Sign in to follow this  
GOM

Not so Amazing chase

11 posts in this topic

I don't know if it is just me. Or more correctly I know it is not just me that thinks this debacle is not so Amazing

A game for the rich boys and their toys springs to mind.

OK anything that brings the sport some attention and turnover must be good, but overall is it.

Where is the benefit for the 95% of the participants who stand looking at the manipulation of rules and unease created by a few well connected who are just trying the old mine is bigger than yours trick .I take an analogy where if it was motor cars and you wanted to boost the image of your countries products with an event where the fastest and reliable was decided, and  you called for an event where all the Ferrari's, Porches, McLaren's and red Mustangs were entered is the result going to encourage anyone in the local industry.

There is considerable money involved here and practically it will be only the flash Harry's who even participate. The average participant in the NZ industry has been hit with all sorts of levies and charges and restrictions that are making it harder work for the backbone of our industry while we go out of our way to provide incentive for the Aussie industry 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of racing giving to charity. I understand the need to offer something different, to generate interest. But really is this the best we can do? I agree so far the exercise has been farcical. The trials have been shambolic in my area, weather conditions have knocked a number of participants out. The playing field is far from level. Arguments around eligibility shouldn't be happening but due to the poor construction of the criteria, they are. Is this event value for money? Will it attract new blood to the industry, will it attract new sponsors, will it attract new punters? Will it improve any of the areas needing attention, will more dogs be rehomed, will audience numbers be increased, etc? My contempt isn't for the participants, not at all, the race was created and they have the right to enter under whatever the race criteria is interpreted to be. However, I can understand the "big dick" analogy. Where's the mainstream advertising? We already own the audience that will tune in on the night, so is the hour of exposure worth effort and the money taken from stakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a complete balls up all round.

The other thing that is glaringly wrong with this farce is that when a particular dog was deemed ineligible - the TAB rightly scratched it on their Fixed Odds Futures betting  - some punters then placed bets on other dogs in the belief that the particular dog would not be participating in the series only for it to be re-instated. Shouldn't those punters have their money refunded to them ?. Even moreso should the dog in question win the Amazing Chase.

Furthermore after the JCA's decision, which is based on a mere technicality, nominations should be re-opened and the series pushed back a couple off weeks to allow trainers of other dogs with the same types of pending penalties to nominate as they were naturally under the now apparent misapprehension that their dogs too were ineligible. Actually even any dogs that were maidens at the original nom closing time could have been able to nominate provided that they won in the interim.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but after reading this post, it Sounds like a bunch of bitter twisted people not happy because your dogs are not fast enough to nominate to make the final and this has nothing to do with me having one befor the flack starts, how about getting behind grnz instead of continuously knocking, this series is awesome cheers WB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eagle Eye said:

Sorry but after reading this post, it Sounds like a bunch of bitter twisted people not happy because your dogs are not fast enough to nominate to make the final and this has nothing to do with me having one befor the flack starts, how about getting behind grnz instead of continuously knocking, this series is awesome cheers WB

That is a very narrow view Warren. We are all paid up members of this organisation and as such some may see the race as targeting a small percentage of members. We need to cater for ability at all levels, but does this concept meet all the requirements and does it provide equal opportunity to every entrant? Is it value for money?

In the planning stages, questions must be asked and satisfied. If we are going to invest in an event, earmark stakes money, what are we aiming to achieve? What are our goals and targets? Will the event meet those targets and expectations? What are the variables? Then there is the question of equity, the participants pay an entrance fee and are entitled to trial in like conditions. Has that happened? No, your trial time is affected by weather and track conditions on different days. If you are one of the unlucky ones that have been hindered by slow tracks, you have wasted your money. That also casts doubt on whether those that make it through to the finals are actually the fastest dogs or just the lucky ones.

Now let's look at the construction of the criteria for entry. Was it open to individual interpretation, yes. May entrants have missed out because the criteria was poorly constructed, yes. So now there is a question around credibility.

If you are going to use stakes in this way, then there has to be multiple benefits to the industry, it should never be just about two trainers pissing up a wall. That is a totally irresponsible use of industry funds.

The trials here have been a shambles, one week the solo's are being run between races. The next before pre-race trials, the following week after pre-race trials. It would have been far fairer to run all solos in each area on the same day, so each participant trialed under the same conditions. When you spend our money you have to justify the spend and provide the same conditions for all. FAIL!. Remember this is supposed to be a charity event, to lift our profile and generate new interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wazza the way the whole saga has unfolded is just - wow!.

I don't have a problem with the concept, dogs or where they came from.

From a punting side of things I put 2 $10 place bets on, one Dirk Bale the second Pinny Mac.

Pinny Mac suspended, was there any media regarding this - nah. Just hold out for a  J.C.A. decision one week out with your bet - it will be all good and hope he trials up a storm on Sunday.

Low and behold Pinny Mac goes from $21 win, $6 place futures into just $9 for last few days, now $12 today - win option only

Now I'm just a small punter that know one cares about but I'm sure there was a fair few that had a nudge or added into multis.

Lesson I have learnt, don't punt futures on amazing chase if it ever happens again in N.Z.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lad27 said:

Wazza the way the whole saga has unfolded is just - wow!.

I don't have a problem with the concept, dogs or where they came from.

From a punting side of things I put 2 $10 place bets on, one Dirk Bale the second Pinny Mac.

Pinny Mac suspended, was there any media regarding this - nah. Just hold out for a  J.C.A. decision one week out with your bet - it will be all good and hope he trials up a storm on Sunday.

Low and behold Pinny Mac goes from $21 win, $6 place futures into just $9 for last few days, now $12 today - win option only

Now I'm just a small punter that know one cares about but I'm sure there was a fair few that had a nudge or added into multis.

Lesson I have learnt, don't punt futures on amazing chase if it ever happens again in N.Z.

I hope this gives an insight of how I read it, Seriously it’s going to be hard to go past Paddy, that’s the tip for punting, because it’s at hatrick, if it was at Addington it would be all ACs doggy’s to take it out, but this is gambling so expect to loose your money, if you can’t afford too loose your money, don’t bet as it’s designed so the house makes money by their rules, I repeat by their rules, am I punting in this race, may be, as I’m Cheering for our Camp, Krusty. Cheers WB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Emotive said:

That is a very narrow view Warren. We are all paid up members of this organisation and as such some may see the race as targeting a small percentage of members. We need to cater for ability at all levels, but does this concept meet all the requirements and does it provide equal opportunity to every entrant? Is it value for money?

In the planning stages, questions must be asked and satisfied. If we are going to invest in an event, earmark stakes money, what are we aiming to achieve? What are our goals and targets? Will the event meet those targets and expectations? What are the variables? Then there is the question of equity, the participants pay an entrance fee and are entitled to trial in like conditions. Has that happened? No, your trial time is affected by weather and track conditions on different days. If you are one of the unlucky ones that have been hindered by slow tracks, you have wasted your money. That also casts doubt on whether those that make it through to the finals are actually the fastest dogs or just the lucky ones.

Now let's look at the construction of the criteria for entry. Was it open to individual interpretation, yes. May entrants have missed out because the criteria was poorly constructed, yes. So now there is a question around credibility.

If you are going to use stakes in this way, then there has to be multiple benefits to the industry, it should never be just about two trainers pissing up a wall. That is a totally irresponsible use of industry funds.

The trials here have been a shambles, one week the solo's are being run between races. The next before pre-race trials, the following week after pre-race trials. It would have been far fairer to run all solos in each area on the same day, so each participant trialed under the same conditions. When you spend our money you have to justify the spend and provide the same conditions for all. FAIL!. Remember this is supposed to be a charity event, to lift our profile and generate new interest. 

Sorry but I disagree with narrow minded, slow dogs are more than catored for, prize money further back than 3rd, 3 unplacings and the dog is down graded, and NZ bred dogs more than catored for, more series than needed ie no import series, as well large fees on imports, GRNZ are more than looking after all grade of dogs, I’d say yes, now as for this race set for two big kennels, I don’t think so, anyone has the ability to have a fast dog it’s a lot of luck in breeding along with the hard work as it’s just as hard to breed a slow dog. This Series is very exciting and we should embrace it, yes can they do better, may be, don’t forget all can read this public fourum and I’m sure they will take heed to implement solutions to make better any event when given solutions and not criticisim cheers WB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this