Chief Stipe

Sydney and Melbourne the Stewards vision is up within 2 to 24 hours of the race being run. They've invested all this money in HD broadcasting and forced expensive network connections on tracks. Then have RIB members sitting in a bunker policing the races in real time yet can't post the Stewards video until later in the week if at all. Slack.

That would have to be Lethal Innes best ride ever! Draws one in from the outside in a big field. Has Pinarello 4 back one out after 300m. Takes the race to them before the turn. The horse did the rest from there.

Sandown.

How sad you can't work that out for yourself. Do you think Justice Gendall had this information at his fingertips? Or did he engage and underling to do it? Is Gendall on a fixed rate per decision? Given prior precedent was a lengthy decision even necessary?

Surely by now a precedent has been set and lengthy adjudication decisions aren't necessary? Note the fine is twice that of Jensen's handed down by Justice Gendall.

Is this decision consistent with Jensen's case? Non Raceday Inquiry - Dated 23 May 2022 - Kurtis Pertab racingintegrityboard.org.nz EVIDENCE [1] Kurtis Pertab, the Respondent is a Licensed Class B Trainer and a Registered Owner under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing operating at Matamata, with six horses in training and between 30 and 36 horses in his care for breaking. [2] The Respondent faces one charge that between 13 December 2021 and 7 January 2022 at Matamata Racecourse, he attended Matamata Racecourse to work his horses on the course and failed to comply with NZTR Directive, in accordance with the Government “Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020” in breach of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rule 802(1)(a) as he presented a fake vaccination pass to the Racecourse Manager. [3] Rule 802(1)(a) provides that: A person commits a breach who acts in contravention of or fails to comply with a provision of the Rules . . . or any policy, notice, direction, ……………. or condition ….. made or imposed under the Rules. [4] Following a teleconference on 24 March 2022, Mr R Smith, Counsel for the Respondent confirmed that the charge was admitted and the parties agreed that the hearing as to Penalty is to be on the papers. [5] We have considered all relevant documents including Information number A16409, the Summary of Facts and Penalty Submissions from the Applicant and Respondent. THE NZTR DIRECTIVE, NZTR RULES OF RACING: [6] The NZTR Directive requires Industry stakeholders and participants to comply with not only the Racing Codes Covid plans and policy, but also relevant government regulations. The Directive, since it was first promulgated has been regularly updated on the NZTR website. [7] On 26 November 2021, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing implemented an updated Directive under the Covid Protection Framework As follows: 8.1 Admission to Thoroughbred training centres From midnight 12 December 2021, persons may only enter a Thoroughbred training centre (Including leased stable boxes or barns) if they have provided the Club or venue operator on at least one occasion their “My Vaccine Pass” to prove that they are double vaccinated. 8.2 Club Obligations Each Club or operator of a public training centre must implement procedures that eliminate the risk of transmission of COVID-19 to the maximum extent possible. Without limiting this obligation, each Club or venue operator must: (a) Develop and implement a process or register for recording the vaccination status of persons who intend regularly working or visiting the training centre. (b) Erect appropriate signage, and on a best endeavours basis ensure that occasional workers or visitors also prove that they are vaccinated; and (c) Clearly communicate these requirements to all track users and visitors. 8.3 Licenceholder Obligations (a) Each Licenceholder is obligated to adhere to the vaccination requirement of any training venue that they utilise. (b) Each Licenceholder must ensure that they and their staff, contractors or visitors to the training centre are compliant with the venue’s vaccination requirements. [8] Furthermore, the Directive provides that all persons admitted to a racecourse for a meeting must: • Allow their “My Vaccine Pass” to be scanned or sighted as proof that they are double vaccinated; and • Any attempt to falsify proof of a person’s vaccination status (‘My Vaccine Pass’ or in another form) will be reported to the NZ Police and will also be treated as a Serious Racing Offence. A false statement regarding vaccination status to NZTR, the RIB or a racing club will also be regarded as a Serious Racing Offence. [9] In addition to the Directive (as outlined above), Section 101(1) of the Racing Rules makes clear that the Rules shall apply to all Races, Race Meetings and all matters connected with Racing, and shall apply to and be binding on (c) all Licensed Persons; and (d) any other person working in or about any racing stable or Racecourse or care, control or management of horses etc. PENALTY PROVISIONS: [10] Rule 803(1) provides that: A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to: 1. be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or 2. be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or 3. a fine not exceeding $20,000.00 SUMMARY OF FACTS: [11] The Matamata Racing Club facilities are sanctioned under the Rules of Racing to hold race meetings, trials and workouts and are also used for training thoroughbred racehorses. The course Facility Manager is responsible for oversight and implementation of the Covid-19 Emergency Regulations Directive. [12] The Respondent is a Licensed Trainer and is authorised to use the facilities to train his horses which he uses six days a week. [13] On 31 December 2021, the course Facility Manager asked the Respondent if he was vaccinated and whether he was following the protocols and guidelines initiated by the Club to prevent the spread of Covid infection and to abide by the government orders and guidelines. The Respondent replied that he was fully vaccinated and was complying with the Rules and Guidelines. [14] On Monday 3 January 2022, the Facility Manager, having been informed by the facility users that the Respondent was not vaccinated and that they were worried about their wellbeing, challenged the Respondent and asked for proof of vaccination and demanded to see his ‘My Vaccine Pass’. The Respondent took out his mobile phone and after scrolling through it, presented what appeared to be a ‘bona fide’ copy of his Vaccine Pass. [15] After the receipt of further information, authorities were made aware that the Respondent had deceived the Club by presenting a ‘fake’ ‘My Vaccine Pass’. [16] On 5 January 2022, the Facility Manager, again challenged the Respondent’s compliance with the Covid-19 Emergency Regulations. As a result, the matter was referred to a Racing Integrity Board Investigator. [17] On Friday 7 January 2022, the Respondent was spoken to by an Investigator. He admitted creating and presenting a ‘fake’ ‘My Vaccine Pass’ and that he had not been vaccinated. [18] In explanation the Respondent stated that “he did not have confidence that the vaccination was going to work and did not want to rush it and he just wanted to earn an income.” [19] The Respondent apologised for his actions. [20] The Respondent has been training for one year. He has not previously breached the Rules. [21] The Respondent does not fully accept there was a discussion as to whether he was following the protocols and guidelines initiated by the Club to prevent the spread of Covid-19 infections and to abide by the Government orders and guidelines. He said he was riding a horse at walking pace on the racecourse at Matamata. He does however accept the Summary of Facts with that one exception, which we do not regard as material to our decision. [22] The presentation of a fake passport is “a serious racing offence.” RIB SUBMISSIONS: [23] The RIB acknowledges that the risk posed to public health by persons who chose not to be vaccinated is no longer as relevant as it once was. The new Omicron variant is significantly less dangerous than that of its predecessor, ‘Delta’. With New Zealand’s high vaccination rate, it is becoming more apparent that choosing to not be vaccinated against Covid-19 is more of a health risk to the individual than those around them. However, the RIB submits that those who attend an event requiring all attendees to be vaccinated, such as a race meeting and training facilities, are entitled to expect that this requirement will be followed, reducing any potential or perceived risk. Any attempt to subvert this expectation involves a significant breach of trust of other attendees /participants. [24] The RIB highlighted the fact that Racing has been able to continue during significant periods of the Covid-19 pandemic while many other activities including sports have not and most persons involved in the Industry appreciate this is a privilege and make the effort not to undermine this. Therefore, incidents such as this place the integrity and viability of the industry at risk. [25] The RIB referred to the following decisions: RIB V Swann (Mar 2022) – Licence to Train – Suspended 3 months and $1000 fine. RIB V Keegan (Feb 2022) – Licence to train – Suspended 4 months and $4000 fine. RIB v Hewetson (Dev 2021) – fined $2400. RIB V Harvey (Dec 2021) – fined $2700. [26] There are differences between the four cases, notably both RIB v Swann and RIB v Keegan related to the presentation of false (fake) Vaccine Passes, whereas both Hewetson and Harvey related to border crossing breaches. [27] In mitigation, the RIB acknowledges that once the Respondent sought legal representation he entered an early guilty plea and agreed to the matter to be dealt with on the papers reducing the need for a costly ‘in person’ hearing. [28] The RIB summarised its submissions as follows: a) The Respondent has been involved in the Racing Industry all his life and does not have any history of offending or breaching of the Rules of Racing. b) The Respondent’s offending is slightly more serious than that of Ms Keegan in that, not only did he deliberately breach the Covid-19 protocol, but he repeatedly attempted to mislead Mr Styles (Matamata Racecourse Manager) as to his vaccination status. First, by saying that he was vaccinated when in fact he was not and secondly, by producing a fake ‘My Vaccine Pass’ when confronted a second time. c) The country, including the Racing Industry, has worked extremely hard to protect New Zealanders from the worst impacts of Covid. Significant sacrifices have been made by individuals to protect the public and more vulnerable in our society. d) Freedom of choice against vaccination does not mean freedom to breach the Rules and breach public trust and confidence in a system designed to protect New Zealanders. To attempt to circumvent the clear expectations of the Government and the Racing Industry through deception must be viewed as at the serious end of misconduct. e) The vast majority of people in the Racing Industry have understood and followed the Rules, even if doing so does not always accord with their best interests. The Respondent’s choice to flagrantly disregard the Rules to suit his purpose is a serious blow to others within the Industry that have religiously followed the Rules. [29] For these reasons, the RIB believes that the penalty should be slightly more than that of Ms Keegan. Serious consideration needs to be given to a period of suspension or disqualification considering the Respondent’s conduct was a serious breach of public trust and the trust of the racing industry. [30] The RIB is not seeking costs in this matter. SUBMISSION OF COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [31] By way of background, the Respondent is a horse owner, horse breaker and Licensed Trainer based at Matamata who has worked since he was a small child in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry with his parents. [32] We have considered the references which have been provided by six prominent individuals from all aspects of the Racing Industry, his family and a schoolteacher. It is clear that the Respondent has at a young age developed a positive reputation as a person of great integrity on a personal and professional basis with a rare work ethic preparing horses to a high standard. He is regarded as an excellent horseman and as a very promising young person for the Racing Industry who conducts himself in all aspects of his work professionally and is always respectful and well mannered. [33] Due to matters beyond his control the Respondent’s personal circumstances changed and at the age of 20 established his own business with his mother involving horse breeding and training to provide financial assistance to members of his family in September 2021. [34] If the Respondent’s Licence was suspended for any length of time he would be unable to continue with his business which is solely reliant on the Thoroughbred Racing Industry. He would suffer extreme hardship. [35] An apology letter from the Respondent to NZTR has been provided. [36] His Counsel submits that in view of the Respondent’s age and corresponding lack of wisdom, his early admission of guilt, future in the industry and the probability that a suspension will cause extreme hardship to him and his family, a substantial fine should be imposed with no suspension. [37] In the alternative, if a suspension is imposed, it should be suspended for a period of 12 months with the proviso that the Respondent does not breach any Rules of the NZTR during that time. [38] If a period of suspension must be imposed, it should be limited to a period of one month and a moderate fine in accordance with RIB v Hewetson be imposed. OUTCOME [39] As the Adjudicative Committee held in RIB v Keegan, this is a case “where a crucial document has been falsified and presented (used or “altered”) to achieve an advantage and intended to breach the Rules of Racing and to deceive those charged with administering the Rules, such behaviour clearly falls into the category of serious misconduct. [40] All Trainers enjoy the privilege of a Trainers Licence and with that privilege goes the duty to comply with the Rules of the Profession. [41] As a Licenceholder, the Respondent deliberately breached a Rule committing a “serious racing offence.” [42] The RIB referred to the Appeal Tribunal’s decision in RIU v L. In particular, that the penalties are designed to punish the offender for his wrongdoing but they are not meant to be retributive making the punishment disproportionate to the offence. [43] Importantly, in this case the Adjudicative Committee referred to the following criteria: • The need to punish a deliberate transgression of the Rules of Racing and mark the Tribunal’s condemnation of such behaviour. • The need to protect the profession and the public, and to promote confidence in the integrity of the profession. • To deter not only the offender, but others in the profession who might be tempted to breach the Rule. • In this case, as the Adjudicative Committee said in RIU v Keegan: “There is the vital consideration that Racing only has been able to take place, in some form, if the Government conditions are met and honoured by the participants. Any betrayal of the NZTR’s requirements, which is manifestly damaging the whole Industry is especially egregious. [44] The aggravating features of the Respondent’s breach of the Rules include: • He created a fake vaccination passport intending to use it so as to deceive others in the Code. • The actual fraudulent use of it on 3 January 2022, to secure a fraudulent advantage. [45] The mitigating factors relevant in the Respondent’s case are significant. • He is a young man aged 20 years with the corresponding lack of maturity. • Through no fault of his own, he assumed onerous financial and personal responsibilities for others and was subject to very significant stressors when he made an error of judgment. • His livelihood is dependent on income derived from his involvement in the Industry. • Although he has only been licensed to train for a relatively short time, the references provided as to his character and ability are relevant. • He admitted the breach at the first available opportunity and apologised to the NZTR. • He has not previously incurred any breaches. • He is genuinely remorseful. [46] The RIB submitted the following cases as being comparable: RIB v Swann (Mar 2022) – Licence to Train -Suspended 3 months and $1000 fine. RIB v Keegan (Feb 2022) – Licence to train – Suspended 4 months and $4000 fine. RIB v Hewetson (Dec 2021) – fined $2400. RIB v Harvey (Dec 2021) – fined $2700. [47] The facts in Swann and Keegan are comparable. The circumstances of Hewetson and Harvey are quite different and are of limited value in terms of determining an appropriate penalty relative to offending and culpability. However, both highlight the relative impacts of disqualification or suspension and fine. CONCLUSION: [48] The RIB submits that the penalty should be slightly more than that imposed on Ms Keegan. [49] However, the Adjudicative Committee in RIB v Keegan referred to an additional aggravating factor in Ms Keegan’s offending, in particular. Ms Keegan’s initial attempts to deflect the inquiries of the Investigator where it was not a mistake or error of judgment. Ms Keegan had also held a Trainer’s Licence for 14 years. [50] With regard to the Respondent’s offending it is less serious than Ms Keegan’s for these reasons. In the Respondent’s case his offending was an error of judgment due to his youth, his inexperience as a Licensed Trainer and the very significant personal and financial pressures he was subject to at the time. [51] However, as in RIB v Keegan “an order for suspension is required taking into account the interests of the profession or Racing and its continued protection, together with the need to deter other Licensees from ignoring NZTR Directives and policy and employing a fraudulent practice. The community and all who are Licenced to participate in racing should know that such behaviour cannot be minimised nor will it be tolerated.” [52] Having regard to the submissions of the RIB and Counsel for the Respondent we take as a starting point for the suspension, a period of 3 months and a fine of $2,000. [53] As for mitigating factors we take into account the various matters referred to in particular the Respondent’s youth, his personal circumstances, his admission of the charge, his genuine remorse and the outstanding references as to his character, ability work ethic and integrity. [54] Taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we allow a discount in respect of both the suspension and fine. [55] We impose a suspension order of 2 months from the date of publication of this decision deferred for 2 weeks, to allow Mr K Pertab if he wishes, to make arrangements for another Licensed Trainer to take over training his horses. [56] Having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, we refer Mr K Pertab and his Counsel to Rule 1106(1)(a) of the Rules of Racing. The RIB does not seek costs which is appropriate in this case as this matter was dealt with on the papers. [57] We make the following orders: (a) Mr K Pertab’s Licence is suspended for 2 months commencing at 5:00 pm 2 weeks after the publication of this decision (7 June 2022) and to conclude at 5:00 pm on 7 August 2022. (b) Mr K Pertab is fined $1,500. DATED the 23rd Day of May 2022 JH Lovell-Smith (Chair)

RV secures land three times size of Flemington www.racenet.com.au Racing Victoria has signed off on land – three times the size of Flemington racecourse – near Melbourne Airport to future proof the industry. The actual land size and price paid, subject to strict confidentiality provisions and due diligence, will be released by RV, following a three-month process to start shortly. Victoria Racing Club, while not financially involved in the transaction, played a significant role in negotiations with the vendor. The land is less than 10 minutes from Melbourne Airport and close to Living Legends, home of retired champions including Cup winners Prince Of Penzance, Almandin, Efficient, Rogan Josh and Brew. The actual long-term future use of the land, contrary to speculation, has yet to be determined. All potential future options will be the subject to extensive consultation and planning in coming years. The farming land has the potential to be developed for many purposes, including a new training centre, a new racetrack, equine welfare programs, quarantine facilities and workforce development and education. Outgoing RV chief executive Giles Thompson is pleased to have secured the “significant parcel of land”. Racing Victoria chief Giles Thompson says the land purchase will “future proof our industry. Picture: Hamish Blair “This land helps future proof our industry and delivers a valuable asset for Victorian racing,” Thompson said. “Its size and location provide the industry with a number of potential uses which will be workshopped and planned in the years to come. “Any development of the land will only occur following a detailed feasibility and planning process involving extensive consultation with all our key industry stakeholders.” RV’s highly-anticipated infrastructure ‘green paper’ will be released in coming weeks. The publication will consider the racing and training needs of the Victorian industry for the next decade. RV is seeking to finalise an infrastructure blueprint for Victorian racing by mid-2023.

Hardly NZ bred apart from the Oaks Stud input. By a USA bred sire in Red Ransom and out of an Irish mare Fairy Lights. Have there been many Japanese race track performing stallions to make it in NZ? Genuine question as I don't know. Shinko King was one that did very well here. An upgrader who didn't need black type mares. My Grp3 winner being an example.

Are you suggesting The Oaks Stud marketing and promotion wasn't up to scratch? Nothing to do with his progeny? Incidentally, not being a thoroughbred breeding expert like some, has there been a Japanese Stallion that has had progeny perform well in NZ? Maybe this one might make it. https://www.richhillstud.co.nz/stallions/satono-aladdin

I doubt that that is a problem for those that haven't been charged. I'm sure the jungle drums have done their work within the industry and the wider community in the locations named. It just has that INCA stink about it where the modus operandi is "if we (RIB) can't get you on what we are are tasked with policing then we'll get you some other way".

Well it doesn't take a Private Detective to join the dots. No names please posters. Some protagonists are calling for those involved to be stood down immediately. HRNZ will be hesitant to do that given the precedent set during the INCA debacle.

Horse trainer who allegedly sexually abused a young woman appears in court 25/05/2022 A 25-year-old horse trainer and a 29-year-old driver appeared in court on Wednesday jointly charged with the indecent assault of a young woman during New Zealand Cup and Show week in November. Horse trainer who allegedly sexually abused a young woman appears in court A horse trainer who allegedly sexually abused a woman during last year's New Zealand Cup and Show week in Canterbury will keep his name secret for now. The 25-year-old appeared in the Christchurch District Court on Wednesday charged with indecently assaulting a young woman. He is jointly charged with a 29-year-old harness racing driver. The 25-year-old faces six charges: aggravated assault, assault, dishonestly acquiring a vehicle, and three counts of indecent assault. It is understood the charges relate to an incident that happened at a private training stables in November last year. The 25-year-old’s duty lawyer, Sabrina Forrester, requested interim name suppression and a three-week remand so the man could seek his own private representation. Police opposed name suppression. Judge Brian Callaghan granted interim name suppression and remanded the man on bail to June 15. The horse trainer’s bail conditions included that he must not contact any witnesses outside work hours or discuss the case with them at any time. The 29-year-old man has had his case transferred to the Invercargill District Court. A police officer earlier said more needed to be done to stop a small group of trainers from exploiting a power imbalance that existed in the industry. Speaking generally, Detective Sergeant Daniel Isherwood said it was clear from his inquiries and observations that the harness racing industry had a problem it needed to address. “A lack of employment contracts, coupled with young women who are motivated to progress their careers has unfortunately created an environment a small number of trainers have chosen to exploit. “Trainers are in a position of power and really need to take a hard look at what they are doing to ensure a safe workplace.”

If they are subsidising anything it is Stakes. Why shouldn't the RIB be able to fund itself by charging for its services? Some tracks/clubs make a profit on their activities without getting handouts and are able to keep up with their maintenance costs. Would a Corporation close down profitable business production sub-units and invest in new non-profitable production activities? Then spend realised capital to sustain operating costs? Yeah na!

Are you a retired jockey?

Horse trainer argues Cobalt doping should be allowed24 May, 2022 10:02 AM3 minutes to read Peter McKenzie pictured with his horse Lord Monty in 2008. Credit:NZPA / Ross Setford By Jeremy Wilkinson A horse trainer who was fined over $20,000 after doping his horse with cobalt has argued that the substance should be allowed in the sport. Cobalt is a substance that naturally occurs in horses, but when injected it has a similar properties to erythropoietin - or EPO - which was perhaps made most-famous by cyclist Lance Armstrong. Cobalt helps increase the production of red blood cells which means more oxygen can be carried throughout the body, allowing for greater feats of endurance. In June 2019 after a race at Trentham Racecourse, Peter McKenzie's horse Happy Star tested positive for elevated levels of the substance and the trainer was subsequently fined by the Racing Integrity Unit (Now the Racing Integrity Board). McKenzie, who's based in Horowhenua, has now appealed that fine on the grounds that cobalt should not be a prohibited substance. "Cobalt never did, does not and never will alter the performance of a racehorse," he said in his submissions. "A rule based on a substance with no efficacy tests, no trials, no local or international discussion predetermining the need for the rule." "Nowhere was there science to justify the introduction of the rule". McKenzie went on to say the situation was a "sick joke" and even asked the chairman of the board to recuse himself. Dr Alison Vaughan is the SPCA's Scientific Officer and said cobalt use in horses had known negative health consequences. "Research shows the horses become agitated with nostrils flaring, pawing at the ground, and they have been shown to have issues concerning their hearts," she said. "In a nutshell it's not good for them. We do know that it does impact their welfare." Vaughan said as far as the SPCA was concerned it didn't matter whether cobalt increased the performance of horses in racing. "It's not tolerated anywhere and there's a good reason. It causes welfare harm and people shouldn't be using it." The Racing Inquiry Board dismissed McKenzie's appeal and ordered that the fines he incurred from doping his horse would stand. "It is acknowledged that there is a difference of opinion within the scientific and veterinary communities in relation to what effect, if any Cobalt may have upon the performance of a thoroughbred horse," it said in its decision. "It is worth noting that Cobalt at different levels, is a prohibited substance across thoroughbred racing around the world." McKenzie told the board that the way the rule to ban cobalt in New Zealand was flawed. However, the board doesn't actually have the power to change the rule. The rules are made by the board of New Zealand Track Racing and the Racing Inquiry Board's function is to investigate and enforce breaches of the rules the NZTR make - not to change, amend or delete them. "The plain fact is that the Rule is in place and has been applied in a number of cases in recent years, some involving prominent trainers and such cases have received widespread publicity," the board said. "These cases are known to the Tribunal and in none of those has it been argued that Cobalt was not a performance-enhancing substance, nor was it argued that the rule should not be applied". https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/horse-trainer-argues-cobalt-doping-should-be-allowed/6GG2LBBWHFCNMSDKG2LGZOMXAA/

Keep up @Brodie he already is training gallopers and not doing too badly either.

Of course we still have not seen the business plan or the business model that these AWT's are being measured by. If you invest substantial new capital into a greenfield's (excuse the pun) operation then surely the business plan would be, at the very least to return revenue proportional to the relative cost when compared to other tracks e.g. if the operation of most tracks in NZ return revenue to cover say 70% of costs then that same metric should apply to the AWT's. I really doubt that the AWT's will do that particularly the Awapuni and Riccarton one's where the horses in training is substantially smaller than Cambridge. It is also misleading to suggest that Pokies are subsidising the tracks and clubs as I understand it the majority of that revenue goes directly to the new RIB behemoth. So the top up comes from Sports and Imported races assuming that no NZ race track pays its way. Both sources of income have downward pressures and can't be relied on to meet the top up requirements. So arguably any new capital investment in tracks should have as a business model foundation an objective of paying its way! The AWT's are a high cost model of operation meanwhile perfectly good tracks with capital already sunk (invested) and low maintenance costs are being mothballed and/or underutilised. Contrary to popular opinion some (most) clubs actually do make profits sufficient to cover their maintenance costs. I read a number of Club annual reports during lockdown (I hate that word!) and many had activities that supplement the racing. I can't recall exactly but I think Riverton was one such club where livestock farming was an adjunct source of income. So the brains trust says close these courses down and reinvest the money in a bigger better track that runs on a higher cost model further up the road....somewhere.... With the dream that hospitality will do better than sheep or crops!

So what's changed? Every major track is still as you describe. Meanwhile safe, consistent winter tracks are being mothballed or made redundant.

Election year next year. Should we start lobbying for another bail out? Or are the Philistines already doing it?

Do you think Gendall did the research? Did it need to be done? If Gendall did it himself what does an ex Judge QC charge per hour?

She's a nice horse. Can run time. She hasn't paid her way for her owners but she has more than paid her way industry wise. I remember an occasion on the Nelson/Marlborough circuit where an old owner/trainer had his first win after 20 years of trying. He and everyone else celebrated well into the night. Such is the SPORT!

I might add there was never a business plan just a political pork barrel plan. Bit like Winston's other pork barrel plan - the $1 million races. They all ended in tears too!

Better track. Paced all the way. Worked the hardest in the race and nearly got there. Turned the corner @Brodie and @Davis?

Exactly @Huey! If these AWT's don't increase revenue to not only cover their operation and maintenance but also increase stakes then what is the point of them? If they are succeeding in providing increase revenue why aren't we seeing the data to support that? Surely the powers that be would be crowing from the stand tops (those that are left)! No all we hear are crickets.

Shouldn't that have been a key metric i.e. increase revenue? Otherwise how do you cover ongoing maintenance and operating costs? Are they providing "an excellent year round training facility"? My understanding is the AWT's require regular maintenance to ensure a good consistent and safe training surface. From what I have heard that isn't happening. If it is it is at the expense (note EXPENSE) of the main turf tracks. Your second point "to take pressure off the diminishing number of grass tracks over winter" is an objective not driven by necessity but by a political agenda or rather the fact that good winter grass race and training tracks are being closed to acquire funding to pay for the maintenance of the AWT's. Putting aside the punter perspective and the maintenance issues the AWT's fail on a number of strategic points. Are they "Clean and Green" i.e. environmentally sustainable?