RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
winx21

hawera track

Recommended Posts

They seem to be repeat offenders down there lying about the state of there track.

How many times do they call it a slow 8 or 9 and after the first race its downgraded to a heavy 10....

This is happened numerous times even on fine days its had a downgrade.

Surely lying to get starters someone should be held accountable and bad does it look for punters

And before anyone says it rained after scratching time,they 18ml overnight and 1.5 mls after 7.30am...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2020 at 8:07 PM, winx21 said:

They seem to be repeat offenders down there lying about the state of there track.

How many times do they call it a slow 8 or 9 and after the first race its downgraded to a heavy 10....

This is happened numerous times even on fine days its had a downgrade.

Surely lying to get starters someone should be held accountable and bad does it look for punters

And before anyone says it rained after scratching time,they 18ml overnight and 1.5 mls after 7.30am...

 

Please name the instances instead of generalising to back up your assertions.  Remember stipes ask jockeys for their opinions as to the state of the track and go by what they say. So you have 3 parties the track managers ,stipes and jockeys deciding on the state of the track,

Track managers advise at 7 am. Jockeys and stipes after the 1st race at 11am

You quote 18 mls overnight which may have fallen in the hour prior to 7am not necessarily the night before ,readings at 7 am may have read a 8 or 9  and the extra 1.5mls could push into the 10 category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Whyisit said:

Please name the instances instead of generalising to back up your assertions.  Remember stipes ask jockeys for their opinions as to the state of the track and go by what they say. So you have 3 parties the track managers ,stipes and jockeys deciding on the state of the track,

Track managers advise at 7 am. Jockeys and stipes after the 1st race at 11am

You quote 18 mls overnight which may have fallen in the hour prior to 7am not necessarily the night before ,readings at 7 am may have read a 8 or 9  and the extra 1.5mls could push into the 10 category.

both meetings last saturday posted slow 9 and downgraded to heavy after first race.

 

It is incompetent pure and simple. Happens over and over. Any punter who thinks about it now hesitates to bet on race 1 or 2. And god forbid you wanted to place your bets for the day before heading off to work or sport etc etc.

Not sure why you defend the indefensible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please name the instances instead of generalising to back up your assertions.  Remember stipes ask jockeys for their opinions as to the state of the track and go by what they say. So you have 3 parties the track managers ,stipes and jockeys deciding on the state of the track,

Track managers advise at 7 am. Jockeys and stipes after the 1st race at 11am

You quote 18 mls overnight which may have fallen in the hour prior to 7am not necessarily the night before ,readings at 7 am may have read a 8 or 9  and the extra 1.5mls could push into the 10 category.

 

Its not rocket science whyisit.

Metservice provides rain radar and rainfall figures for hawera.the bulk of the rain fell before midnight.

Between 7 and 8am they 1.2ml. After 18 mls 1.2 is hardly going to be the difference between a slow 9 and heavy track. 

I note there was a late scratching and other owners would have wasted there money thinking they are going to run on a slow track.

when in fact it was always heavy.its a tactic so there are not huge numbers of scratching's and its a joke and embarrassing to nzracing.

look at these times and give me a explanation ?

hawera

 

1200 1.17

1600  1.46

2100  2.27

 

now compare those times with the heavy 11 at awapuni on the 31st july

 

1600m  1.41

1200   1.15

2100  2.22

 

if the track was borederline slow then why were they running several seconds quicker on a heavy 11 at awapuni?

someone got a explanation

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eljay said:

Surely if there had been heavy overnight rainfall the jockeys/stipes would have had a close look at the surface prior to the first race.     I would think failing to do so borders on negligence.

any decent punter wouldnt bother betting on the first few races when we haven't got stipes or track managers that cant even tell

what they are racing on.

maybe bring back the penetrometer readings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, winx21 said:

 

look at these times and give me a explanation ?

hawera

 

1200 1.17

1600  1.46

2100  2.27

 

now compare those times with the heavy 11 at awapuni on the 31st july

 

1600m  1.41

1200   1.15

2100  2.22

 

if the track was borederline slow then why were they running several seconds quicker on a heavy 11 at awapuni?

someone got a explanation

 

Maybe one lot of horses were facing a stiff breeze down the back straight and riders also rode to the outside of the track.

its completely stupid to compare times between tracks I could argue like you have the the Awapuni track manager got it wrong in calling it a heavy 11 in the times you have shown in comparison to Egmont times .

Your assertion was they deliberately falsify the readings which in my view they don’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, winx21 said:

Please name the instances instead of generalising to back up your assertions.  Remember stipes ask jockeys for their opinions as to the state of the track and go by what they say. So you have 3 parties the track managers ,stipes and jockeys deciding on the state of the track,

Track managers advise at 7 am. Jockeys and stipes after the 1st race at 11am

You quote 18 mls overnight which may have fallen in the hour prior to 7am not necessarily the night before ,readings at 7 am may have read a 8 or 9  and the extra 1.5mls could push into the 10 category.

 

Its not rocket science whyisit.

Metservice provides rain radar and rainfall figures for hawera.the bulk of the rain fell before midnight.

Between 7 and 8am they 1.2ml. After 18 mls 1.2 is hardly going to be the difference between a slow 9 and heavy track. 

I note there was a late scratching and other owners would have wasted there money thinking they are going to run on a slow track.

when in fact it was always heavy.its a tactic so there are not huge numbers of scratching's and its a joke and embarrassing to nzracing.

look at these times and give me a explanation ?

hawera

 

1200 1.17

1600  1.46

2100  2.27

 

now compare those times with the heavy 11 at awapuni on the 31st july

 

1600m  1.41

1200   1.15

2100  2.22

 

if the track was borederline slow then why were they running several seconds quicker on a heavy 11 at awapuni?

someone got a explanation

 

Metservice? Really? You actually trust that website??? Its way off the mark on a good day. To race at Hawera is a blessing for trainers and riders. To go 45 minutes north would turn punters off immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe one lot of horses were facing a stiff breeze down the back straight and riders also rode to the outside of the track.

its completely stupid to compare times between tracks I could argue like you have the the Awapuni track manager got it wrong in calling it a heavy 11 in the times you have shown in comparison to Egmont times .

Your assertion was they deliberately falsify the readings which in my view they don’t. 

 

Are you actually serious?

the wind slowed the horses down by 5 seconds....

they raced down the outside at awapuni as well.Check your facts before posting

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metservice? Really? You actually trust that website??? Its way off the mark on a good day. To race at Hawera is a blessing for trainers and riders. To go 45 minutes north would turn punters off immediately.

 

Are you a conspiracy theorist??

these are official weather station recordings not some made up data.

don't get me wrong hawera is a great track and would have been perfect if they raced on Thursday.

I'm saying if the track is heavy call it heavy.

be fair to punters and owners/trainers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the track managers fault - it is the penetrometer that is the problem. Down or up grading the tracks after the first proves it.

Down or up grades after the first is due to Jockeys opinion which is usually the same as what the track manager could 

have advised at 7.30 am / scratching time - they know their tracks better than the penetrometor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, napier said:

It is not the track managers fault - it is the penetrometer that is the problem. Down or up grading the tracks after the first proves it.

Down or up grades after the first is due to Jockeys opinion which is usually the same as what the track manager could 

have advised at 7.30 am / scratching time - they know their tracks better than the penetrometor.

The use of the penetrometer is controversial up here. So much depends on the nature of the soil whether it be limestone, sandstone or clay (among others). Drainage is key and on other forums I've been critical of over-irrigation at some tracks which does not promote normal grass growth.

Bath today raced on ground called Good to Firm, Firm in places (7.3) while Salisbury raced on Firm, Good to Firm in Places (8.8) with thunderstorms forecast at both venues while at Hamilton it was Good to Soft, Soft in places (6.4).

Bath race on old downland turf - they don't water and the ground never has any jar because it's well looked after. Salisbury is another very old track where the turf has been in situ for centuries - sometimes it's best to leave the grass to manage itself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, winx21 said:

 

Maybe one lot of horses were facing a stiff breeze down the back straight and riders also rode to the outside of the track.

its completely stupid to compare times between tracks I could argue like you have the the Awapuni track manager got it wrong in calling it a heavy 11 in the times you have shown in comparison to Egmont times .

Your assertion was they deliberately falsify the readings which in my view they don’t. 

 

Are you actually serious?

the wind slowed the horses down by 5 seconds....

they raced down the outside at awapuni as well.Check your facts before posting

 

I’m being flippant as I said. You can’t compare times between courses only idiots do to back up assertions.

In your opening post your  bitch was the course manager does it regularly if you feel that serious about that take it to the Racing Integrity Unit course you would have give your name along with your allegations .I’m sure they would take you seriously because I’m not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, stodge said:

The use of the penetrometer is controversial up here. So much depends on the nature of the soil whether it be limestone, sandstone or clay (among others). Drainage is key and on other forums I've been critical of over-irrigation at some tracks which does not promote normal grass growth.

Bath today raced on ground called Good to Firm, Firm in places (7.3) while Salisbury raced on Firm, Good to Firm in Places (8.8) with thunderstorms forecast at both venues while at Hamilton it was Good to Soft, Soft in places (6.4).

Bath race on old downland turf - they don't water and the ground never has any jar because it's well looked after. Salisbury is another very old track where the turf has been in situ for centuries - sometimes it's best to leave the grass to manage itself.

 

 

Hear hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe one lot of horses were facing a stiff breeze down the back straight and riders also rode to the outside of the track.

its completely stupid to compare times between tracks I could argue like you have the the Awapuni track manager got it wrong in calling it a heavy 11 in the times you have shown in comparison to Egmont times .

Your assertion was they deliberately falsify the readings which in my view they don’t. 

 

What are you actually basing your opinion on?

I know times aren't everything but you cant be that stupid that if you don't think they are relevant.

If you bother to look you find times generally reflect the state of the track..... 

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.