Chief Stipe

Navarro negotiates a plea bargain but pleads guilty to using performance enhancers. However so far the only drug identified is Clenbuterol which many of you asthmatics would identify with. Now the interesting thing is that Clenbuterol can be detected in urine up to 7 days after ingestion yet it seems no positives were returned. No doubt the conspiracists will raise the spectre of some new undetectable performance enhancing drug even though there is no evidence of one.

If they are "halfway through" the process and they have been doing it "for months" it begs the question - when did they start and when do they expect to finish?

Harness Racing New Zealand estimates it is now halfway through the exhaustive process of finalising a new racing programme for the 2022 year. “The change of horses’ birthday to January 1 has prompted a massive re-think of the way we run our sport,” says HRNZ General Manager – Racing Catherine McDonald. “For months now we have been looking at everything – how to enhance every part of our sport, and that includes increased stakes, improving breeding numbers, better opportunities for all grades of both pacers and trotters, and keeping our horses here rather than being sold to Australia …. it is a massive project.” There has been extensive consultation with clubs, trainers, breeders, owners and other industry participants, including weekly Wednesday meetings at HRNZ. “We have just had round two of feedback as we zero in on what the programme will look like,” says McDonald. “Those final decisions are still some weeks away.” READ: FAQs on Change Of Birthday Consultation – Part 2 WATCH: Trainers Comments WATCH: Owners & Breeders Comments WATCH: Analysis with Michael Guerin & Greg O’Connor

Well done for following it through. I'm sure posting on BOAY helped as well! 😉

I guess that backs up my view on handicapping although I'm not in favour of concessions for mares in mixed fields. If you are rated at a certain level then that should be rating regardless of sex.

Edited Press Release The U.S. Senate passed a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill Tuesday without any provision to ban the export of live horses to Canada and Mexico for slaughter for human consumption, putting in jeopardy the anti-slaughter provision adopted more than a month ago in the House by a voice vote. The Senate assembled anew its Infrastructure bill, taking the House bill and number, H.R. 3684, the INVEST Act, but little else. The Senate effectively stripped an amendment led by U.S. Reps. Troy Carter, D-La., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., John Katko, R-N.Y., Dina Titus, D-Nev., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. and conceived by Animal Wellness Action to H.R. 3684 that would have banned the transport of equines across state and federal lines for the purposes of slaughter for human consumption. U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, D-N.J., made an attempt to keep the anti-slaughter transport language in play by filing his own amendment #2296, but that effort gained no momentum, with few Senators treating the anti-slaughter provision in a serious-minded way. “We are disappointed the Senate continues to treat the ongoing slaughter of tens of thousands of horses as anything but an urgent matter,” said Marty Irby, executive director at Animal Wellness Action, who was recently honored by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, II for his work to protect horses. “Here was an opportunity to solve a major animal welfare problem that the American public overwhelmingly supports and that's been circulating in the Senate for a quarter century. House Members should vote against the Senate-passed infrastructure bill or amend the measure to restore the anti-slaughter language.” “We've watched tens of thousands of horses endure a horrible passage to Canada and Mexico every year and then get slaughtered at foreign abattoirs for a small segment of consumers in Asia and Europe,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Center for a Humane Economy. “Americans want to see this ruthless and predatory industry stop gathering up and victimizing American horses and burros. Failing to take up this issue was a terrible missed opportunity for the Senate.”

Your thoughts are all good Karrots. LOL to think that HRNZ wants to curtail online discussion! I'm just really anti concessions for fillies, mares and age for that matter. Those things were lobbied for by the breeders in the Thoroughbred industry and in my opinion have been counterproductive to the quality of the breed, retaining horse numbers and generating wagering revenue.

These two types of concessions would be another nail in the coffin. Fillies and Mares allowances in NZ Thoroughbred racing have done nothing to help retain numbers or increase the number of races per horse. They've done the opposite and forced the previous mainstay of NZ racing, the durable aged gelding, out of racing. Some idiot statistician or most likely an accountant discovered the fillies and mares race less than geldings and figured that they needed an allowance to compete. Well the stat's haven't improved but the number of aged geldings racing has declined as has the number of races and the quality of the fields.

So are you backing the one rated 100 or the one rated 62?

The solutions are simple however it requires administrators present and past (like yourself) to climb down from the heady heights of Champagne Cup weeks, Presidents whiskey bars and stakes heavily subsidised by Pokies and look after grass roots racing. Where we are heading is akin to having a fancy shiny glass building sitting on sandy flooding crumbling foundations. Racing revenue needs to be spread more evenly and not skewed towards Group and Age grade racing. The bread and butter racing provides the revenue for the Champagne days. Harness is going down the same path as Thoroughbreds where they are neglecting the bread and butter racing at their peril. Some Harness supporters are all excited that it looks like Harness will have a race day like Thoroughbreds Karaka Millions Day aligned with the sales. Have they actually looked at the amount of subsidisation is required to have the Karaka Millions or how much revenue it returns to the industry? I gather that during your sabbatical from BOAY you stopped reading posts on BOAY. I have offered a number of solutions NOT alternatives. There are NO alternative solutions as in they are not mutually exclusive. The key metric in my opinion to focus on now is the retention of horse numbers in work and ultimately increasing those numbers. YOU CAN'T INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RACES UNLESS YOU INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HORSES!!!!! If 12 horses are lost to the industry (The Mane Drain) through retirement or being exported then that is over one season anywhere between 15 and 20 races that CANNOT be provided!!! Which leads to 15 to 20 races NOT earning revenue!!! FFS are you now advocating the reduction in the number of races? Where do you propose to get the extra revenue from to replace the races that are gone? Harness is getting screwed by not having enough races with big enough even fields available for the punter to wager on. This is even further skewed by the manipulation of the races that are exported and imported to favour Thoroughbreds on the main channel and Dogs on the other.

Here we go - typical ad hominem response. So what you are saying is THAT WOODHAM DIDN'T NEGOTIATE WELL ENOUGH AT THE ROUND TABLE FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING therefore DIDN'T acquire more than Harness's fair share? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

A Closer Look at Germany’s Covid Mortality BY - MANFRED HORST AUGUST 8, 2021 POLICY, PUBLIC HEALTH 9 MINUTES OF READING When the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said in October 2020 that the median age of Covid fatalities was above life expectancy, he was clearly on to something. It is a pity, and a terrible mistake of historical dimensions, that he – and so many others – did not drive their reasoning to the logical conclusions, let alone acted on them. The following is a translation and adaptation of an article which appeared on the German blog “Achse des Guten” a few days before Johnson’s remarks were made public through his former advisor Dominic Cummings. The numbers are from official German statistics; the percentage distributions derived from those numbers are however very similar across the whole Western world. In the course of the last 150 years, mankind has landed many notable successes in its fight against disease and death, against infant and maternal mortality. It has thus raised the average age of death in the Western world from 35 years to around 80 years (1). 80 years is an average. Some people still die at a younger age, but fortunately far fewer than in earlier times. A total of 939,520 people died in Germany in 2019, with the following distribution in age groups (Source : Federal Statistics Office, 2): Mortality Table Germany 2019 : Age Group Number of Deaths Percentage 0-9 years 3,242 0.35% 10-19 years 1,188 0.13% 20-29 years 3,095 0.33% 30-39 years 6,534 0.70% 40-49 years 15,575 1.66% 50-59 years 56,967 6.06% 60-69 years 114,470 12.18% 70-79 years 202,955 21.60% 80-89 years 350,365 37.29% >90 years 185,129 19.70% Total 939,520 100,00% With the ageing of our population, the total number of deaths has been increasing rather steadily in recent years (3). However, the mean age of death and the percentage distribution among age groups have remained relatively constant (4,5) ; they are also fundamentally similar across all countries of the Western world (e.g. the United States, see 6). For almost one and a half years now, we have been kept in anxiety and fear with the daily cumulative figures of “corona deaths” (7). The age distribution of these deaths “with coronavirus” (the official denomination, i.e. death of a person with a positive test, not necessarily from a viral pneumonia) in Germany up to 29/06/2021 looks as follows (source: Robert Koch Institute, 8): Mortality table “with coronavirus”, Germany 2020/21 : Age Group Number of Deaths Percentage 0-9 years 15 0.02% 10-19 years 11 0.01% 20-29 years 82 0.09% 30-39 years 234 0.26% 40-49 years 703 0.78% 50-59 years 3,050 3.36% 60-69 years 8,234 9.08% 70-79 years 18,872 20.72% 80-89 years 40,935 44.55% >90 years 19,159 21.13% Total 90,664 100,00% The interested reader may compare the percentage age distribution of these “corona deaths” with the one in the general population and ask the following questions : – How do the “corona deaths” differ from the natural mortality table ? – For which subgroups, if any, would it make sense to explore life-prolonging measures? – Which age groups should be considered in such a discussion about possible life-prolonging measures? This is what the percentage distribution along age groups in both groups looks graphically : One should and must ask a few more questions : After almost one and a half year of mass testing, can we not safely assume that the PCR test positives are a largely representative sample of the general population ? Given that this is the case, don’t the deaths “with coronavirus” (i.e. with a positive PCR test) look as though they are part of the normal and unpreventable death pattern in Germany ? Is this not the basic hypothesis that every statistician or epidemiologist worth his or her salt would have enounced – if it weren’t for the fact that we have entered an era of extraordinary public hysteria ? Also, these percentage distributions are remarkably similar everywhere in the world – no matter which measures had been taken against the Coronavirus, see for example in Sweden (9). Since the virus does nothing to neonates, children and adolescents – or perhaps because they have so far been submitted to fewer tests – people “with Corona” actually reach an average age which is a little higher than that of the rest of the population. In statistical terms, the coronavirus (or – rather – the positive PCR test) is a random variable with regards to the result “death” – like athlete’s foot or wearing red socks. Of course, severe forms of respiratory infections caused by / with SARS-CoV-2 do exist. Of course, medicine is obliged to help and support each and every one of the people affected . Of course, individual cases can be heart-breaking. Of course, NHS capacities may be stretched during the winter (they generally are). On average however, the “corona deaths” would have left this world at the same time, with Corona or from (or with) another virus or another disease. We are not immortal. On average, we die at our average age of death. All those calculations of allegedly lost lifetime (10) claim that the cohort (group) of people who had died “with Corona” would have reached an average age of well beyond 90 years, had it not been for the virus. This is statistical nonsense. One cannot and must not transfer the remaining life expectancy of a person alive at age 80 to a cohort of dead people. Following this methodology, it would be possible to declare any random variable (red socks for example) to be a mortal danger. (11) Some authors (12) have put forward the hypothesis that the mortality risk due to (or with) Corona is equal in its age distribution to, but (largely) additional to the normal mortality risk: So to speak, the virus acts like a terrorist who kills 100.000 people with the same age distribution as the mortality table in the general population. If this were true, if this were even possible, we would have had to see a corresponding increase in general mortality across all countries – which we have not (13). As we are talking of people killed by (or with) a respiratory disease whose course is mild in the majority of cases, not of people killed by a terrorist, we would furthermore again have to ask the essential question Why should they have lived significantly longer than the rest of the population, what would have pre-destined this particular cohort (of Corona test-positives) to a longer than average lifespan ? No, this assertion is not tenable either. People in the 50-70 age groups also die of (or “with”) Corona? The emotionally affected reader may ask whether it is “normal” to die at age 55 or 60. No, it is not, of course not, every single case is tragic (and deserves medicine’s full and best attention). However, our politicians should know that it inevitably happens sometimes, and that you need to compare and analyse numbers on a population level, instead of being swayed by emotion about individual cases. In every population, there are always a few 50-70 year olds who unfortunately die – this is inevitable in the human condition. Some of these 50-70 year-olds have always died of (or with) a viral respiratory infection (like the one caused by the Coronavirus). The essential question therefore is whether more people of these age groups die because of the Coronavirus than previously. The answer is No because: 1) We have not observed and are not observing a significant excess mortality in these age groups. 2) In percentage terms, the Corona mortality in these age groups is not only not higher, but effectively lower than the one in the general population. The conclusion is that the Coronavirus has no influence on the mortality of the 50-70 age groups. And that very conclusion is the same for all groups below 80 years of age. As 80 is the average age of death in the population, the general conclusion therefore is that the Coronavirus has no influence on population mortality. Science and virology have certainly progressed over the last 16 months, and perhaps humanity will benefit from this in the future. Nevertheless, in 2020 and in 2021, the “corona deaths” would have died, on average, at roughly the same time. “On average” does not mean that every single Corona victim would have died at the same time without the virus – many things would have been different in a world without Corona. However, it does mean that, on a population level, mortality would not have been significantly different. We are in the presence of normal and unavoidable population mortality. We are not immortal. On average, we die at our average age of death. Since March 2020, our societies have been treating this normality as if it were a catastrophe. However, no short-term political or social intervention can prevent general population mortality at an average age of currently around 80 years. Nor can it prevent our continuous (especially during the cold season) and immunising confrontation with freshly mutated respiratory viruses. We could have known this, many experts and politicians (perhaps Boris Johnson among them) certainly knew it at the latest on 12th March 2020, when the Italians publicly announced the data on their first 2,003 “Corona deaths” (largely from Bergamo and its surroundings): Average age 80.3 years, all (“with two possible exceptions”) suffering from severe pre-existing conditions (12). Incidentally, no vaccination can prevent normal population mortality either – and I suppose many of my former colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry know this. As a pre-requisite for any marketing authorisation – even more so for such hasty and therefore risky ones -, the regulatory authorities should have demanded mortality studies (i.e. proof of a lower total number of deaths in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group). Such a study would have been very unlikely to produce a positive result though, as normal human mortality at the general average age of death cannot be prevented. Instead, the evidence of a reduction in common cold symptoms with a positive test was declared a relevant clinical endpoint and published with great fanfare (13), and the seasonal decrease in test-positive cases and deaths – which was already observed last summer – is being celebrated as a success of vaccination. German (and other) professional associations claim, against their better judgement, that the vaccines’ pivotal studies have proven that they prevent severe forms and deaths by almost 100%. (14) However, even if entire populations become vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, people will continue to catch common colds and flus, severe forms will continue to happen in the elderly and immunologically weakened, and a certain, yearly fluctuating number of average 80-year-olds will leave us as always – with the coronavirus, or with other mutated respiratory viruses and with their constantly mutating variants. If the human consequences of the political and societal response to this one respiratory virus were not so horrific, we could almost watch and enjoy the whole thing as a grotesque farce. Perhaps in the not too distant future, a (hopefully still – or again !) free humanity may learn useful lessons from this dystopian episode. In particular, we need to develop a healthily sceptical distrust of a certain type of scientists who spread fear and anxiety with their model-based predictions, and of their political followers. References : https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/185394/umfrage/entwicklung-der-lebenserwartung-nach-geschlecht/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1013307/umfrage/sterbefaelle-in-deutschland-nach-alter/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156902/umfrage/sterbefaelle-in-deutschland/ Sonderauswertung – Sterbefälle 2016 bis 2021 (Stand: 05.07.2021) (destatis.de) 2_5251422028526783027_online.pdf (2020news.de) https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age-and-sex-in-the-us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1104173/umfrage/todesfaelle-aufgrund-des-coronavirus-in-deutschland-nach-geschlecht/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/ https://fullfact.org/news/boris-johnson-whatsapp-covid-life-expectancy-cummings/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7646031/#eci13423-sec-0005title https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259) https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Cross-Section/Corona/Society/population_death.html https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 Coronavirus, Brusaferro (Iss): età media dei deceduti è 80,3 (today.it) https://www.dgi-net.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210323_COVID_Impfung_Stellungnahme.pdf A version this piece first appeared in the Conservative Woman Author Manfred Horst Manfred Horst, MD, PhD, MBA, studied medicine in Munich, Montpellier and London. He spent most of his career in the pharmaceutical industry, most recently in the research & development department of Merck & Co/MSD. Since 2017, he had been working as an independent consultant for pharma, biotech and healthcare companies (www.manfred-horst-consulting.com).

Give us some more detail on the following - or is it like a lot of what you post - Fake News! Or based on your prior comments regarding the distribution was the above supposed to written in sarcasm font?

It is clearly apparent why racing in general is in trouble when ex-racing administrators such as yourself don't seem able to think outside a small square box. Your simplistic scenario is based on a fixed number of races AND a fixed number of horses. The reality is neither number is fixed. If you want to increase harness wagering revenue then you need to increase the amount of product i.e. the number of races AND the number of horses. Do you understand that? Now using your simplistic approach: If there are 120 horses available to race each week then that's 10 x 12 horse fields. Still with me? Now if 12 horses (10%) are forced to retire because they reach a mark that they can't earn a stake from then there are only 9 x 12 horse fields. Now assuming that each of the original 10 races earnt the same amount of wagering revenue if you subtract one race then your revenue drops by 10%. Still with me? Eventually the horse that you refer to winning 2 races and therefore limiting someone else from winning will find that not only have they reached their own mark quicker but that there is less revenue and less races to compete in!! Don't forget that a field of 12 Aveross Spitfire's will still earn revenue for harness and at a profit by comparison to the Group races.

Explain.

The problem gambler is the answer you are looking for. However as was pointed out in the media why in the same controlled environment does a problem drinker get stopped but not a problem gambler? @nomates have you stopped to consider how much this problem gambler actually pumped through the machines? It would be a lot more than $500k unless he was extremely unlucky. Try doing that through the TAB and questions not being asked. Now you drawing comparisons with teenage driving related deaths isn't a fair comparison. One is a controlled environment with a machine provided whereas the other is a relatively uncontrolled environment where you bring your own machine.

Sorry to hear you think I have a problem. I know the industry has a few! I'm also sorry to hear that someone with your experience in the industry has no solutions/answers. From my experience the simple solutions are the best and I stand by my statement that the handicapping system does not favour the retention of a decent number of potential revenue earning horses. I'm sure @Brodie and any number of punters would rather bet on a race that had a full field of evenly matched runners than the top end races which are normally dominated by a handful of horses each season.

More races and larger field sizes) are only possible if you stop the Mane Drain. To do that you need to provide incentives for people to keep racing horses that quickly become uncompetitive due to handicapping. Your solutions are?

Well what is your answer? Given your hypothetical mathematical scenario doesn't make a lot of sense nor offer any solutions.

Horse's pay their way through opportunity to earn stakes. The system favours the top line horse that performs well (without handicap) in the age group races and gets through to the top class quickly. The average or slightly above average horse finds its mark too quickly and has no opportunities and is retired or exported hence the "Mane Drain" which was the subject of the article. Take some of the cream off the top of the Group and Listed racing and redistribute to lower grades and have those horses that struggle in the elite but are competitive in a lower grade provide even racing and good punting opportunities. Now if you did that your 2,000 races could become 2,200 races or more.

They still haven't fixed the apprentice allowances disappearing when you move from one race to another and then back again. Also I noticed the race where the TAB supposedly got hammered - Hail Damage at Ruakaka. The horse had opened at $18 and was backed into $5 on Fixed Odds. I was watching the tote price and when betting closed it was closer to $6 than $5 yet the final price was $4.80. Did the TAB Bookie once again minimise their exposure LATE?

Plus the horse still provides punting revenue.

You are purely looking at it from a training perspective but not including the dimension of attracting more punting revenue.