Trouble In Sth Africa - International Racing - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Trouble In Sth Africa - International Racing - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Trouble In Sth Africa  (Read 7215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6800
« 2018-Jul-01, 05:44 PM Reply #25 »
You actually think I didn't try that google before posting!

Interesting your google couldn't find Australian references, while mine did.

So try

"horse racing decline Australia"


Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-01, 07:28 PM Reply #26 »

Copulation attendants
Muck rakers
Horse breakers
Track riders
whatever

While these expenses are significant they are a minor component of labour when compared to that of the Australian component - racing a proven horse for ~5 years.

Why do you need to be told this!

Whatever indeed.

I don't think they are a minor component.

They are the backbone of the wonderful racing we enjoy in this country.

And up until recently, with the fairer dispersion of money and things like Superannuation and Training, and Peter V'Landys coming along, people in this category were earning close to a subsistence wage in a bad month.

And their jobs would disappear when someone like you comes along and say "hey why don't we send a big chunk of our horse racing industry to Chile so I don't have to pay so much gambling tax".

Anyone who thinks we can allow Australian jobs to be lost to cheaper labour overseas across all industries, and not pay some sort of severe penalty down the track is just plain wrong.

Racing is one of the few industries where you can see and enjoy your taxes at work.   emthup

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-01, 07:33 PM Reply #27 »
You actually think I didn't try that google before posting!

Interesting your google couldn't find Australian references, while mine did.

So try

"horse racing decline Australia"

It is well known that Google remembers your search patterns and applies these to your search queries.

For example, someone who is insular and selfish and tends not to think of the welfare of others would get more Australian sites in their search results.

On the other hand someone who takes a broader view of the world and can see the bigger picture gets more international sites in what is returned.

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6800
« 2018-Jul-01, 07:36 PM Reply #28 »
Whatever indeed.

I don't think they are a minor component.

They are the backbone of the wonderful racing we enjoy in this country.
They are not a major component. Nor break-even.

Therefore they are a minor component.

So you are wrong.

And your 100,000+ figure is wrong.




Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-01, 07:46 PM Reply #29 »
They are not a major component. Nor break-even.

Therefore they are a minor component.

So you are wrong.

And your 100,000+ figure is wrong.

Well I don't think my 100,000 figure is wrong Mr Smarty Pants and I think I have proven it above.

What is a "break even" component? Are you saying that Strappers, for example, are a "break even" component?

I don't even know what that means.

C'mon. Admit it jfc. You make some of this stuff up as we go along don'tchya  ;)

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6800
« 2018-Jul-01, 07:59 PM Reply #30 »
In a binary environment segments can only be

Major
Minor
or Break-even aka equal.

If the labour costs getting a horse to become a proven performer exceed those of its subsequent racing career it's a very sick model.



Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-01, 09:06 PM Reply #31 »
In a binary environment segments can only be

Major
Minor
or Break-even aka equal.

If the labour costs getting a horse to become a proven performer exceed those of its subsequent racing career it's a very sick model.

That last sentence doesn't make sense.

You could as easily ask "if the labour costs getting a horse to become a proven performer don't exceed those of it's subsequent career it is not a very sick model.

But your binary (looks trinary to me) system demands that something be categorized. The reality is that there are degrees in between the extremes of "labour costs covered" vs. "labour costs not covered" and other variables that look more like a continuous function model rather than a binary or mathematically discrete model i.e. not everyone is a "success" or "not a success" and nothing in between.

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25963
« 2018-Jul-02, 07:21 AM Reply #32 »
Have I got this right?

The desire to send an industry to a cheaper producer is so we can have a lower gambling tax :chin:

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-02, 10:25 AM Reply #33 »
Have I got this right?

The desire to send an industry to a cheaper producer is so we can have a lower gambling tax :chin:

Those that view racing as purely a gambling medium and who know how to use the rebate system combined with big pools to get "free money" don't really care much for the stuff we all love about racing.

It is all about them putting more money in their own pockets at the cost of the quality of Australian horse racing.

Up until this point we seem to have seen off a lot of attempts to get free money out of Australian horse racing but not so confident this will happen in the future.

There is starting to be a bit of history (vested interests) he

- Corporate bookmakers "do a deal" with the Federally administered Northern Territory to get out of paying stamp duty. I'm sure there is a bit of "lobbying" still going on there. Lobbying in the Territory would be very cheap  ;)

- Corporate bookmakers fight Racing NSW all the way to the High Court to get out of paying local racing taxes. They lose very badly.

- Corporate bookmakers then infiltrate the board of Racing Victoria. Next thing we have the uncommercial racing.com invented and racing vision was turned off for TABCorp for a brief period - they had to come crawling back when revenue fell off a cliff.

- We had a situation where if a Victorian punter was watching SA racing on racing.com and had a bet with a corporate bookmaker advertising on racing.com on the SA races, Victorian racing did not get one cent. That was up until POC tax which will change that - but it is a historical point. Which people oversaw a model whereby Vic racing subsidised SA racing? And why did they do it? And are they still in decision making positions?

- Large punters are able to get rebates which gives them an unfair advantage over regular punters. I can only assume that this is allowed because someone somewhere is getting a weekly brown paper bag because there is absolutely no justification for this. I've heard the pathetic "pool liquidity" arguments but they are a desperate attempt to justify something that should be illegal.

Racing in Australia is doomed if these vested interests get their way. We need to fight them on every point.

Otherwise our racing will be no better than South Africa or Chile.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5679
« 2018-Jul-02, 10:57 AM Reply #34 »
PP7,

If one compares midweek First Four Pools in South Africa to midweek pools here ( virtually anywhere ) then South Africa is well in front.

If one was to compare midweek field sizes in South Africa to Saturday metro NSW fileds, or virtually anywjere else, then South Africa again is well in front.

Fours

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-02, 01:46 PM Reply #35 »
PP7,

If one compares midweek First Four Pools in South Africa to midweek pools here ( virtually anywhere ) then South Africa is well in front.

If one was to compare midweek field sizes in South Africa to Saturday metro NSW fileds, or virtually anywjere else, then South Africa again is well in front.

Fours

Thanks fours but I don't think that has anything to do with what I was saying.

Having large fields does not mean you have quality racing and I would think that South African racing is a prime example of that.

There are some midweek 3YO maidens at Canterbury (and Sandown for that matter) with small field sizes where the class of horse going around, when viewed retrospectively, is not that far behind black type class.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5679
« 2018-Jul-02, 02:43 PM Reply #36 »
PP7,

Sure even Kembla Grange has had maiden races with 3 future Group1 winners in the one field.

But typically Gunnedah today has 5 thousand in the first races first four pool - SA races will have 4 plus times that - every race.

Fours

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6800
« 2018-Jul-02, 06:12 PM Reply #37 »
That last sentence doesn't make sense.

You could as easily ask "if the labour costs getting a horse to become a proven performer don't exceed those of it's subsequent career it is not a very sick model.

But your binary (looks trinary to me) system demands that something be categorized. The reality is that there are degrees in between the extremes of "labour costs covered" vs. "labour costs not covered" and other variables that look more like a continuous function model rather than a binary or mathematically discrete model i.e. not everyone is a "success" or "not a success" and nothing in between.
Say it takes 3 years from copulation to assessment, then 4 years of racing.

Then if the costs for the 1st 3 years exceed those for the latter 4, something is very sick.

Why do you need that spelled out!

This was about 2 segments, therefore that cannot be described as ternary.

No one was talking about whether any horse is a success.

It's about how much it costs to get a horse to run a small number of races to assess its class, and potential and the cost savings from producing it overseas.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-02, 08:08 PM Reply #38 »
Say it takes 3 years from copulation to assessment, then 4 years of racing.

Then if the costs for the 1st 3 years exceed those for the latter 4, something is very sick.

Why do you need that spelled out!


But there are so many vagaries in your statement.

Are you comparing the costs for the first 3 years to the costs of the latter 4 years? Or are the latter 4 years the prizemoney return. Or are both time periods net profit?

Say you do sort that out.

When you say something like (costs for first 3 years) > (costs/whatever for latter 4 years) = "very sick" - are you talking about a general case? Like averages or something? Have you got any published stats and you are quoting averages perhaps. Can we have the source?

And what do you mean by very sick?


Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6800
« 2018-Jul-02, 08:24 PM Reply #39 »
No need for any of that.

If the first costs (with no return) exceed the costs for the latter period (with some returns), that's very sick.

People will accept costs while they are getting some returns.

But will be turned off by big costs prior to the return phase.

You need "very sick" explained!

Well, I'm very sick of your incessant pointless questions.

Particularly as they are moot.

Costs in the latter phase clearly exceed that for the former.

For example ongoing costs are minimal while the horse is unborn.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-02, 08:31 PM Reply #40 »
Say it takes 3 years from copulation to assessment, then 4 years of racing.

Then if the costs for the 1st 3 years exceed those for the latter 4, something is very sick.



If the first costs (with no return) exceed the costs for the latter period (with some returns), that's very sick.


But mate.

I think you have had your head stuck looking at tote pool sizes for too long.

They actually race when they are 3, and often when they are 2. In fact most horses earn a good deal of their prizemoney during that period if I am not mistaken.

Have you not noticed that   :biggrin:

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6800
« 2018-Jul-02, 08:46 PM Reply #41 »
Rest assured whatever figures I used you'd bitch about them.

Note that I did start counting from copulation. Which adds near enough to a year to your apparent calculations.


Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-02, 09:01 PM Reply #42 »
Rest assured whatever figures I used you'd bitch about them.

Note that I did start counting from copulation. Which adds near enough to a year to your apparent calculations.

When have I ever bitched about your figures  :what:

I would never do that.

Also I chose to ignore the vulgarities.

Wouldn't you want to subtract prizemoney from costs up to the end of their 3YO racing if your model was to actually reflect reality?

Some of your ideas have merit. I'm trying to assess the practicality of breeding then racing our young horses in Chile.

Is there a reason you picked Chile or is it just random? My visualization of Chile is a mountainous cold place with very few of the beautiful properties we enjoy in the Hunter Valley. I would think Brazil or maybe down in the Pampas somewhere would be a better choice.

Am also worried about the horse floats. Wouldn't it be dangerous driving one of those things up the side of a Chilean mountain?

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-02, 09:05 PM Reply #43 »
I was worried that horses wouldn't be able to survive in the Andes (let alone copulate) but apparently they can tolerate temperatures down to -40 degrees Fahrenheit.

In the absence of wind and moisture, horses, acclimated to the extreme cold can tolerate temperatures near 5°. If horses have access to a shelter, they can tolerate temperatures as low as 40° below zero. However, horses are most comfortable at temperatures between 18° if the horse has a winter coat and 59° if the horse has a summer or wet coat, Hathaway said.

https://thehorse.com/125812/keeping-horses-comfortable-in-winter-temperatures/

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6800
« 2018-Jul-02, 09:17 PM Reply #44 »
(vulgarities deleted)!

Just google

Chile breeding

And hopefully learn something.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20453
« 2018-Jul-02, 09:36 PM Reply #45 »
(vulgarities deleted)!

Just google

Chile breeding

And hopefully learn something.

Google returned....

Varieties & Plant Breeding | Chile Pepper Institute | New Mexico State ...
https://cpi.nmsu.edu › Chile Pepper Institute

Varieties & Plant Breeding. 'Bhut Jolokia'—The World's Hottest Known Chile Pepper is a Putative Naturally Occurring Interspecific Hybrid. HortScience 42(2).


https://cpi.nmsu.edu/varieties-plant-breeding-the-chile-pepper-institute/

Well ya learn something every day.

If we hadn't had this pointless conversation I would never have found out about the world's hottest Chile Pepper.

Offline jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6800
« 2018-Jul-03, 05:55 PM Reply #46 »
How intriguing that you did not own up to finding articles like the one below.

Which claims the Chilean climate and soil are ideal for breeding.

And has much more of interest.

http://www.pedigree-dynamics.com.au/chilean-bred-thoroughbreds/

Online Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8120
« 2018-Jul-03, 06:26 PM Reply #47 »
http://www.pedigree-dynamics.com.au/chilean-bred-thoroughbreds/

If the recent importation of the 2005 Chilean Horse of the Year ‘Cefalu’ results in stakes wins in this country, it could open the floodgates.  He is the first racehorse exported from Chile to race in Australia for 15 years and only the third in total.

http://www.racingaustralia.horse/InteractiveForm/HorseAllForm.aspx?HorseCode=NDExODI5NTM2&src=horsesearch
« Last Edit: 2018-Jul-03, 06:29 PM by Bubbasmith »

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2616
« 2018-Jul-03, 08:14 PM Reply #48 »
My memory ain't what it used to be . .

But I vaguely recall being admonished by one of the above combatants for being 'off topic' . . Moi!?!

And at the risk of being 'o-t' again . . I will simply make the observation  that it is quite a  way from South Africa to Chile, as the crow flies


 :shutup: :bye:

Online Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8120
« 2018-Jul-04, 07:07 AM Reply #49 »
Distances:
Australia to Chile 12,726 km
Australia to South Africa 10,383 km
South Africa to Chile 8,446 km

Make what you want out of that


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap