G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 26 Non Members

New Handicapping System for the Trots

Harness & Greyhounds

Comments

  • Chopchop43Chopchop43    25 posts
    JayJay said:

    MCR the R class were penalty free for a reason low stakes meant to be able to aid in sustaining horse population by giving battlers a few bucks to buy feed/breed survive in the industry upon transition every R win dollar came back as a handicap while M wins on some were discounted greatly ,conspiracy theorists would argue that HWOE has been designed to cripple the hobby trainer resulting in a reduced population of horse and human in the regional areas ,this year we have the only foal branded in our area which I feel shows confidence to continue in the industry is low 

    Drop back rule could have been altered to unplaced runs 6-12th place only and it would have solved a lot of issues 

    Precisely put......time for the CEO to act to urgently throw out this failed system.

    The majority of participants have never supported the system from the get go, why on earth is it still in place

    JayJay likes this post.

  • Rocket_ReignRocket_Reign    452 posts

    JayJay said:

    MCR the R class were penalty free for a reason low stakes meant to be able to aid in sustaining horse population by giving battlers a few bucks to buy feed/breed survive in the industry upon transition every R win dollar came back as a handicap while M wins on some were discounted greatly ,conspiracy theorists would argue that HWOE has been designed to cripple the hobby trainer resulting in a reduced population of horse and human in the regional areas ,this year we have the only foal branded in our area which I feel shows confidence to continue in the industry is low 

    Drop back rule could have been altered to unplaced runs 6-12th place only and it would have solved a lot of issues 

    Precisely put......time for the CEO to act to urgently throw out this failed system.

    The majority of participants have never supported the system from the get go, why on earth is it still in place



    I actually believe it or not because I whinge about everything don’t mind the system, I haven’t had any issue placing horses yet
  • Chopchop43Chopchop43    25 posts

    JayJay said:

    MCR the R class were penalty free for a reason low stakes meant to be able to aid in sustaining horse population by giving battlers a few bucks to buy feed/breed survive in the industry upon transition every R win dollar came back as a handicap while M wins on some were discounted greatly ,conspiracy theorists would argue that HWOE has been designed to cripple the hobby trainer resulting in a reduced population of horse and human in the regional areas ,this year we have the only foal branded in our area which I feel shows confidence to continue in the industry is low 

    Drop back rule could have been altered to unplaced runs 6-12th place only and it would have solved a lot of issues 

    Precisely put......time for the CEO to act to urgently throw out this failed system.

    The majority of participants have never supported the system from the get go, why on earth is it still in place



    I actually believe it or not because I whinge about everything don’t mind the system, I haven’t had any issue placing horses yet

    yet!!!

    Rocket_Reign likes this post.

  • getthechangegetthechange    209 posts
    jay jay - the L5$ Lt level is set to allow a horse to go up to the next L5$Lt level for five starts otherwise they could be forced back to their HWOE race level
    eg Mister Ardee is a L15 but he won a L5$ Lt $20k a few weeks ago - He received $10,277 for winning and if he had run 2nd at his next four starts in L5$Lt $25k races (2846 x 4) he would have L5$ of $21661 - 
    the lowest the race could be set for is $21662 so he remains eligible otherwise he would be ineligible and forced to race in the level 15 race

    Note the figures were a bit higher before stakes were trimmed

    the HWOE races (regular as you called them) are the up scale of the system and are weaker because there are no horses dropping back in them under the drop back rule. The Lord Lombo -- mighty flying thomas - mister ardee arent dropping back in the regular races as their drop back avenue is the L5$ LT races where they move up and down

    Mister Ardee went up a L5$ LT level to L5$ LT $25k(level 12 from level 10) after his last win where he could meet horses that are dropping from the conditioned race(level 14) - under that scenario should he/ should he not then not be able to draw well

    Yes Full Package is an extreme but C1 races regularly had horses with 50+ wins between them  - the attachment outlines the thinking behind horses not dropping back on top of horses racing in the regular races 

    the regular (HWOE) part of the system is a variation of the MCR/MC/Assessment systems which I will expand on when commenting on Aussie`s comments

    docx
    docx
    PTT 2.docx
    18K

    Rocket_Reign likes this post.

  • maybesomaybeso    60 posts
    What chance have you got? The maiden at Northam on Friday night fell over due to lack of noms. The only alternative offered is a mixed L1/3 RBD. When you have a horse that relies on a draw to be competitive in its class, why would anyone in their right mind enter it against winners and have to give them a head start?

    It beggars belief that we go from all $L3 to RBD on mixed classes that are programmed to contain maidens.

  • getthechangegetthechange    209 posts
    aussie - agree that the L5$ LT$8k and L5$ LT$12k races need to be spread around - I also agree with a previous comment you made in that a horse earning regularly in a L5$ LT level shouldn`t be able to drop a level just because it hasnt won
    intrigued by  your comment that 6th- 12th could drop back - can you give more detail?

    you are probably aware but  some will be too young to know so a brief history about the predecessors  to the current handicapping system 
    In the 1960s 1970s and 1980s the handicapping system used in Australia was the assessment system
    2yos = 2:38  2:37  2:36 2:35    2:34  2:33   2:32  2:31             2:30  2:29  2:28 etc
    3yos winners of 8 2yo race and non winning 3yos started at    2:30  2:29  2:28 etc
    4yo non winners started at                                           2:28 - 2:27 2:26  2:25  2:24  2:23  2:22

    3yo could win four metro 3yo races and take country penalties 
    There were no drop backs - none or very few JD or mares concessions and there were no R penalty races. Royal show - Cannington show etc had show penalties
    The horse had to be 2:25+(C3) to start in the metro stake races - If you won a metro Qualifying stake(M0) race as a 2:25 (C3) horse the horse immediately became a 2:21 metro and country (C7)
    This ensured that in races from 2:28 to 2:22 there were no open age metro winners
    Winners in the country took a C penalty for winning regardless of the stake money -The better horses raced where the stakes were highest and the lesser horses raced at non-tab race
    Horses moved through their classes and fast class at one stage was 2:12 (M10)
    Annas Ann and Bay Brigade both reached fast class as 3yos (from memory)
    Late 1980s WA removed non penaties for 2yos and 3yos and M was for open age metro and C was for career wins in the MC system - early to mid 90s some non penalties for 2yos were reintroduced
    from memory R penalty races were introduced in the late 90s or possibly later making it an MCR system - think that was after SA decided to give two races for each penalty
    Not convinced that R penalties were introduced for the reasons you say but they were removed because they created anomalies like
    horse A being R4 and still a C0  and horse B being R2 C1 - 
    horse A couldnt start in an R2 race because he is superior and isnt eligible  and 
    horse B cant start in a C0 because he is superior and isnt eligible

    The HWOE part is a variation of the assessment and MCR systems - 
    horses are penalised for winning
    2yos -  non penalties have been replaced by part penalties - a 2yo winning four $7,500 races has the same HWOE as a 4yo winning one $7,500 race
    3yos - non penalties have been replaced by part penalties - a 3yo  winning four $7,500 races has the same HWOE as a 4yo winning three $7,500 races
    like the assessment system lower level races dont have open age metro winners 
    like the assessment system there are no drop backs 




  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    234 posts
    Designed a handicapping system in my spare time a few years ago looking at ways of balancing fields by using a points per win plus form calculation table With reductions for unplaced 6-12th placings 
    Conversions at any stage of their career was possible ,fair and just to all ,different points allocated for aged/R/C/M and higher staked races every race type had a value to calculate from but every horses got a fair assessment on their career performances 

    Under MCR with the Drop back rule every non winning start in consecutive runs accumulated when reaching 10 non winning runs a horse would drop back ,that system was flawed in that it was interpreted wrong ,I read in the rules where it stated unplaced runs ,I think the drop back should have only applied to accumulated runs from 6-12th non consecutive to the number of 10 non earning runs before being able to drop back 1 class  .I ran through some calculations on some horses and it would have slowed the dropping back significantly .The other thing they could have done was restrict the bottom limit a horse could drop back to ,under previous system horses had to be C4 to be eligible for metro they could have used that as the bottom limit to protect the lower classes 

    To use a similar concept in L5$LT races would be possible they could be designed more for those that are genuinely out of form ,at the moment horses can be in form and running as quick as anything else at there level still have earnt more through metro placings and gain a start in them while a horse that wins an R class ($4500) race is deemed ineligible based on the Level of the race it won ,neither is struggling and neither should get a start ,the mile rates performance of a lot of the starters in those races are more than competitive in HWOE level races 

    Under any system Maidens should be restricted to non winners and an increased stakes equal across tracks 
    Also believe in M0 only races as a vital component to any system 

    getthechange, MatildaBay likes this post.

  • savethegamesavethegame    2,050 posts
    edited January 25
    Markovina said:

    Markovina said:


    maybeso said:

    What chance have you got? The maiden at Northam on Friday night fell over due to lack of noms. The only alternative offered is a mixed L1/3 RBD. When you have a horse that relies on a draw to be competitive in its class, why would anyone in their right mind enter it against winners and have to give them a head start?

    maybeso said:

    Seems wrong when maiden L1 has to slip into  L1/L3 without  PBD component the maiden surely wouldn't start outside L2&3s . More worrying fact we can't field sufficent numbers in maidens-- stand corrected not too many of those that have gone. east were maidens L1. 

    maybeso said:

    My two cents worth the ability to border hop,  would be a strong pointer when they purchase a w.a race fit horse. which saves 4-6k  in conditioning phase  --- helps to offset the 2k float fee, Which all helps to  navigate a. longer career  in the NR system with so many more weaker options for horses that  were struggling here------------ Can remember certain fields at globe derby park having predominantley  all W.A. horses swear you were at g.p. Having said that  see Trainer Hayden Reeves takes the gold medal for taking bottom tier horses with  a westbred tag attached and making it work in w.a.

    maybeso said:

    Horses like gold nugget winner  gee whiz fizz---, hombre higgins--- badboy nitro----,headhunter----- hilton adonis--- fourmore--in the force. kalgoorlie was a option gone. South Australia.wouldn't too many going  there the way things are there.    Is  W.A. fortunate they haven't sold the tab. whether thats right or wrong in the long run not sure.

    maybeso said:

     Seeing what happened with S.A Tab was sold think only for 30 million with consultants getting 7 million and extra.bonus, also buy the time entitlements were paid out to workers wasn't alot  left. Now the split a program between  two venues  to hold a meeting half card from port pirie -the other half from- victor harbour---We just can't  afford to get to much more wrong here. theres the blue print.

    maybeso said:

    The W.A. HARNESS BOAT is drifting aimlessly  getting 24 million for fuel to keep it going around in circles no problem. But its the holes that have appeared,with a few genuine people at rwwa and others that have the industry at heart,, bailing out trying to stop it sinking.

    maybeso said:

       , 8 trainers  10 drivers, 4-6 punters, 2-3 junior  drivers. sitting at the back of the boat in cruise control  who are oblivious to whats happening & what lies ahead. --------.Got to make sure N.R.   is the right fit ---I am not sure it is with our isolation. The industry won't survive on  25-30 people.

  • savethegamesavethegame    2,050 posts
    Savethegame  said sorry. Maybeso  don't know how that come about. but hey you might agree with 1 or two of the points.
  • getthechangegetthechange    209 posts

    Designed a handicapping system in my spare time a few years ago looking at ways of balancing fields by using a points per win plus form calculation table With reductions for unplaced 6-12th placings 

    Conversions at any stage of their career was possible ,fair and just to all ,different points allocated for aged/R/C/M and higher staked races every race type had a value to calculate from but every horses got a fair assessment on their career performances 

    Under MCR with the Drop back rule every non winning start in consecutive runs accumulated when reaching 10 non winning runs a horse would drop back ,that system was flawed in that it was interpreted wrong ,I read in the rules where it stated unplaced runs ,I think the drop back should have only applied to accumulated runs from 6-12th non consecutive to the number of 10 non earning runs before being able to drop back 1 class  .I ran through some calculations on some horses and it would have slowed the dropping back significantly .The other thing they could have done was restrict the bottom limit a horse could drop back to ,under previous system horses had to be C4 to be eligible for metro they could have used that as the bottom limit to protect the lower classes 

    To use a similar concept in L5$LT races would be possible they could be designed more for those that are genuinely out of form ,at the moment horses can be in form and running as quick as anything else at there level still have earnt more through metro placings and gain a start in them while a horse that wins an R class ($4500) race is deemed ineligible based on the Level of the race it won ,neither is struggling and neither should get a start ,the mile rates performance of a lot of the starters in those races are more than competitive in HWOE level races 

    Under any system Maidens should be restricted to non winners and an increased stakes equal across tracks 
    Also believe in M0 only races as a vital component to any system 
    thanks aussie - possibly 6th - 12th also eligible clause in L5$ LT races may work
    The drop back rule under MCR was flawed as there were many horses dropping back when they were racing well at the level they were at - regularly happened that a hosre having its 10th start without winning was drawn wide on $L3 because it had superior form then when it didnt win it dropped a level to make it competitive
    The same applies in L5$ LT races where just because it hasnt won in five starts at the required level it can drop a level even if it has been placed at its last five starts in a higher level. Has been debated but as yet hasnt been implemented - something like NE horses placed three or more times in  higher level races in their last five starts
    I dont have a problem with lower HWOE level horses with good form starting in these races and taking on the drop back horses provided they havent been placed three times in last five starts in higher level races 
    eg a horse with no wins in last 5 starts but placed in level 10 races at three of last five wouldnt be eligible for L5 LT$12k (level 8) until it had less than three places - HWOE horses that have won at levels below level 8 and havent been placed three times in higher than level 8 in last five starts would remain eligible provided they had less than $12k
  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    234 posts

    Designed a handicapping system in my spare time a few years ago looking at ways of balancing fields by using a points per win plus form calculation table With reductions for unplaced 6-12th placings 

    Conversions at any stage of their career was possible ,fair and just to all ,different points allocated for aged/R/C/M and higher staked races every race type had a value to calculate from but every horses got a fair assessment on their career performances 

    Under MCR with the Drop back rule every non winning start in consecutive runs accumulated when reaching 10 non winning runs a horse would drop back ,that system was flawed in that it was interpreted wrong ,I read in the rules where it stated unplaced runs ,I think the drop back should have only applied to accumulated runs from 6-12th non consecutive to the number of 10 non earning runs before being able to drop back 1 class  .I ran through some calculations on some horses and it would have slowed the dropping back significantly .The other thing they could have done was restrict the bottom limit a horse could drop back to ,under previous system horses had to be C4 to be eligible for metro they could have used that as the bottom limit to protect the lower classes 

    To use a similar concept in L5$LT races would be possible they could be designed more for those that are genuinely out of form ,at the moment horses can be in form and running as quick as anything else at there level still have earnt more through metro placings and gain a start in them while a horse that wins an R class ($4500) race is deemed ineligible based on the Level of the race it won ,neither is struggling and neither should get a start ,the mile rates performance of a lot of the starters in those races are more than competitive in HWOE level races 

    Under any system Maidens should be restricted to non winners and an increased stakes equal across tracks 
    Also believe in M0 only races as a vital component to any system 
    thanks aussie - possibly 6th - 12th also eligible clause in L5$ LT races may work
    The drop back rule under MCR was flawed as there were many horses dropping back when they were racing well at the level they were at - regularly happened that a hosre having its 10th start without winning was drawn wide on $L3 because it had superior form then when it didnt win it dropped a level to make it competitive
    The same applies in L5$ LT races where just because it hasnt won in five starts at the required level it can drop a level even if it has been placed at its last five starts in a higher level. Has been debated but as yet hasnt been implemented - something like NE horses placed three or more times in  higher level races in their last five starts
    I dont have a problem with lower HWOE level horses with good form starting in these races and taking on the drop back horses provided they havent been placed three times in last five starts in higher level races 
    eg a horse with no wins in last 5 starts but placed in level 10 races at three of last five wouldnt be eligible for L5 LT$12k (level 8) until it had less than three places - HWOE horses that have won at levels below level 8 and havent been placed three times in higher than level 8 in last five starts would remain eligible provided they had less than $12k
    It’s over complicated with too many clauses  ,the idea would be to Keep it simple ,I don’t see the need for lower class in form horses to move out of HWOE into L5$ races you want your inform horses competing against each other to create diversity in market punting dollar and similar idea by placing all out of form horses in together so they rate more equally 
    The last thing the industry needs is more favourites winning at short prices 

    JayJay likes this post.

  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    234 posts
    From Feb1 onwards Northam Field sizes reduced to 10 runners with 6/4 barrier format for any that missed the notification 
  • JayJayJayJay    6,167 posts



    It’s over complicated with too many clauses  ,the idea would be to Keep it simple ,I don’t see the need for lower class in form horses to move out of HWOE into L5$ races you want your inform horses competing against each other to create diversity in market punting dollar and similar idea by placing all out of form horses in together so they rate more equally 

    The last thing the industry needs is more favourites winning at short prices 
    Just how many more "fixes" does it need... for over 2 years, clauses and conditions have been added, trialed, deleted, renamed,modified ad nauseum....and still the process continues. Now, on the one hand, that shows a certain responsiveness to industry concerns but still, there is only marginal acceptance at best. Has it achieved its aims, its KPGs? Who knows? When it barks, wags it tail and devours meaty bites, it is a dog and no amount of window dressing will alter that. Had we adopted NR and adapted it to suit our circumstances with the time, energy and person power that has been utilised in trying to make the system work, we would (a) be on roughly the same page as the rest of Australia and (b) may have arrested the slide in trainers and owners and horses. I commend the diligence and resilience of those who have hung in there trying to justify, modify and convince a skeptical electorate that HWOE is an absolute winner and anyone who opposes it is some sort of lesser person but surely the game is up. Woof woof.

    curmudgeon, Chopchop43, MatildaBay likes this post.

  • savethegamesavethegame    2,050 posts
    The 2.38 front for two yearolds sure Ray Sweetman had brought one from melb. that may have won 8 as two yearold think there was a bit of up roar as it started as a maiden 2.30 as they did for three yearolds then --think horse was Thors Hope --or rise. Sweetman had that many good ones..
  • ArapahoArapaho    21 posts
    Blind nominations  Im totally against them ,Anything that is not transparent, can create Integrity issues no matter who is controlling affairs,and this has been proven time and time again over  the course of time, in all sorts of different fields, as we all know.
    It appears at this stage of the this trial that things arent going too well and hopefully in due course it will be abolished.
    But it beggars belief that RWWA  with their policy( that no one already nominated can scratch) when nominations are extended because of low nominations,that they dont release those nominations for viewing.
    Participants may be enticed to late nominate for a race that is substandard in numbers or  quality or both, but at the moment with those nominations still being blind, no one can see how ordinary some fields are and the only late noms. you would get, are those who forgot or missed acceptance time.
  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    234 posts
    Arapaho said:

    Blind nominations  Im totally against them ,Anything that is not transparent, can create Integrity issues no matter who is controlling affairs,and this has been proven time and time again over  the course of time, in all sorts of different fields, as we all know.

    It appears at this stage of the this trial that things arent going too well and hopefully in due course it will be abolished.
    But it beggars belief that RWWA  with their policy( that no one already nominated can scratch) when nominations are extended because of low nominations,that they dont release those nominations for viewing.
    Participants may be enticed to late nominate for a race that is substandard in numbers or  quality or both, but at the moment with those nominations still being blind, no one can see how ordinary some fields are and the only late noms. you would get, are those who forgot or missed acceptance time.
    At the moment it’s nominate if you want to race on that day regardless of how strong or weak the opposition is and with luck they might stand up ,with a little more luck you earn $ ,this week I think it’s lucky they decided to run regardless of numbers nominated ,can’t earn sitting in the stable 
    I agree Remove Blind Noms as early signs show it seems to be ineffective in increasing field sizes 

    curmudgeon, cisco, JayJay, MatildaBay likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    6,167 posts
    Seems the "blind nomination" trial is finished. Noms (the very few that have nominated, unbelievably low)  for Pinjarra and GP next Monday and Tuesday are "visible", noms extended. This trial lasted longer than the PBD $L3.......Has  Minister Papalia got a handle on his portfolio or what? (As Sir Humphrey would say, that is a purely rhetorical question Minister!). Stumbling from one non stick bandaid to another, it is a shambles.

    MatildaBay likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    6,167 posts
    GP Noms for Tuesday:
    Race 1 2YO - 3, Race 2 3YO Fillies - 5, Race 3 L5$ 8k FilliesMares -9, Race 4 L8/9 - 4, Race 5 L6/7 - 8, Race 6 L5/6 - 9, Race 7 L5$ LT 12k - 6, Race 8 L5$ - 16, Race 9 Trotters - 5. And an awful lot of them already engaged and cross nominated for Pinjarra.
  • freodockersfreodockers    771 posts
    Even if the Minister did start asking questions JJ.
    What could he do ???
    The pacing industry as a whole is past tipping point and I’m pretty sure those responsible would all have their ducks in a row.
    This has been coming for years, Kalgoorlie was the first casualty and now there will be more to follow.
    What was once a reasonably healthy industry 10 years ago is now an absolute basket case.
    And who is to answer for it, absolutely no one.
    The recent fiascos are just the icing on the cake.
  • JayJayJayJay    6,167 posts
    7 ex WA horses competing at Penrith tonight, including 2 "new ones" in Modern Flicks and Our Big Slow The first two got up....Nightwatch Star and Minimum Wage. And we have a grand total of 54 horses going around at Narrogin Saturday night with a 5 and a 6 horse field. Facts for all to see yet I can't imagine any retreat or mea culpas being issued unless the Minister acts.

    Betonme, Gilgamesh likes this post.

  • Rocket_ReignRocket_Reign    452 posts
    GP Tuesday looks like it’s been abandoned, all the people that thought $L3 was a great idea sure are eating their hat now
  • Chopchop43Chopchop43    25 posts

    GP Tuesday looks like it’s been abandoned, all the people that thought $L3 was a great idea sure are eating their hat now


    yea and blind noms pfft what a bad idea am I right rocket ?

    Rocket_Reign, MatildaBay likes this post.

  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    2,152 posts
    $L3 on top of blind noms was obviously a bridge too far.
    There should be a raft of horses coming back out of the paddock if the anecdotal evidence relayed on here is correct.

    Gilgamesh likes this post.

  • Rocket_ReignRocket_Reign    452 posts

    $L3 on top of blind noms was obviously a bridge too far.

    There should be a raft of horses coming back out of the paddock if the anecdotal evidence relayed on here is correct.



    Mine will have the full 6 weeks now and the 3 months to work them back up, can’t speak for everyone else but could be atleast 3 months before we bounce back
  • savethegamesavethegame    2,050 posts
    Don't know how many have ever browsed over the  2010 Joint Standing Committee on the review of racing (read all the sessions).--- Geraldton. was dead & Kalgoorlie was in the barrel. once the outta circle collapsed the other country tracks would eventual follow. 

    W.A HARNESS --87-88 SEASON    762 DRIVERS     1057 TRAINERS
                                03-04 SEASON    549 DRIVERS       757 TRAINERS 
                                17-18 SEASON    341DRIVERS       486 TRAINERS
                                20- 21 SEASON   233 DRIVERS       318 TRAINERS
     
    64-- A CLASS DRIVERS---105-- B CLASS DRIVERS   64--- C-CLASS DRIVERS--

    235--TRA TRAINERS  83 TRB TRAINERS.

    Harness has had no direction in .W.A  for 40 years. Now the industry.heads  to corridor racing --- G.P. on FRIDAY.-- PINJARRA --MON. ---- BUNBURY. FRI or SAT. The class of horse that people require to win a race anyway in w.a is pretty sharp.

    The high price kiwis will keep coming & no reason why they  shouldn't  as they have been coming here for ever--  571 imported to AUS. 74/75.-- 330 were exported From AUS---to U.S.A.in 78/79. 
     
    But the high cost of participation & lack of success. For individuals that purely operate on a hobby basis--Witout  fanfare they just walk.just sell there horses,& I bet the ones that are sold to N.S.W The money wouldn't be enough for the plane fare for one,----- from n.z. or  even in some cases the paper work.

    Miscellaneous Aus.    5,888 drivers  87/88.   2,428. winning drivers. be interested to see numbers now. in Aus.

    So theres alot contributing factors. Punters can't understand the jargon with race conditions  Industry .lucky some punters purely invest x amounts regarding purely on mystery form of betting  -----                    Punters are the main ingredient of the industry.

    Road to nowhere. at the moment.on alot fronts.
    .

      

    Gilgamesh likes this post.

  • freodockersfreodockers    771 posts
    Given the position they have got thrmselves into GP Tuesday meetings need to be canned they are on most occasions rubbish anyway.
    Put the stakes into outer country tracks and give them a reasonable chance to survive.
  • JayJayJayJay    6,167 posts
    I don't think that is a solution......Tuesday meetings at GP, however poor they may appear, are a good turnover vehicle and they do carry $60k in stakes which would be lost to participants.

    VillageKid, getthechange likes this post.

  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    234 posts
    JayJay said:

    I don't think that is a solution......Tuesday meetings at GP, however poor they may appear, are a good turnover vehicle and they do carry $60k in stakes which would be lost to participants.

    M Radley was on SEN Talking Harness they asked him a couple of questions but didn't talk much about the lost meeting sounded like he was in favor of RWWA consulting with bigger stables re the racing program and the Rationalization of meetings ,alot of tracks have very few meetings as it is would and I doubt he was talking about GP rationalizing

    Rocket_Reign likes this post.

  • GilgameshGilgamesh    3,597 posts

    JayJay said:

    I don't think that is a solution......Tuesday meetings at GP, however poor they may appear, are a good turnover vehicle and they do carry $60k in stakes which would be lost to participants.

    M Radley was on SEN Talking Harness they asked him a couple of questions but didn't talk much about the lost meeting sounded like he was in favor of RWWA consulting with bigger stables re the racing program and the Rationalization of meetings ,alot of tracks have very few meetings as it is would and I doubt he was talking about GP rationalizing



    Makes sense, make a sport that is struggling for participants less accessible, will do wonders to boost involvement.

    Arapaho likes this post.

  • freodockersfreodockers    771 posts
    Get rid of the Tuesday trials at GP, pump the lost stakes into tracks like Pinjarra, Bunbury and Northam and get a base of horses to work from.
    Forget about turnover for five minutes and fix the cause not the problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.