Chief Stipe

This is what a track looks like after a 10 week winter break and annual renovation in readiness for Spring racing.

Go back and have a look at your own posts.

No I'm asking for the same amount of information that all INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS received in the past. If you want to live in a la la world where you accept all the BS and spin rather than a transparent and open one the so be it. Many of us don't want that. The last time a Racing Administrator went down the path of attacking "keyboard warriors" didn't end too well for one Mr Purcell. It didn't end too well for a Mr Allen when he started fudging and hiding the industry statistics. As for having appropriate academic qualifications I actually do have them but that is irrelevant.

Pukekawa is actually 66km south of Auckland in the Waikato District by 10km but then the Covid boundary goes down the middle of a street in Mercer. Go figure!

Again from David Ellis - seems Opie bought the wrong farm! One person I do feel hugely disappointed for however is our stable rider Opie Bosson. Opie was in the best shape of his life coming into this new season. He was the fittest he had ever been and was the lightest he had weighed in over 20 years. He was ready to go, but at the last-minute Opie was informed that his farm in Pukekawa was under the Auckland Covid Restrictions’ boundary – which was not the case last lockdown. It is so hard for an athlete like Opie to prepare and become so fit and then be unable to execute their plan and their employment. Being unable to ride also greatly impacts his livelihood, which is just so frustrating for him and his lovely family. Keep your chin up, Opie. It won’t be long until we have you back riding trackwork and on race day, and when you do, you are going to really nail it. I have no doubt about that.

From David Ellis: In other news – I have been regularly asked when the new season of ‘Weigh In’ is set to start. We are just waiting for the broadcast studio in Auckland to reopen, as under Level 4 Covid restrictions it closed as it is not deemed an ‘essential service’. We do have a date tentatively set and we hope to be in production after the first Group 1 of the season, which is Saturday week at Hawkes’ Bay. Fingers crossed!!!

The devil is always in the detail. Doing comparisons between last season and the previous season is a moot exercise as you have to adjust the data for Covid to get any meaningful comparison. For example comparing Total Stakes is meaningless as is the green dot. A 27% increase year on year looks great but is skewed by Covid. So the comparison should be with the previous season. Would it be so hard to include 3 years for comparison? Note the Harness TAB sourced revenue for the 2018/19 season was $44m. $33m was distributed in Stakes for the 2020/21 Season. I note that HRNZ is heading down the same path as NZTR of putting a veil over transparency by removing prior year accounts. The HRNZ Annual Accounts for the last year doesn't mention ANY core performance criteria. The majority of the document are Financial Notes to the Accounts.

Really? So that means that all revenue was sourced from Overseas Racing predominantly Australian racing. Although trading at "expected levels" is a bit vague.

He must be referring to @JJ Flash who has consistently denigrated Harness Racing.

From the Chair 7 September 2021 , News Industry Update from John Coulam, HRNZ Chair The last three weeks has once again been a difficult time for the industry and the country as we were plunged into lockdown and racing came to an abrupt halt. The good news is that even without domestic racing, the TAB continued to trade at expected levels and our funding for September is guaranteed. I know that there was a level of frustration around Orders and Directions during this time. At HRNZ we followed the previous orders to the letter until such time as the appropriate Government departments allowed amendments. My thanks to Gary and the CEO’s of the three codes, as part of the Racing NZ executive, for their work in getting racing up and going again. We cannot take this opportunity for granted, all participants must adhere to the Orders and Directions for racing behind closed doors and at different levels. Anything less than a strict enforcement by the clubs hosting the meetings may well see racing halted again. One of the disappointing aspects of lockdown is that it gives the keyboard warriors time on their hands to throw grenades. Behind the HRNZ brand sit real people, directors, employees, trainers, drivers and other stakeholders and their families. In the words of our Prime Minister, “Be kind to one another.” As directors we are people of hope, optimistic, willing to dare, to challenge the status quo. To be content with the status quo and to dwell on negativity is not productive and serves no good at all. These are exciting times for our industry as we reshape and focus on our sustainability and social licence. I am encouraged by the ongoing consultative work that has gone on this year exploring what the racing calendar might look like from 1 January 2022. Whatever is decided will be open to constant review, to further help us look at the best ways to drive up gross betting revenue for our code. Alongside any proposed changes, HRNZ will be contracting an analyst and working with the TAB to look at every aspect of racing to see where the best returns to the industry are and to further explore opportunities. The club and kindred body representatives attending the HRNZ Annual Conference on 15/16 October will receive feedback on what’s been achieved as a result of our Industry Day held late last year and what the new racing programme calendar will look like. Spare a thought for the industry participants in both Westport and Kumeu who have suffered through recent natural disasters. Apart from any personal losses, both clubs have had significant damage to their tracks. These unfortunate events are a timely reminder to clubs to review their insurances. Provided for your information is the traffic light performance indicators for the season just ended. Key Performance Indicators Below are the performance indicators as at end of season 2020/21. John Coulam, Chair Harness Racing New Zealand Inc September 2021

The vaccinated AND the unvaccinated will always be welcome on BOAY.

Well there are any number of companies that have written it into their employment contracts. I just saw a role advertised at the Auckland Airport in a non customer facing IT role that requires proof of first vaccination before employment and 2nd vaccine within 35 days of starting. This article on Stuff reports a case that failed in the ERA going to the High Court. Will cover multiple applications. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126304552/challenge-to-legality-of-vaccine-mandate-for-frontline-border-workers?cid=app-android

If the Government isn’t Following the Science When it Comes to Vaccinating Children, Who is it Following? We are publishing a guest post today by Dr Peter Hayes, a Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Sunderland, pointing out that when it comes to vaccinating healthy 12-15 year-olds the Government can no longer claim to be following the science. “Follow The Science” has been the defining slogan of Covid policymaking for the past year and a half. However, we may now be at turning point. On September 3rd, that august and scientific body The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advised not to start vaccinating otherwise healthy 12-15 year-olds. The Government, however, seems likely to set about vaccinating them anyway. In his letter to chief medical officers, Health Secretary Sajid Javid says that the JCVI is against vaccination of 12-15 year olds because its margin of benefit against harm is “too small” and tacitly suggests that the officers come up with something to enable him to override this advice. However, Javid’s spin on the committee’s advice is misleading. It is not only the marginal benefits of the vaccine but also the unknown extent of its harms that has led the JCVI to recommend against it. (1) The JCVI states that in advising whether or not to vaccinate it has focused on “the benefit to children and young people themselves, weighed against any potential harms from vaccination”, and that it has done this to the exclusion of other issues such as cost. (2) It states that overall “the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms” [emphasis added]. If the benefits are greater, albeit only marginally, it might seem logical for the JCVI to approve of extending the vaccination program. The reason it does not is because of an important proviso. There is uncertainty, the JCVI says, about what the harms the vaccine might have in the medium to long term. There is, therefore, an asymmetry between our knowledge of the extent of the benefits of the vaccine and the extent of its harms. It is known perfectly well that the maximum benefit is small because even if it is assumed to protect every healthy child aged 12-15 from serious illness, very few become seriously ill anyway. The question of maximum harm is more open ended. In particular, the JCVI expresses concern over the very rare side effect of myocarditis. In the short term, the JCVI states, patients recover, but in the medium to longer term there is “the possibility of persistence of tissue damage resulting from inflammation”. Therefore, the JCVI argument is not simply that the marginal benefits are too small to recommend vaccination. It is that the benefits at best are small, and that while the known harms are marginally smaller, the unknowns might change this balance for the worse. The JCVI also comments that while the effect of the vaccine on transition rates is uncertain, in its view any impact “may be relatively small”. This is significant when it comes to efforts to justify the vaccination of 12-15 year-olds on social and educational grounds. Although rather vague, such justifications implicitly assume a significant reduction in rates of transition. The willingness of the JCVI to engage in critical scrutiny of the vaccination rollout has not been all that much in evidence in the past. No wonder the Government was unpleasantly surprised by its refusal to rubber stamp an extension to 12-15 year-olds. Perhaps the committee is heading out in a new direction. But more to the point, we are left with the question of the new direction taken by the Government. If it is no longer following ‘the Science’, who is it following? By Toby Young / 6 September 2021 • 14.28

But as I said in an earlier post isn't there the possibility that NZTR could legally make it a condition of licensing? However they would then have to detail what they consider to be vaccinated. Will they include all vaccines? Single dose or does it have to be double dose? What if a booster shot is required will that be part of the requirement? What if you are Covid-19 recovered and therefore have a better immunity than the vaccinated? Perhaps NZTR will introduce pre-race testing for both Trainer and Horse? Given that vaccinated and non-vaccinated can both be infectious will instant saliva tests be required for ALL? With regard testing horses there is evidence that Covid-19 is present in any number of mammals. The New York zoo is vaccinating their captives.

You are making the same mistake that many are making by labelling anyone who questions the Covid-19 vaccine as being anti-vax and anti all vaccines. Whooping Cough (Pertussis) clearly affects very young children and there is a proven vaccine with an efficacy of 85%. However issues with the original vaccine and an increasing number of successful lawsuits led to vaccine production being dropped by manufacturers. There was no money in it anymore. This forced the US Government to step in and take over liability and compensate victims for injury. The main manufacturer then developed a safer vaccine in 1981 in Japan which wasn't approved for use in the USA until 11 years later. The key difference is that there has been insufficient time to accumulate enough data for Covid-19 (Pzifer has released less than 6 months of trial data March 2021 - none of which included any data for under 16's) to make any assumptions about the safety of any of the vaccines for children for a disease that has little to no effect on. Much much less than influenza and certainly much much less than Whooping Cough. The unquantified unknown benefit of the vaccine does NOT outweigh the risk of serious Covid-19 illness. Sadly we are putting an unnecessary (in my opinion unethical) burden on children to protect older cohorts who are at risk. The role of any parent in life is to protect their young NOT to use them as a human barrier to protect themselves.

It's happened before in history but never on such a global scale. If anyone doesn't understand how the holocaust came about then they only have to look at how groupthink driven by irrational hysteria has taken hold in numerous countries around the world.

That is what he is doing and it is exactly the approach being taken in NZ but with a great deal more stealth. A 12 year old can book their own vaccination appointment and get vaccinated WITHOUT their parents consent or even knowledge. What's more it is done without any Government or vaccine manufacturer liability.

Correct for their children aged under 16. If they don't have enough information then it is impossible for a child aged between 12 and 16 to be informed enough to consent. As for that happening "through out life in all sort of situations" can you give an equivalent example? There are many examples in history where that approach has led to disaster and there are many cases where disasters have been prevented by not following that approach. I'm not proposing to be everybody's keeper what I am trying to achieve i for the reasons and the supporting information for the decisions made by NZ's Government and their advisors is transparent and open to everyone to make their OWN informed decisions. As well as parents are still involved in making those choices for their children. I would contend that if that information was available that many would agree with the UK advisory committee that the benefit of the vaccine does not outweigh the risks of Covid-19 for this particular age group. It's not Freedom of Choice when you don't have that information and when the Government propaganda, processes and systems are corralling children into being vaccinated without informed consent.

My apologies but can you succinctly state what your point is?

My concern is that parents don't have enough information to make an informed decision. If two major advisory bodies in the USA and the UK are not yet recommending vaccination then parents should know that and know what information the NZ Government has that other countries don't have. Also parents should be informed that for children aged 12 to 16 they don't need parental consent to be vaccinated? Given the paucity of information for parents do you think 12 to 16 year olds would be any better informed?

Precisely. My view is it is no one's business if I'm vaccinated or not just as I'm not interested in what others vaccination status is. If you are vaccinated then it is irrelevant who is and who isn't vaccinated. As many of you know my biggest concern is the vaccination of the young. In my opinion the young have paid enough during this pandemic without them being forced to be vaccinated so we can attain a meaningless % vaccinated figure. I ask the question why have the FDA not approved the vaccination of under 16 year olds (except under EUA)? The same question is why are the Vaccine Advisory body in the UK not recommending the vaccination of under 16 year olds but the Government is? That advisory board's opinion is that the benefit of vaccination of this cohort is not sufficient to override the risk of vaccinating them. Take those two questions (similar questions) and then ask yourself what does the NZ Government and its Health Advisors know about the Pzifer vaccine that is different to the FDA/USA and the UK? Then ask what the hell does NZ or Australian racing administrators know that those authorities don't know?

Well isn't that the point? For the average punter or even the newbie punter what is the point of 4 selections in a race UNLESS you are going to box them in an exotic. Which exotic? If you did just a F4 boxed then you would be down $84. If you did both the trifecta and the F4 you would be down $74.