Chief Stipe

Is that sarcasm?

Saw it close up. Looks bloody heavy and you wouldn't want to hold it above your head in triumph.

The Slot Holders Meet the Slot Holders for The Velocity The excitement of The Velocity, one of New Zealand’s newest premier slot races for 3-year-old pacers, is driven by the commitment of its slot holders. Each slot holder has secured a position in this high-stakes, $500,000 race, held on Show Day, November 15, at Addington Raceway. Below is the list of current slot holders who are shaping the future of this thrilling event. As race day approaches, you'll be able to explore detailed profiles for each slot holder, giving you an inside look at the key players behind The Velocity.

Going by the annual accounts they don't seem to be making positive revenue yet from the AWT.

Isn't their participation subsidised? That is they are not paying the full amount that other "investors" are paying?

Introducing Te Puhoro: The New NZB Kiwi Trophy New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) has unveiled a uniquely crafted trophy, named Te Puhoro, to mark a significant milestone in the journey towards the inaugural running of the Southern Hemisphere’s richest three-year-old horse race – the NZB Kiwi. The governing body has commissioned a piece by renowned carver Deane Moreton of Moko Pounamu in Ōtautahi Christchurch, featuring a special design incorporating Māori imagery. The trophy will be awarded to the winner of the NZB Kiwi - a race sponsored by Thoroughbred auction house New Zealand Bloodstock, held on 8 March 2025 at Ellerslie Racecourse. Designed and crafted by Christchurch-based company Frontal Lobe, the contemporary Te Puhoro features a split Koru pattern symbolising swiftness, speed, and agility. In Māori culture, this design can also represent a storm or something tempestuous, mirroring the fiery temperament of a stallion. A standout feature of Te Puhoro is the pounamu stone, carved in the silhouette of Aotearoa, New Zealand. The Hāpopo variety of pounamu is found near Big Bay in South Westland and sourced by expert carver Deane Moreton. Reflecting on Te Puhoro, Moreton said “This has been a rewarding project, allowing us to highlight the unique qualities of the pounamu we selected and showcase it alongside other native materials incorporated in this impressive trophy.” “The multi-layered effect is striking and represents whakapapa, the Māori word for ancestry and bloodline, which is of immense importance and a source of mana for Māori,” he said. NZTR Chairman Russell Warwick expressed his excitement about Te Puhoro on behalf of New Zealand’s Thoroughbred racing code. “This trophy will celebrate the best of our world-class breeding and racing industry, featuring a lineup of premier three-year-olds conceived, born, or sold in New Zealand,” Warwick said. “It has been an honour to work alongside Deane Moreton, who sourced and carved the magnificent pounamu, and the team at Frontal Lobe, who brought the design to life. “We also received strong support from acclaimed writer and poet Ben Brown, who guided us through the process, helping us name the special piece, as well as Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei who blessed Te Puhoro in an intimate ceremony for Slot Holders and partners of the NZB Kiwi.” Warwick also highlighted the significance of Te Puhoro as part of a broader initiative to enhance New Zealand’s Thoroughbred racing scene. “We are thrilled to unveil this uniquely stunning piece for the sport of Thoroughbred racing in New Zealand. This is just one part of a series of new initiatives aimed at elevating the country’s first-ever Thoroughbred slot race,” he added. NZTR has announced the highly anticipated slot race will take place on Champions Day during the revamped Thoroughbred racing Summer Carnival. The Southern Hemisphere’s richest three-year-old race, the NZB Kiwi, will be held on 8 March 2025, with New Zealand’s premier three-year-olds competing over 1500m at Ellerslie Racecourse in Auckland. Watch the creation of Te Puhoro below. NZB Kiwi New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Contact: Emma Thompson emma.thompson@nztr.co.nz

Image for representation© Getty Police Commissioner Andrew Coster has resigned to take on the role of chief executive of the new Social Investment Agency. His term at police was due to end in April next year, and he had already signalled he would not look to renew it. Acting Public Service Commissioner Heather Baggott announced the new appointment on Tuesday - a dual role at both the Social Investment Agency and Secretary for Social Investment. OneChoice Life InsuranceOneChoice Life Insurance Ad Coster has been appointed for a five year term from 11 November. Baggott said in a statement the role of secretary was the government's lead advisor for delivering social investment, and responsible for embedding the government's social investment approach, driving change in the delivery of social services, and influencing more effective expenditure and better outcomes for New Zealand's most vulnerable. Coster was appointed police commissioner in 2020 - a five year term position, taking over from Mike Bush. Before that he was acting deputy commissioner of police and had a previous role as deputy chief executive at the Ministry of Justice. "He is a highly respected and impressive public service leader who has considerable experience delivering initiatives to address complex social issues," Baggott said. National has had a turbulent relationship with the Commissioner - its former leader Simon Bridges called him a wokester - but the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon wants to put that in the past. CanlesNo More Pausing to Rest Your Feet! Supportive Shoes for Long Days & Happy Adventures. Ad "I'm not Simon Bridges if you haven't noticed, I'm Chris Luxon - leader of the National Party and Prime Minister of New Zealand. "The point is, he's done an exceptionally good job, go back and look at the record," Luxon told RNZ. "Think about gang tangi and how that was a problem, think about the Commanchero's being taken out, think about the beat police going in, extra resources going into gangs. "He's done an exceptional job," Luxon said. Police Minister Mark Mitchell wouldn't answer any of RNZ's questions about whether Coster was moving on because of the relationship with the new government. However, Housing Minister Chris Bishop told RNZ he didn't believe Coster was leaving the role early because the "writing was on the wall".

Which Club?

I assure you he has quite a few in work. Who trains them is his business. However I'm sure you can find out given your proximity to the area.

Appeal - Written Reserved Decision dated 20 September 2024 - Robert Pringle racingintegrityboard.org.nz Background 1. On 28 January 2024 and on 15 February 2024 the Appellant, was the Licenced Trainer of the Greyhound GRANDE VUE ACE which raced at Manukau Stadium and Addington Raceway respectively. 2. Prior to the Manukau Stadium race and following the Addington Raceway race, GRANDE VUE ACE was swabbed and as a result of the swabbing process, the Appellant was charged with breaches of Rules 141(1)(a) and 141(4) of the Regulations of the New Zealand Greyhound Association Incorporated (“the Rules”). These Rules include: “(1) The trainer or other person in charge of a greyhound, … (a) nominated to compete in an event, … must present the greyhound free of any Prohibited Substance. (4) A greyhound presented for an event in circumstances where subrule (1) of this rule has been breached, must be disqualified from the event and from receiving any benefit derived from the relevant trial, test or examination.” 3. Following the first event, Eurofins (“ELS”) issued an Analytical Screening Report detailing a Cobalt level of 290 micrograms per litre of urine. This report was received by the Respondent on 13 February 2024. The subsample and control was sent to Racing Analytical Services Limited (“RASL”) for testing. 4. On 27 February 2024, RASL confirmed a Cobalt level had been detected at a level greater than 200 ug/ml, being the upper limit of the calibration range used. This certificate was in relation to the swab taken on 28 January 2024. 5. On 2 March 2024, ELS issued an Analytical Report, detailing the sample taken from GRANDE VUE ACE following its race on 15 February 2024, screened a Cobalt level of 189 micrograms per litre of urine. 6. On 14 March 2024, RASL issued a Certificate of Analysis in respect of the swab taken following the Addington Raceway race, stating that Cobalt had been detected at a level greater than 200 ug/ml. Again, being the upper limit of the calibration range. 7. By a Decision dated 17 July 2024, the Adjudicative Committee disqualified GRANDE VUE ACE from both relevant events in accordance with Rule 141(4), as they were obligated to do. 8. The Appellant pleaded guilty to two (2) charges, and the Adjudicative Committee, after hearing submissions from the Appellant, imposed a fine of $7,000 in respect of the two (2) charges. 9. The Appellant now appeals the penalty that was imposed by the Adjudicative Committee. 10. This Appeal is being conducted pursuant to Rule 173(F) of the Rules and also Rule 173(G) of the Rules. 11. Rule 173G(2) reads: “In the case of an appeal against penalty, the Appeals Tribunal may; (a) Confirm the penalty and dismiss the appeal; (b) If the penalty (either in whole or in part) is one which the body imposing it has no jurisdiction to impose or is one which is manifestly excessive or inadequate or inappropriate: (i) Quash the penalty and impose such other penalty permitted by these rules (whether more or less severe) in substitution therefore as the Appeals Tribunal think ought to have been imposed or deal with the Appellant in any other way that the Adjudicative Committee could have dealt with the Appellant in finding the information proved; or …” Appellant’s Submissions 12. Counsel for the Appellant filed written submissions dated 29 August 2024. 13. The Appeal is on two (2) grounds, being: a. The Appellant says the Racing Integrity Board (“RIB”) had an obligation to provide to the Appellant, the results from the pre-race swab conducted on GRANDE VUE ACE on 28 January 2024, before GRANDE VUE ACE raced for a second time on 15 February 2024; and b. The Appellant says the RIB had a duty under the Rules to scratch GRANDE VUE ACE on 15 February 2024, as it knew at that time, of the positive test for a Prohibited Substance arising from the pre-race swab taken on 28 January 2024. 14. The Appellant places great emphasis on the dates of receipt of the test taken following the race on 28 January 2024. He says the Respondent received the results of the test on 13 February 2024, being two days prior to GRANDE VUE ACE racing on Addington Raceway on 15 February 2024. 15. That being the case, it was submitted that the Respondent was duty bound to advise the Appellant of the results of that test in order to give the Appellant the opportunity to scratch GRANDE VUE ACE from its race on 15 February 2024 and in any event, the Respondent was duty bound to also scratch GRANDE VUE ACE from the race on 15 February 2024. 16. This obligation on the RIB, it is submitted, arises from Rule 139, that states: “4. If upon analysis a sample has detected in it a Permanently Banned Prohibited Substance… ; (a) The greyhound must be scratched from any event which it is nominated or engaged to compete in; and (b) Without limiting the application of rule 169(5), the greyhound is ineligible to be nominated for any further event until a sample is taken that does not breach this rule.” 17. The Appellant submits he was not advised of the results of the swabbing and therefore, was not in a position to scratch from the race on 15 February 2024. It is submitted the Respondent was aware of that outcome and should have acted accordingly. 18. This inaction of the RIB, resulted in an outcome which is contrary to the interests of all participants in the Industry, including the betting public. 19. It is further submitted that as the Respondent was aware of the outcome of the swab, but the Appellant was not aware of that outcome by 15 February 2024, then the Appellant should not have a penalty imposed on him for that breach. 20. The submissions further reference the now well-known sentencing Decision of RIU v L, which details guidance to be adopted by relevant authorities when considering penalties to be imposed. For the purposes of completeness, we should repeat the two paragraphs which have been detailed in the Appellant’s written submissions. These are: “(25) Proceedings under (the relevant rules) as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines are designed not simply to punish the transgressor but crucially are to protect the profession / public / industry / and those who are to deal with the profession. (28) Of course Tribunals are required to consider all available sanctions starting with the lowest; and a sanction must be sufficient but no more than is necessary to achieve its purpose. The Tribunal must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between: the public interest the interests of the offending member the interests of the professional body as a whole the seriousness of the offending any aggravating and mitigating factors.” 21. The submissions contain reference to penalties having regard to the public interest, particularly in the area of animal welfare. There are cases which have been cited (and which members of this Tribunal are familiar with), which refer to the increasing standards of animal welfare being an integral part of the Industry as a whole, in order to maintain its social licence to operate. 22. Having regard to the matters of public interest, it is submitted there should not be a penalty imposed in respect of the race on 15 February 2024 given, the Appellant was not advised within a timely manner, of the outcome of the swab of the race on 28 January 2024. 23. There are also a number of references to penalties which have been imposed in all three (3) Codes relating to Prohibited Substances. 24. There is also reference to the aggravating and mitigating factors, which the Adjudicative Committee considered when issuing their Penalty Decision. 25. It is therefore the Appellant’s submission, the quantum of the penalty imposed by the Adjudicative Committee is excessive and should be significantly reduced to a fine of $3,000. Respondent’s Submissions 26. The Respondent has filed written submissions dated 5 September 2024. 27. Not surprisingly, the Respondent rejects the submissions made by the Appellant. 28. In response to the submission by the Appellant that the Respondent had a duty to inform the Appellant of the ELS result taken from the race on 28 January 2024 and received by the Respondent on 13 February 2024, the Respondent submits the purpose of the sub-samples being sent to ELS is for screening purposes only. ELS are not engaged for confirmatory analysis and therefore they do not issue a Certificate of Analysis. 29. The purpose of the testing by ELS is simply to confirm whether or not any sample may result in a suspect result. It is therefore the Respondent’s submission, there is no obligation under the Rules to advise connections of a Greyhound, of the results of a screening by ELS. The obligation to advise can only arise once the Certificate of Analysis is received and this was subsequent to the race on 15 February 2024. 30. There is a further submission by the Respondent in relation to the categorisation of Cobalt. 31. The Respondent submits the Adjudicative Committee was correct to accept the evidence of Dr Steven Karamatic and in particular, where he seeks to distinguish between a Prohibited Substance and a Permanently Banned Prohibited Substance. The evidence of Dr Karamatic was: “In my opinion cobalt in a urine sample is a prohibited substance when present in that urine in a concentration greater than 100 ng/ml, however cobalt in a urine sample should only be considered a permanently banned prohibited substance when present in that urine in a significantly greater concentration (e.g. greater than 1,000 ng/ml) or when other evidence exists such as the use or suspected use of non-registered highly concentrated cobalt salts.” 32. It is also submitted on behalf of the Respondent, that having regard to further evidence of Dr Karamatic, the Adjudicative Committee was correct to accept Cobalt in a urine sample would more closely align to Category 4, in terms of the categories of Prohibited Substances of Greyhound Racing New Zealand’s Penalty Guidelines. Therefore, in the submission of the Respondent, the Adjudicative Committee correctly adopted, as a starting point, the Penalty Guideline under that category. 33. The submission goes on to further state, the Appellant had not been charged with presenting GRANDE VUE ACE with a Permanently Banned Prohibited Substance under Rule 139, but rather with a Prohibited Substance. Again and on that basis, there was no obligation on the Respondent to scratch GRANDE VUE ACE pursuant to Rule 141(a). 34. In terms of the Rules, the Appellant was charged with the “Presentation” Rule as opposed to the “Administration” Rule. The obligation therefore rests solely on the Trainer to ensure GRANDE VUE ACE raced free of any Prohibited Substances. There is agreement with the Adjudicative Committee accepting the Appellant was guilty of a high degree of carelessness leading up to both races, in that the evidence pointed to the use or misuse of the Ironvita Blood & Oxygen product as the likely cause. 35. The Respondent referred the Tribunal to not only the previous Decisions which had been referenced by the Appellant, but also particularly the case of RIU v Caskey, as being the most similar in factual situation to these matters involving the Appellant. 36. The Decision involving Mr Caskey was dated 1 October 2018 and involved the mixing of a liquid supplement into the horse’s feed each morning – including the morning of the race. The supplement was labelled as containing 54 mg per litre. The horse returned a Cobalt level of 375ug/l. The charge was admitted and, on that occasion, the (then) Judicial Committee adopted a starting point of $8,000 as being in line with the mid-range of the (then) Penalty Guide. 37. The Committee noted: “There was a responsibility on Mr Caskey to have a clear understanding of all the supplements and products he was giving the horse. He did not have this understanding and this is relevant when determining the degree of culpability.” 38. On this basis, the Respondent submits the Appeal as to penalty on both grounds should be dismissed and that the further fine of $7,000 imposed by the Adjudicative Committee, was not manifestly excessive. Discussion 39. The Tribunal has received both written and oral submissions from both the Appellant and the Respondent. These submissions were detailed and carefully put together and were most helpful. 40. The Appeal has been conducted in accordance with the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Appeals Tribunal contained in a Schedule to the Rules. 41. The Appeal is determined by way of a rehearing and although written submissions were received, the Appeal was conducted by Teams meeting. 42. In determining the Appeal, the Tribunal is conscious that it is necessary for us to be satisfied that penalty imposed by the Adjudicative Committee was manifestly excessive. The Rule which determines that standard is set out in paragraph 11 of this Decision. The words “manifestly excessive” mean “it is clearly or obviously unreasonable”. 43. Ms Thomas expanded on her written submissions and forcefully argued there was a responsibility on the RIB to advise the Appellant of the screening results as soon as they were received by the RIB on 13 February 2024. This would have inevitably resulted in GRANDE VUE ACE being scratched from the race she won on 15 February 2024, where she also returned a positive swab to Cobalt. 44. There is no complaint regarding the first charge relating to the race on 28 January 2024. She acknowledged GRANDE VUE ACE tested positive to Cobalt on that occasion and as a strict liability offence under the Rule, it would have been difficult to defend. 45. The Appeal centres around the alleged lack of action by the RIB, in advising the Appellant of the results of the screening test. 46. Counsel for the Appellant further stated, this lack of action by the RIB, goes to the very heart of the Industry, in that the betting public were let down by this inaction. 47. It was submitted the obligation to inform the Appellant arises under Rule 154(6), although it was argued by the Respondent, this obligation only arises on receipt of a certificate from an approved laboratory. 48. Ms Thomas could not understand why the RIB would not inform a Trainer of the result of the screening test in these circumstances. This, it was alleged, is necessary in order to protect the integrity of the Industry and the betting public. 49. We did discuss and questioned Ms Thomas as to whether Rule 139 had any implication to these circumstances as that Rule applies to “Permanently Banned Prohibited Substances” and not “Prohibited Substances” which is dealt with under Rule 141. 50. Ms Thomas did not take that argument any further and instead used words such as; “impliedly” “common sense” “sensible” In order to suggest there was an implied obligation on the RIB to advise any Licenced Trainer, the outcome of any swab procedures, which may have been carried out on a race night. 51. Mr Irving on behalf of the Respondent, argued there is nothing in the Rules which requires the RIB to advise the result of a screening test. The screening test is to detect the presence (if any) of metals, such as Cobalt and Arsenic only and the proper testing procedures were not received until later. There was no time to advise the Appellant of the result of the screening test prior to the race on 15 February 2024 and in the submission of the Appellant, a “heads-up” phone call would have sufficed. Mr Irving advised it was not RIB investigative procedure to commence investigations by way of a phone call. There was always an onsite visit. 52. We agree with the submission of the RIB that Rule 139 does not apply. This Rule has application to Permanently Banned Prohibited Substances and the evidence given before the Adjudicative Committee by Dr Steven Karamatic, confirms the presence of Cobalt will only come within this Rule, where there is present in the urine, a significantly greater concentration than 1,000 ng/ml of urine. This was not the case here. 53. We do not agree with Counsel for the Appellant, there can be any implied obligation on the RIB to advise the outcome of the screening test. These results were a screening mechanism only, in relation to a race which was conducted on 28 January 2024. The results were received by the RIB on 13 February 2024, being a period in excess of two (2) weeks following the event. 54. Mr Irving indicated Cobalt starts to reduce from the body of the animal from a period of approximately four (4) hours following the animal coming into contact with Cobalt. This would appear to be the reason for the introduction in both Equine Codes of the One Clear Day Rule. 55. We do not think it was realistic to expect the results from two weeks previously, to create any obligation on the RIB to intervene in respect of a race on 15 February 2024. 56. The obligation clearly rests under Rule 141, on a Trainer or other person in charge of a Greyhound, to present a Greyhound free of a Prohibited Substance. That is a strict liability offence. The Appellant pleaded guilty to both charges. It would have been futile to endeavour to defend such a strict liability scenario. 57. The Decision by the Adjudicative Committee was comprehensive and considered. They considered Cobalt comes within a Category 4 heading, for the purposes of determining a starting point. Ms Thomas was of the view, this situation should have been dealt with under Category 5. This is because in her view, Cobalt does not have any evidence to support its value as a performance enhancing substance and given the absence of any animal welfare issues, it should have been treated as a Category 5 substance. 58. However, the evidence given before the Adjudicative Committee in relation to this point, suggested the correct categorisation of Cobalt was Category 4. This was adopted by the Adjudicative Committee, and we agree with that. 59. Whilst acknowledging there could be no complaint with the manner in which the RIB dealt with the first charge, the Appeal endeavours to deflect some responsibility on the second charge to the RIB. 60. Even though the Adjudicative Committee stated it was unlikely the exact cause could be determined, we can not however, escape the provisions of Rule 141, which impose a clear obligation on the Trainer or person in charge of the Greyhound, to present the Greyhound free of any Prohibited Substance. As it is a strict liability offence, we do not agree this responsibility can be sheeted to the regulatory authority. 61. The starting point for a penalty for a Category 4 breach is a six (6) month disqualification and/or a $5,000 fine. 62. The Adjudicative Committee considered there was an aggravating factor, as there was a high degree of carelessness on the part of the Appellant. In recognition of that aggravating factor, they applied an uplift to a $6,000 fine. 63. There were also a number of mitigating factors. These included: The Appellant’s excellent history in the Industry spanning some 30 years; His admission of the charges, although as we have indicated, to do otherwise would have been futile; A concern his integrity would be wrongly accessed and be considered as dishonest and a cheat. Nothing could be further from the truth in this regard. The charge was one of “presentation” and not “administration”. 64. The Adjudicative Committee noted these mitigating factors and reduced a starting point by $1,000, to return to the original starting point of a $5,000 fine. 65. When coupled together, they considered a total fine in respect of the two (2) charges of $10,000 to be excessive and so applied a 30% discount, to arrive at a fine of $7,000, which was imposed in respect of the two charges. 66. We do not agree with the submission by the Appellant, that the second charge should have no penalty applied. We have rejected the submissions the RIB was in any way responsible for the positive swab and therefore, we agree with the Adjudicative Committee, that the two charges should be treated in the same manner. 67. For us to allow the Appeal, we would have to be satisfied that the fine imposed by the Adjudicative Committee was manifestly excessive. 68. We consider that the Adjudicative Committee gave careful consideration to the methodology adopted in determining the final penalty and we cannot find fault with the manner in which they have carried out that exercise. Decision 69. The Appeal is therefore dismissed. 70. If either party wishes to make any submissions in relation to costs, then they should direct those submissions to the Executive Officer, Racing Integrity Board, Wellington, within one (1) week of the date of this Decision.

A number of things manifestly wrong with this decision.

I have too. But I actually had a horse connected to the lead.

Bum a trip on a float and carry a lead.

What has it got to do with ENTAIN? Who is running the show? The two big E's? ENTAIN and ELLERSLIE? Or are they going to struggle to fill the new Novelty and Sweepstake race fields with NZ horses? As has been said by other posters the Summer Carnival is being set up for Aussie Raiders.

Velcious won Two Year Old Horse of the Year with 50 votes - second Capture By Love with 1.

New Zealand Thoroughbred Horse of the Year Awards' Categories Reviewed The NZTR Board would like to communicate the outcome of a recent review of the current New Zealand Thoroughbred Horse of the Year Awards’ categories and eligibility criteria. The objective of the review was to determine whether the current categories and eligibility criteria for the Awards are still fit for purpose given recent changes in New Zealand’s racing landscape. “NZTR is aware the industry is in a phase of change and the racing landscape is evolving.” NZTR CEO Bruce Sharrock said. “Entain’s investment into stakes will attract more international interest in racing in New Zealand and has led us to review our current structure that best captures the motivation for NZ Horse of the Year recognition.” Under the current eligibility criteria for the Awards, a horse must have been trained by a New Zealand-licensed trainer for the season and either have been stabled in New Zealand with the trainer at any time in the season or raced in New Zealand at least once in the season to be eligible for an Award. Under these rules, horses trained overseas that race successfully in New Zealand are excluded from being eligible for any of the Horse of the Year Awards. To attract greater international participation in our racing and enhance our racing’s international relevance and reputation, NZTR is of the view that overseas trained horses that race successfully in New Zealand should be eligible to receive a Horse of the Year Award. Historically, New Zealand trained horses such as Sunline, Veandercross and Bonecrusher have been crowned Australian Horse of the Year. Therefore, it seems appropriate Australian-trained horses should also be eligible to for our Horse of the Year Awards based on their performances in New Zealand. In addition, NZTR is of the view that New Zealand horses that race out of a New Zealand-licensed trainer’s satellite stable in Australia should also be eligible for an Award in New Zealand provided there is an appropriate connection with the New Zealand stable. Approved changes Following the completion of the review, NZTR has made the following changes to the Horse of the Year Awards’ categories and eligibility criteria with effect from 1 August 2024. A horse trained by a licenced New Zealand trainer will be eligible for a Horse of the Year Award if it races at least once in New Zealand in the relevant season or, if it does not race in New Zealand in that season, it was stabled in New Zealand at the start of the season (i.e., as at 1 August) and returns to New Zealand by the end of the season (i.e., by July 31). A horse trained overseas will become eligible for the HOTY Award at the time they race in New Zealand, but will only be assessed on their New Zealand performances in the season. Other aspects of the Awards which were reviewed were the changing ownership landscape and whether recognition under the Awards for different ownership models may be appropriate. Following the review, NZTR is of the view that the current model for Owner of the Year Award is working effectively, using a calculation of percentage owned and points accumulated by the owner’s runners through the season, and therefore does not need to be changed. Finally, NZTR has determined that the Voting Panel structure will be reviewed ahead of voting for the 2024/25 season. Corporate Communications New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Contact: Catlyn Calder +64 27 252 2803 nztrcommunications@nztr.co.nz

Great it wasn't the track this time.

Remembering Grey Way: Racing club honours 'Washdyke Wonder' www.stuff.co.nz South Canterbury Racing Club secretary Mary Gazzard with a picture Grey Way ahead of Wednesday’s race day at Timaru which honours the popular sprinter-miler who won more than 50 races in his career. JOHN BISSET / THE TIMARU HERALD Gazzard said Grey Way’s 50th birthday was somehow missed by the club, so they were remembering him at Wednesday’s meeting at the Phar Lap Raceway which was the club’s first race day of four for the 2024-2025 season. Although a number of those involved with Grey Way’s career, including owner and breeder Peter South, trainer Pat Corboy and jockey Bob Skelton, have passed away, Gazzard said invitations had been extended to families associated with the horse’s upbringing and racing. Former jockeys who also rode Grey Way to victory, Snooky Cowan and Doug Holden, were expected to be among those at Wednesday’s meeting. Grey Way was foaled in Washdyke in 1970 not far from where another racing great, Phar Lap, was born in 1926. The gelding had 164 starts, finishing with 51 wins, 27 seconds and 21 thirds and was NZ racehorse of the year in 1973 and inducted into the New Zealand Racing Hall of Fame in 2010. Grey Way wins his 50th race at the Geraldine track in 1980. Auckland Star Collection / STUFF

No just some examples of where trainers have targeted the KM "at all costs" and to the detriment of their horses.

Where is the evidence to support your assertion?

Yes I imagine the physiological response is to lay down more denser bone mass. I would imagine that a large proportion of the attrition rate isn't injury as much as a lack of attitude and/or ability to run fast enough!

The stress vs recover stronger physiological response. Of course the art of training is knowing when to back off.

Data Analysis: Official 2YO Trials - Early Success vs. Longevity Written by Renee Geelen Edition Article 11 min read With the Official 2YO Trials in NSW almost here, TTR investigated the last five years to discover if those precocious horses are early flash in the pan types, or if they have longer careers. The data showed a definite trend. Cover image courtesy of Ashlea Brennan With the first NSW official 2-year-old trials not far away, TTR AusNZ had a look at the runners from the last five years to see how they’ve fared in their longer term careers. Ask anyone about 2-year-old racing and you’ll get a wide range of opinions from those who believe that good horses come to hand early and that’s why the commercial market preferences precocity, to those who are from the opposite end of the spectrum and believe it’s wrong to race young horses. And of course, everything in the middle. As the saying goes, opinions are like… everyone has one, thus leaving only one way to resolve this. Data. Setting the population baseline TTR AusNZ went through every runner in the first NSW Official 2YO Trials of the season for the last five years and looked at the race record of each horse. This research covered 326 horses, and if the juvenile naysayers are correct, these horses would peak early and fade away with little long-term benefit. In order to get a population baseline, TTR AusNZ used the 2019 Magic Millions Gold Coast Yearling Sale, for the simple reason that this sale has a reputation for producing early maturing horses and therefore is self-selected to have similar types of horses as would be at this trial. Magic Millions Gold Coast sale complex | Image courtesy of Magic Millions That sale has 63 stakes winners, including eight Group 1 winners, and 713 winners from 936 runners. The catalogue that year had 1157 entries, so only 20 per cent of the catalogue were unraced. From the runners, 76 per cent were winners, and 6.7 per cent were stakes winners. This forms an approximate population baseline, at least for horses who are expected to be precocious. Notably, this sale far outperforms the general population, of which about 2 per cent will win a stakes race during their career. Manaal, Lady Of Camelot featured in 2023 Across the years, these trials have been wildly successful with the graduates outperforming the population baseline by an incredible margin. In 2023, there were 71 2-year-olds who trialled on September 18, and of those, 10 have already won a stakes race (14 per cent) with two Group 1 winners, Lady Of Camelot (Written Tycoon) and Manaal (Tassort). Manaal | Image courtesy of The Image Is Everything G1 Sires’ Produce S. winner Manaal ran third in Heat 10 of the Official 2YO Trials at Randwick in 2023. “I keep a very open mind,” said trainer Michael Freedman about the trials. “I start with a dozen candidates who might be suitable to being up and going early. Some of them get there and some don’t. As boring as that sounds it is that simple. “The ones that can cope with being early also get a solid grounding for their future. It’s not for every horse obviously, more of a case of the ones that can get there, and then head to Gimcrack, etc, who have a platform set up for them.” Manaal went to the G3 Gimcrack S. after her trial and won on debut. Sent to the paddock, she returned in February to run second to Lady Of Camelot in the G3 Widden S. before winning the G2 Sweet Embrace S. Fifth in the G1 Golden Slipper, Manaal then won the G1 Sires’ Produce S. She then ran fourth in the G1 Champagne S. to end her juvenile season with three wins from six starts. She has returned this season at three with a win in the G2 Furious S. from two starts to date. “It’s not about handpicking which ones will get there because that changes every day. Which ones are ready, or not with shin soreness and what not. You need to go with the flow with them and need to be careful not to push a nice one too early too. A horse can be ruined by pushing them before they are ready.” Michael Freedman | Image courtesy of Ashlea Brennan Lady Of Camelot thrives in Waterhouse/Bott system The other Group 1 winner graduating from the 2023 Official 2YO Trials is G1 Golden Slipper winner Lady Of Camelot. She won Heat 2 on that day in September, and like Manaal, she debuted in the G3 Gimcrack, running fourth. She spent October, November and December away from the races, returning in January to win two trials before winning the G3 Widden S. and running second in the G1 Blue Diamond S. She then won the G1 Golden Slipper before finishing second in the G2 Percy Sykes S. to end her juvenile season with two wins from five starts. Lady Of Camelot | Image courtesy of Ashlea Brennan “Those horses are naturally selecting themselves to be early. There’s got to be that natural precocity and speed about the horse to be there, and a physical maturity,” said Lady Of Camelot’s co-trainer Adrian Bott. “Then that has a flow on effect (for their career). They’ve naturally put themselves there and they gain valuable experience and strength that goes with that. The natural ones put their hand up. Some are more forward and some take longer. “It’s quite straightforward (for our stable). It goes back to the yearling sales where we try to identify the type of horse that’s natural enough to put themselves (at the races early). Our horses take the full benefit of early educations, and this advances them in their racing through their two and 3-year-old careers. “All our 2-year-olds go through the same process from sale to early education, and yet maybe only 15 per cent of them get to these trials naturally. Some are not physically or mentally ready or may need another preparation. We aren’t manufacturing anything to be there, they are self-selecting from the wider group.” As for the results from these trials, Bott says, “They have a natural athleticism, and it is easier to win a stakes race at two. As the horses grow more and more horses are added to the racing population and the competition can get tougher, but most horses need to wait and be taken along slower.” Adrian Bott | Image courtesy of Ashlea Brennan The Waterhouse/Bott team also had Straight Charge (Written By) and Prost (Snitzel) at these trials. Straight Charge won the first trial, later winning the G2 Silver Slipper, while Prost ran second in Heat 3, going on to win the G3 Canonbury S. Five-year results The outstanding results weren’t just a 2023 anomaly. They continued across the five years that The Thoroughbred Report investigated with four of the five years producing a Group 1 winner, and all producing stakes winners at a rate higher than the population baseline figures (be it Magic Millions or generally). Of note, the COVID affected 2020 year was the worst among this group, being the only season where these trials didn’t produce a Group 1 winner and having the lowest percentage of stakes winners to runners. Even so, they were still beyond the population baseline. Perhaps the COVID restrictions of 2020 had an impact on the way horses were prepared, or maybe the sample size is too small to draw any conclusion on that matter given that the 2020 trials included just 64 individual horses. year g1 sw sp winner non winner unraced total runners percent sw 2023 2 8 11 5 39 6 71 14% 2022 1 7 12 27 13 1 61 13% 2021 1 4 8 35 6 0 54 9% 2020 0 5 8 39 12 0 64 8% 2019 1 11 10 39 12 3 76 16% Table: Career results for NSW Official 2YO Trials runners over the past five years Savvy readers will note the high number of non-winners among the 2023 cohort, however, this is expected as most of them had one or two starts at two without winning, and as time goes by, these horses will, like in previous years, most likely convert their record into a winning one. Castanya graduated for the Annabel Neasham team From the 2023 cohort, Annabel Neasham and Rob Archibald-trained filly Castanya (Capitalist) ran third in Heat 12. She didn’t race until January where she ran second to Switzerland (Snitzel) on debut, before winning the Listed Lonhro Plate at her second start. She finished her juvenile season with a win from four starts. Rob Archibald and Annabel Neasham | Image courtesy of Annabel Neasham Racing “After the sales season, we identify which horses are potentially early based on pedigree and physical to give us a good idea of that aspect, but from there, we leave it to the horses themselves,” said Rob Archibald. “If they are quite forward, we might give them a spell after education then set them up for these trials. We don’t focus on these trials heavily, we let the horses who are mature enough get there if they can. “It’s a good way to round off an education, if they are in at that time and ready, it gives them a bit more (learning). Also, there are plenty of options afterwards, we can spell them and set them for later or carry on depending on the horse. We asses each horse individually, they let you know if they are ready.” Ciaron Maher’s Coolangatta was the star of the 2021 Trials In 2023, the Ciaron Maher stable won the G2 Reisling S. in March with Erno’s Cube (Rubick) who had run second in Heat 10 at the NSW Official 2YO Trials. The stable also trained Group 1 winner Coolangatta (Written Tycoon) who won her trial on September 20, 2021, going on to win her first three in succession in the G3 Gimcrack S., G3 BJ McLachlan S. and the R. Listed Magic Millions 2YO Classic. Third in the G1 Golden Slipper, she won the G1 AJ Moir S. and G1 Lightning S. at three. Coolangatta | Image courtesy of The Image Is Everything “They are there because they are natural. They know what they are doing, they do it easy and they take to training well. They put their hand up without being asked,” said Maher stable representative Will Bourne. “We don’t push them. Horses like Erno’s Cube, Coolangatta and Enthaar, they stick out a fair bit. Coolangatta had the athleticism and soundness to get there, and then she stayed sound through her career.” Aren’t they all winners? No, trial placing is irrelevant Out of the five Group 1 winners from the last five years not all of them won their first trial. Lady Of Camelot, Ozzmosis (Zoustar) and Coolangatta all won, but Manaal ran third and King’s Legacy (Redoute’s Choice) ran fourth. There were 40 stakes winners to come through these trials to date. In 2023, four of the 10 won their trial, in 2022 only two of the eight stakes winners won their trial. In 2021, two of the five stakes winners won their trial, while in 2020, the figure was the same with only two of the five winning their trial. And in 2019, with 12 stakes-winning graduates, only three of them won their first trial, and one of them ran last. The data suggests that a horse’s maturity to participate in these trials is a more reliable indicator of long-term career quality than their placement on the day. “Statistics back it up that 2-year-old racing is positive for a horse’s career, by all the measures, career success prizemoney etc.,” said Adrian Bott. “The right horses racing at two and handled correctly will train on and be better, with some form of 2-year-old racing shown to be a significant indicator of the outcomes for their career. Of course some don’t train on, for example a few might have been mature early and the others catch up with more horses coming into the population. But generally if you look at elite horses, a large percentage of them have started at two.”