October
JanuaryLeave it alone
Here we go again. The "experts" who run racing in Australia are seemingly catering for the overseas trainers/owners once again with the mooted changes to the track condition ratings. Isn’t it bad enough that the International Cup, formerly the Melbourne Cup, is squeezing more and more Australasian-bred horses out due to highly inflated UK ratings?
Greg Miles stated recently that the only term that should be changed is "dead" — perhaps to "yielding", a term used in the UK. I agree 100 per cent.
Although some track readings are simply false, the current system works for most punters simply because a reading of dead (5), as an example, alerts the punter that the track is close to slow, and to start seeking horses that have an affinity for damper tracks.
Alternatively, a track managers will suggest the reading may improve to a dead (4) and the punter has a clue that perhaps the damp-trackers may not be advantaged.
We punters are able to make an informed guess as to the likely state of the track. It’s all we need to bet with confidence.
If we just have good, yielding, slow/soft and heavy, we punters are being deprived of 4-5 "tighter" track readings — forget fast (1), it’s just not used anymore,
If that is a progressive move just call me a monkey’s uncle. Leave the ratings as they are so the average punter has some chance.
The professionals, semi-professionals and really, really keen punters might keep their own records of, say, the last 600m times to gauge the true track conditions, but the average punter is going to be quite annoyed. In the finish they will drift to sports betting.
Leave a system that is working alone.
Hoppers Crossing (Vic)