Chief Stipe

MEETING NEWS July 19 Trials now at Foxton The trials that were scheduled for Waverley on Tuesday 19 July will now be run at Foxton due to Waverley having a race-meeting added into the schedule on Thursday 28 July

Was told by a CEO once that if the company started believing its own propaganda then we were well and truly stuffed.

Which is incorrect data and needs to be corrected. HRNZ don't have many jobs and I would have thought data integrity was a priority. I agree. I agree. Reminds me of when I gave an old car away to be scrapped. It wasn't a very pleasant experience to have a Police Sergeant visit my work to tell me that that car had been involved in a crime. To say I got a bollocking for not completing the change of ownership papers would be an understatement. I was lucky not to be prosecuted! If ownership details are made more accessible and HRNZ educates owners (does a new owner get an ownership pack detailing what they can and can't do?) then there would be an element of self policing. I've been bitten in horse ownership before and I would want to know if the insurance that I was paying was registered against the horse as a pecuniary interest. Yes and that is my biggest concern. It is easy to rub out those that err when they are eventually caught and you could argue that it is the interests of HRNZ to makes sure that as much noise is made as possible. As it gives the impression that they are actually doing something. However they are not addressing the fundamental problems. I've always said there is a direct correlation between the level of stakes and racing opportunities available and the cheat levels people will reach to try and survive in the industry.

The asset grab pressure will ramp up very soon judging by the average to below average performance from the TAB. Plus the extra costs of the AWT maintenance will kick in over the coming months. It will only take a few bad turf tracks in the Spring to further tip the balance.

Would be purely political if they did either. No science to support it. I know many who have had the virus and they are all either getting off the vaccination treadmill or seriously questioning the point of it. The level of compliance is falling rapidly and it will take more than a $50 grocery voucher to entice people to get 4 or more jabs.

Thank you for reinforcing my point. As far as I know no registered race horse in New Zealand cannot have an owner. The simple step that HRNZ can take is to make the ownership status open and transparent. They do this up to a point where anyone can look up who owns a horse so all that is required is to extend this for syndicates (I.e. list all members) and make available to all owners in a particular horse who owns what percentage. The next step is to have a central registry where any pecuniary interest against a horse must be registered I.e. an insurance policy. So if an owner signs papers to buy a share in any registered horse they can then view who else owns how much of it and who has a pecuniary interest. Someone like Kerr wouldn't be able to do what he did. Surely that is an important function of HRNZ - put systems in place to ensure the integrity of horse ownership.

You've asked the TAB? What you are implying is the TAB sees YOUR $20 bet as a market indicator of risk. Really? You must be restricted more than @Brodie. But no one else in the market knows if the $20 is mine or yours except perhaps the TAB bookies and or the system odds setter. That said aren't most winning punters looking for value rather than following the leader?

Assuming that you are talking about the odds available to everyone and not restricted punter odds. The only way your $20 on its own could have that effect on odds was if the pools were very small or the odds were "market enticement". I'm not suggesting you are clairvoyant but you are assuming that you are the only person participating in the market (which you aren't) and that no one else has the same strategy as you.

No way will I get the jab. According to a RAT test I've had the much feared disease. So my immunity is as good as anyone on the jab treadmill and the $50 grocery voucher bribe regime. My infection was nothing more than a head cold and surprisingly better than many of my vaccinated friends.

That's crap. I haven't denied anything. The difference is I believe the industry has a culture problem much of which is perpetuated by the administrators of the sport largely by their inaction. I've also offered solutions e.g. ways to prevent the Mitchell Kerr crime being committed and protecting owners. All others are intent on doing is to completely rub out anyone who errs and to raise unfounded allegations about those that are succeeding (surviving?) in the sport. If you are happy with the RIB and HRNZ's management of the sport then I would say you are in denial not I. Meanwhile the rank and file are struggling to make a living and the administrators get fatter without any risk. Many are satisfied if they see some road kill from time to time but don't give a damn about fixing the fundamental systemic problems.

Wrong. The figures are rates per 100,000 NOT rates per 90,000 or 10,000. The figures are a comparison between the RATES of infection.

I've never "proclaimed" that at all. I've only ever said when asked that my first degree was a science degree. Anyone who has done such a degree is trained in the scientific method. Much of the "science" we have seen in the last three years has been very very poor.

Happy to challenge these supposed "own goals". However your statement regarding the Pzifer vaccine "test" is incorrect. What's more it doesn't align with the FDAs original policy for giving a vaccine an EUA. That policy may have changed but what is clear the data submitted by Pzifer was not up to standard and clearly showed that the vaccine had very low efficacy be it as a true vaccine or as a therapeutic.

Will the moves by Ozzie State Governments to increase Point Of Consumption taxes impact race import/export revenue?

There is also severe pressure on the RIB source of funds from Pokies. So it wouldn't be unexpected for the codes to have to dip into their distributions from the TAB to fund it. Also some tasks have been shifted off the TAB balance sheet and onto the codes e.g. code promotion and marketing. More pressure on Stakes.

Not good. Tracking below budget and don't forget they are budgeted to distribute less than last year and 2019. So what did Mr MacKenzie really do?

TAB NZ Trading Performance Update - May 2022 1 July 2022 TAB New Zealand (TAB NZ) provides the tenth monthly trading update for the 2021/2022 financial year, with the results and highlights for May 2022. The TAB continued to operate successfully through its online and retail channels throughout May. The impact of the current Omicron outbreak eased slightly compared to April, with New Zealand at the Orange setting in the Covid-19 Protection Framework. This led to an uplift in foot traffic in the retail and hospitality sector through May, although not to the same levels of 12 months ago. Turnover dipped against budget in May, with the gross betting margin also slightly below budget, while softening economic conditions also played a factor as customers adjusted to the rising cost of living. The TAB NZ Board has been able to maintain betting profit distributions at budgeted levels through the year to date. With funding from Betting Information Use Charges and the Betting Levy tracking above budget, this has meant that total distributions have been above budgeted expectations. The Board will continue to factor in potential developments in New Zealand’s response to Covid-19 and the current global financial climate, as to how trading conditions are affected and how this may or may not affect profit distributions. Wagering Performance Summary In May, the key performance results for TAB NZ were in line with the overall positive trends of the 2021/22 financial year. Turnover of $202.7m was 3.6% ($7.5m) below budget and gross betting revenue (GBR) of $32.0m was down on budget by 4.4% ($1.5m). The gross betting margin (GBM) of 15.8% was 0.1% below budget. Racing Average NZ thoroughbred starters per race was 10.7, slightly above the Year To Date (YTD) average of 10.6, while the peak turnover for a domestic meeting was $1.9m on 14 May for the Campbell’s Infrastructure Cup Day at Arawa Park. Harness average starters per race was 9.8, below the YTD average of 10.2, while the peak meeting turnover of $1.1m was on 5 May at Addington. For greyhound racing, the average starters per race was 7.5, slightly below the YTD average of 7.6, while the peak turnover for a domestic meeting was $453k on 13 May at Addington. Sport The top sporting event by turnover for April was the Warriors vs Sharks NRL match on the 8th May at $0.58m. Tennis was the leading in-play sporting code accounting for 25% of in-play turnover while Rugby League was the top pre-match sporting code accounting for 24% of pre-match turnover. May Operational Performance Reported Profit for the month was $10.8m, which was $2.4m below Budget. Operating Expenses were $10.6m for the month, which was $0.4 above Budget. Year To Date (1 Aug 2021 to 31 May 2022) Reported Profit was $135.2m, which was $1.6m below Budget and $12.0m below last year. Year To Date (1 Aug 2021 to 31 May 2022) Operating Expenses were $97.0m, which was $3.3m below Budget and $2.3m above last year. May Distributions Racing Codes were paid $13.8m in distributions and other payments for May, versus $13.6m budgeted. This consisted of TAB NZ Betting Profit (listed as Fixed Distribution in the table below), offshore bookmaker commission fees, which are based on actual turnover (termed Betting Information Use Charges (BIUC) in the table below), and Betting Duty/Levy repeal. Top 10 Racing events by turnover Date Venue Race No. Race description Turnover 28-May Eagle Farm R9 TAB Kingsford-Smith Cup (G1) $328K 28-May Eagle Farm R8 Moet & Chandon Queensland Derby (G1) $324K 14-May Arawa Park R6 Campbell Infrastructure Rotorua Cup (G3) $320K 21-May Te Rapa R5 Dunstan Horsefeeds 1300 $317K 21-May Trentham R8 James Bull Holdings Rangitikei Gold Cup $307K 21-May Te Rapa R8 The Animal Feed Barn Mile $290K 14-May Arawa Park R8 Rydges Rotorua Stakes (G3)

Some opinion backed by science and data.

BY WILL JONES 30 JUNE 2022 7:12 PM As the push to vaccinate ever-younger children against COVID-19 continues, with the U.S. now even vaccinating infants as young as six months, new studies show why this is both unnecessary and risky, and why children and young people have very little to fear from Covid. The large majority of children have now been infected with the virus. In the U.K., 82% of U.K. primary school children aged four to 11, almost none of whom are vaccinated, have detectable antibodies from a previous Covid infection, according to the ONS. The ONS data do not directly tell us the proportion of children aged 12-18 who have antibodies from infection, as they do not distinguish between antibodies from infection and vaccination, and 65% of the age group are vaccinated. However, since 99.3% of secondary school children have detectable antibodies, there is no reason to suppose it will be less than 82%. ONS With almost all children now having been infected and so protected via natural immunity, there is little purpose to a vaccination or booster campaign. But does protection from natural immunity last for children? According to a new study from Israel, it lasts very well. The pre-print study (not yet peer-reviewed) from the Delta period in Israel (July 1st to December 13th 2021) finds that children and adolescents previously infected “acquired durable protection against reinfection (symptomatic or not) with SARS-CoV-2 for at least 18 months”. Protection of individuals aged five to 18 against symptomatic Covid was 93.6% in the first six months, declining gently to around 70% after 18 months (see below). While the study doesn’t cover Omicron, which has greater immune evasion than earlier variants, a recent study from Qatar found that natural immunity in a young population persisted at over 50% for at least a year, whereas vaccine protection declined to zero or below (i.e., the vaccine made a person more likely to be infected) within six months. With or without natural immunity, Covid is an extremely low risk to children. Notably, none of the 458,959 five to 18 year-olds in the Israeli study died with Covid, whether they had been previously infected or not. A recent U.K. Government study by the UKHSA looked at all under-20s who had died with Covid up to the end of 2021. It found 185 deaths within 100 days of a positive PCR test, of which fewer than half – 81, 43.8% – were actually due to COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death. Of those, more than three quarters – 61, 75.3% – had an underlying condition, including 27 with severe neurodisability and 12 with compromised immunity. This left just 20 deaths in healthy under-20 year-olds in the first two years of the pandemic, comprising just 0.3% of all the 6,790 deaths in the age group. The authors estimated the Covid infection fatality rate in under-20s to be 0.0007% – but this includes those with underlying conditions. For healthy under-20s it would be a quarter of that, or less than 0.0002%, which is two in a million. By contrast, a recent study in France found that as many as 170 per million young people were hospitalised with severe heart inflammation following Covid vaccination. That rate is around two orders of magnitude (i.e., 100 times) higher than the IFR of COVID-19. It means that for every life the Covid vaccines save (assuming they prevent 100% of Covid deaths, which they don’t), up to 100 young people are hospitalised with severe myocarditis, the long-term prognosis of which is unknown. And that’s just one side-effect. How can such a risk-benefit profile be worth it for children and young people? What about Long Covid – do vaccines protect children and young people from having debilitating, ongoing Covid symptoms, as is sometimes claimed? A number of studies have found that compared to a control group, and when Covid is identified by the presence of antibodies, there is little evidence that those who suffer from COVID-19 go on to suffer more long-term effects. But even if they do, there is also no evidence that vaccines prevent Long Covid, with one recent large U.S. study finding “no significant difference in the risk of… any long-Covid feature”. There is also, of course, no evidence the vaccines prevent infection for very long at all. Thus however you look at it, it’s hard to see how there can be any justification for vaccinating children and young people against COVID-19, which is unnecessary and risky, and brings no clear benefit whatsoever.

My theory is the TAB bookies or the computer sysyems spreads the risk by off loading on the tote. It happens towards start time and often the tote prices don't adjust until post race time. As for a $20 bet affecting prices as dramatically as you suggest it would only happen if liquidity was very low I.e. very small pools. There is no way that you can connect one small bet with price movements.

The malcontents and rumour mongers may not be directly affecting any race but they are affecting the future of ALL races. HRNZ and RIB need to proactively manage a positive narrative and do so on a regular basis. For example why aren't the number of tests taken and results published publicly on a regular basis? We only hear about the positive drug results. With the 59 stables inspected in 2 days in Canterbury what were the outcomes? For example did 50 get an A+ rating? Are some required to do remedial work? If so what work is required? Don't need to name or shame stables that weren't up to scratch. What was the inspection protocol? What do we get? A few fluffy paragraphs on the RIB website.

Stipes Report: POROTENE DUNDEE (L Allpress) - Began awkwardly losing ground. Improved forward to lead near the 1200 metres. HEADS UP (K Mudhoo) - Got its head up in the early stages when racing keenly and being steadied away from heels. Stewards questioned rider K Mudhoo regarding the tactics he adopted near the 250 metres when electing to shift ground outwards as opposed to taking a run between SWEET VIRGINIA and GOING STEADY. Mr Mudhoo advised the mare had raced greenly and been reluctant to take the run between those runners despite his urgings therefore he elected to shift outwards to find clear racing room. Stewards noted Mr Mudhoo’s comments. VITAL PERFECTION (M Taylor) - Over-raced through the middle stages due to the lack of tempo. Lost contact with the body of the field when the pace of the race increased passing the 1200 metres. When questioned regarding the performance rider advised the mare was left flat footed when the pace increased and was not suited to the changing tempo throughout the race. A post-race veterinary examination revealed no obvious abnormalities. PACKING TAVI (T Jonker) - Raced three-wide without cover from near the 1000 metres. Held up in the run home until shifting ground inwards near the 150 metres to find clear racing room. GOING STEADY (K Williams) - When questioned regarding the improved performance trainer Mr. S Woodsford advised the mare had benefitted from the step up in distance of today’s race.

What passive aggressive insults? Pot kettle perhaps? You quite happily regurgitate the Government narrative on the Pzifer vaccine without presenting any evidence. The moment someone pushes back with a cogent argument instead of rebutting it you throw the towel in. It isn't a pointless debate (which I might add you started) it is a very important one that needs be had otherwise the same mistakes will be made again and again. You'd be pleased to know the from the MOH's own figures that the fully boosted rate of infection is 4 times that of the unvaccinated. I'm sure you will enjoy pitching up for your 5th, 6th and 7th vaccination.

Then cut out the waffle and post real evidence to support your narrative. That's incorrect. If it were in fact the case then it is even more reasons to never have used the Pzifer vaccine. The fact is the Pzifer trial data shows zero efficacy relative to risk. "Show me how you measure me and I'll show you how I behave." Science has largely been hijacked by political ideology. Academics are measured on how much air time they get not the veracity of their research. Hence we have a physicist advising the government on epidemic models and a biologist whose speciality is bioluminescent bacteria advising on masks and vaccines. Health bureaucrats have long lost their ability to make the correct health decisions. They have forgotten the principle of do no harm even if it means doing nothing. The decision to force the vaccination of our population was not based on a credible assessment of the data and risk versus reward. Hopefully one day both the Academics and the bureaucrats will be held to account. Wrong again. There has never been a vaccine that requires 4 shots or more within 12 months. The fact is the Pzifer vaccine is ineffective and is no more than a poor therapeutic. But worse is that evidence is emerging that vaccinated people who get Covid (seems like everyone!) are more prone to reinfection than the unvaccinated. That is a serious consequence of administering an ineffective vaccine. What's even worse is the announcement yesterday by the health bureaucrats of the reduction in reinfection times from 90 days to 29 days. Can we expect vaccine boosters every month now? It will cripple business and further disrupt the schooling of our children. The latter having suffered already a horrendous burden totally unnecessarily. As for my background. My first degree was a four year science degree. So I was trained in the scientific method at a time when the quality of research was measured on its accuracy not how many headlines it attracts in the media. I also doubt that you have read and analysed as many research papers as I have over the last two years. Numbers in the thousands.

None.