Chief Stipe

LOL really? Are dog trainers that desperate that they need to win a small amount off the tote? Do you have any evidence that it wasn't a mistake? No you don't. The dog was disqualified before dividends were declared wasn't it?

The dog was disqualified due to a mistake and system failure. What more do you want?

Eh? It says what has been done and who did it. The question that you should be asking is what changes have been made to systems to ensure it doesn't happen again. Any suggestions or would you rather there was a lynching?

Doesn't NZ only have one NZ Bred Sire?

She might be close to the shortest rider in the Victorian jockey ranks, but recognition for the abilities of apprentice Jaylah Kennedy is growing by the day. Following her breakout season in the saddle, the 23-year-old was crowned this year's Victorian Jockeys' Association Rising Star at Saturday night's Victorian Racing Awards. The Kiwi rider, who has made Victoria her home, said it was extra special to receive the accolade as it was voted on by her fellow jockeys. "It's a massive honour and being peer-voted, it means even more," she said. "I've got a lot of good people around me and a lot of idols that I look up to that I luckily get to work with every day, so I'm forever grateful and hopefully we can keep it going. "I didn't think I was going to get it, I was sitting there about to pick a grape off my table, so it was a big surprise." Kennedy recorded 21 metropolitan Victorian wins last season and 46 in the country, leading her to be named as the top apprentice rider on the Victorian Country Premiership. Apprenticed to Ballarat-based trainer Dan O'Sullivan, Kennedy only had her first ride in early February 2023 and her first win later that month

Uh? For sure the better the horse the better the stake - as long as it as proven it IS the better horse. Of course you can have elite and slow pokes on the same card (not in the same race). Gallops do it all the time. That's the BS about classifying mid-week vs premier meetings and assigning stakes based on the classification. Due to the declining horse numbers you get as many slow horses on a premier day as you do mid-week! Meanwhile the mid-week slow pokes are subsidising the premier slow pokes. Go figure!

Why is it fading? I would contend it is partly to do with this move to Slot and Sweepstake races. The Everest is a classic example. Horses are now focussing on that one off BIG reward rather than competing against allcomers in back type races over a longer period of the season. Will we see one year where the horse of the year in OZ or NZ only won The Everest? Or only won Slot or restricted entry Sweepstake races?

But is it the future? Is it sustainable? Does it promote quality racing based on merit? Does it increase a wider participation in the sport? In my opinion it fails. You are constantly publishing nostalgic excerpts from the past. How many of those horses were owned and or trained by not very wealthy people? The 70's and 80's were great eras in harness racing - why? There were no sweepstake races nor slot races. What there was was access to all to own or train a horse. Shouldn't NZTR and HRNZ be working on improving that access rather than subsidising an elite few?

Wrong. You are now disagreeing with yourself. The evidence is that increasing stakes doesn't have a linear correlation to increasing ownership participation. That is beyond a certain point Stakes increases at the top end don't encourage increased participation. So NZ Gallops are followers? That doesn't mean that it is the correct thing to do for future sustainability expecially if NZTR, like HRNZ, continue to subsidise the sweepstake races rather than insisting that they pay their own way. That would then mean that both organisations would achieve a net revenue return from the races compared to what appears to be substantial losses. The Karaka Millions is a Sales Sweepstakes restricted to horses that went through the Karaka Sales. They are not entirely funded by the Sales Company nor the buyers. The amount that NZTR subsidise them is not covered by the net revenue from the races. Both ENTAIN and NZTR lose money on them - most businesses I know like to make a profit. So if you see the "picture fine" i.e. the long term big picture. How do you support a concept that doesn't make a profit? The Everest may in your opinion be thriving. I don't agree looking at the big picture. The best sprinter in the world wasn't there last year and the only way it would have been was if had been sold to a slot holder. When I say sold I mean a change of ownership. So where does the Aussie Battler fit in The Everest? It also screws the Pattern which ultimately leads to a lowering of the quality of the breed. Less and less are the best horses competing against each other on merit. Long term that cannot be good for the industry.

Exactly. Let alone what it does to the Pattern. Only serves to diminish the breed because more often than not the best horses aren't eligible to race (if it is a Sales Sweepstake) or aren't for a slot.

Are you sure it isn't you that can't see the big picture? I don't disagree however I can't see how the current HRNZ policies are doing anything to support participants at ALL levels. Subsidised sweepstake races don't cut the mustard!

True. I can't find anything on the RIB site either. But then that site isn't that good for searching for descisions.

...and unanswered questions.

I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. Perhaps it does.

It is listed as Disqualified in the results.

Velocious is by Written Tycoon (AUS) out of an Australian Bred mare. Just happened to go through the NZB sales.

Non Raceday Inquiry - Written Reserved Decision dated 30 July 2024 - Brendon McDermott racingintegrityboard.org.nz 1. Mr Brendon McDermott was charged with a breach of Rule 804(2) by presenting “GREY INVADOR”, a horse trained by him, to engage in Race 4, the “Waterforce 1600”, at the Rangitikei Racing Club Meeting on 18 May 2024, and failed to present the horse free of the Prohibited Substance Cobalt. 2. Rule 804(2) provides: “When a horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility for the purpose of engaging in a Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance, as defined in Part A of Prohibited Substance Regulations, the Trainer and any other person who in the opinion of such Tribunal conducting such inquiry was in charge of such horse at any relevant time commits a breach of these Rules.” 3. Rule 804(7) provides: A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) or (5A) or (6) of this Rule shall be liable to: (a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years; and/or (b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or (c) a fine not exceeding $25,000. 4. In addition, pursuant to Rule 804(8), such horse must (mandatory) be disqualified from the race. 5. Mr McDermott trains three horses from his property at Waitarere, Horowhenua. He trains and part owns “GREY INVADOR”, which started in, and won, Race 4, the “Waterforce 1600 Maiden” at Trentham Racecourse during the Rangitikei Race Club Meeting on 18 May 2024. It earned a stake of $11,200. 6. Mr McDermott has admitted the charge. 7. The post race swab of the horse revealed on a screening analytical report a positive sample to Cobalt at a level of 396 micrograms per litre of urine (ug/L). If the Cobalt level exceeds 100ug/L, it is a “Prohibited Substance”, being capable of acting directly or indirectly on the blood system. The sample level was confirmed by Racing Analytical Service Ltd in Australia. 8. When visited on 30 May 2024, Mr McDermott could offer no explanation for the prohibited level. He advised that he did not use any Cobalt derivative on “GREY INVADOR” but used such on another horse of his (‘CARPE DIEM”), being liquid injections of “Hemoplex”, “Richtafort” and “Ironcyclen” in days leading up to raceday. 9. Mr McDermott trained horses had been Cobalt tested on 5 previous occasions since December 2017. All (except “CARPE DIEM” on one occasion) returning within normal range. In May 2022, Mr McDermott was warned when that horse returned an elevated Cobalt reading of 52.5ug/L. 10. The Chief NZTR Veterinarian, Dr A Grierson, provided a possible explanation for the positive test result for “GREY INVADOR” of 396ug/L – nearly 4 times over the 100ug/L threshold. He advised, inter alia: “From the …. analysis …. of feed and oral supplements, samples taken from the stable, none contain levels of Cobalt that would result in a positive urinary sample of 396ukg/L. The injections “Richtafort” and “Hemoplex” were also found at the stable. Both contain levels of Cobalt capable of initially raising levels in excess of the threshold, however Cobalt is rapidly excreted from the body to normal levels within hours following these injections.” 11. How the Cobalt substance entered the body of “GREY INVADOR” prior to its race at 1.44pm on 18 May 2024 cannot, and does not need to, be determined. It was either accidental or deliberate. Mr McDermott is adamant he did not, on raceday or earlier, provide it to the horse. 12. The expert veterinary opinion provided to the Informant as to the excretion rate of the Cobalt, may support a conclusion that its introduction into the horse is likely to have occurred on the morning of the race, but the Adjudicative Committee is not required to make any finding. The liability under the Rule is when a Trainer produces it to race when it has a Prohibited Substance in its body. 13. First, “GREY INVADOR” must be disqualified from the race as the Rule is mandatory. 14. Mr McDermott has been a Licensed Trainer for 28 years and has had no previous breaches of the Rules of Racing. He advised the Adjudicative Committee that he presently trains only three horses. He said he had never treated “GREY INVADOR” with any substances containing Cobalt and could not provide any explanation or understand why and how, it came to be tested positive. 15. Ms Murrow referred to a number of decided cases which led to fines ranging from $2,500 and $8,000 (although the case of McKenzie resulted in total fines of $10,000, but this was for two offences, and admitted injections for races seven days apart). 16. An aggravating factor in this case, is the high level of Cobalt detected, as being at the upper limit of the calibration range used by the testing laboratory. That factor is balanced against the mitigating arising from Mr McDermott’s long unblemished history. In fixing any sanction, the Adjudicative Committee emphasises that the obligation placed upon all Trainers by the Rules, requires scrupulous care when dealing with Prohibited Substances that may be in medications or feed that they use. The integrity of the race contest demands it. The NZTR Penalty Guide for a first offence refers to a fine of $8,000. The Adjudicative Committee adopts that as a starting point. 17. But because of his exemplary record, a discount allowance of 25% for mitigation. 18. Accordingly, Mr McDermott is fined $6,000. There will be no costs order. 19. “GREY INVADOR” is disqualified from Race 4, the Waterforce 1600 at the Rangitikei Racing Club Meeting on 18 May 2024. The revised placings are therefore: 1st CONEY ISLAND 2nd KAWATIRI 3rd DRESSE’ PAR JOLI 4th TIKEMYSON 5th WAL Stake monies are to be distributed accordingly.

Heard the race caller say what exactly?

Are ENTAIN running a bakery? Geez here comes @curious with his bread analogies.

How do you know this happened?

So how did you stay solvent? Or make a profit? Did you keep pitching up to owners each week with a promise of great things to come? How many wins per year does a horse need to break even? I accept that very few horses make a profit. However when I had the experience of a horse winning 5 races and returning a stake in each of 17 races for two seasons I started to question what was the point. Especially when I still needed to put money in I.e. it ran at a loss. If the industry heads to the scenario where it seems to be heading now where 10 top stables and owners win 90% of the stakes then the very thing that makes the industry great in your view will be gone. What is the point of a $250k race that doesn't pay its way in revenue earned when the same horses would turn up for $150k? Deliberate distorting of the market can only lead to one thing - market failure.

They are hurting the industry. Not only do these restricted sweepstake races hurt the breed by restricting access on merit they are being subsidised heavily by the Administrators. Where does that money come from? The slow pokes or at the moment the ENTAIN shareholder investors. There is a substantial risk to the industry of that sugar hit. A false promise @Gammalite as the key fundamentals are not being addressed to make the industry sustainable. Financially the industry isn't paying its way without ENTAIN subsidisation, lottery sweepstake races, huge cross subsidisation and tax payer handouts.

I'm not criticising them either - who is the Producer? That's who decides the script and camera shots. Seems Entain is looking for a new one: https://entaingroup.com.au/careers/job/trackside-producer/

The one that reckons every race is an affair?

They're not good enough? That's a great advertisement for new owners.