.........some-stars is not all-stars

The problem is that the race is two-in-one -- one race for the stars and another race for the cant-wins but can disrupt.

.................................... akin to putting 'mines' in some lanes for Olympic running events.

It will come unstuck because it is an ill-founded concept -- and RVL is too slow to concede that and fix the rules.

Keep on going wily, I think good Ole Pete is weakening and about to change his mind, what d'ya reckon, eh?

Most big races have horses that have no chance. The Derbies, Cups, Slipper , WFA etc.

Why should the All Star Mile be singled out for this? If we follow your reasoning, then you should be equally critical of other races. I am sure being an ex Punters representative that you will be aghast at other races including races in other states too containing no hopers.

Jeunes, you, wily and a few others here must have terrible migraines.....the result of banging your head against a brick wall.......protracted arguing with Pete isn't a sign of intelligence.....you're standing in quicksand.......You can't win.....
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result,
Trying to convince Pete he is wrong fits that's the best definition of insanity I have ever heard of and I am sure Albert Einstein would agree!

One of your best.  

...........................one problem for the 'kennel kids' is that Pete is not usually wrong

                   ...... repitiituous endorsements of Pete being 'wrong' only illustrate their own limitatiions.

What do you mean “not usually wrong”? Does this mean your views have been wrong before?

.................... thirteen sleeps until some stars shine

 ...... while  some 'elected' no-stars will get far too much for simply impeding others that might have shined.

Only in Victoria would such a nonsense be considered competitively 'cutting edge' in racing administration.

The best result for all concerned is that some Bradbury cops-the-lot ......... prompting an investigation of why RVL allowed unqualified runners to be 'elected' -- as distinct from being accepted to run on their proven recent form.

Inflated fields also corrupt metropolitan races in Sydney

I accordingly deplore the ATC following RVL over the cliff, inflating fields by paying no-hopers to run 10th.

I will not, however, be mentioning the name of a royal-highness who is inclined to hurt feelings.

There is nonetheless something different about racing in Sydney -- field sizes are usually smaller and the tracks not so inclined to unfair outcomes in the 1400 to 1600m range (an acute problem for Caulfield and Flemington).

......in Sydney the corruption is mainly about inflated fields in sprints at Rosehill ..... especially for 2ryo -- and notorious problems with Canterbury and Warwick Farm, tracks rarely used for Saturday racing.

The 'test' for me is the success rate of the selections made by Shane Montgomery in the SMH -- he got everything right at Flemington on Saturday --- reflecting the smaller fields and well disclosed form.

Almost invariably the contrast with SM tips  is so sharply in favour of Sydney -- and against Melbourne -- that one wonders why punters bet on Melbourne races at all.

Let us reflect on this: It's a quality field and should be a great race.

The race should be a great race and it may prove to be so in time -- but, again, not this time.

The quality and fairness of the race will always be compromised while ever unqualified runners can get a run based on a popular vote.

The policy development unit at RVL is off with the pixies -- problem is,  this much is just too true:

The All-Star Mile is a race like no other in Australia. It's the only race in Australia where you choose the horses that run. Vote for your favourite horse ............. ...

Beyond that it seems they are intending to start 15 runners over the 1600 at Caulfield -- do not do it  -- this start is notoriously unfair with more than 10 runners.

Predictably there are two races in one  -- one good, one bad and a disturbing prospect of a mess.

The raw material is there for a good WFA race -- half the likely field is rated over 110 and a few at 110.

About half the likely field  is slated to start at 50/1+  -- hopefully this 'race-two' lot will take $50k from an emergency keen to run or politely drop back  -- but they wont -- they will try to do a bradbury  ------ and very likely impede runners in the race with prospects.

Unbelievably they will be paid $50,000 for 'being popular' -- if they were charged $100,000 to get a start to run 10th -- probably none would pay up.

The appeal of the race will fall away further if some of the fancied runners drawing badly are scratched or otherwise saved for another day  -- as a few with high profiles should be.

This story is unfolding .... it is unlikely to have a happy ending ..... and wont until the story line is changed to exclude popular no-hopers.

[pwa54 does not say much but is usually on the pace when he has a go -- not this time I suggest.]

Inflated fields also corrupt metropolitan races in Sydney

I accordingly deplore the ATC following RVL over the cliff, inflating fields by paying no-hopers to run 10th.

I will not, however, be mentioning the name of a royal-highness who is inclined to hurt feelings.

There is nonetheless something different about racing in Sydney -- field sizes are usually smaller and the tracks not so inclined to unfair outcomes in the 1400 to 1600m range (an acute problem for Caulfield and Flemington).

......in Sydney the corruption is mainly about inflated fields in sprints at Rosehill ..... especially for 2ryo -- and notorious problems with Canterbury and Warwick Farm, tracks rarely used for Saturday racing.

The 'test' for me is the success rate of the selections made by Shane Montgomery in the SMH -- he got everything right at Flemington on Saturday --- reflecting the smaller fields and well disclosed form.

Almost invariably the contrast with SM tips  is so sharply in favour of Sydney -- and against Melbourne -- that one wonders why punters bet on Melbourne races at all.

Pete, who is the Royal Highness you refer to? Is it V’Landys or someone on the forum who does not like criticism of V’Landys?

                  ................. you tell me

That is why I am asking as I was intrigued by your choice of words. I am unsure if it is a throwaway line or you actually have a valid reference. I have no idea who you are referring as there are a lot of highnesses around everywhere in sport. Some more than others.

I'll give you a couple of clues Jeunes.

He is a man of modest height (5 foot 9 inches with his platforms on) who has who has described himself as a "Greek god."
His surname at school was Vlandis.         

So PM is scared of offending him? It does not make sense considering how much he thinks of some racing bodies.

Has PM met his match with V’Landys?

APOLOGY TO PETER V’LANDYS

I have been asked, and so agree, to cease making defamatory statements about Peter V’landys in any online or other forum and to post the following apology on this forum (www.racehorsetalk.com.au) where the statements appeared.

I previously made some statements criticising Peter V’Landys in his role as CEO of RacingNSW.
Those statements were without foundation. I wish to sincerely apologise to Peter V’landys for any hurt or embarrassment my statements caused him, and I acknowledge the good work he continues to do as CEO, as well as his many contributions to the racing industry for which he so deservedly received the Order od Australia.

Peter Mair
3 March 2014

Yet you continue