Unspoken rule is that jockeys won\'t claim foul if the DQ won\'t move them to a money position.  My question is why didn\'t the stewards launch an inquiry?

If the race had been decided by a head, I think Tourist comes down.  That it was open space, the stewards judged that since the infraction occurred at the start of the race, there was ample time for A Lot to recover.  The non-call cost me money but I\'d rather the stewards let a race like this stand than make a winner based on what could have been.

Strategy vs tactics.  Saving ground is a good strategy in general except when a given race dictates differently.  Racing wide Rosario may have sacrificed a few lengths on average but he also protected his rides from faulty in-race decision making.

Mostly I\'m curious about the threshold for when a variant is possible/not possible.  Being lazy, I still haven\'t checked the charts but I wondered if the race was a pass because of the number of data points available from other races was insufficient, because the variant changed between races or whether the lack of past performances due to FTS made the race a pass.

In Saturday\'s 2nd race, Condominium has a fig from his previous start, 7/25 in the 5th race while Hundred Years has a box from his start in the 1st the same day, at the same distance.  Haven\'t checked the charts, but can I assume this reflects the number of FTS in the latter race?

Racing in Hong Kong is already viewed as having integrity whereas racing in the US is not.  If want to build integrity here, don\'t focus first on legal meds with therapeutic value such as Lasix and steroids that get press but do little to address integrity.  A better start would be a consistent medication policy from venue to venue, consistent enforcement of penalties, out of competition testing, a central governing body that enforces the standards of the game rather than cover up violations not to mention better treatment of horses before, during and after their racing careers.  And last I checked, Mr. Irwin also derives his revenue from the \'business\' of racing.

Part of the problem is no one entity owns the wagering infrastructure.  Churchill owns United Tote (though they\'re not exactly what I\'d call committed to horse racing) but their control only goes to the demarc at the track. If a given track doesn\'t care to upgrade their systems, the tote companies can either accommodate or drop the track.  If the tote company is unable or unwilling to upgrade, the ADWs have to accommodate or go out of business. Lacking a single \'owner\' such as a franchising body it\'s too easy for each component of racing the view infrastructure as someone else\'s problem which means we\'re soaking in the status quo.