The Flat Earth Society strikes again!

[Mark Croatto]

[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

[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.

[mango]

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.

[Mark Croatto]

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

[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.

[Mark Croatto]

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

[Lethal]

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

[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.

[gregcattell]

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

[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.