RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Berri

Can anyone tell me...

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Stables said:

I don't know. If I had a good filly I would prefer to line up in the 1000 Guineas first and see how she recovers from the race before having a go at the 2000 Guineas

That used to happen. So why did it change and why the stakes disparity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Due to a wanky decision by NZTR and the CJC about how much they contribute to each.

image.png.097dddc7b244852e4dd0e8e32de907e9.png

 

From an owners point of view nothing wrong with this , we all need worth while targets to keep us in the game , do away with the big events and owners like myself will be gone and who wins then ?.  Trainers , jockeys , clubs will all lose if we don't have the owners , this is a good strategy . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1,000 Guineas always used to be on the first day and the  2,000 Guineas was the feature race on the middle day. Sometimes a 3yo would go on to race in the Canterbury Gold Cup on the last day. When Winston had his original burst as racing minister and created all the $1m races it was decided to move the 2,000 to the first day to give it better exposure. The old Churchill Stakes was moved from the last day and became the Couplands to create a replacement feature on the middle day. I seem to recall Couplands had previously sponsored the 2,000 at some stage. The 2,000 has always had the bigger stake as the fillies had the option of backing up in it if they went well on the first day.

I do find it a bit unfortunate that the SI's richest race and NZ's second richest 3yo race (I don't count sweepstakes) is on what is becoming a more low key day with small fields in supporting races. The club really does need to try and boost the crowds on the first two days rather than just having everyone turn up for the party on the last day. A grandstand would help of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not the point. The 1000 and 2000 Guineas were meant to be breed indicating races. They were set up to test the durability of the horse, and in this instance, the genetic expression for a horse to be fast enough to win at the lessor distance in top company before going on a month later to win over 2400m in the Derby. We've stuffed that up because we moved the Derby. Then you've got the concept of it being breed shaping so why are we allowing geldings to race in the 2000 Guineas? So this then gets to the disparity. If the 1000 Guineas was a week before, I get it...the colts racing against the fillies after the fillies have had their go. But by putting the races the other way around, that blows that.

So why was the order changed? What idea was behind this? Someone must have an answer? Which brings us back to the puzzle. Why are the stakes different? Is it to promote our geldings to compete? Is it to try and keep more colts? More males racing in NZ? There must be some logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Berri said:

But that's not the point. The 1000 and 2000 Guineas were meant to be breed indicating races. They were set up to test the durability of the horse, and in this instance, the genetic expression for a horse to be fast enough to win at the lessor distance in top company before going on a month later to win over 2400m in the Derby. We've stuffed that up because we moved the Derby. Then you've got the concept of it being breed shaping so why are we allowing geldings to race in the 2000 Guineas? So this then gets to the disparity. If the 1000 Guineas was a week before, I get it...the colts racing against the fillies after the fillies have had their go. But by putting the races the other way around, that blows that.

So why was the order changed? What idea was behind this? Someone must have an answer? Which brings us back to the puzzle. Why are the stakes different? Is it to promote our geldings to compete? Is it to try and keep more colts? More males racing in NZ? There must be some logic?

As I said Berri, the 2,000 was worth $1m, thanks to Winston, so it was moved to the first day to boost the profile of that day. The last day already had the Cup so didn't need boosting. Just as Melb has no other big features on Cup day. I know Riccarton is slightly more low key than Melb, but they tried to use the same rationale. The decision had nothing to do with any logical flow of races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tripple alliance said:

From an owners point of view nothing wrong with this , we all need worth while targets to keep us in the game , do away with the big events and owners like myself will be gone and who wins then ?.  Trainers , jockeys , clubs will all lose if we don't have the owners , this is a good strategy . 

Yes, but why not make them both 400k if that's the money you have and sensibly run them the otherway around so the fillies can have their crack then tackle the colts if they want to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, We're Doomed said:

As I said Berri, the 2,000 was worth $1m, thanks to Winston, so it was moved to the first day to boost the profile of that day. The last day already had the Cup so didn't need boosting. Just as Melb has no other big features on Cup day. I know Riccarton is slightly more low key than Melb, but they tried to use the same rationale. The decision had nothing to do with any logical flow of races.

Certainly the Minister for Racing that has done the most damage to the industry in the last couple of decades and is now putting the icing on that cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Certainly the Minister for Racing that has done the most damage to the industry in the last couple of decades and is now putting the icing on that cake.

To give him some credit he did pour some money in last time, which was all wasted. $1m Telegraph, which is now worth $250,000. $2.2m Derby, now half that, and four or five other examples. Just a very wasteful use of money and very poor advice from his advisors, much the same as he has been very poorly advised this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, flockofewes2 said:

Can you elaborate on all this 'damage'..or does political bias mean he's a handy ..scapegoat?

You are correct, Racing didn't need Winston to drive it into the ground, it has been doing that happily all by itself for 30 years.. So to blame Winston for any of Racing's problems really is a bit harsh. I give him credit for at least trying to do something, but I don't agree with any of his methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Berri said:

But that's not the point. The 1000 and 2000 Guineas were meant to be breed indicating races. They were set up to test the durability of the horse, and in this instance, the genetic expression for a horse to be fast enough to win at the lessor distance in top company before going on a month later to win over 2400m in the Derby. We've stuffed that up because we moved the Derby. Then you've got the concept of it being breed shaping so why are we allowing geldings to race in the 2000 Guineas? So this then gets to the disparity. If the 1000 Guineas was a week before, I get it...the colts racing against the fillies after the fillies have had their go. But by putting the races the other way around, that blows that.

So why was the order changed? What idea was behind this? Someone must have an answer? Which brings us back to the puzzle. Why are the stakes different? Is it to promote our geldings to compete? Is it to try and keep more colts? More males racing in NZ? There must be some logic?

There is little logic to many pictures,  not just this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

You are correct, Racing didn't need Winston to drive it into the ground, it has been doing that happily all by itself for 30 years.. So to blame Winston for any of Racing's problems really is a bit harsh. I give him credit for at least trying to do something, but I don't agree with any of his methods.

I don't see anything political about it flock. As WD says, it's more about the industry itself and it's own ineptitude which has left it begging to government. Unfortunately, Peters has bought that. The first time signing off on what is now $50+m of duty relief with no accountability requirements and so completely wasted. Now another $13m of that. Same. It will disappear with no constructive use or payback to government or taxpayers. He somehow seems to lead the industry to sit on their chuffs and moan on the basis that the Minister and government will provide more and more handouts. It would be more useful if he had said sort your own shit out. The worst of the damage is yet to come from the implementation of the Messara report which Peters and the industry again seem to have bought.

A very sad and painful few years now ahead because of that.

If you can suggest a single positive or constructive thing that WP has or is doing for racing, I'm all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to get away from government intervention, restructure the rights to betting, change the archaic way the structure of racing  currently is and amortise the value of everything we have.. I'm with P4P...I smell a rat and its not a friendly one... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tripple alliance said:

From an owners point of view nothing wrong with this , we all need worth while targets to keep us in the game , do away with the big events and owners like myself will be gone and who wins then ?.  Trainers , jockeys , clubs will all lose if we don't have the owners , this is a good strategy . 

You could always aim for Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tripple alliance said:

From an owners point of view nothing wrong with this , we all need worth while targets to keep us in the game , do away with the big events and owners like myself will be gone and who wins then ?.  Trainers , jockeys , clubs will all lose if we don't have the owners , this is a good strategy . 

Where does the money come from to fund it however it is configured? Pie in the sky IMO.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Leggy said:

I don't see anything political about it flock. As WD says, it's more about the industry itself and it's own ineptitude which has left it begging to government. Unfortunately, Peters has bought that. The first time signing off on what is now $50+m of duty relief with no accountability requirements and so completely wasted. Now another $13m of that. Same. It will disappear with no constructive use or payback to government or taxpayers. He somehow seems to lead the industry to sit on their chuffs and moan on the basis that the Minister and government will provide more and more handouts. It would be more useful if he had said sort your own shit out. The worst of the damage is yet to come from the implementation of the Messara report which Peters and the industry again seem to have bought.

A very sad and painful few years now ahead because of that.

If you can suggest a single positive or constructive thing that WP has or is doing for racing, I'm all ears.

He changed the tax structure that gave racing an extra 30 mil p.an years ago as far as I know,and the one off injections 9 mil here and...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.