Chief Stipe

But how do we know that it isn't made up? Meanwhile no news out of RIB and no action or comment from HRNZ. Clements runs out the standard Police line - "No comment while investigations are ongoing".

I said he "may" struggle especially initially. For a start he will have to adjust to the closed system regime and probably do some tasks that are done for him at TA. In my opinion the TA strike rate from raids to OZ haven't been as high as they should be. As for quoting a Jockey's opinion, I've never taken any notice of their opinions on horses and trainers.

So the "inside bend" will go when the AWT is installed?

Is he a member of the Harness Racing Owners Federation? For that matter are you and do you have access to their Facebook page?

He may struggle in Hong Kong but I guess on the positive side of things the invitation from the HKJC puts to bed any lingering rumours about the TA operation. I'm sure the HKJC were very thorough in their due diligence.

It's not a Premier Meeting is it? Well not in quality.

Pzifer is giving babies THREE doses of the vaccine because any less doesn't develop an immune response! This is in children who have robust and highly responsive immune systems. Who I might add have zero risk of serious illness or death from Covid! ___________ Pfizer's child-sized vaccine fails to produce expected immunity in younger kids; company adds third dose to trials By Maggie Fox and Virginia Langmaid, CNN Updated Dec 18, 2021 (CNN) - Vaccine maker Pfizer said Friday that trials of its vaccine in children ages 2 to 5 show it did not provide the expected immunity in kids this age and it is adding a third dose to the regimen. The company decided to add the third dose for all children and babies ages 6 months to 5 years after its independent outside advisers took a look at the data so far. It showed that two child-sized doses of the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine was not producing the expected immunity in the 2- to 5-year-olds, although it was doing so for the babies up to age 2. So the company said it would "amend" the trial to add a third dose. "The study will now include evaluating a third dose of 3 micrograms at least two months after the second dose of the two-dose series to provide high levels of protection in this young age group," it said. Pfizer had taken the dosage size down for children. For the 12 and up age group, the dose is 30 micrograms of vaccine. Pfizer and BioNTech stepped this down to 10 micrograms for kids 5 to 11, and took it even lower, to 3 micrograms a dose, for the youngest children. Early tests had indicated this small dose would produce a strong immune response in the children and minimize the risk of side effects. But the interim data -- which the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board can see without giving details to the company or investigators -- indicates this small dose regimen did not produce the expected immune response in the 2- to 5-year-olds. "No safety concerns were identified and the 3 microgram dose demonstrated a favorable safety profile in children 6 months to under 5 years of age," Pfizer said in a statement. "The decision to evaluate a third dose of 3 micrograms for children 6 months to under 5 years of age reflects the companies' commitment to carefully select the right dose to maximize the risk-benefit profile," it added. "If the three-dose study is successful, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to submit data to regulators to support an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for children 6 months to under 5 years of age in the first half of 2022." The company will also test third doses in older children, who do not yet have authorization for booster doses of vaccine. Kids ages 5 to 11 and 12 to 15 will get full-dose third shots in the trials. TM & © 2021 Cable News Network, Inc. A WarnerMedia Company. All Rights Reserved.

So is the inside bend the old bend fixed or a new bend to be used while the new old one is fixed? Why is the new bend which I assume was purpose built no up to scratch? What is the reason for the "surface being unusable for safety reasons"? Is it by any chance the fact that the rating of the new bend is substantially different to the rest of the track?

Is this another INCA unfolding?

The results are posted on a website separate to the App. Both were running slow or not at all early this morning. Might have been caused by @Huey and @Brodie loading up their accounts.

This is only a short term fix using mechanical means to aeorate the soil. A sign the soil structure is stuffed and lacking organic matter. No doubt they'll pump more sand in.

Might be a bit of a let down! Maybe he'll head up the OZ operation. Yep - sort of. Mark McNamara from Moruya, NSW - went from calling in the bush to be NZ's mainly South Island commentator. Or you might have been listening to Tom Wood who is definitely a New Zealander. He is good too and started put in NZ. https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/article/2162217/new-hong-kong-racecallers-humble-beginnings-id-make-my-brother-run Then again I might have it all wrong as it has been a while since I watched the Hong Kong races.

Mark Walker Returns to NZ – Jamie Richards Invited to Train in Hong Kong 17 DEC 2021 Te Akau’s Mark Walker, nine-time Champion trainer, is set to return to New Zealand to once again lead Te Akau’s New Zealand operation. Te Akau Racing can confirm that the five-time New Zealand and four-time Singapore Champion trainer will return in the New Year with current Te Akau New Zealand trainer Jamie Richards being invited by the Hong Kong Jockey Club to join its training ranks in 2022. Te Akau Principal David Ellis CNZM said: “We are delighted on two fronts – firstly it is an honour that Te Akau’s New Zealand trainer Jamie Richards has been invited to train in Hong Kong on the back of his success with Te Akau Racing. Jamie commenced his training career in May 2015 – it all started with Te Akau and I am certainly very proud that his, and the stable’s, success has been recognised internationally. It’s an incredible and rare opportunity for this young New Zealander and we all wish him every success as he pursues his dream of being the world’s best trainer. “I sat down with Jamie in 2014 when he was Te Akau’s Racing Manager and asked him what he wanted to do in the industry. He told me he wanted to be a trainer. I said: ‘if you want to be a successful trainer, work hard and give your career your heart and soul. If you do, I will support you every step of the way, and give you every opportunity’. Jamie has a great work ethic, he took up that challenge. The rest is history: the results the Te Akau team has achieved are well known – last season we broke every New Zealand record – wins (160), stakes’ wins (36 NZ/4 Australia), Group 1 wins (15) and prize money (almost $8 million) won for owners.” Jamie Richards commented: “Being invited to train in Hong Kong is an incredible honour and it’s a dream come true to challenge myself against some of the world’s best. I owe so much to David (Ellis CNZM), Mark (Walker) and Karyn (Fenton-Ellis MNZM), there is no doubt that without Te Akau I would not be where I am today or have this international opportunity. They believed in me, mentored me, and surrounded me with a truly amazing team, as well as the very best of bloodstock, enabling me to develop my skill and passion as a trainer. “I am a proud New Zealander, and I won’t forget how New Zealand and leading Te Akau Racing has shaped me. I can’t wait to fly the Kiwi flag and be the very best ambassador possible for our industry in Hong Kong.” Mark Walker’s return to New Zealand comes after 11 very successful years at the helm of Te Akau Singapore. He has been Champion Trainer there four times in the past six years, to add to his major New Zealand achievements. Mark Walker said: “I am very excited to be returning to New Zealand to work with quality bloodstock again, alongside a world class team of people. I enjoy educating yearlings and seeing them develop into racehorses. In Singapore we have ‘ready-made’ racehorses so returning to work with these youngsters, as well as the calibre of Te Akau’s older horses, will give me enormous satisfaction. “I have remained closely involved in Te Akau’s New Zealand operation while being in Singapore and with the quality of horses David (Ellis) buys, it’s wonderful to be involved with the New Zealand industry again. “ Walker, who has worked for David Ellis since he left school, and is today a partner in the Te Akau operation, still holds a number of New Zealand training records: When he won his first NZ Trainers’ Premiership, he was the youngest trainer ever to do so. Before relocating to establish Te Akau’s Singapore stable in 2010, he set a New Zealand record for the highest number of two-year-old wins in a season (23) with 16 individual two-year-olds – this record stands today. In 2010 he established a new record for wins in a season, beating the previous 17-year record. New Zealand has only staged two $2 million races – he trained the winner (Princess Coup) of both. He trained many elite Group 1 winning racehorses including King’s Chapel, Maroofity, Darci Brahma, Distinctly Secret and Princess Coup – the latter still holding the New Zealand record for domestic prizemoney won. David Ellis continued: “Mark Walker is an outstanding trainer who has been working with me since he was 18. He must be one of the only trainers in the world to win nine Trainers’ Premierships across two countries. He is an exceptional training talent, one of the finest horsemen you will ever find, and with Mark back at the helm, you can be assured that Te Akau will continue to play a major role in the industry. We have big plans.” The news of Mark Walker returning to New Zealand and Jamie Richards taking up an invitation to train in Hong Kong has been applauded by the industry: Cambridge Stud’s Brendan Lindsay MNZM said: “The news of Jamie being offered a position in Hong Kong comes as no surprise to those of us who have been closely involved at Te Akau. Outside the success he has brought to Cambridge Stud, his results have been spectacular, and he was certain to be on their radar as a special talent. While Hong Kong remains a challenging environment for any trainer, Jamie is well up to it and we support him and his move there and wish him every success.” Cambridge Stud CEO Henry Plumptre added: “We are very pleased that Jamie will be replaced at Te Akau by his old mentor, Mark Walker. Mark was a champion trainer in his own right for Te Akau and has continued that success with a stellar career in Singapore. No-one knows the Te Akau system better than him and we are looking forward to working with him. I have enormous respect for him both as a person and a trainer. He will be a huge asset back in New Zealand.” Sir Peter Vela, owner of New Zealand Bloodstock: “It’s great to hear that New Zealand Champion Trainer Mark Walker, having left New Zealand to establish the operation in Singapore, is returning home to the Te Akau team, he will be a wonderful addition to the New Zealand training ranks.” Te Akau Racing will continue to have a significant presence in Singapore, with Donna Logan now part of the team. Te Akau and Fortuna horses at Kranji will come under the care of the respected New Zealand and Singapore Group 1 winning trainer – “I am so looking forward to training the beautiful new bloodstock I have been entrusted with”. It is expected that Jamie Richards will relocate to Hong Kong in May 2022 to prepare for the new season, with Mark Walker returning to New Zealand early in 2022.

If he isn't suspended on what grounds do they stop him from racing his horses?

Geez how do you keep silent? Probably post on a zillion forums!

Has Jones had a horse to the races since the Johnny Nevits scratching? Is his license suspended?

The RIB is also determining whether charges will be laid after a horse was suspected of being administered with a prohibited substance before being scratched from a race at Addington last Friday. Johnny Nevits, one of two horses injected with embalming fluid by disgraced former trainer Jesse Alford earlier this year, was scheduled to run in a New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting. However, the horse was scratched after RIB investigators raided the Woodend headquarters of trainer and junior driver Cam Jones, who took over the care of Johnny Nevits after Alford was banned for seven years in May. Johnny Nevits was scratched by stewards under rule of racing 213 (1) (c), which relates to horses that have had or may have had a prohibited substance administered. Under HRNZ rules horses are not allowed to be administered any substance on race day. The Star understands a syringe was found by investigators and it is believed another harness racing trainer was at the stables at the time and is assisting with the inquiry. He hung up when called by The Star for comment. RIB chief executive Mike Clement would not comment on specifics of the investigation. “When the investigation is complete a decision will be made in respect of the basis for any charge under the racing rules,” he said.

Thursday, 16 December 2021 Addington Raceway official may face sanctions An assistant starter at Addington Raceway is facing possible sanctions after being charged with betting on races at New Zealand Trotting Cup Day. Photo: George Heard / NZ Herald An assistant starter at Addington Raceway is awaiting possible sanctions after being charged with betting on races during New Zealand Trotting Cup Day last month. Sharon Donnelly was charged with an offence under Rule 310 of the Harness Racing New Zealand Rules, which stipulates no person acting as a starter or start’s assistant can bet on any race at any race meeting where they are officiating. Donnelly, the wife of Addington Raceway starter Ricky Donnelly, faced an Racing Integrity Board hearing last Friday, where a panel reserved its decision. It is believed the investigation followed an unsuccessful all-up bet on two horses during the November 9 meeting. The RIB is also determining whether charges will be laid after a horse was suspected of being administered with a prohibited substance before being scratched from a race at Addington last Friday. Johnny Nevits, one of two horses injected with embalming fluid by disgraced former trainer Jesse Alford earlier this year, was scheduled to run in a New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting. However, the horse was scratched after RIB investigators raided the Woodend headquarters of trainer and junior driver Cam Jones, who took over the care of Johnny Nevits after Alford was banned for seven years in May. Johnny Nevits was scratched by stewards under rule of racing 213 (1) (c), which relates to horses that have had or may have had a prohibited substance administered. Under HRNZ rules horses are not allowed to be administered any substance on race day. The Star understands a syringe was found by investigators and it is believed another harness racing trainer was at the stables at the time and is assisting with the inquiry. He hung up when called by The Star for comment. RIB chief executive Mike Clement would not comment on specifics of the investigation. “When the investigation is complete a decision will be made in respect of the basis for any charge under the racing rules,” he said. Alford was banned after investigators caught him injecting two horses – Johnny Nevits and Jimmy Cannon – with the prohibited substance formalin on February 25, two hours before they were due to race at Addington. Formalin is used to prevent bleeding. Meanwhile, an amateur harness racing driver was suspended until April 7, 2022 and fined $400 for her drive during a Timaru Harness Racing Club race at Phar Lap Raceway on October 3. Colleen Negus was penalised after Dreaminsover was deemed to have challenged for lead prematurely before the horse, trained by her husband Bruce, weakened to finish ninth in the 10-strong field, 13.8 lengths behind the winner. Her failure to give the horse respite meant she breached Rule 868 (2) by driving in a manner well short of what would reasonably be expected of a driver in her position. Clerk of the course Craig Wiggins told the panel he heard Andrew Fitzgerald, at the reins of leader The Naenae Express, yell “Don’t do it Colleen don’t do it” while shaking his head as the field passed the 1800m mark. Negus denied the breach but in the RIB’s view she unreasonably overraced her horse. Stewards had called for a 24-drive suspension – amateurs are calculated to have two drives per month – meaning she would be suspended for 12 months. They also sought a $1000 fine for what they considered a mid-range breach. But the RIB panel determined a 12-month suspension “would be manifestly harsh”. Negus was suspended from December 6 up to and including April 6, 2022. - By Chris Barclay

Penalty reduced on appeal from 3 months to 2 months.

Has anyone else noticed the TAB NZ Website (Form Hub and Results) and the phone App are slow? For a time this morning the App couldn't make a connection to the TAB system. Been happening a bit lately. I don't have any problems with any other App or Website.

Just asking.

The end of the pandemic will not be televised BMJ 2021; 375 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068094 (Published 14 December 2021)Cite this as: BMJ 2021;375:e068094 David Robertson, doctoral candidate1, Peter Doshi, associate professor2 Author affiliations Dashboards of pandemic statistics have dominated screens and helped to track covid-19, but David Robertson and Peter Doshi explain why they might not be enough to define its end As the year 2021 started, the covid-19 pandemic seemed to be receding. Discussions and predictions about “opening up,” a return to “normal,” and achieving herd immunity were in the air.1234 But for many, optimism receded as cases and deaths surged in India, Brazil, and elsewhere. Attention turned to SARS-CoV-2 virus variants—most recently, the emergence of omicron. Just as the end seemed to be on the horizon, it was interrupted by a foreboding that the pandemic could be a long way from over.56 Unlike any previous pandemic, covid-19 has been closely tracked through dashboards that aim to show the real time movement and effect of coronavirus; they track laboratory testing metrics, hospital and intensive care admissions, transmission rates, and, most recently, vaccine doses delivered. These dashboards—with their panels of numbers, statistics, epidemic curves, and heat maps—have dominated our televisions, computers, and smartphones. At their core is the allure of objectivity and data to grasp onto in the midst of uncertainty and fear. They have helped populations conceptualise a need for rapid containment and control,7 directing public sentiment, fuelling pressure for countermeasures, and maintaining an aura of emergency.7 They offer a sense of control when cases are coming down following certain countermeasures but can also drive a sense of helplessness and impending catastrophe when cases rise. Problems defining pandemic endings There is no universal definition of the epidemiological parameters of the end of a pandemic. By what metric, then, will we know that it is actually over? The World Health Organization declared the covid-19 pandemic, but who will tell us when it’s over? The ubiquity of dashboards has helped create a sense that the pandemic will be over when the dashboard indicators all reach either zero (infections, cases, deaths) or 100 (percentage vaccinated). However, respiratory pandemics of the past century show that endings are not clear cut, and that pandemic closure is better understood as occurring with the resumption of social life, not the achievement of specific epidemiological targets.89 Respiratory pandemics of the past 130 years have been followed by annual seasonal waves fuelled by viral endemicity that typically continues until the next pandemic.10 What goes down comes back up, and the difficulty in dating the end of a pandemic is reflected in the historical and epidemiological literature. Although many scholars describe the “Spanish flu” as occurring across three waves from “1918 to 1919,” references to the “1918 to 1920” pandemic are also abundant, usually capturing what some call a “fourth wave.”11 Similarly, the mid-century “Asian flu” pandemic is generally described as a two wave event from 1957 to 1958, but others include a third wave, placing the pandemic’s end in 1959.12 This variability in dating historical pandemics highlights the imprecise nature of using death rates to determine, even retrospectively, the “end” of a pandemic and the start of the inter-pandemic period. For example, CDC today states that around 100 000 Americans died in each of the 1957 and 1968 influenza pandemics.1314 But these estimates include deaths taking place at times most would consider to be between pandemics (1957-1960 and 1968-1972, respectively).1516 The notion, reinforced by dashboards, that a pandemic ends when cases or deaths drop to zero is at odds with the historical evidence that substantial influenza morbidity and mortality continues to occur, season after season, between pandemics. In the inter-pandemic season of 1928-29, for example, over 100 000 excess deaths related to influenza A/H1N1 (the 1918 pandemic virus) are estimated to have occurred in the United States in a population one third the size of today’s.17 Furthermore, it can be challenging to discern which deaths can be attributed to the pandemic and which belong in the inter-pandemic period. The distinctions are not trivial, as excess mortality is the classic metric for assessing severity.1618 Inter-pandemic years have sometimes had higher death tolls than the pandemic seasons that followed, such as the 1946-47 season that preceded the 1957-58 pandemic season (fig 1).19 Hence, a pandemic’s end cannot be defined by the absence of excess deaths associated with the pandemic pathogen. Fig 1 Monthly all cause death rate in the US, with arrows and bold dates indicating the beginning of pandemics, Jan 1900 to Sept 2021. The red line indicates a 12 month moving average. Note that from 1905 to 1909, the US Bureau of the Census provided only annual data (not monthly) Download figure Open in new tab Download powerpoint Interruption and resumption of social life Another way we might declare the end of a pandemic is by considering the imposition and lifting of public health measures or restrictions. Measures used in previous pandemics have been more fleeting and less intrusive than those that have been used in covid-19. Even for the catastrophic Spanish flu—which killed three times more people per population in the US than covid-19, with an average age of death of 28 years20—lives returned to normal in a short time, perhaps only because there was no other option. In an era before the internet, food delivery apps, and video meetings, widespread and prolonged social distancing was simply not possible, a situation that remains the case today for many workers deemed “essential.” Indeed, a brief look at past pandemics in the US shows there is no fixed or deterministic relation between the pathogenicity of a virus and the intensity and longevity of public health interventions. By comparison with previous pandemics, the covid-19 pandemic has produced unprecedented disruption to social life. People have long experienced the tragedy of sickness and unexpected death in pandemic and non-pandemic years, but the covid-19 pandemic is historically unique in the extent to which the interruption and resumption of social life has been so closely tied to epidemiological metrics (box 1). Box 1 Contrasting historical approaches to pandemic respiratory viruses 1918 “Spanish flu” In 1918, the pandemic’s first wave was mild and “attracted relatively little attention.”11 In response to the second wave, which “scorched its way around the globe,” some cities in the US implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions such as school closures and restrictions on public gatherings. Most countermeasures were relaxed within two to eight weeks, and the disruption of social life was relatively short lived.21 John Barry, a leading historian studying the 1918 pandemic, explained: “the whole thing was very swift.” Unlike covid-19, he said, “the stress was not continuous,” noting that many places experienced “several months of relative normalcy” between waves.22 New York and Chicago, the country’s two largest cities, never officially closed their schools despite Chicago schools reaching an absenteeism rate of nearly 50%. Where schools closed, they stayed shut for a median of four weeks (range 1-10 weeks).23 1957 “Asian flu” The 1957 “Asian flu” pandemic reached American shores around mid-year. Over the course of the next nine months, which included two waves in late 1957 and early 1958, an estimated “80 million Americans were bedridden with respiratory disease.”24 In the first wave about 60% of schoolchildren were sick, and rates of absenteeism reached 20-30%.25 Yet even when it was estimated that 40% of pupils in some New York schools were absent with influenza, the city’s superintendent of schools advised that there was “no cause for alarm and, on the advice of the Health Department, we have curtailed no activities.”26 By late October, college football matches around the country were being cancelled because many players were ill. Team managers scrambled, lining up last minute replacements, and ultimately no major contests were cancelled.27 As during the Spanish flu, the health effect of the new H2N2 virus did not end when the 1957 pandemic was “over.” In 1960, Newsweek reported that “without the fanfare of two years ago [the] Asian-flu virus was quietly picking off almost everyone it missed the first time around.”28 Early that year it was estimated that 20% of schoolchildren in Los Angeles— around 120 000 children—and over 15% of industrial workers were absent with influenza.28 Despite their size, these epidemiological impacts did not usher in a sense that society had slipped back into a pandemic. 1968 “Hong Kong flu” A decade later another pandemic virus arrived that officials later estimated killed one million globally. But its impact on public health interventions and social life was minimal. Historian John Barry writes that for the US, “the episode was not significantly deadlier than a typical bad flu season,” noting that “few people who lived through it even knew it occurred.”29 Historian Mark Honigsbaum points out that “while at the height of the outbreak in December, 1968, the New York Times described the pandemic as “one of the worst in the nation’s history,” there were few school closures and businesses, for the most part, continued to operate as normal.”30 RETURN TO TEXT Dashboards—fighting or fuelling the pandemic? While visual depictions of epidemics have existed for centuries,31 covid-19 is the first one in which real time dashboards have saturated and structured the public’s experience. Some historians have observed that pandemics do not conclude when disease transmission ends “but rather when, in the attention of the general public and in the judgment of certain media and political elites who shape that attention, the disease ceases to be newsworthy.”8 Pandemic dashboards provide endless fuel, ensuring the constant newsworthiness of the covid-19 pandemic, even when the threat is low. In doing so, they might prolong the pandemic by curtailing a sense of closure or a return to pre-pandemic life. Deactivating or disconnecting ourselves from the dashboards may be the single most powerful action towards ending the pandemic. This is not burying one’s head in the sand. Rather, it is recognising that no single or joint set of dashboard metrics can tell us when the pandemic is over. The end of the pandemic will not be brought to you History suggests that the end of the pandemic will not simply follow the attainment of herd immunity or an official declaration, but rather it will occur gradually and unevenly as societies cease to be all consumed by the pandemic’s shocking metrics. Pandemic ending is more of a question of lived experience, and thus is more of a sociological phenomenon than a biological one. And thus dashboards—which do not measure mental health, educational impact, and the denial of close social bonds—are not the tool that will tell us when the pandemic will end. Indeed, considering how societies have come to use dashboards, they may be a tool that helps prevent a return to normal. Pandemics—at least respiratory viral pandemics—simply do not end in a manner amenable to being displayed on dashboards. Far from a dramatic “end,” pandemics gradually fade as society adjusts to living with the new disease agent and social life returns to normal. As an extraordinary period in which social life was upturned, the covid-19 pandemic will be over when we turn off our screens and decide that other issues are once again worthy of our attention. Unlike its beginning, the end of the pandemic will not be televised. Footnotes Contributors and sources: DR is a doctoral candidate in the history of science at Princeton University. He has published on the history of medicine and infectious disease epidemiology. PD has maintained a scholarly interest in the science and politics of infectious disease epidemics for nearly two decades, focusing primarily on influenza. Both authors contributed equally to the research and analytical aspects of the article and both were responsible for sourcing secondary sources relating to covid-19 and the history of influenza pandemics. Primary and popular media sources from newspapers and elsewhere were largely sourced by DR. PD handled the allcause mortality data. Data and code for the figure are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764277. DR and PD are both guarantors. Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following: PD has received travel funds from the European Respiratory Society (2012) and Uppsala Monitoring Center (2018); grants from the FDA (through University of Maryland M-CERSI; 2020), Laura and John Arnold Foundation (2017-22), American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (2015), Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (2014-16), Cochrane Methods Innovations Fund (2016-18), and UK National Institute for Health Research (2011-14); and is an editor at The BMJ. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. References ↵ Is the worst of the pandemic over for Europe?Lancet Reg Health Eur2021;2:100077. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100077 pmid:34173635 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Really? You think this is innovative? Other clubs have been community hubs for decades but unfortunately they are not favoured as racing venues. Westland Racing Club springs to mind. That's why they gave their assets back to the community.

Send them a bill and explain why you are sending it. Also outline what your expectations are as an owner. Point out that they now have a COO and a new computer system to handle communication supposedly better than before. Now you can do that privately or post an open letter on BOAY.