Chief Stipe

Would be an impossible task. However perhaps a statement online on NZTR would have sufficed. From a BOAY perspective I do try to balance things out where I sense something isn't quite right and will play the devils advocate on occasion. In my opinion it isn't individual Stewards necessarily to blame (with one INCA exception) but the lack of Standard Operating Procedures, protocols and systems in place to ensure consistency. Some will call that bureacracy but I think we are well short of having appropriate controls in place. For example raceday protocols don't seem to have an Quality Control systems in place especially when the handover occurs between the Club, NZTR and then to the RIB.

We know @Brodie you have taken the TAB to the cleaners for a couple of million dollars betting on $2 a place harness runners but... Your approach just leads to restrictions and then what do you do for entertainment?

It shouldn't have been ENTAIN driven it should have been NZTR/RIB driven. It isn't fair to other horses. In the offending race which was Ears Back's last race at Wingatui no horses received a barrier warning. Earlier 3 horses were warned. Noticeably in the offending race a number of horses had problems in the barriers - no doubt because they had to wait for a problematic horse.

It isn't that easy is it @the galah, @Newmarket, @Gammalite ! View from the Sulky Seat.mp4

From what I can see it isn't mentioned in any Stewards reports that the horse has been an issue at the start. Is there a separate list of warnings for barrier manners? It doesn't surprise me that there is no mention because the reports really should be better than they are.

I take it you think Ellerslie is the new exemplar? If so - why?

Interesting though that there is no mention in the Stipes report for the offending races.

My understanding is they follow a protocol and no doubt ask politely.

Out of interest when was Trial Meeting abandoned because a horse slipped?

Agree. It isn't because we don't have enough tracks its because we haven't looked after the ones we had and still have.

Only to look for slip marks AFTER a horse has slipped.

Rubbish. How many meetings have been abandoned? How many of those meetings have had the full number of races transferred to another location? How many meetings to Otaki pick up that weren't planned that caused them to fail?

They may have good turnovers but obviously the track manager will have to be a volunteer or part time at best and would need to borrow the tools for the job from some local farmers. Well THAT approach has proven to fail hasn't it!

So 7 meetings in 4 months is too much for Otaki?

Are you serious? What do you determine as the area that a Trainer should be forced to run in?

Does the "Not enough horses argument" make any sense? They don't have a plan nor can they fund the necessary capital works. They abandoned the 2023/24 plan to upgrade Riccartons irrigation - has that gone ahead and at what cost?

I disagree. There are more than enough tracks to provide decent racing surfaces. How many race meetings should a track hold per year to be financially viable and how many meetings should a track be able to sustain per year?

From a Thoroughbred perspective those tracks lost trainers years ago. None of them going has put pressure on those that are left. Especially with the decline in horse numbers. With respect to Hokitika the only benefit racing wise was the opportunity to shift a meeting easily if one of the other West Coast tracks couldn't run theirs for some reason. Although there was very little inclination or co-operation to do that. The biggest loss from any track loss is the lack of access to the sport by a wider community. I'm not going to go through each of those but many still provide trial, jumpout and workout facilities as well as training. There isn't the horse numbers to support all of them with race meetings no matter how nostalgic you want to be. But if horse numbers have halved so has the racing load. Hell there used to be 100 race courses in NZ a bit like there was a pub every 20km because that's about as far as you wanted to ride a horse each day.

But there are two fundamental issues with Ellerslie - one was long standing - the shape and camber which wasn't fixed in order to "keep the iconic shape". I also think they didn't shift the 2400m shute because of commercial income reasons. The second issue is they basically have a hydroponic grass growing system. It is pure sand with a dash of moss (the moss decays very quickly and anyone knows who has added it their garden - it oxidises) and some plastic mesh. No wonder the grass roots matt across the top. How economical or even practical is it to pour 45mm of water on the track with 48 hours of race time, tyne and verti-drain the surface twice in the week prior to raceday in order to create a forgiving surface that the horses can get their hooves into!

There is a lot of looking the other way at the moment.

Correct but it is an expensive exercise. I draw up a plan once that involved treating our tracks like they were a group of pasture paddocks or crop fields and arranging a rotation plan. So for example the CD could have 6 main tracks and any one year one track was under going soil rejuvenation and the other 5 carried the races. Some tracks were wide enough to split in two and so shorten the cycle. Even Flemington has to have a full rest occasionally.

Instead of blaming everyone why don't we all admit that all our tracks are fundamentally stuffed.

Then what was wrong with the protocols? Hell if all the Jockey experts throught the track was OK how does the Track Manager work it out?

If you move the rail out evenly all round the track then then bend is easier to negotiate as long as you shorten the straight.

Ask Ellerslie.