Inflated fields: pre-post consensus v. post-race outcomes
Looking ahead to Saturday, for most races in Sydney and Melbourne, there is a credible consensus across the published selections of three industry players: Racenet, Punters.com.au and Sportsbet.
I have no doubt that the 'tips' are soundly professionally sourced and sincerely offered -- as are 'tips' posted by individuals claiming expertise, and across racing-media panels more generally.
These guys 'do the form', call it as they see it -- but are often mocked by the race outcomes
Post race-mocking of most of this 'input' -- against the 'output' of reality -- may reflect apparent incompetence of some contributors but it also begs the question of why do they all get it so wrong so often.
These players, playing sincerely, are routinely embarrassed come race day.
On race day itself, race results, however rough, are immediately proclaimed by broadcasters 'the correct outcome' --- sometimes it is obvious that a crowded field denied a 'should-have-won' unfairly -- dismissed as 'bad-luck' .......but there is no complaint aired about 'inflated fields'.
The only 'accredited' racing media players run with blinkers and tongue ties -- any failure to run as so directed, would see their accreditation removed (aka cut off the feed).
........................ we lament the suppression of a free-press in dictatorial regimes -- Russia and China et al, et al -- but blandly accept that the racing media in Australia is so similarly and so brutally suppressed.
........ we all know this is not right ........ but no one on the affected payroll can say so ..... not only would they lose their job ........they would expose their failure to speak frankly previously.