Rob Waterhouse

...please...please bring back @johnkanga

One of the most biased tracks you will ever see at Goulburn today. Shame on such an important day for many trainers and owners #InsideOrBust

I’m not convinced punters would be satisfied with the Club’s response to yesterday’s Caulfield track. Surely putting your hand up would’ve been a more suitable response. betsy.com.au/caulfield-trac…

It’s because the AHA and poker machine lobby are Gp1 lobbyists and the racing industry bm 52 lobbyists.

Let’s stop pretending this is a tough conversation. It isn’t. It’s overdue. Saturday racing in Sydney is supposed to be the pinnacle. It’s the shop window. The best horses, the sharpest stables, the riders at the peak of their powers. That’s what people tune in for, that’s what punters invest in, and that’s what the industry trades its reputation on. So why are we still handing out participation ribbons in the middle of it? Highway and Midway races had a purpose when they were introduced. They were designed to give smaller stables exposure, to create pathways, to spread opportunity. Fine. Noble, even. But somewhere along the way, “pathway” quietly became “entitlement,” and now we’re treating Saturday metropolitan racing like it owes these races a slot. It doesn’t. And before anyone jumps in with the defence it is only two races out of ten, that somehow it is harmless, that it is just a small slice of the program that misses the point entirely. Saturday is not about majority rules. It is about standard. You do not protect the integrity of a premier product eight races out of ten and then look the other way for the other two. Winning in the city is supposed to mean something. It’s supposed to be earned, not allocated. The moment you carve out protected lanes for certain classes of participants, you dilute the very thing that makes city racing valuable merit under pressure. If you want to win on a Saturday in Sydney, you should have to beat proper town hall company. No shortcuts. No separate divisions. No soft landing. You line up, you measure up, or you don’t. That’s the deal. Because here’s the reality punters won’t say quietly anymore these races break the rhythm of a Saturday card. They lower the standard, they muddy form lines, and they inject inconsistency into what should be a premium betting product. Two races is all it takes to disrupt flow, confidence, and form. And quality matters. Not just for perception, but for turnover, integrity, and long term growth. You don’t build a flagship product by compromising it, even briefly, to tick a participation box. There are plenty of places in the calendar for Highway and Midway races to exist and thrive. Midweek programs. Provincial showcases. Feature support cards. Build them up, give them identity, give them space to breathe. But Saturday in Sydney That’s sacred ground. This isn’t harsh. It’s honest. Privilege, not a right. That’s what a city win should be. And right now, we’ve blurred that line to the point where it barely exists. Scrap the Highway. Scrap the Midway. Restore the standard. If you want to win in the city, earn your way in and beat the best. That’s how it should be. That’s how it used to be. And that’s how it needs to be again.

@davepband Thank you and thank you @domran

Hi Rob 👋 Dom pointed out to me that they are intentionally running 2125 and 1625. In order to achieve that, they actually move the gates back 6m at 2100 and 11m at 1600 start from true position. If it were me, I'd just leave the gates in the true pos, and call it 1614m and 2119m when the rail is out 3m. Less chance of the track staff getting confused (or lazy) that way. I'm certain there have been instances where they forget. When that happens, they call it 1625m but run ~1614m.

Wyong today - A 3m rail on the entire circuit. Given they run an extra ~90deg quarter circle bend from the 2100m starting point, how can the added distance (25m) be the same amount as the 1600m -> 1625m? You'd assume they're using the same strategy at both barrier positions - not moving the gates from the True position, rather adding the extra distance on for the wider arc around all bends. So if that's the case - wouldn't we expect it to be ~5m more than what is added at the 1600? So, more like 2130m (assuming 1625m is an accurate calc, which it actually looks too much to my eye)? Or does no one care that times will be about 2 lengths faster than what really happens in Race 5?

Opinion | The Petty Shot at Gai Waterhouse Is an Absolute Joke Let’s stop pretending this is serious reporting. Turning where Gai Waterhouse plans to watch the Golden Slipper Stakes into a headline is not insightful, it is not clever, and it certainly is not important. It is gutter level racing journalism. Because the implication being pushed is obvious. Waterhouse helped lead the campaign to keep Rosehill Gardens Racecourse, yet she will not be physically standing there for the race. Therefore… somehow… that is meant to be a thing. Let’s call that out for what it is. Utter nonsense. Of all the angles available in the lead up to the biggest two year old race in the world, someone decided the most pressing issue was whether Waterhouse will be sitting in the grandstand or on a couch. That is the level of analysis we have arrived at. Here is the inconvenient truth the cheap headline conveniently dances around. When the proposal to sell Rosehill erupted, a lot of people in racing suddenly became very quiet. Plenty of administrators, participants and industry figures decided neutrality was the safest career move. Waterhouse did not. She stepped forward and said exactly what she believed. Loudly. Publicly. Repeatedly. Rosehill matters. Racing history matters. And selling one of the most important racecourses in the country was a terrible idea. That position made some people uncomfortable. Tough. Because when the vote came, members backed the view that Rosehill should remain a racecourse. Which means the Golden Slipper Stakes is still run exactly where it belongs. That outcome did not materialise out of thin air. It happened because people were prepared to fight for Rosehill and Waterhouse was right at the front of that fight. Which makes the current narrative so laughably petty. The same woman who helped rally support to protect Rosehill is now being subtly prodded because she will watch the race on television. Think about that for a second. The people who actually fought to keep the track are now being lectured about their level of enthusiasm by people who were not exactly leading the charge when Rosehill itself was on the line. You could not write satire this good. The truth is brutally simple. Waterhouse already showed up when it mattered. She showed up when the future of Rosehill Gardens Racecourse was being debated. She showed up when the industry was being asked to sign off on selling the home of the biggest two year old race in the world. She showed up when plenty of others preferred to keep their heads down. And now someone thinks the scandal is that she will watch the race from the couch. Please. The track is still there. The Golden Slipper Stakes will still be run. And the woman who helped make sure of that does not need to perform for a headline to prove she cares about Rosehill.

There is something deeply revealing about how an organisation reacts when a court tells it “you do not have that power.” This week the Supreme Court of New South Wales, through Justice Francois Kunc, did exactly that to Racing NSW in its dispute with the Australian Turf Club. The ruling was not radical. It was not ideological. It was not anti racing. It simply stated that the legislation governing Racing NSW allows it to act in matters relating to the racing of galloping horses. That is it. That is the boundary. What followed from Racing NSW, however, sounded less like the response of a regulator in a democracy and more like the reaction of a central authority that has just discovered someone has questioned its supremacy. Suddenly the industry is in a “precarious position.” Funding is supposedly at risk. Fifty thousand livelihoods are apparently hanging in the balance. All because a court reminded the regulator that it must operate within the law. Let us be very clear. This is Australia. It is not North Korea. Regulators in this country do not get to invent powers because they think their intentions are noble. They do not get to march into independent organisations and install administrators simply because they have decided they do not like the governance structure or the personalities in the room. That is not regulation. That is control. And the reaction from Racing NSW makes it painfully obvious that control is the real issue here. For years the organisation has behaved as if it sits above the system it was created to administer. The assumption appears to have been that if Racing NSW believes something should happen, then the law will somehow bend to accommodate that belief. The court has now politely explained that the law does not work that way. Yet instead of acknowledging the limits of its authority, Racing NSW has responded with a familiar bureaucratic tactic. Inflate the consequences. Declare existential risk. Suggest the entire industry might somehow unravel if the regulator cannot continue exercising powers the legislation never actually granted it. It is the administrative equivalent of stamping your foot and announcing that the sky will fall unless you get your way. Even more absurd is the contradiction buried in Racing NSW’s own statement. In the same breath that it warns of catastrophic funding risks, it proudly notes that race clubs across New South Wales are in the strongest financial position they have ever been in, with assets and cash doubling over the past decade. So which is it. Is the system thriving or on the brink of collapse because a court enforced the law. Because it cannot logically be both. The reality is that nothing about this judgement threatens racing. Horses will still run. Wagering will still occur. Prize money will still be distributed. Race clubs will still operate. The only thing under threat is a culture that appears to have convinced itself that legal boundaries are optional. And that is where the North Korea comparison starts to feel less like satire and more like uncomfortable accuracy. In functioning democracies regulators operate within legislation and answer to the courts when they step outside it. They do not behave as if the court system is merely an inconvenience standing in the way of administrative ambition. Racing NSW may choose to appeal the ruling. That is its right. But the tone of its response suggests an organisation that has grown so accustomed to unchecked authority that the mere suggestion of limits feels like an existential attack. It is not. It is simply the legal system reminding a regulator of something very basic. This is Australia. And in Australia no regulator gets to behave like a supreme authority simply because it believes the industry would be better off if it did.

Technology provider Sportradar has reported results for Q4 2025. Q4 revenue increased 20.1% year-on-year, reaching €368.9m. The Betting Technology and Solutions division brought in €305.5m in revenue. Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter totalled €89m, up 47.6% compared to Q4 24'

@adam_freestone Morning!

@RobWaterhouse Morning Robbie

Identity is so important & I go to @CheltenhamRaces carrying a lot of care & strength with me. I hope you enjoy hearing about how I prepare myself for the week... #CheltenhamFestival

Hello 🇺🇸 Our Investment Analyst Oscar Silver will be a speaker at @nextdotio Summit New York. If you would like to organise a meeting with Oscar while he is in New York, please reach out to us at info@waterhousevc.com 📅 10-11 March 📍Convene, Downtown, New York

February Newsletter | The counter to offshore leakage is giving the regulated market the conditions to compete. New Zealand shapes up as the test case. For Waterhouse VC, it is a signal of opportunity. If they get it right, others will pay attention. waterhousevc.com/news-archive/f…

According to recently reported data from “Painel das Bets”, a monitoring system, Brazil's regulated betting sites recorded 26.4b visits in 2025, up 237% on 2024. On average, regulated sites are having 2.2b visits per month, around 71m visits per day.

Always enjoy your thoughts John, but couldn’t disagree more on this. All the commentary last week about the new firm Morphetville, had the expected result. We raced, in the middle of Summer, on a track between DEAD 4 ( now spuriously called GOOD in true Animal Farm style) and a DEAD 5. Unlike the previous two weeks which were dominated by winners very hard in the market, we had four of the ten winners on Saturday with a Betfair SP of 29.0, 16.4, 60.0 and 65.0, with the latter two blowouts coming in the two feature races of the day. An absolute disaster for punters. If you were picking them by names on Saturday, you might have found Eventually and Power Beau, otherwise they were impossible to have in those races. How is this preferable??

February Newsletter | The counter to offshore leakage is giving the regulated market the conditions to compete. New Zealand shapes up as the test case. For Waterhouse VC, it is a signal of opportunity. If they get it right, others will pay attention. waterhousevc.com/news-archive/f…

The Board of Racing NSW must meet and discuss Mr Mitchell’s letter. @racing_nsw @yarramanpark

FDJ United will merge its Parions Sport brand with its flagship online gaming site Unibet at the end of March 2026.