Yep, the Tornado stats don't change...
Even in the face of facts.

Bring on the bugle.

Toot Toot

EXTERNAL LINK

he has just been given a complete list to show how WRONG he is and no surprise he's returned fire to say the figures prove him to be correct.

don't u guys get it that it doesn't matter what answer u give it will NEVER be acceptable or good enough.

They literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable.....

Words almost fail me. I cant believe how you skewed the discussion.

You advised Now dont go changing the parameters...

Well, this is my thread and I clearly stated the parameters to start with = (1) stamina, (2) 7 day backups and (3) evidence of all runners in major staying fields.

Then Now you want to include 400m and 500m dogs into this argument, where the incidence of interference is even greater and skews times even further.

Of course, but shorter races are not staying trips, therefore outside the parameters and introduced by another commentator (which is why I rejected the comment).

Then, Secondly, one third can't back up, you are way off the mark.

No, the figures are one third can back up, two thirds cannot. Please concentrate.

Then, That reasoning is far too inaccurate

I did not offer reasoning (but I did ask others for contributions). My role was simply to present evidence.

* * * * *

By the way, your support is not absolute. Consider these quotes from others:

Kevin Some Stayers pull up great after 5 days others can and do take longer than 7 days to recoup.

Kevin Most old time trainers will tell you that some stayers need longer than a 7 day break it depends on the time of the year and it also depends on the class of dogs you have been racing.

Gillian what I think should happen is give more for 500/700 m and pay a $50 breeders bonus per a win on tab/city track . starters fees at the present is ok there should be a limit on starts per month to 6 per dog

I may have missed some others.

That's it, Sandro.
Can't stop laughing.
A beautiful reflection of Tornado's constitution...lol.

Stevo Martin's post is black and white, completely unbiased and pure facts.

The incessant push to change policies of the industry to suit one's punting endeavours is pathetic, to say the least.

Perhaps the reason Tornado permeates the forum with agendas is the forlorn hope some leftist PTB might grab his diatribe and run with it...who knows hey.

Thanks for that link, Sandro.
That Sellers...he was a very funny man.

You wrote this, you are suggesting the extension to 400m & 500m dogs

Bruce Teague wrote:

My basic suggestion is that Racing Rules should be adjusted to prevent stayers racing more than once in 14 days. (One commentator on this thread has even posed such a threat for a 400m dog moving up to 500m so it is not a fairy story). The principle is already recognised by the ban on racing on successive days. I would extend that.

If you weren't, why bring it up?

I would suggest that you are the one that is always to try and skew the discussion when you have your back to the wall

Must be an old Chess move....

Anyway, Steve and I addressed your 700m staying dog 7-day back-up issue and the evidence is fairly conclusive that they aren't adversely affected and also that the extension to a 14-day back up is dumb, unfounded & lacks any kind of scientific evidence to substantiate it

I am sure that Robert De Castella, sat at home playing computer games in between marathons. He would have been out training over a variety of distances every day and competing in half-marathons in between his races to maintain his fitness

You're wrong, all the rest of us are right

Good Bye & Toot Toot

Hi Bruce, just to clarify it is not your thread simply because you started the topic, unless of course you become a Diamond Member and then it becomes an "advertising" thread.

I am stating this Bruce not only for your benefit but for all other members that start a new topic.

If you set guidelines of what you are trying to get an answer to in your first post and any member starts a new topic within that thread all members are encouraged to hit the report button and state the poster is "off topic" and the post will be removed.

If no one hits the report button it is assumed all are happy with the direction the thread is taking.

Not wise to scoff at inevitable futuristic technologies..
Old Chess move ? ? Graham a Chess Blitz Addict. I play most days online. 1975 was my debut Club game (Essex Div 4 ) I represented Essex in county matches, played regular Essex div 1 also London League div 1
1980 Sth Australia State Reserve Champ . Too many other successes to mention. Big head am I ? no just humble. So Greymasters you know no a little bit more of Graham and what influences his thinking.

Gunga Din. Im still laughing.

Shoot at me all you want coz I just run off to play blitz chess online. Only my opponents get my focus. Lucky me I can escape.

My efforts weren't to prove Sandro right or Bruce wrong. In fact, I didn't know the answers myself. So after months of watching this thread going nowhere, I decided I'd end all speculation based on the arguments Bruce wanted answers too.

The only way to end this speculation was to use FACTS, and the results speak for themselves. They are official. The bookmakers have paid out. As the great race-caller Paul Ambrosoli would say....The numbers are in the frame.

Bruce Teague wrote:

I congratulate those who have done some hard work to pull out historical examples of whatever

"WHATEVER"....Considering the efforts I've shown I find this remark a sign of weakness. Very Clumsy of you Bruce. I thought you were better.

Agree with that 100%.

Old Tornado was whinging like a banshee that no-one has produced a shred of evidence and Steve and Sandro produce it in spades and it suddenly becomes a "whatever".

Gold.

Waiting for the hot air to arrive...

Ian,

At some time in life we've all been suckered in...that's life.
Hopefully you can now see through the illusion of what Tornado is all about.
It's very unhealthy for the industry.
What little credibility he had is gone.

The remaining question is why the fabrication?
I'll let you make your own mind up on that but I suggest it is a selfish, destructive, and devious one.

All good.
May the destructive winds of the Tornado pass and your days are filled with clear blue skies.

On "If you set guidelines of what you are trying to get an answer to in your first post and any member starts a new topic within that thread all members are encouraged to hit the report button and state the poster is "off topic" and the post will be removed".

In fact, I suggested more than once that anyone wanting to talk about shorter trips could readily set up their own theme on another thread. Meantime, they are not helpful for a 700m discussion but commentators did mix and match a fair bit.

What's more important is that we are into the "lies, damn lies and statistics" area.

For years I have been keeping track of ALL runners in major distance races. I reported those results here and asked why is this so.

Now we have two fresh surveys of WINNERS ONLY for (a) the Sydney Cup and (b) all Group staying races.

By definition, these are apples to my oranges. Both are fine in their own way but they cannot be compared with an ALL RUNNERS stat. You would be comparing the best dog in the race on the one hand with a mixture of standards of dogs on the other.

Naturally I would expect the better performed dogs to show up better in those heat/final comparisons.

Even then, this new data showed that half and 40% resp of the new samples ran slower times in the finals, even though they were winners, according to Sandro and Steven. Those are very high proportions - not as high as my assessed proportion of two thirds degrading their times but, again, the difference in overall abilities would account for that.

In short, neither approach invalidates the other but they both show that some dogs can't handle the challenge as well as others.

That's why I started asking questions at the outset.

EXTERNAL LINK

Steven did the hard yards and shot you down in flames.

You have written a lot about track designs, and you can probably offer some positive advice on that subject.

As for your 5/7 day backups, the sport would derive no benefit from your proposed longer backups....imagine heats one week, and the final two weeks later; all for no apparent gain.

As for the punting fraternity, based on Steven's figures, you have offered no practical advice regarding 5/7 day backups.

Speaking of punting, you often talk about the corporates and the tote prices, without making any reference to Betfair. I think you are living in the past. The tote commission is around 18-20%.
The corporates, as much as they can get away with,probably starting at around 20%. Betfair 5% on all sports worldwide, such as cricket tennis basketball etc etc. Racing in Australia got greedy, and now it varies between 6-10%.

You made reference somewhere, about selling hundreds of your computer punting programs....which made me cast my mind back to my teenage years. Myself and a few of my mates, were stupid and naive enough, to buy The Royal Routine System, which along with many other racing systems was advertised in The Sporting Globe.
What a waste of money.

If, if, if, your computer programs did work, why would you want to sell them?"

Ian, You have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. See my response to Tony which will outline that I have not been "shot down in flames" at all. There is no question of the data being wrong (assuming Steven is accurate) but there is of how you use it. Anyway, to classify it as "dubious" is pretty insulting. The data is all in the book for anyone to look up - as both Steven and I have done.

And, yes, the "practical gain" would be (a) a more reliable outcome as all runners would presumably be at full charge and (b) the prospect of individual dogs over-reaching themselves would be sharply reduced - ie a welfare bonus.

Currently, on my figures or Sandro's or Steven's you have to add a further degree of doubt to an already tough betting proposition - ie which runners will be able to maintain their previous levels after only 7 days? Currently, basic costs and all that extra doubt makes betting on distance races a gamble beyond anyone's reach.

Betfair? Good point. I am all in favour of using Betfair, mostly because it allows the punter to sensibly compete with the market. (And I got sacked from one gig because the Chairman opposed the concept while I claimed it was here to stay so we should relax and enjoy it). But that is a different subject.

Computer programs? Well the Sporting Globe died along with any get-rich-quick schemes it promoted. Greybase, on the other hand, has always been an information display - not a tip sheet - far superior to anything else in the industry (minor exception for Sure Pick but I did not favour their system and they withdrew it quite early). Essentially, the program was a big success but unfortunately the market steadily disappeared or dumbed down - this is the mugs in pubs process - and so it became silly to push it any more. However, I and no doubt a few others continued to use it successfully as a personal aid until such time as the industry changed (eg terrible pools, etc).

Of course, as with any collection of information, it is also a matter of how you use it. Or, more aptly, how the system allows you to use it.

A core issue - which you highlighted - is how the industry would adjust to the 14 day break. I accept that is a hassle for some but it is not an impossible challenge. After all, many would now make arrangements for interstate dogs to reside elsewhere for up to three weeks under the present system - or else go to the hassle and expense of flying back and forth. And some (sprint) series are run over 3 weeks anyway - heat/semi/final. In the end, would you get a better race if stayers had to wait 14 days? The evidence suggest yes.

.and I'm the one making excuses ?

Disappointing thing is you cldn't help yourself by publicly slagging off yet another organisation in the process of justifying your database. I was wondering how long it wld take when you first mentioned Sure Pick. You do the same thing to people who have a different view to you.

btw Bruce I never sold my methodology......using it on the horses now :)

no lure there.haha