just be making up the numbers for the sake of the clubs.TAB.

---

Hi Lee

I agree, is anybody saying that shouldn't be the case? Have conditioned racing with workable and realistic conditions around a centralised programming approach. Trainers should see what the type of race is on offer for any particular meeting, and in particular the condtions which apply. I can't see anybody arguing differently

Regards

Mark

If you look at Mitchs' post about the HRNSW presentation, then it seems to suggest that this was what was proposed, ie: nominating for a meeting rather than for a race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lethal

If you look at Mitchs' post about the HRNSW presentation, then it seems to suggest that this was what was proposed, ie: nominating for a meeting rather than for a race.

---

I'm with you now. Yes, you're right; it should not happen. I'm reasonably confident it won't

Regards

That's what it used to be like and it was diabolical.

Fellas,
When you think about it, under a Centralised Programming/Conditioned Racing system, either way...as in Trainers nominating a horse for a meeting & letting the Handicappers sort it out...or otherwise having the Handicappers writing and publishing the race conditions for Trainers to then nominate to, which is effectively pre-sorting the fields by way of conditions, the Handicapper has the final say on the composition of fields and whatever it is, be it a Pre or Post nom sorting system...the net result would effectively be the same. One's passive, the other active, that's all.

have a horse started racing january was c5 first 3 starts had to race against horses up
m4 or better drop back in class can not get conscistant racing 13 starts 7 no starts so far
r1 & better cowra could not make race for r7 horses on home track is this fair

Trainers should alway have the final say on what they start in as only they can know a horses "real" condition. "Centralised" programming did work well during EI at Bankstown with very limited numbers for our 2 meetings before we sucumbed to EI. In many races the driver was instrumental in the outcome with not surprisingly Josh Willick for the most part prevailing.

As for each club doing their own programming then obviously the skill and knowledge of the individual doing the job is paramount. Rather then a fully centralised system or an individual club one, then maybe one person overseeing a region in consultation with individual clubs and HRNSW maybe the best model. I presume that HRNSW has the ability to "ghost" meetings from the data they receive on trials and nominations, which is likely to be more accurate then stable or return to work forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triple V

Fellas,
When you think about it, under a Centralised Programming/Conditioned Racing system, either way...as in Trainers nominating a horse for a meeting & letting the Handicappers sort it out...or otherwise having the Handicappers writing and publishing the race conditions for Trainers to then nominate to, which is effectively pre-sorting the fields by way of conditions, the Handicapper has the final say on the composition of fields and whatever it is, be it a Pre or Post nom sorting system...the net result would effectively be the same. One's passive, the other active, that's all.

---

Handicappers make blatant and simple mistakes in selecting fields from the noms for one race, as I've pointed out on this forum before. How they could appropriately select fields with no programming to go is beyond me.
During EI race fields were down, people were just happy to get a run. On the same card there were R1/2s and then R2-R5s etc...a trainer of an R2 may prefer one race conditions over the other. How does the handicapper decide which R2 goes in what race?

Similarly, the R1+ divided race conditions which are currently programmed and then turned into a race/races. Out of these divided conditions lets say that come up with two races that are both R1-R3. One is $L4 <$2000 and the other is $L4 <$4000. There has been situations where a horse eligible for the <$2000 race have ended up in the <$4000 race due to number of horses entered.

These kind of things happen and irritate people even if Jesus Christ himself was the handicapper. Letting a handicapper pick fields from noms received is scary.

P.S When Arwoc Flier ran 2nd at Leeton on New Years Night it made for a very profitable night (got quinella). Unfortunately it has still been my most profitable night for the year and probably will be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzy

Trainers should alway have the final say on what they start in as only they can know a horses "real" condition. "Centralised" programming did work well during EI at Bankstown with very limited numbers for our 2 meetings before we sucumbed to EI. In many races the driver was instrumental in the outcome with not surprisingly Josh Willick for the most part prevailing.

As for each club doing their own programming then obviously the skill and knowledge of the individual doing the job is paramount. Rather then a fully centralised system or an individual club one, then maybe one person overseeing a region in consultation with individual clubs and HRNSW maybe the best model. I presume that HRNSW has the ability to "ghost" meetings from the data they receive on trials and nominations, which is likely to be more accurate then stable or return to work forms.

---

Field conditions are written, and need to be written, well in advance of race day. Of course trial and noms all help, but they say who is at the races now (or in a week or two) whereas other forms could identify who could be racing in 2-3 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Field conditions are written, and need to be written, well in advance of race day. Of course trial and noms all help, but they say who is at the races now (or in a week or two) whereas other forms could identify who could be racing in 2-3 months.

---

[VVV] Indeed. That's right on the money Breno.
A return to work aspect added to Stable Returns is a double edged sword but it is a pleasant one because, when combined with Centralised Programming, it would definitely allow for the production of much more accurate programming and with it a very significant shortening of the current lead in times.
Instead of the 2-3 months routine, under such a system it could be easily cut down to a 1 month to 6 weeks spread. More accurate and more timely information would of course allow for more accurate programming and consequently more races would stand up and more horses would get a start. I reckon it's a no brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzy

trainers should alway have the final say on what they start in as only they can know a horses "real" condition. "centralised" programming did work well during ei at bankstown with very limited numbers for our 2 meetings before we sucumbed to ei. In many races the driver was instrumental in the outcome with not surprisingly josh willick for the most part prevailing.
[vvv] g'day dot,
there's no downplaying it. It worked incredibly well & throughout the whole state in fact and with good sized fields in most instances. It duly produced closer, more competitive racing & so much better wagering opportunities...consequently the tab turnover increased & markedly so.

as for each club doing their own programming then obviously the skill and knowledge of the individual doing the job is paramount.
[vvv] the crux of the matter's not actually who amongst the individual club race secretaries has the skill to do the job for their club and who does not, rather it is simply that never in a million years will everyone going in their own direction and doing their own thing work as well as centralised programming would. We have long suffered and currently we continue to suffer under a regime whereby the left hand simply does not know nor in some cases does it give a bugger what the right hand is doing. That situation has to change & thankfully, sooner rather than later, it will.

rather then a fully centralised system or an individual club one, then maybe one person overseeing a region in consultation with individual clubs and hrnsw maybe the best model.
[vvv] that's like being a little bit pregnant or partially jumping from an aeroplane. It's in boots & all or it is not worth doing.

i presume that hrnsw has the ability to "ghost" meetings from the data they receive on trials and nominations, which is likely to be more accurate then stable or return to work forms.
[vvv] what would be the point of doing that dot? I'm not sure we're on the same page as far as a return to work notification is concerned. by the point you mention above...the horses have already reached the stage where they are ready to race or very close to it. The return to work aspect added to stable returns is meant to preceed that point by numerous weeks, ideally by as many as possible. An over the internet clicking of... Or the physical ticking of a box, doing a tiny bit of extra work/paperwork which would be of benefit to everyone by way of greatly assist handicappers operating under a centralised programming format to both shorten lead in times & much more accurately produce programs...is surely not a great impost on time nor effort?

---

vvv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

handicappers make blatant and simple mistakes in selecting fields from the noms for one race, as i've pointed out on this forum before. How they could appropriately select fields with no programming to go is beyond me.
[vvv] i'm not exactly sure how they went about it during the ei period however they must have had some idea because they did it very effectively indeed.

during ei race fields were down, people were just happy to get a run. On the same card there were r1/2s and then r2-r5s etc...a trainer of an r2 may prefer one race conditions over the other. How does the handicapper decide which r2 goes in what race?
[vvv] that my friend is 'the art of handicapping' in all its glory.
the huge fault with current system is that it forces horses out through the top as it handicaps on historical form (wins that may have occured many months and sometimes years prior) as opposed to using their current form as a handicapping measure... And that is pretty bloody disgraceful, imo.
in the case of the ei programming, as i recall the out of form r5's got dropped in against the in form r2's whilst r1/r2's that were struggling to get beyond that got to race each other and so on. It was no more or less complicated than that.

similarly, the r1+ divided race conditions which are currently programmed and then turned into a race/races. Out of these divided conditions lets say that come up with two races that are both r1-r3. One is $l4 <$2000 and the other is $l4 <$4000. There has been situations where a horse eligible for the <$2000 race have ended up in the <$4000 race due to number of horses entered.
[vvv] not a whole lot of difference to nominating for a 2yo fillies or 3yo fillies only race at penrith with the usual caveat that should there be insufficient noms the race will be combined with the same age group colts & gelding.


these kind of things happen and irritate people even if jesus christ himself was the handicapper. Letting a handicapper pick fields from noms received is scary.
[vvv] it's a reasonable fear breno. I don't trust too many people to be able to do that or for that matter anything like it properly & evenhandedly...but i do trust the abilities of the current one here in nsw to do just that.
on top of the fact that i know the bloke and i know how good he is at his job, he already has the runs on the board as far as that sort of handicapping/assembling of race fields goes (ei).

p.s when arwoc flier ran 2nd at leeton on new years night it made for a very profitable night (got quinella). Unfortunately it has still been my most profitable night for the year and probably will be!
[vvv] by way of them winning the messenger in nz, dean braun's horse and dexter dunn delivered me my box of bacci's for the year and i don't expect there to be many/any more. ;)

---

vvv

Mark certainly did do a very good with the race programming during EI at Bankstown from a very limited pool and our turnover was very good, and I'll take your word Jamie that it was the same throughout the state. But given the unique circumstances around the state with EI can we ever be certain that the results achieved re turnover were solely the result of centralised programming? Did the reduced numbers of meetings (gallops as well) for example have an impact? I think we have to consider the later as a significant driver of increased turnover on those meetings that went ahead.

Mark is certainly very capable but if it were to be solely placed in his hands what happens if he becomes unavailable?

I don't know what happens if he's not around Dot. If I could answer that for you I would.
I hope that he's around until his teeth fall out along with his hair. It's a reasonable concern of course, but so are a whole host of other things over which we similarly have no control.
He does get itchy feet from time to time & he skips off overseas on various trans-continental jaunts and the like...but I don't think Mark is planning to bugger off for good or otherwise to fall off his perch anytime soon (although in saying that, word is there's a chicky babe around that puts a fair bit of strain on his old ticker from what I've been told). I'll check with him and get back to you. :D:D:D:D:D As the infinitely fetching Keira Kinightley as Guinevere said to Artorious in the movie, King Arthur "What tomorrow brings...we cannot know".