The Chazz

Ask Lloyd Williams if he would still invest millions in to the industry if they took away wagering. I'm absolutely sure he'd still search the planet for the horse that can win a race over 3200m, especially if he got to keep the gold cup presented at the end of the race. Further to that, there are many that view that 3-handled gold cup in the same regards as those do for that silver cup given out on the MCG in late September.

I think he is lucky that Bail and Nicholson are still on our list. The time is surely fast approaching where we put the spotlight on his return on investment.

You simply cannot use this line to prove your point with any certainty.

I know a number of racing stables that try and have the fastest horse because of the prizemoney. They aren't punting stables, and would continue to race horses should betting be banned. The issue to this is of course that the lucrative prizemoney on offer is partially funded through betting turnover. Decrease the size of the prizemoney, and you will find that (eventually) the sport will change its priorities (which would probably be closer to why the sport was invented in the first place!).

You can't put gambling & money under the same banner WYL. They are two seperate topics.

We (the horse racing followers) understand that WYL. We haven't said otherwise. You are making a point that no-one will disagree with. How about we take away all the poker machine licences from every single Australian Rules club, be it at a national level or grassroots level. How many clubs would we lose? Yes, the game will survive, but there would be a number of players (ie clubs) that wouldn't. And it's not just Aussie Rules - how would the NRL look with no poker machine licences? Happy for you to stop betting in horse racing, but to be fair in the scenario, you be happy with me taking away poker machine licences.

I am struggling to understand your argument WYL. None of us are saying that gambling isn't a major part of horse racing. In answer to the question above, I would absolutely be interested in it. There has been many times that I've been to the beach without going swimming, many others do it too.

That's my point WYL, you are saying the sport won't last if you take it away, but as I said, it'd be like taking the goal posts away from a footy field. Neither sport would survive if you changed the rules like that. Is it wrong that part of the rules is that people have to bet? No doubt the moral police will think so, but that doesn't mean they are right. There's expectations of every sport that I don't always agree with - if I dislike it so much I don't watch it. I wouldn't be stopping with just betting on race/match - take away any form of gambling and I think you'd find a lot of clubs wouldn't survive, so the greater gambling "umbrella" would have a massive impact on more than just horse racing. Rjay, I'm not saying it's not true (about the gambling), but as we all agree, it's an expectation, somewhat a rule, that horse racing involves and survives by people betting on it. To take a (hypothetical) drastic action by removing it is of course going to see the sport crumble, but I'm not sure what people would hope to achieve by doing so? And again, the "is it a sport?" argumet is painful. The true (google) definition of "sport" if you want to get technical is; "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." Technically, I can't see how it isn't a sport.

I have considered some pump action, Old Dee, but not of the asthma variety!!!

Would love to know what the average per season is for the past 5 & 10 years.

If Cam, yourself and I ran against her Old Dee, I know who/what I'd be leaving out of the trifecta, and it isn't the ones with 2 legs (although you could be mistaken that she has had a couple cut off!!!).

I see your point. Problem is that these "other" sports are starting to rely (to some degree) on the income they receive from sports betting. Will they survive? Most likely, but start taking that multi million dollar income stream away and that money will need to be taken from somewhere else. Horse racing has relied and survived on betting for centuries, and it's basically how the "sport" was developed. It's not new to them, and it's pretty much a part of the rules. It'd be like taking the goal posts off a footy field. Point is, there will always be people that have horse racing as their chosen "sport", and if betting is one of the "rules" you need to follow to particpate, they will do it. Sorry WYL, this whole "take betting away and horse racing won't surive" isn't my favourite subject. I find it a boring one in all honesty - up there with "is horse racing sport"! (No offence!).

It's interesting WYL. Wasn't long ago that we were hoping that we wouldn't lose our gaming licence over the tanking saga as a lot feared it would sink our club.

I'm not sure that is an "industry standard" situation Redleg. There would be no way that bigger studs like Vinery would pay $20m for All Too Hard (appropriate name for a beast serving 150+ mares a year!), with the view of recouping money from the 20-40 serves you speak of. Someone like Darley, who wouldn't have a need for shareholders, I think you would find a large percentage of successful serves would be funding and maintaining their dominance in horse racing in Australia. Further to that, you mention a sire's best price is his initial season. That's true for the first couple of seasons, but let's not forget that it can increase tenfold after that 3rd year should his horses start winning Group/Listed races, especially as 2 year olds. Redoute's Choice's first season as a sire saw him with a $30k service fee. Didn't take long for that to increase signficantly, with his service fee in 2013 being around $137k per successful service (which isn't his personal best either I might add - pre GFC he was around or over $200k!). It's a big risk, but the reward can be well worth it. I personally am not in a position to be able to get involved to that level, but if money wasn't too much of an issue, it's something that I would absolutely consider. In the mean time, I continue to buy shares in fillies that Cam Pedersen could run past!

Old, did you happen to notice Byrnes training at all? I think it was mentioned higher up that they didn't see him, but thought I'd throw it out there. We talk about our need for a small forward. Byrnes will be one player that benefits from having minimal stints in the middle, and actually having tall forwards to crumb off. While I'm interested in JKH's development in 2014, and to hopefully see what Barry is capable of, I also think that Byrnes is our best small forward for 2014 so am keen to hear how he's going on the track. Edit - Byrnes will have minimal stints, not none (as per my original post)

Chippy, I have a simple solution for you - don't buy a share!!!

Information that we are not privvy to, such as insurance amounts, would probably tell a bit more of a story, but I'm not involved and won't lose any sleep over it. I just feel for the horse. If "someone" has used him in this "game", then that's a pretty ordinary way of doing things in my view, but sadly there are people in society that think this is acceptable practice. If it's from a sheer freak of nature, surviving the spider bite would've been tough enough for him, but suffering from laminitis on top of it is just a terrible thing.

Gysberts avg 3.79 per game Clisby avg 2.25 per game Clisby avg 13.88 uncontested possessions per game Cale Morton avg 14.54 uncontested possessions per game The stats I'm using suggest Nathan Jones averages 13.57 UCP per game, Daniel Cross at 14.65 and Bernie Vince 13.98. That's (part of) my point, stats can tell some of the story. Using stats to support an opinion on an 8 game player (in a crap team) isn't something that I would do, but RP is entitled to do what he likes.

From my understanding it was the reaction to the treatment that has caused the horse most of its ill health rather than the bite (or needle) itself. Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I'd be surprised if there was any wrongdoing. I can understand the "timing" of said ill health isn't giving my view much substance!

That's just you isn't it RP, has to be a winner and loser in every discussion/disagreement. Maybe stop being the latter and people will treat you more as the former.

Redleg, I do believe I stated that if he won a Group race that his stud fee would be at that value, so not incorrect at all. It's also the first I've heard of any vet concerns, so I appreciate you informing me of that. It doesn't change my mind a great deal but does give me something to consider. That said, given it was an auction, and other bidders were involved until BC3's winning bid, I question why some of the other bidders weren't concerned by this apparent knee issue. It's something that we will never know the real truth - I don't claim to know everything about it, none of us can. My initial argument was in regards to dodgy punters clubs as opposed to dodgy syndicators (as per RR's post). Off topic - must've experienced the highs and lows with Moshe. Had above average ability, shame we didn't get to see the best for him.

Gysberts had great stats in his career Oli.

It would've been paid for, just that it would've eventually been wearing different colours.

Let me know when you've made your point then.

Yeah, but that's speculation. If it was that bad, I'm sure Vinery or Darley would've happily taken him off their hands for cost price. Or even simpler - the original breeder/owner. Nathank Tinkler has proved that you do what you need to when you need money. Him selling All Too Hard for $20m has cost him a hell of a lot of money, but he needed it. Jimmy was BC3's biggest asset, and for anyone that is owed money, a 100% fit Jimmy was the best chance they had of getting it back.