Leggy

They didn't offer a tie I don't think and wouldn't because there were tie-breaker rules which meant that result could not occur.

Didn't there use to be extra funding for iconic races?

You Re not wrong TN but the criminals are happy to take that loss to clean up the money and the TAB has a responsibility to prevent it.

I'm hoping that the upcoming review of the RIU will sort this behaviour, return responsibility including cost for integrity to the codes, removing the NZRB (RITA) involvement and the accompanying abuse of pokie monies to fund it.

What a shock. Seemed like one of those people who would live and play forever. Was reminiscing with family yesterday and remembering a hilarious private Melbourne Cup day event in Riccarton in the late 90s where Paul donned the SP bookie hat again for the day. Needless to say he went home with most of my money! Condolences and warm wishes to Hana and family. Brent

It's not just a big IF, it's plain delusional. If those two generate 10% of that I'll be amazed. There's no significant money there.

Vitamin C is a mild diuretic as well isn't it? I think you'll find that in most horse feeds. That's what I mean by approaching the stage where we can not feed the bloody things at all.

Sounds like the cobalt debacle all over again. We can't feed them vitamins nor common salts apparently. Are we approaching the point where we can't feed them at all during the one clear day pre-race?

Nah. Only probably bought half a dozen in my life time anyway. Past its use by date.

You are debating air Berri. Just provide some convincing data. I'm open as usual to consider that but your theory is opposed to anything I've seen.

Hmmm.... I'd say it's because you have nothing to support your case so at this point there's nothing to debate.

You've missed the point Berri. We know what the biggest betting events are and as you say, that is due to a number of factors. To make your case, you need to show that an increase in number of runners leads to increased turnover per runner. Because of those other factors I doubt that the MC is a good example but if it were, you need to demonstrate that a MC with 24 runners would do a greater turnover than two otherwise identical races with 12 runners each (and half the stake if you like) for example.

Hopeless (or maybe hapless?)

Agree with your latter comment c&g. Not sure that ''solid evidence,thoughtful analysis and hard data'' have been used to get stadiums built around the world however. Often more like someone's dream. Can't really buy the 30/40 year plan idea. Think the world and change are far too dynamic for that to be useful. Isn't it racing's persistence with a 30 year old plan that is long past its use by date what has got racing into the pickle it is now confronted with?

Exactly. All the data I have seen suggests that fields over 7 or 8 runners of course do greater turnover, but at the same time less and less turnover per runner. Berri, if you have a solid business case supporting this idea, please put up the hard numbers, not just your dream. The industry is in the position it is because of wild ideas that have been implemented based on dreams rather than sold evidence, thoughtful analysis and hard data. In another area, I saw a quote the other day along the lines that if you feel a hypothesis coming on, have a lie down until it goes away. I'd suggest you consider that Berri.