The Sandown Hillside track has received 42mm of irrigation water and 0.6mm of rain over the last week. This morning's penetrometer readings at Sandown produced a score of 5.23. I know as recently as in July, a score of 5.12 at Sandown Hillside resulted in a track rating of Dead, yet today's 5.23 reading has produced a Good rating. This doesn't seem logical to me. I've noticed the same thing at Caulfield recently also, where the track's rating was determined to be Good even though it had a penetrometer reading that was higher than a previous one which determined the track was Dead. Is there something I've missed, or is the Melbourne Racing Club aware that fewer punters bet on Dead tracks than Good and are fudging the results in order to generate more money?