Chief Stipe

They were fast enough to win races and place stakes. A better way to aid the impoverished battler that you appear to be concerned about would be to maintain access to local training tracks rather than closing them down. Also provide free entry to races and reduce all other costs not directly related to the competitiveness of a horse I.e. provide a level playing field. Your approach is to compensate by subsidy for poor performance. Look where that approach has put the racing industry and the country for that matter.

Provide evidence to the contrary.

The bigger question is: Is Awapuni fixable? Given its location and environmental disadvantages I'd argue they're throwing good money after bad.

All mine have been fast. The problem I had was that you'd win a lot of races and still be behind. Your approach wouldn't help anyone. Probably make it worse as there would be more slow horses to get around.

Do you think they could be battling because they have slow horses?

Geez are you a Labour Party Candidate - "let's reward mediocrity!"

Then post it.

The third dog is chasing the dog in front of it not the lure.

What time did it start raining?

‘Arrogant, terrible': Owners association boss lashes Racing Victoria Victorian Owners Association boss, Jonathan Munz, has launched a scathing broadside at Racing Victoria. By Ben Dorries 06:01pm • 06 August 2023 31 Comments Owners association boss Jonathan Munz has launched a scathing tirade at Racing Victoria, adding to the recent wave of criticism levelled at the peak body. Munz has lambasted RV for a "hotchpotch of poorly conceived ideas and thought bubbles". The owner of champion sprinter Giga Kick and an influential breeder, Munz claims "arrogant" RV and some of their decisions and ideas are damaging the reputation of racing in the state. It comes after a week of fierce criticism, following Racenet revealing secret proposals for a whip-free summer series of ‘team racing' where leading participants were briefed but then muzzled with nondisclosure agreements. Ideas discussed included Big Bash-style innovations, such as jockey earpieces. "Racing Victoria think they are innovators and marketing and wagering gurus but the reality is that their hotchpotch of poorly conceived ideas and thought bubbles will not get racing any new customers," Munz told Racenet. "A number of their decisions and proposals have been terrible. "This has put RV in serious conflict with most of its shareholders and participants and upset racing customers when it should be bringing people together and working collaboratively. "It was all unnecessary and would not have occurred if RV had properly consulted with and listened to industry participants and experts, instead of arrogantly pushing ahead with and promoting these inappropriate policies." In a no holds-barred blast, Munz lashed RV on a number of hot topics. LIVE JOCKEY INSTRUCTIONS "The RV proposal to use interactive jockey earpieces with live streamed instructions to jockeys from ‘coaches' during races is dangerous and impractical and the associated proposal for an expensive and much criticised ‘teams racing' concept is completely inappropriate," Munz said. "They are ill-conceived gimmick proposals that will alienate existing racing customers and participants and not encourage any new ones. Munz added: "Even someone who knows nothing about horses should realise that speaking into a jockey's ear during a race is incredibly dangerous" "This concept should never have got beyond first base. It is only a few months since we had the tragedy of Dean Holland and before that the terrible incident which left Jamie Kah in hospital for over a month and Craig Williams nursing a broken collar bone," he said. "Are RV serious about putting jockeys and horses at heightened risk of serious injury, or worse, for some misguided marketing gimmick that no-one wants? "This is a truly idiotic idea and I cannot see the racing stewards supporting the proposal." A big crowd at Flemington on Melbourne Cup day last year. BIG BASH-STYLE TEAM RACING "The proposal for a summer teams racing series is a poor proposal that has been tried and failed a number of times, both in Australia and in the UK," Munz said. "With RV claiming to be under budget pressure, this isn't where scarce resources should be spent. "The fact that the proposal favours certain trainers and owners over others is also inappropriate and there are also integrity concerns around team incentives when a trainer or team has a number of runners in a race." Jonathan Munz says Big Bash style ideas won't work in racing. Picture: Getty Images. TOP SECRET Munz said: "Industry participants are concerned about RV's inability to constructively respond or deal with criticism, highlighted by their attempts to limit and censor opposing views, including the recent bizarre and pointless attempts to impose nondisclosure agreements on its own stakeholders." "We need leaders who understand the industry and can unite rather than divide people, with a view to delivering long term benefits," he added. MUNZ'S WAY FORWARD Munz agrees that racing can't stand still and must attract a new audience to safeguard its future. However, he insists RV is marching down the wrong path. "RV justifies its proposals for radical change with a false and exaggerated narrative that such action is required to somehow win over younger customers," Munz said. "Racing actually does many things well and the large uplift in wagering during Covid lockdowns shows that racing already has a product offering that has strong appeal. "Young people are in fact clearly engaged during the Melbourne Cup carnival and the challenge has always been to translate that to the rest of the year. "The correct strategy to maintain and grow interest and engagement in racing is to play to our unique strengths by promoting our equine athletes and their progress and competition in our marquee races and celebrating our leading jockeys and trainers." Munz added: "A better starting point would be to improve the race day and punting experience. Engage better with race clubs and work more closely with wagering service providers to promote racing and engage better with their millions of existing customers." "RV has neglected this and refused to do the simple things, like funding sensible and relatively inexpensive initiatives, such as electronic owners ticketing to replace the current system of paper ticketing from the 1950s," he said. Jonathan Munz is a prominent owner-breeder who owns The Everest winner Giga Kick. Picture: Getty Images. SPRING PROGRAMMING / PRIZEMONEY "In relation to the spring carnival program, RV has speculated about moving the Cox Plate and even Melbourne Cup week," Munz said. "Fortunately, that sort of nonsense was resisted and they instead focused on adding a new race day after the Melbourne Cup carnival. "They came up with a poorly conceived race day that wrongly moved the Thousand Guineas and Rupert Clarke Stakes, undermined the pattern and wasted money. "Owners, trainers and breeders all came together to suggest a much better program that provided a real marquee race day, with the same financial investment, but RV insisted on keeping their changes." Munz added: "In terms of the recently announced reduction in prizemoney to cover a supposed crisis in industry funding, RV undermined industry confidence with negative announcements and then walked it back with an announced cut of less than one per cent. "For years the industry, with the assistance of former racing minister Martin Pakula and current minister Anthony Carbines, had worked hard to ensure strong revenue streams that made sure our prizemoney was competitive. "But RV were happy to damage Victoria's reputation and pour a bucket of negativity on the industry, and all for what?" "This was unnecessary and irresponsible. "We have maintained that RV needs to be more transparent about and focused on reducing its own overheads and inefficiencies before lecturing us or cutting prizemoney."

Victorian bonus scheme launched | RACING.COM www.racing.com Maiden winners in Victoria are soon to be rewarded with an extra $2000 bonus payment with the introduction of the Ladbrokes Owners Incentive Scheme from next month. The scheme, which offers up to $9 million in bonuses to Victorian owners over the next three years, begins from September 1, 2023 with eligible payments across some 1500 professional maiden flat races annually in Victoria. The bonus payments will be available to the owners of the winning horse who have registered with Ladbrokes Racing Club, with payments prorated to an individual’s ownership percentage of the horse. Once registered, owners will be eligible for bonus payments relating to all current and future horses in which they have an ownership interest when their horse wins its maiden flat race in Victoria. Any registered thoroughbred owner can register for the scheme, and bonus eligibility is not dependent on the owner holding a Ladbrokes wagering account. Eligibility is not dependent on the entire ownership group being registered for the scheme. Owners of a winning maiden horse who are registered for the scheme will be paid by Racing Victoria (RV) at the same time as they receive their prizemoney. RV Executive General Manger – Racing, Matt Welsh, said: “We are thrilled to partner with Ladbrokes on this fantastic initiative which will inject up to $3 million in extra bonuses per year into Victorian racing. “Owners are essential to a vibrant racing industry, and this incentive scheme is another great way to reward those supporting Victorian racing. “Owners winning a standard $27,000 country maiden in Victoria can now pocket $2,000 on top of the $14,850 first prize if registered for the scheme. The boosted $16,850 first prize means the maiden will be worth the equivalent of a $30,600 race for those winning owners. Individual owners and/or syndicate managers will need to register themselves or their syndicate and their maiden horse(s) via www.ladbrokes.com.au/lois prior to its win to be eligible for the bonus payment. Entain Group Australia (owner of the Ladbrokes brand) CEO, Dean Shannon, said: “Ladbrokes is really proud of our innovative Ladbrokes Owners Incentive Scheme. “While there has been a lot of focus on prizemoney gains at the top end of town over the past few years, this is recognition that for every horse and ownership group, just getting to the track and getting that first win on the board is a thrilling experience, be that in town or in the bush.’’

Some interesting stuff in that judgement about how the RIB are operating. $7,500 in costs applied for with no supporting documentation?!

But there was a leeway where early foals I.e. those that were born prior to 1 August were still counted as zero on the first 1 August date post their foaling. The new system makes it clearer and easier for all concerned.

Is that any different to when the date was set at 1 August?

You're kidding? 5 months doesn't make a difference?

What do you define as "the Racing Season"? The horses age is adjusted 1 January. The premierships run 1 January to 31 December. What is the season other than a financial year according to the Racing Act?

I remember it well as a kid on our summer holidays from the West Coast. Big track, uphill home straight and huge fields. The colourful but very descriptive commentary of one Jack O'Donnell. One highlight was the members buffett on course in the Richmond Lounge. Took my daughter to one of the summer meetings to reminisce.

The Covid Inquiry will never admit it, but we had a strong pandemic plan. What went wrong was Leftie scientists and panicky politicians, writes PROFESSOR ROBERT DINGWALL www.dailymail.co.uk By Professor Robert Dingwall Updated 08:06 AEST 04 Aug 2023 This may seem hard to believe, but for 48 hours in March 2020, as Covid-19 started to sweep the country, the United Kingdom authorities set out to manage the pandemic in much the same way as Sweden. That, after all, had been the plan for at least two decades of preparing for such a crisis. There would have been no 'lockdown', just an honest account of the facts from those in charge. The British public would have been trusted to behave sensibly, as the public was trusted in Sweden. There would have been no compulsory masks, no mandates to keep us two metres apart from one another, even in our moments of greatest need. Schools would have remained open and the economy fully functioning. In the event, our panicked politicians lost their nerve. Britain's carefully researched battle plan was binned in favour of more draconian and — as events have proved — more destructive measures to close down national life. 'Britain’s carefully researched battle plan was binned in favour of more draconian and — as events have proved — more destructive measures to close down national life,' Professor Robert Dingwall (pictured) writes The Swedes were disappointed when we abandoned them in what had been an entirely sensible approach, although they won't be too concerned today. Sweden went on to have a far better outcome than us: fewer deaths and less collateral damage to society and the economy. Not that you would know this from the first stage of the Covid-19 Inquiry, which has cost an eye-watering £40million after just 23 days of hearings. A further £1.6million will be spent on hiring high-end advertising agency M&C Saatchi to promote a scheme asking for people to share their experiences of the pandemic. Through its lines of questioning, the Inquiry's legal team has been constructing a very different account of Britain's pandemic response. This alternative story suggests that the government and civil service were negligent, that they failed to make adequate preparations for suppressing the pandemic. That, in fact, we prepared for the wrong virus — influenza — rather than a novel coronavirus such as Covid-19. Yet this is to ignore the science, the history — and the truth. I know something about Britain's pandemic planning as, from 2005-11, I was part of it. As a senior sociologist I belonged to an official group, CEAPI — the Committee on Ethical Aspects of Pandemic Influenza, part of an initiative led by the Cabinet Office to prepare the Government for what was bound to be a major social challenge. Our brief was wider than the name suggests. We looked at most social aspects of pandemic planning. We saw working papers from almost every government department detailing how a pandemic might affect their jurisdiction. Our membership was broad, including philosophy, law and social science academics, journalists, patient advocates and people with clinical and operational duties in health and social care. Such voices were largely absent from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in 2020 — a group of scientists including Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty and Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. We received papers from mathematical modellers and considered them. We did not have those modellers in the room — or on Zoom — shouting down the views of others. Medics were in a minority. I can say, then, that the official United Kingdom plan for dealing with a novel respiratory virus, even one as dangerous as Covid-19, was quite the opposite of negligent. Not only was it well thought through, it was admired across Europe. Throughout 2006-7 I spoke at international conferences, where leading public health officials told me as much. Shoppers form a socially distanced queue outside a Waitrose supermarket in Rushden in April 2020 A couple enjoy lunch in a busy restaurant in Stockholm, Sweden in April 2020 A pandemic challenges a whole society not just its health system. Any British response would be led from the centre of government, and not its health ministry, as in other countries. Decisions would balance public health against wider social and economic issues. Whatever the enquiry concludes about our preparations, it is false to claim that Britain's planners failed to consider how we might suppress a pandemic virus. Close attention was paid to whether we might shut borders, restrict internal travel and shut schools. But we decided these things were unworkable or, worse, counterproductive. For example, it was obvious that border closures would soon cause food shortages. Internal travel restrictions — including checkpoints on motorways — would be unworkable in a country with a dense road network. Closing schools provoked much discussion, but the consequences were clear. As soon as you shut these, the country's workforce is crippled by the need to stay at home and look after children. Children are much safer in school — provided there are enough teachers and volunteers to supervise them. Children's interests came first in our considerations. A study this week from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found the pandemic had a 'catastrophic' impact on children's emotional and social skills. As far as I recall, masks were not even discussed. From my own reading, it was clear that cloth masks had not helped during any previous influenza pandemic. Their widespread use in a few Asian countries had as much to do with urban pollution as infection control following the SARS (2002) and MERS (2012) outbreaks. An independent 2007 review by the Cochrane group — a global non-profit without commercial or conflicted funding — underlined the lack of evidence of any benefit. Contact tracing was equally pointless beyond the first few hundred cases (to build a more specific picture of the virus). There was no great benefit in closing bars, clubs, cinemas, theatres or other places where people mix. There was no evidence from previous pandemics to justify this. In summary, the British planners decided it would be far more cost-effective just to ask people to stay at home if they had symptoms. They had considered the evidence available, weighed the costs, harms and benefits and concluded that attempts at suppression were unlikely to be effective. Government resources would have been better used to keep society and the economy going rather than shutting it down. Of course, all plans should be reviewed regularly in the light of new risks and evidence, and it is true that Britain's pandemic preparations were due to be revisited. A man walks past a 'Stay Home, Save Lives' sign in central London in January 2021 A review was begun in 2016 but was disrupted by factors, including Brexit preparations. The basic plan, though, remained a good one — including the decision to base it on pandemic influenza. As Professor Dame Jenny Harries, head of the UK Health Security Agency, told the Inquiry, this was the sensible model. Pandemic influenza is as novel a virus as Covid-19 (it is not simply a version of seasonal influenza or any of 200 or so other viruses that can cause similar symptoms). And it is pandemic influenza that has returned time and time again, killing millions around the world in the preceding century or so. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every time a new respiratory virus comes along. Since March 2020, I have often asked myself why a great deal of emergency planning work was so lightly discarded. I think there are three main factors. First, we overestimated the courage of politicians and their willingness to tell the country the truth — that we were facing a crisis and little could be done to prevent significant loss of life. This is obvious in the evidence given by former Health Secretaries Jeremy Hunt and Matt Hancock, the latter having been in charge for most of the pandemic. Both assumed that something could be done — must be done — and looked for people to support that assumption, regardless of the expertise of those advisers. Second, we did not allow for the fact that a large body of scientific and medical professionals would seize on the pandemic as an opportunity to attack a Conservative government that they disliked. This was partly a consequence of mounting pressures on pay and working conditions but there was also a clash of values. The pandemic released a streak of elitism and paternalism that has long been present in both biomedical science and among public health experts. The crisis presented an opportunity to use the power of the state to remodel society, and the way individuals relate to it, without democratic consent or respect for the rule of law. Third, we underestimated the opportunities for private gain, both in the commercial sense — think of the tax-payer-funded millions spent on testing, PPE, contact tracing and Perspex screens — and in the sense that Covid-19 led to greatly increased funding for biomedical research. A woman walks past a 'Stop the spread of Coronavirus' sign in Glasgow Former Health Scretary Matt Hancock (pictured) has given evidence to the Covid Inquiry The scandals of PPE supply — the tens of millions wasted on inadequate products and fraudulent claims — are becoming increasingly apparent. But it is also the case that the pursuit of a technological fix for every problem funnelled resources into science without the usual scrutiny. Policy analysts have been concerned for some considerable time about the excessive influence of biomedical interests on UK science funding and investment. The pandemic has overwritten those concerns in spades. Looking back, you could say some of us were a little naive about what would happen when a pandemic finally took hold. As rational planners, we expected the same level of rationality in others — a mistake, perhaps. But we have every right to expect rational scrutiny from this vast, time-consuming and expensive public inquiry. Falsifying the past serves no one's interests in the long run.

NZ young gun Pinn extends stay in Melbourne Wiremu Pinn has extended his stay in Melbourne. Picture: Racing Photos via Getty Images By Gilbert Gardiner 05:04pm • 03 August 2023 1 Comments Rising star New Zealand apprentice jockey Wiremu Pinn has secured an extension to stay in Melbourne beyond the spring carnival. The 24-year-old natural lightweight, who wants to stay in Australia permanently, could be invaluable in handicaps and weight-for-age races. "I'll struggle (to get rides) with all these jockeys coming back but I can ride light, anything 48kg/49kg I'll be able to ride it," Pinn said. "I could get down to 47kg, if they needed me to, hopefully I can pick up some rides by being the light jockey." Pinn transferred his apprenticeship from Daniel Miller to Michael Kent at Cranbourne on a three-month loan initially from late May. Kent signed the paperwork this week to retain Pinn. "I'm really enjoying it here and I'm learning heaps, I just love the racing here in Melbourne." Pinn has seven rides on Saturday at Flemington including Senor Uno, a Kiwi stayer part-owned by his parents, and last-start winners Hell Hound and Alhambra Lad. "My mum and dad have a share in him (Senor Uno) and my aunty and uncle, it's their first share in a racehorse and he's doing them pretty well," Pinn said. "They know nothing about racing, none of my family have anything to do with racing, so it's good for them to be involved and they follow the horse, they're having a lot of fun with him." NZ import Senor Uno will make his Australian debut at Flemington. Picture: Trish Dunell Senor Uno, an $18,000 purchase, has banked more than $72,000 prizemoney with five wins and three places from 16 starts. "Dan (Miller) bought him at the sales, he was quite cheap, I was riding him at the stables and he gave me a good feel," Pinn said. "I said to mum (Chanelle) and dad (Daniel) I think you guys should get a share because he's quite cheap and I think he'll be all right. "He's been great so far and hopefully he can win a race over here, it will be great." The five-year-old gelding led all the way to win at 2100m race Te Arapa last May with Pinn's partner and eventual NZ apprentice champion Tayla Mitchell aboard. "It was good I got her on that horse," Pinn laughed. "I tried hard to get her on that horse too, it won her the premiership … she only won it by one point so she needed him to win." Mitchell has joined Pinn in Melbourne with a view to start riding trackwork out of Cranbourne. Pinn warned Senor Uno, a $41 outsider, would find the 1600m too sharp on Saturday. "A mile is well short of his best but he's going to improve off whatever he does Saturday and once he gets up over 2000m that's when you'll see the best of him," Pinn said. "He's a pretty good stayer and I think he could win a staying race just the way staying races are run here, he can run good sectionals and sustain a good gallop. "I reckon the older he gets the better he's going to get, if you look at him, he's still quite weak so I reckon he'll definitely get out to a trip … he'll win a nice cups race somewhere."

But for all intents and purposes the season runs from 1 January to 31 December. In effect the financial year for accounting purposes is 1 August to 31 July. The racing calendar must be determined prior to 1 August.

Eh? Then what was all the palaver about the premierships? The Trainers and Drivers Premierships are running 1 January to 31 December are they not?

I suggest too that you meet with Clement. On the two occasions that I needed to talk with him I found him more than reasonable. He also appeared to be genuine. Bear in mind that he has taken over a structure that in my opinion is flawed and inherited staff that he has not chosen. I'm also not sure that the Board is all that good either although there are a couple I think are OK. All that said I would have thought two years in Clement would be chain sawing some of the dead wood out.

I thought it was worth at least a boundary! A strong cover drive with a crack of ball hitting willow and a lovely flourish at the end.

Exactly which suggests they didn't find anything clearly visible. All of the Stipes would have had industry funded high end smart phones with them. The natural reaction to seeing something would be to take a photo.