Chief Stipe

I hope Tina knows you are on.

I guess this is a cryptic clue..... Colorado Star Lincoln Star Over the Moon or simply Way Above....

They must have a great Stipe training system - you can go from being a Trainee Stipendiary Steward to Raceday Chairman of Stewards in a just over a year. There must have been a lot of theoretical papers to sit based on video watching etc given the impact of pandemic lockdowns on real world racing. It would appear there was no "prior recognised learning" as would be the case with a licensed Jockey. Are Stipes licensed and/or have a structured trainined programme that is consistently repeatable and able to be reviewed? "Don't do as we do, do as we say?" Was it better in the good old days when some Stipes individually were past Jockey's or at the very least the Chief Stipe had been one? NZTR/RIB - you desire to impose standards, rules, regulations and licensing on those who provide the product that pays your wages but do you have your own house in order?

That's an incorrect observation. As @Freda posted most posters on this site have been repeatedly writing the same criticisms as De Lore. Arguably he has been late to the party having cheer led for Messara for some time. A few like @JJ Flashlikewise. Unfortunately NZTR and some clubs e.g. CJC have too much power and influence over rank and file stakeholders. That is they can make life and making ends meet very hard for the stakeholder on a day to day basis. Until those stakeholders sing off the same songsheet, commit to collective action and derail the gravy train it will keep on sucking the life out of the industry. The industry stakeholders don't need to get behind someone like De Lore they need to put aside briefly the individual competitive self interest and group together to take on Petone.

NZTR taking racing down the path of penury by Brian de Lore Published 7th January 2022 The thoroughbred racing industry in New Zealand continues to plot its own path to penury with hapless decision-making, a lack of empathy for the stakeholders, and an apparent inability to recognise ‘the fix’ or the changes required to make racing sustainable. The dawning of 2022 hasn’t thrown up any new hope, in my view, for a failing industry run by lightweights incapable of righting the course of the ship. Essentially, it comes back to leadership and the quality of the people in charge. Too many involved today have entered racing from the outside because of directors’ fees or the offer of an executive position with a hefty salary. It’s no longer about people with a racing passion. Whatever way you assess it, the system and structure is broken and badly needs a trip to the ‘The Repair Shop.’ Only a major overhaul will suffice; the Racing Act of 2020 is not the panacea Winston Peters said it would be – it opened the door for more government control and a faster decline. The narrative and tables that follow in this blog show conclusively that racing’s future is financially unsustainable with the current structure using the same people. The factual figures drawn from industry publications are uncontestable. They come from Size and Scope Reports, Annual Reports, Stallion Registers, etc. Let’s compare two figures and try and make sense of it. In 2004 we had 1,434 registered trainers, and the Racing Integrity Unit cost $1,188,214 for the season. In 2021 the number of registered trainers had reduced to 790, a decline of 44 percent. But the RIU, which is now the RIB, will cost $14.2 million this season – an increase of almost 1200 percent from 2004. Racing in the 2004 era didn’t particularly have an integrity problem out of the ordinary, and the scrutiny of trainers is only a tiny area of its jurisdiction, but how do you equate an almost halving of the number of trainers over 17 years during which time there’s a 12-times increase in the cost of integrity. Over-indulgence in the use of industry money for administrative expansion over and above putting it into stakes isn’t a new trend for racing. NZRB, when run by Glenda Hughes and John Allen, blew $200 million of potential stakes money when they signed up the TAB for the Fixed Odds Betting Platform instead of outsourcing the service to TABcorp or Sportsbet. They walked free, and we inherited the legacy – that’s justice for you? When they departed the carnage, we all thought the ‘gravy-train’ had finally derailed itself. But no, NZTR had already climbed aboard. In the 2004 to the present era of comparison in the accompanying tables, it’s safe to say racing has declined by 25 to 30 percent overall. But against that trend, the cost of running NZTR far exceeded the CPI index by rising to $10,890,239 or just on $210,000/week for last season, an increase of 271 percent on 2004. Salaries for the same period rose 631 percent to $4,124,624. If a counter-argument to justify current costs could be mounted through a revival of industry fortunes, my accusations would be less impactful. But exponentially rising costs for an owner to go racing against the potential return, tells us the angle on the descent graph has steepened in the last year. Worst still, NZTR costs will rise again this season. It has created a new position and employed a Chief Operating Officer, one rung below CEO Bernard Saundry. The board also plans to open an office in Cambridge (and at what cost) because Waikato is the hub of the industry, and the location better suits the Auckland-dominated board. Given the state of racing, the move has no justification. The board apparently had initially planned to shift the entire NZTR staff to Cambridge, but when several said they wouldn’t go, having two offices became the plan which has remained reasonably hush-hush. Chairman Cameron George, who has resided in Australia for the past year, said when elected in November 2020, he would run NZTR transparently, but quite the reverse has resulted. Missing in Australia for an entire year, George now isn’t alone. CEO and fellow countryman Bernard Saundry flew to Melbourne the week before Christmas, so will either ever get back? Unless Minister of Racing Grant Robertson has issued a pre-departure return pass for Saundry, the COVID-19 website states that a ‘critical purpose to travel’ to New Zealand is required to enter New Zealand – and that’s for New Zealanders. Saundry’s replacement will soon be announced, as will replacements (2) for the NZTR board. Short of Peter V’landys, who could turn this shambles around and make it work? Today is January 7th, but if you’re a trainer looking to plan a campaign for your horses, after March 21st, nothing appears on the website for race programming or stakes money. My information is that NZTR’s promise last July to announce winter prizemoney from April onwards by Christmas did not happen because ‘they forgot.’ In a lame-duck press release sent to stakeholders on December 23rd, NZTR blamed the Delta variant and its effect on gaming income as the reason the stakes announcement didn’t happen and isn’t happening now until February. Why did they say that when gaming income has never factored in providing stakes for racing – someone made it up, with both George and Saundry’s signature on it dated the 23rd and neither in the country. Like other press releases, they told readers how wonderful they’re doing with the usual spin that makes your eyes glaze over. Last October, they sent stakeholders an NZTR Directions Update after receiving 40 submissions. Given their past record and the fact that the board is very upper North Island top-heavy, how can they be trusted on the following themes considered for changing at their February meeting.: • Venue classification • Investment of increased prize money – new initiatives Vs lower grade racing. • Venue sale/use of assets for national, regional, or local purposes. • Strengthening of certain areas in the North and South, possibly at the expense of other areas. • Rotation vs Permanent placement of proposed initiative events. Sorry, but where’s the NZTR record of good money management and cost control? None exists, so why would a Dargaville or a Timaru Club gladly hand over its 100-year built-up assets to an organisation which is just as likely to build itself a flash office block in Cambridge or have another round of salary increases? NZTR has failed to draw up a commercial agreement with the other two codes and take it to TAB NZ, despite that direction having appeared in the Racing Act of 2020. That failure has cost the codes dearly as TAB NZ has $13 million on deposit that should have come down to the codes for prizemoney. Previously I identified that problem in “What TAB NZ doesn’t want its stakeholders to know,” published on November 2nd. The latest NZTR’s Annual Report on page 13 says the following under, ‘nztr statutory role’: (e) to distribute revenue received by the code to racing clubs registered with the code. Then go to page 35 and see they have a total of $8.5 million on term deposit that, under their statutory obligations, according to the Act, should have gone to the clubs for distribution as prizemoney. NZTR had only $1 million on term deposit in the previous year. This is a cut and dry case of wrongful withholding of monies belonging to the pool of stakes money. It’s called defrauding the clubs and consequently the owners. Racing doesn’t need this sleight-of-hand carry-on; it needs to survive and deliver everything it can to the grassroots. The clubs are the heart and soul of racing; it’s where the thousands of volunteers turn up as committees and workers because they have a passion for racing. New Zealand can’t achieve Flemington and Randwick quality racing by selling up its grassroots to fund it – Australian racing has five levels of racing, and each exists to support the next level up. Our problem is we have five levels of administration, and none appear to be better than mediocre. Everyone who has thought about it knows deep down racing has to change dramatically to survive – instead, we are in denial heading down a sinkhole. How do you keep justifying increased running costs for an industry in a severe state of numerical decline? The tables herewith tell the story. Racing through NZTR doesn’t convey the truth; it covers up to make things look okay. And it lacks the fundamental integrity and passion of the people who ran it successfully in the previous millennium. Footnote: The number of breeders in 2004 of 3,156 owned an average of 0.88/broodmare. By 2021, although increased in number to 3,868, the average ownership diminished to 0.34/broodmare.

That's just Marketing and Communications. Well it is still online.

More climb aboard the NZRB gravy train NOVEMBER 3, 2017 / MEZZASEZ aka Mary Burgess Blog - https://racingthoughts.blog/2017/11/03/more-climb-aboard-the-nzrb-gravy-train/ In my job in the real world I joke with one of my academics about a certain media topic being “the gift which keeps on giving.” “The gift” is one of those stories which is continually evolving and of which the media is never going to tire. Pretty much how I felt when, just days after writing my last post about the salary excesses of the Racing Board, an email was circulated announcing some new appointments. Obviously those 488 permanent employees mentioned in my previous post weren’t cutting it when it came to government and industry stakeholder engagement. The email in question stated that NZRB had reviewed that area of its communication earlier this year and after an extensive recruitment process claimed they now had the right team to work more closely with stakeholders. Faced with that task is a team of five. Yes, you read that right – five people to focus on that area of communication. It was another of those jaw-dropping moments which made me ponder how many people at the Racing Board it might take to change a lightbulb. Of course, they would probably need to undertake a review before any bulb was changed and quite possibly advertise externally to ensure they found the right people! The cohort of five is headed by an Irishman Ian Long, who previously held a similar position at NZ Rugby and, like NZRB CE John Allen, also worked at NZ Post. Given the onerous task in front of him, he is going to be “supported by” parliamentary refugee Bill de la Mare, who comes to NZRB from positions with various ministers, including former racing minister Nathan Guy. Propping the other side of this front row will be James Wigley, who boasts a marketing background according to the NZRB email, though Green Grass Marketing Services where he was a Marketing Consultant for a number of years, does not appear to have any visible digital footprint. Wigley also has two years’ experience as a senior marketing manager with the NZRB’s Event Marketing and Logistics team. The final two making up the team both have interesting titles, with Pete Lane tagged as Operations Specialist and Dan Smith carrying the poisoned chalice as Strategy Manager – Calendar Optimisation. Presumably the former will provide protection when the latter advises clubs of changes to their dates! You’d think that just reading this email would be enough to confirm that NZRB is not even paying lip service when it comes to looking at ways to cut its costs. But it gets better, or worse depending upon your level of tolerance for black humour. While the email is signed by one Stephen Henry, General Manager Services, it is actually sent by an executive assistant. I am always suspicious of people who need others to send their emails, they engender memories of black and white movies where women were in the typing pool while blokes did the “real work.” It may well be that Henry is indeed too busy to deal with emails to industry stakeholders or maybe it is something which was common practice during his time at MFAT. The last time I received an email from someone, but actually generated by someone else, it came from Henry’s CE, John Allen, who also came to the Racing Board via MFAT. Given Allen proposed job losses of close to 300 when at MFAT (that was later reduced to a mere 79) one would be forgiven thinking he would be capable of bringing NZRB staffing levels back to a manageable level. However, based on this latest announcement expect the following – come the annual report there will be savings of between $3-$5million in salary expenses and we will be expected to be grateful for a job well done. Try and shake off the Stockholm syndrome, instead we now need to channel the crazy newsman from Network, meet outside those offices in Petone and yell: “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

But only last year she was a "Trainee Stipendiary Steward"......perhaps they should add Stipes to the draft licensing proposal.

If he hadn't pleaded guilty as charged he would have definitely gone home out of pocket. The rules are daft and unworkable if a kind rider like CWJ gets pinged frequently. No reason why the Stewards vision isn't up the same day or within 24 hours. I guess they have a few staff on holiday over the Christmas/New Year four week break.

Savanah Belle will contest the Vernon & Vazey Trucks Parts Kumara Gold Nuggets (1810m) on Saturday Photo: Race Images PN Auret savouring grassroots racing adventure NZ Racing Desk 6 January 2022 Fraser Auret is loving his West Coast adventure. The Marton trainer has 16 horses campaigning on the coast circuit, which began with racing at Greymouth on Monday, continued with the Reefton meeting on Wednesday and culminates with Saturday's Kumara fixture. But it's not just a big team of horses Auret is travelling with. He is part of a 16-strong touring party along with his wife and three children, extended family, staff and owners. "You watch the West Coast races every year and it's a trip I've been keen to do one day to experience it," Auret said. "Everyone is absolutely lovely down here and it's always nice to support racing anywhere in the country at the grassroots level. "Some of our owners jumped on board and have come down and even my in-laws are down here with us. It's a wonderful atmosphere." Already on the trip, Auret has produced Mochatini for a win at Greymouth and Prince Of Doon, Showbourne, Exquisite Pearl, Tudor Queen and Mayonaka for minor placings. But he's aiming to end the trip on a high note at Kumara with Savanah Belle a leading chance in the Vernon & Vazey Truck Parts Kumara Gold Nuggets (1810m). Raced by the Block Partnership's John and Mike Gilbert, who raced dual Group One winner Xanadu, Per Incanto six-year-old Savanah Belle has won five of her 19 starts and was running on nicely for fourth in the Miss Scenicland Stakes (1500m) at Greymouth on Monday. "Her owners' family are really steeped in the history of the Nuggets so there's a strong connection to the club and the race. It's wonderful we could bring her down and support it," Auret said. "She's drawn wide but I'm told Kumara is the biggest of the three tracks. She's a very honest performer and she's been consistent throughout her career and on this trip, she hasn't missed a beat." Of his other runners on the day, Auret was again hoping for bold performances from Mochatini in the Go Racing Buying @ Magic Millions This Month (1150m) and Prince Of Doon in the Alex Haywood/Noel Wafer POW Memorial (1810m). "Mochatini won well on the first day and she's pulled up terrific and I think she'll go another really good race," he said. "We've got nice eachway chances. Prince Of Doon is very well and he ran well for his third on the first day. The horses have all done really well and it's a wonderful learning curve for them as much as us. It's a trip away for them and it might be the making of some of these younger horses." Auret confirmed his entry of 15 horses, with two double-nominated, was his biggest ever for a meeting. "It is but everything was put in before Wednesday's Reefton meeting so some of them won't be going. We'll probably end up with eight or nine at this stage." Auret trains on the former Marton racecourse and has been surprised to find how much bigger his training track is than the courses he has been racing on over the coast circuit. "Marton is actually a 1690m track and I had thought it was quite a small track till we came and had a look down here. I've been out and walked each track the night before and they have to be seen to be believed. It's brilliant." While away from Marton, Auret will still have a presence in his home club's flagship race, the Listed Japac Homes Marton Cup (2200m) at Awapuni on Saturday, with Marietta Lane and Uareastar taking their place in the field. "I'm thrilled with both of them. They are both heading towards the Wellington Cup later in the month. That's their main target so they might find Saturday's race a fraction sharp. "Marietta Lane was unlucky in running fourth at her last start and Uareastar won nicely so they are building into the Wellington Cup nicely."

The reasons behind the dropping of the charge against Korbyn Newman. SUMMARY OF FACTS: Following the final Race on the first day of racing at Westport an Information was filed alleging that the Respondent, Junior Driver Korbyn Newman, as the Driver of HIGH FLYING HARRY, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to improve his position wider on the track rounding the final bend when an opportunity existed resulting in his runner being held up. The Respondent did not admit the breach and the hearing took place four days later at Reefton Trotting Club on 30 December 2021. Mr Newman was assisted by Mr J Dunn at the hearing. The Stewards dealing with this matter were Mr Williams and Mr Renault. Mr Renault appeared remotely. The Charge and the Rule were read to the Respondent who confirmed that he denied the charge. Following the hearing of the charge and some time for deliberation the Committee gave the result of the hearing, finding that the charge was not proved, and indicated that reasons in writing will be provided at a later date. These are those reasons. EVIDENCE OF INFORMANT: Mr Williams used the available race videos to show the field approaching the 600-metre mark. Mr Williams pointed out Mr Newman driving three back on the pylons. Mr Williams alleged that there was a gap on the outside of Mr Newman for some time that he should have taken. The Stewards referred to the runners ahead of Mr Newman. Ms Ottley’s runner was in the lead, then Mr Orange’s horse trailing behind that and Mr Markham’s horse on the outside of Mr Orange. The other runners, the Stewards said, were well back of Mr Newman. The Stewards said that there was an open window for 150-200 metres where Mr Newman could have moved his horse to the outside to trail Mr Markham in order to give his horse a clear run home. The Stewards allege that Mr Newman should have moved out during this point in the race and could have done so slowly. The Stewards then contend that as Mr Newman opted not to move out at the earlier stage, he should have done so later in the race when Mr Orange’s horse began to weaken. Mr Williams pointed to the position just after the 400-metre mark as a pivotable point in the race. It is at this point that the Stewards say Mr Newman had room clear of the outside runner to shift outwards. The Stewards further alleged that the runner in front of Mr Newman was fading which was evident from the activation of the gear. The Stewards said that at this point Mr Newman was being held up by Mr Orange’s horse and should have moved wider on the track to have a clear run on the home straight. The Stewards conceded that Mr Markham’s wheel was not free of Mr Newman, who would have been required to take a hold of his horse to make the manoeuvre. Mr Williams outlined that Mr Newman ran second but accepted that it was not clear that he would have won had he moved his horse to the outside, but that is not an important factor in the determination of this charge. EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENT: Mr Newman, with the assistance of Mr Dunn, provided an explanation that Mr Newman chose to remain in his racing position due to the track conditions, his horse and the difficulty in making the manoeuvre. Dealing first with the track conditions. Mr Dunn outlined this was Race 10 and the track had been getting worse throughout the day due to the heavy rain. Mr Dunn said it was common knowledge that the best run on this track was on the inside. He said his own horse ended up three-wide and struggled. Mr Dunn spoke at length about the tightness of the bend. Turning to the horse itself. Mr Dunn said he had told Mr Newman to be careful with this horse and he was like driving a trotter. Mr Dunn said the horse was close gaited. Mr Dunn pointed to the horse going rough for a period when pulled into the passing lane. Mr Newman said the horse tends to over race and wears an anti-choker. Dealing now with the suggested manoeuvre. Mr Dunn said that Mr Newman was never clear of Mr Markham’s wheel and would have had to “strangle” the horse to pull it back in order to move wider on the track. Mr Dunn said this would have inevitably caused the horse to lose its momentum on the bend. He said the manoeuvre suggested by the Stewards was hard to undertake at that point on the bend. Mr Dunn said the bend is tight and it is a hard track on which to go three-wide. Mr Dunn said that the horse is not like a car as you cannot just pull it out and go. Mr Dunn said that the footage clearly showed that Mr Orange’s horse was not under severe urging until about the 300-metre mark, where it is clear the gear was activated. Mr Dunn said at this point it was all over as Mr Newman would not have been able to move out as the manoeuvre would have been too hard. Mr Newman also stated that if he were to move his horse wider on the track, he would have lost more ground on the leader due to the loss of forward momentum. He was firmly of the view that taking the horse wider of the track would have slowed him down. Mr Newman believed his horse had a better chance to win if it were to stay in its current running line and attempt to drive up the inside. As to why Mr Newman did not move the horse wider on the track from the 600-metre mark, Mr Newman said the horses in front of him were travelling well and he saw no reason to change his position. Mr Newman said that he was not clear of Mr Markham’s wheel at any point and that any movement wider would require him to take a hold of his horse losing momentum. THE RULE: The breach alleged is that Mr Newman failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to improve his position wider on the track rounding the final bend when an opportunity existed resulting in his runner being held up. The Rule states: The use of the word “permissible” in this context means “lawful” in that the measures it is being suggested the driver should have taken are authorised by the Rules. The focus of the hearing is on what is considered reasonable to ensure a horse is given full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place. The onus is on the Stewards to prove that a driver has been in breach of the Rule. Even though the onus is on the Stewards the Driver ordinarily is required to give an explanation for their actions. The standard of proof in these cases is on the balance of probabilities, flexibly applied. This does not mean that the degree of probability required changes, but it means that as a matter of fact Adjudicators require stronger evidence for more serious allegations before the allegation is proved to their reasonable satisfaction. This is a serious allegation. The evidence outlined above includes the opinions and explanations of the Driver and the opinions of the Stewards. Importantly, there is the benefit of the available race videos. The use of the word “reasonable” in the Rule imports an objective standard. The subjective rationale of the Driver is relevant but not determinative. A Driver is required to take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of the race to ensure they give their horse the full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position or finishing place. Whether a particular instance is a breach of this Rule requires an assessment of what the driver reasonably would, could and/or should, have done in the circumstances to ensure they give their horse the full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position or finishing place. Then the Adjudicator needs to determine whether the failure to do so was culpable or blameworthy in that it is deserving of the imposition of a disciplinary finding and penalty. However, it must be remembered that a mere judgment error is not a sufficient basis for finding that there has been a breach. It is well established that the Stewards do not need to prove that there was a deliberate act by the Driver to disadvantage the horse, however, there must be some degree of carelessness or incompetence in order to find the Driver’s actions blameworthy. As stated in HRNZ v W Higgs (2005): Mere errors of tactics are in and of themselves not sufficient to found liability for a breach of this Rule. Given the nature of Harness Racing, at any one point in a race a Driver may have a number of options available to him or her. The decisions made by the Driver are required to be made in a mere instant during the race with multiple uncontrollable variables. A Driver must, relying upon his or her experience and expertise, balance up a number of competing factors and chose one. The Driver does not have the benefit of hindsight, multiple video angles or the pause button. The Rule recognises this reality and does not hold a Driver to the standard of perfection. Race situations arise where a Driver is presented with two reasonable and permissible options. Failure to implement one of these options could not merely in and of itself equate to a breach. I am of the view that the purpose underpinning the Rule is to attribute blameworthiness when a Driver fails to take some measure which was the only reasonable and permissible measure open to them to ensure they give their horse the full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position or finishing place. The measure should be one they, in the circumstances which presented themselves, should have implemented to ensure they give their horse the full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position or finishing place. Their action or inaction in turn disadvantaged the horse. It is in those circumstances that the actions of the driver are blameworthy warranting a penalty because they have sufficiently deviated from a standard of driving the betting and racing public are entitled to expect. This is the “bad judgment that results in disadvantage to [the driver’s] horse” outlined in the dicta from the W Higgs decision. The betting and racing public are entitled to have confidence that the horse upon which they have bet is being driven in a manner which gives it the best opportunity to race to the best of its ability and, hopefully, win. That this is a focus of the Rule is clear from the use of the phrase “to ensure they give their horse the full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position or finishing place.” The betting and racing public are not, however, entitled to perfection from Drivers, though it is an aspirational goal. That much is confirmed by the use of the qualifier “reasonable” in the Rule. What is required when assessing manoeuvres and decisions by Drivers in alleged Rule breaches is a reasonable justification for the Driver taking particular measures at the relevant time with the purpose to obtain the best position in the race and, consequently, the best outcome. DECISION: This case does not involve an error of judgment. It involves a decision which was made, in the middle of the race, about two reasonable and permissible options which presented themselves. The decision to remain in Mr Newman’s position was supported by the evasive manoeuvre which the opposing option would necessarily require. Given the particulars of the charge and the focus of the Stewards, assessing this breach narrows to two issues. First, should Mr Newman have moved wider on the track between the 600-metre mark and the 300-metre mark to give his horse full opportunity to win by obtaining the best possible position? Secondly, should Mr Newman have moved wider on the track when the horses in front of him began to weaken in order to give his horse full opportunity to win by obtaining the best possible position? In relation to the first question, the view is that it was reasonable for Mr Newman to remain in his racing position without moving wider. The evidence presented to me clearly establishes that the horses in front of Mr Newman were travelling well and not losing ground on the leader. The Stewards agreed that the horses were going at speed. It was evident that Mr Newman was never clear of Mr Markham’s wheel which meant Mr Newman would have had to take a hold of his horse and therefore lose momentum moving forward. Such loss of momentum would have disadvantaged the horse rather than put it in the best possible position. The second question relates to the point in the race where Mr Orange’s horse began to weaken shortly after Mr Orange pulled the deafeners. At this point Mr Newman was aware that he may be held up. This occurs around the 300-metre mark. It is only at that point that the leader begins to extend the lead, as up until that point then had all been travelling together. The view is that this is a turning point in the race where Mr Newman must review his racing position and decide, in real time, whether to move wider on the track or wait for the passing lane. It is trite to observe that Mr Newman could not predict that all of this was going to occur when he was at the 600-metre mark. Initially, the Stewards contended Mr Newman should have moved wider at the 300-metre mark knowing that the horse in front of him was tiring. However, after being questioned further the Stewards conceded it would not have been practicable for Mr Newman to have pulled his horse wider on the track at that point. The Committee is of the view that at the point in the race when Mr Newman became aware of Mr Orange’s horse weakening Mr Markham’s wheel was well back which would have required Mr Newman to have taken a severe hold of his horse if he were to attempt to move wider on the track. This move would have required Mr Newman to lose momentum by slowing down to safely shift out without hitting Mr Markham’s wheel. Mr Newman would have been required to then move wider again, to the three-wide position, before then commencing the run home. The place at which this was all occurring was also on the tip of the final bend in wet conditions. Overall, it is accepted that this manoeuvre would have been difficult, and it is, therefore, reasonable that the better option was to wait for the passing lane. This is one of those scenarios where the Driver had a number of options available to him. Mr Newman’s decision was made in a mere instant during a race with multiple uncontrollable variables. Mr Newman, relying upon his experience and expertise, balanced up a number of competing factors and chose one. Mr Newman did not have the benefit of hindsight, multiple video angles or the pause button. However, from the evidence presented to the Committee, it believes that Mr Newman made the correct decision. Even if this was wrong about that, his decision was one which was reasonably open to him and could not be said to be a “bad judgment” deserving of disciplinary sanctions. It is also important to note that when a Driver is confronted with two reasonable and permissible options if the wrong choice is made that would not in and of itself amount to a breach of the Rule. The contention that Mr Newman should have moved earlier in the race so that he was never held up by Mr Orange relies too heavily on hindsight and ignores the reality of racing alluded to above. Mr Newman was not to know that Mr Orange’s horse would tire where and when it did. Mr Orange’s horse had been traveling well and there was no indication it would need urging on. Once again, on the evidence presented the Committee believes that Mr Newman’s decision was the correct one. However, even if this is wrong about that his decision was an entirely reasonable one to make in the circumstances and as such is not deserving of a disciplinary finding. The view is that it was reasonable for Mr Newman to remain on the pylons travelling forward with the other runners at the 600-metre mark. There were then two options which became available at the relevant time on the final bend. The Committee’s view is that to be blameworthy Mr Newman must have failed to take some measure which was the only reasonable and permissible option or the option which should have been taken to ensure his horse was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position or finishing place. The Stewards have not persuaded the Committee that it is more likely than not that Mr Newman failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures in not moving wider on the track at any point rounding the final bend to ensure that his horse was given the full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position or finishing place. OUTCOME: The charge is not proved. Decision Date: 06/01/2022 Publish Date: 06/01/2022

Thinking about the many charges that occur on a daily basis for Jockeys breaking the whip rules I can only conclude that these charges are not determined in real time but by reviewing the video in the remote bunker. Seems to be happening with Harness racing with regard to whip use and decision making during the running. With the latter there seems to be an inconsistency between the codes with gallop rides not being reviewed when they should be. Were all the races at the two Christmas/New Year meetings reviewed extensive?

Thinking about those two charges for breaking the whip rules a bit more I can only conclude that these charges are not determined in real time but by reviewing the video in the remote bunker. Seems to be happening with Harness racing with regard to whip use and decision making during the running. With the latter there seems to be an inconsistency between the codes with gallop rides not being reviewed when they should be.

Just thought your filly would have preferred a bit more give in the ground... 😉

Controversy after American Me’s Cup win 5 January 2022 https://harnesslink.com/new-zealand/controversy-after-american-mes-cup-win/ American Me cruised to a controversial win in the El Cheapo Cars Otaki Cup this afternoon at the Kapiti Coast harness racing meeting at Otaki Racecourse. The son of American Ideal and highest rated pacer in the field comfortably held his rivals at bay in the 2000 mobile event, after it was changed from the originally programmed 2700m stand. This change of conditions for the $14,475 race and Country Cup qualifier did not go down well with several owners and trainers and has resulted in a storm of accusations and attacks on the Kapiti Club on social media. A fuming Michael House who had several runners in the race declared the situation a good old fashioned rort, saying he would not be back. Kapiti Club president Chris Craddock responded to the facebook attacks with a post of his own, saying due to the fact the club was restricted to six races when they had intended to run seven, the change in conditions in the Otaki Cup was made to give every horse nominated a chance to start. Craddock’s post did nothing calm the situation down! https://harnesslink.com/new-zealand/controversy-after-american-mes-cup-win/

I guess the K3 Sale will be a windfall for the Knackers truck.

If you review and compare both documents - the glossy picture laden brochure and the draft policy/rules/licensing changes you'll discover that there is a misalignment between the intentions of one and the actual rules in the other. It isn't clear what they are trying to achieve. Shouldn't the clear objective be to lower the barriers to entry at all levels of workers? What I see is more barriers and obstacles. No disrespect to Trainers but is training a horse rocket science? Does it require industry approved qualifications? I've been reading the obituaries for Rick Hore-Lacy of Redoutes Choice and Foxseal fame. He trained 20 Group 1 wins but under the proposed regime wouldn't have even got a start in the game. He bought some horses after a successful punt and read two books - "Feeding to Win" and Training to Win". He quickly learnt that the key to success was keeping the horse fed, happy and healthy. That aside my career of being an active Owner acting as Stablehand is over. I have to prove my competence and knowledge of horse handling in an interview with NZTR and be employed by a Trainer to get a license. Anyone looking after a horse in training or in a licensed stable under the new rules will HAVE to be licensed. Even feeding up. End result of all this - probably no improvement in standards but less trainers and horses racing.

You are kidding me? How about Florida Flys Free? Or Rideon Santa's.... Go back and ask why it was deemed "offensive"!

January 5, 2022 As voters become more aware of the stealthy implementation of a Māori separatist agenda, the political risks for the government will rise sharply. Graham Adams reports. When the Prime Minister claimed in her first term that her government was going to be “transformational” many voters took her seriously — until it became apparent she was unlikely to transform anything much, whether it was unaffordable housing or inadequate public transport or introducing a capital gains tax. Perhaps, however, we should have been listening more closely when a year ago — and only a few months into her second term — Ardern referred to “foundational change”. The change in wording was quickly dismissed as a rebranding exercise dreamed up by Labour Party strategists to distance the government from its failure to be in any way transformational. But foundational change is certainly what we are getting in Ardern’s second term — even if most citizens remain unaware of the steady remaking of the nation’s constitutional arrangements via a radical interpretation of the Treaty as a 50:50 partnership. When asked by David Seymour in Parliament last February to explain the difference between “transformational” and “foundational” change, Ardern airily said she was “referring to a suite of policies — like the introduction of Matariki as a public holiday and the introduction of learning New Zealand history in schools that will make a long-term difference to how we see ourselves as a nation”. Her response sounded harmless enough and it undoubtedly was designed to sound that way. Ardern certainly wasn’t about to expand on the “suite of policies” her government was stealthily progressing in its push to remake the ship of state while the populace was preoccupied with battening the hatches against the winds of a pandemic. “Foundational change” based on a particular view of the Treaty clearly wasn’t what most voters signed up for when they voted for Ardern at October 2020’s election. Many thought they were rewarding her with their vote as a thank-you for navigating the nation through the initial round of Covid and encouraging her to continue her good work. As the Prime Minister said repeatedly in the run-up to the election as a justification for not campaigning on much else of substance: “This is the Covid election.” The aftermath of her landslide victory, however, turned out to be not only about managing Covid but also fulfilling what appears to be the vaulting ambitions of Labour’s Māori caucus and their Cabinet allies such as Andrew Little and David Parker. Unfortunately for those pushing determinedly but quietly for Māori co-governance to be established in many spheres of New Zealand’s national life — including in the conservation estate, local government, the health and education sectors, water infrastructure, and the Resource Management Act — the headwinds are getting stronger and heavier. The iwi roadblocks in Northland fronted by former MP Hone Harawira — made legal by a late change to Covid legislation — have been deeply unpopular while opposition to Three Waters has been so vociferous that Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta has delayed introducing the enabling legislation from December to the end of March to give her time to soothe the anger of voters and councils. The debate over giving matauranga Māori equal status with physics, biology and chemistry in the NCEA science syllabus — sparked by a letter in the Listener signed by seven eminent professors — has become so inflammatory that famous US and British public intellectuals, including scientists Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and Jerry Coyne, have pitched into the fray and made it into an international cause célèbre. What voters have not been told clearly is that these three seemingly unrelated events — road blocks (as an expression of rangatiratanga over traditional territories); iwi co-governance in Three Waters; and giving matauranga Māori parity with science in the education system — are all part of an overarching programme to implement a radical view of the Treaty. Call it a strange coincidence if you like but all three were foreshadowed clearly in the revolutionary document He Puapua that was presented to Nanaia Mahuta in November 2019 but kept from the public (and Winston Peters as Deputy Prime Minister) until after the 2020 election. However, because nearly the entire political commentariat deny that He Puapua in any way informs, inspires or predicts government policy, most voters are unaware that the co-governance model outlined in that revolutionary document is being steadily implemented in a wide array of domains. And the government is certainly not about to join the dots for them. Jacinda Ardern — and her senior ministers Nanaia Mahuta and Andrew Little — appear to have adopted the tactics of the Cuban revolutionary leader Jose Marti, who wrote in 1895: “I have had to work quietly and somewhat indirectly, because to achieve certain objectives, they must be kept under cover; to proclaim them for what they are would raise such difficulties that the objectives could not be attained.” Nevertheless, voters are starting to have their suspicions. And if anything is likely to have convinced them that something deeply underhand is going on, it was the revelation in November that Cabinet had agreed in July that Three Waters would be compulsory. That, of course, made a complete mockery of the “consultation” period with councils — that culminated in a summary of their submissions being sent on October 22 to Mahuta’s office for appraisal. The consultation had been sold as a democratic exercise to get councils’ feedback on whether they were likely to opt in or out of the new system. Now it is clear that opting out of a programme that would transfer ratepayers’ assets to four regional entities — and share governance equally with iwi — had never been a real possibility since at least July. If that is not extraordinary and alarming enough, the Minister of Health, Andrew Little, is pushing ahead with the complete overhaul of our health system at a cost of $486 million — and in the middle of a pandemic, when our hospitals are short of ICU beds and the nurses to staff them. An integral part of the reforms will be setting up a Māori Health Authority as an independent statutory entity. Again, such a body is recommended in He Puapua. Just as Nanaia Mahuta is coy about why she believes making the nation’s water infrastructure more efficient requires co-governance with iwi, Little appears not to want to admit that the only way to hand equal power to Māori in the health system is to abolish the 20 DHBs entirely — as his Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill proposes. Nor does he want to admit openly that the Māori Health Authority will have a right of veto. Earlier in the year, however, he made his intentions explicit in a Cabinet paper. On 13 April 2021, a memo put out under his name stated: “My expectation is that the Māori Health Authority should have a co-lead role in relation to national planning and in designing the key operating mechanisms that the system will use. This would require the Māori Health Authority to jointly agree national plans and operational frameworks (e.g. the commissioning framework), with clear approval rights including an ability to exercise a veto in sign-off. “Having such an approval mandate would ensure the Māori Health Authority is engaged early and constructively, and that critical operations are aligned with a clear hauora Māori vision, embed Māori priorities and mātauranga Māori systems, and enable mechanisms that give life to local Māori leadership in the health system.” After the Prime Minister had taken a hammering in Parliament from Judith Collins in early May over the right of veto, the Pae Ora legislation unveiled in October is less explicit. Nevertheless, in an emailed reply to this writer asking about a veto, Little said: “Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority will work together in partnership to plan for a system that responds to all the people of New Zealand. They will have to agree on key plans and service arrangements. “I wanted to be very clear in the [April] Cabinet paper that I expect the Māori Health Authority to be a decision-maker, rather than to merely be consulted. So they will have the ability to refuse to agree to something, as will Health New Zealand. “If there is an intractable disagreement, the Bill provides that the Minister of Health will decide how to resolve the dispute. I do not anticipate many disputes reaching that point because we all have the same goal -— to achieve the best possible equitable outcomes for all New Zealanders.” So, representatives of 16 per cent of the population will wrangle on an equal footing with Health New Zealand, which will represent the other 84 per cent of citizens, and with the right to refuse to agree to any proposal. Given that the Minister of Health will stand back from the discussions between Health NZ and the Māori Health Authority, and there is a requirement for them to agree, the MHA will have an effective right of veto over policy, even if it is not explicitly called that. The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill is now at the select committee stage with a report due back on 27 April (after a short period for submissions ending on 9 December). The law is expected to come into effect on July 1. Unusually, the committee considering the bill is a special “Pae Ora Legislation Committee” made up of members from both the Māori Affairs Committee and the Health Committee rather than just the Health Committee. In Parliament in October, Act leader David Seymour took issue with this set-up, arguing the government seemed to believe “some elected representatives were incapable of dealing with some matters based on their ethnic background”. “The minister is asking Parliament to form a new committee to consider a piece of health legislation that is not the Health Committee because the legislation is about meeting Treaty obligations. Well, a lot of people thought it was about healthcare, but he says it’s about Treaty obligations… “Why was it not possible for the Health Committee — the committee that has been appointed by Parliament to consider health matters — to do it? And this is what it comes down to — they are saying that if you’re not Māori, you maybe aren’t qualified to think about this Pae Ora Bill… because they have insights that other people don’t.” Such a racialised view of the democratic process is now laced through much of this government’s legislative programme. As opposition to Three Waters continues to flare, the question of whether the public wants to venture further down the path towards an ethno-nationalist state or fight to retain a democratic-nationalist one is set to inflame political passions and debate this year. Ardern may decide she can ride out the storm by jettisoning some of the separatist agenda. However, whether such a tactical retreat would now steady the ship of state is an open question. There is a real and growing risk that this year even bigger waves of opposition to Ardern’s co-governance agenda will swamp her administration and she will be swept overboard at 2023’s election. Graham Adams is a journalist, columnist and reviewer who has written for many of the country’s media outlets including Metro, North & South, Noted, The Spinoff and Newsroom This article can be republished under a Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0 license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project. https://democracyproject.nz/2022/01/05/graham-adams-2022-arderns-plans-for-co-governance-with-iwi-face-rough-seas/

CWJ copped a fine for the same offence so I guess that evens things out! A Balloo (LINEDANCEKING) - Admitted a charge of using the whip in two consecutive strides on two occasions on his mount inside the final 100 metres. After considering submissions the Adjudicative Committee imposed a fine of $750. C Johnson (LIGHT UP) - Admitted a charge of using the whip in two consecutive strides on his mount inside the final 100 metres. After considering submissions the Adjudicative Committee imposed a fine of $500.

I guess that explains your close interest in Princess Lowry. He still stands at the Oaks Stud for a fee of $5k.

All good. Racing Victoria is quick to alter race day times and dates if forecast temperatures are 30 degrees plus. I was wondering what the policy was in NZ. Good to see you had a great day. Still a place in NZ Racing for a circuit like the West Coast. With a bit more programming/planning it could be incorporated to include a number of other country tracks in the South Island. Now wouldn't that be novel..... You could organise your training and racing programme and avoid Riccarton altogether unless you happened upon a Guineas type horse!

Bollocks.

I thought CWJ rode it very well. I haven't seen him that low down on a horse for awhile and he certainly put in 110% effort. Of course the issue when going forward is that someone is likely to push out under you (happens a lot in 2000m races at Ellerslie). That said I'm not sure the Jockey that did push him out took the right option for their horse. But I guess it is easy from our rocking chairs....

I thought CWJ rode it very well. I haven't seen him that low down on a horse for awhile and he certainly put in 110% effort. Of course the issue when going forward is that someone is likely to push out under you (happens a lot in 2000m races at Ellerslie). That said I'm not sure the Jockey that did push him out took the right option for their horse. But I guess it is easy from our rocking chairs....