Chief Stipe

Rule Number(s): 870 (3) and Breaking Horse RegulationsStewards lodged a protest into the third placed MIMLLIONDOLLARMONKEY following Race 10. The Stewards alleged MILLIONDOLLARMONKEY “broke from its gait in excess of 50 metres inside the final 200 metres and was in breach of r870 (3) and the Breaking Horse Regulations.” The Connections of the horse did ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Didn't Brooks leave RITA after the "discovery" of a $3.8m "accounting error"? Weren't Brooks, Woodham and Henry (along with Saville who went to the FOB platform vendor) the crew that signed up to the new betting platform and broadcasting deals that are costing $30m a year?

BHA Toughens Regulations Around Syndicates Need for greater transparency more urgent in recent years. By Scott Burton/Racing Post The British Horseracing Authority has announced a revamped set of regulations around the running of racehorse syndicates and racing clubs, designed to ensure maximum public confidence. While the authority believes the majority of shared ownership entities are well run, it identified a need to revisit the code of conduct, which was drawn up in 2017, as one of nine key goals announced last August in the Racing Recovery Plan. In particular the saga in Ireland surrounding the unraveling of the Supreme Syndicate and the subsequent battle for control of the Willie Mullins-trained chaser Kemboy, shares in whom were oversold adding up to more than 100%, showed the need for greater transparency between managers and members. One of the key measures being introduced in Britain will be the requirement of syndicate managers to share the details of all owners and their percentage share of a horse and to inform each person of their individual stake. The changes, which are scheduled for early 2022 to allow the BHA to complete the necessary IT work, will allow syndicate members holding more than 2% in a horse to access the BHA's Racing Administration site. The 2017 code of conduct listed areas that need to be covered by a legal contract for any syndicate which advertises or charges a management fee, and the updated code will broaden that scope to include purchase price of the horse and dispute resolution. BHA chief operating officer, Richard Wayman, said: "It is vital for the future of our sport that we are able to attract and retain racehorse owners. Syndicates and racing clubs clearly have a pivotal role to play in those efforts. "The consultation responses confirmed that the sport has many extremely well-run syndicates and racing clubs which give their members exemplary levels of service. It is crucial that the public can continue to have confidence in syndicates and racing clubs, which these measures have been designed to support. "My thanks go to all of those who took part in the consultation and took the time to offer the feedback which has been central in devising this important package of measures." The updated code was welcomed by Dan Abraham, chairman of the Racehorse Syndicates Association, who said: "The appeal of syndicates and clubs is stronger than ever and the RSA welcomes the BHA's approach to provide increased protection for members as well as syndicators and club managers." The Racehorse Owners Association also welcomed the new standards, with chief executive Charlie Liverton saying: "Shared ownership in horseracing is thriving across many racing jurisdictions and ensuring that those joining a syndicate or racing club have confidence in our sport is crucial." The ROA has committed to rolling out an accreditation scheme for syndicates and racing clubs as part of the Industry Ownership Strategy for which it has responsibility. Such a scheme remains one of a number of ambitions yet to be realized, although it is described in a recent ROA report as a priority for 2021.

Greyhound Racing NZ and Harness Racing NZ show the middle finger to the thoroughbred code http://www.theoptimist.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GREYHOUND13-scaled.jpg The dogs have gone to the dogs by Brian de Lore Published 29 January 2021 A slap in the face to the thoroughbred code (NZTR) is how you would describe both the Greyhound and Harness nominations for board positions on the soon to be appointed TAB NZ board. Recently I wrote about the ‘Decade of Disaster’ during which the racing industry endured poor administration with calamitous decision-making that has cost racing’s stakeholders a couple of hundred million dollars. This was an avoidable fall from the position of ‘cashed-up’ to technical TAB insolvency along with substantial debt to the bank. The New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB), or the NZ Ruination Board as our leading trainer Murray Baker always described it, was crawling with incompetents who all but wrecked the industry. They collected massive salaries and board fees with no racing industry qualifications and then walked away (if not pushed) from the carnage with no accountability. But have they walked? Apparently, not all! The Greyhound and Harness codes have decided in their infinite wisdom to align themselves with two former NZRB executives who were high up in the failed John Allen team and nominate them for positions on the TAB board to represent those codes. I’m calling it a disgrace. …it can’t happen if the codes themselves are guilty of recidivist offending… The New Zealand racing industry has an opportunity to put together a new board that will run this industry properly, but it can’t happen if the codes themselves are guilty of recidivist offending by regurgitating past failures with expectations of an entirely different result. I’m fed up with quoting Einstein, but he said it first. You just don’t do it. It’s a no-no! When former NZRB Chair Glenda Hughes was appointed CEO of Greyhounds NZ, it raised eyebrows, to say the least – did she know a Greyhound from an Afghan?. She appointed John Allen, who brought Stephen Henry with him via NZ Post and then Foreign Affairs. Jobs for the boys. Stephen Henry was the General Manager of Services at NZRB with no previous horse or wagering experience, and now he’s the nominee for the TAB board via Greyhounds NZ. Harness NZ is even worse. Rod Croon was on the NZRB board as the harness nominee from 2012 through to 2018 and is currently the President of the Auckland Trotting Club. Their most recently appointed board member is the former NZRB financial controller Shaun Brooks, appointed by John Allen to NZRB in October 2015. He left NZRB suddenly amid some controversy about four years later, and now he’s the board nominee from Harness NZ. Brooks was the financial controller at NZRB through the worst period of decline… Brooks was the financial controller at NZRB through the worst period of decline and was the incumbent during the failure of NZRB to balance the books correctly when bonus bets were not accounted for in the final result. The thoroughbred (NZTR) nominee is Jason Fleming, who has been in the racing game all his life, is an owner and breeder, a lawyer, and the director of a financial services company. He was the CEO of Hawkes Bay Racing and worked as a stable hand for John Wheeler many years ago, so he is a professional and knows the industry well from the coalface up. It’s a given that the new board will require a diversity of skills. Is it not strange that the three codes would not have met to work together and collectively agree on the three nominees who can work together. In a perfect world, that’s what would have happened. But it’s hard to imagine that anyone in the thoroughbred game would be happy about either Henry or Brooks, or followers of the other codes for that matter. Livid, yes, happy, no. This is a poor start in attempting to put together a TAB board for what will be a make or break couple of years with the industry in a dire financial situation post-NZRB. The NZRB-John Allen and executives era needs to be exorcised into history Why is this racing industry in New Zealand so inept? The NZRB-John Allen and executives era needs to be exorcised into history with no thought of looking back. What’s wrong with carefully chosen new people with new ideas? Speaking by phone this week with a member of the board of Harness NZ, I asked the logical question of why they nominated Shaun Brooks? The answer came back, “the board rates him.” There was no point in continuing that discussion. The performance of the TAB is much improved in the first five months of this season, due mainly to COVID19, and $10 million of the $45 million debt to the ASB has been repaid, but there’s still a long way to go, and the worldwide explosion in betting may yet return to pre-COVID levels – no one really knows where we are heading with the economy and betting levels, but we do know that nothing stays the same. The involvement of the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in this process is flawed and problematic. They don’t have a clue what skills the board needs, and the process is wrong. A panel should have been briefed on the skillsets needed and then instructed to shoulder-tap the best people. Calling for nominations through the DIA website will not attract the best candidates available. They need to be approached and cajoled to get the best mix of the right people. It isn’t very reassuring for horse lovers dedicated to the racing industry to see this unfolding before them. It isn’t very reassuring for horse lovers dedicated to the racing industry to see this unfolding before them. Thoroughbred racing is bigger than the other two codes combined and therefore is underrepresented in the new legislation. It’s a level playing field in Victoria with two thoroughbred reps and one each for the other two codes. The problem in New Zealand is a lack of wagering knowledge. I decided to contact a retired CEO of Tabcorp who resides in Sydney and when employed, was paid A$1.2 million annually, for reasons of value – and not because he was shifted sideways after failing in a government department. He was remunerated according to his worth, and success was forthcoming. He told me: “It’s going to be a mistake not to get a wagering expert. To me, a gambling expert is essential, particularly those that understand digital. You don’t pack the whole board that way, but you want to have diversity. The world is going to move, and the market will keep changing, as will the product. “Achieving product parity and then having the agility to adjust to new products will be essential for them when taking a five or ten-year view. Playing catch-up football is essential, but that’s only phase one, and then you need people involved in both the executive and on the board that understand the gambling and wagering markets and how things move. “You need someone that’s able to communicate with stakeholders and have a partnership-relationship with the racing industry.” – former Tabcorp CEO “You need someone that’s able to communicate with stakeholders and have a partnership-relationship with the racing industry, but they also need to be strong influencers in that regulatory space to achieve parity and have the agility for the product parity as you advance. “They also need to have a strong customer lense – what they call CRM, data buying, artificial intelligence – all that sort of stuff. “It’s naive and ridiculous for New Zealand to sit here in isolation and say we are going to be successful by offering an inferior product to the rest of the world. If they respond and say ‘no, we have a good product,’ and we recognise we have to offer a world-class product, that will mean they will have to offer something better tomorrow – you don’t get there and say it’s done – it’s never done. “The operating environment, the regulatory environment, the executive and the government environment has to be on their minds at all times.” New Zealand is mainly devoid of the gambling/wagering experience required for a competent, pro-active board to enter the world of global wagering. The Aussies are good at it, it’s in their blood, and on a seven-person board, there should be room for at least one Australian with the know-how. Minister Robertson and the DIA designated a process to put this board together. It’s wrong, and they need to alter it; the racing industry’s future depends on getting the good people.

DIA takes racing admin to new levels of incompetence http://www.theoptimist.site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/dia_nz_image.jpg by Brian de Lore Published 24th March 2021 Events of the past couple of weeks and particularly the conduct of Internal Affairs (DIA) has blatantly reemphasised the Government’s lack of administrative competence and complete absence of know-how to act in racing’s best interests. The DIA’s handling of the appointment process for the board of TAB NZ makes Fawlty Towers look like a hotel with a seriously good management plan. Last week they undertook to send out four emails to the 42 applicants – two with gross errors and the other two to recall those emails. On March 18th, two months and three days after applications closed and four months after the specifications for the appointments were written, the DIA’s Senior Policy Analyst Glenys Robinson wrote to the 42 board applicants outlining new criteria of knowledge and skills and also requiring short answers to a series of questions. But the first stuff-up was the email was sent out in only draft form with corrections and redactions showing. After recalling the emails, the next email sent to the applicants was supposedly blind copied – but they weren’t. The names of all 42 on receipt of the email were immediately made known to each other. The surprise is the inclusion of Liz Dawson on the list of 42. She’s on the RITA board as well Chair of the board selection panel for the new TAB board – an overt conflict of interests if she, indeed, is in a position to recommend herself to the Minister. …the DIA having already leaked the names… With Glenys Robinson and the DIA having already leaked the names, The Optimist was tempted to reprint all 42 here, but out of respect to the half dozen or so applicants in racing known to the writer, that temptation has been resisted. The gender break-up of applicants is 32 men and ten women. And gender and ethnicity are sure to factor in this appointment process as all Government boards and committees in the now PC world of parliament and the civil service departments demand a minimum gender representation of 30 percent. A significant percentage have come through the Institute of Directors and seemingly are mercenary non-racing people looking to enhance their income. At the same time, another large group is made up of sportspeople, perhaps looking to strengthen the presence of sport inside the TAB. Since this appointment process commenced, the DIA, in its usual manner, has demonstrated its predictable inability to add value to anything they do on the racing front. This sorry band of over-paid civil servants continues to bumble their way through an enforced takeover of racing through the ‘virtual administration’ of the TAB, which Racing Minister Grant Robertson confirmed in a statement he made to Racing News, published on March 17th. Robertson said: “The process to date has yielded some good candidates, but the selection panel has recommended that I broaden the search, and I agree. This is a significant decision for the future of racing in this country and I am determined to get it right…this does mean there will be a delay.” …the DIA still rejigging the criteria to appoint the TAB board No one in racing would disagree with Robertson’s sentiment to get it right, but does he need a reminder it’s almost nine months since the legislation became law? It’s also three years since the Messara Review was written, which stressed ‘urgency,’ and here we have the DIA still rejigging the criteria to appoint the TAB board. The three things universally known about the DIA are (1) they have zero racing and wagering knowledge, (2) don’t care about racing or its current state of decline, and (3) work only at glacial movement pace in anything they ever do. Now we can add (4) – the inability to perform the simple task of sending an email without franking a ‘recall’ notice on it – twice in a couple of days. The fact that it’s taken more than two months since applications closed to realise the 42 as a group doesn’t cut the mustard is an admission the process established to put this board together was flawed from the start. Instead of consulting the best racing brains in Australasia on how to go about this task and commence shoulder-tapping and hand-selecting the correct people, the DIA has instead done its usual thing, floundering in its own ignorance and coming up short again. In the Racing News story, Robertson said: “I expect each member of the board to have the expertise, including fiduciary and commercial experience, to enable a bright future for the racing and sports sectors. “Candidates need not come from within the industry, as has generally happened in the past, and I’m asking the racing codes to nominate candidates with the skills and experience to ensure best governance practices. “This is particularly important given the $72.5 million Racing Industry Support package” – Racing Minister Robertson “This is particularly important given the $72.5 million Racing Industry Support package,” continued Robertson, “put forward by the former Minister for Racing, which is a considerable investment by the Government.” The Robertson quote indicates racing is about to experience ‘groundhog day’ and get more of what we’ve had in our under-performing administrative past. No mention in this story of candidates requiring a deep racing knowledge with experience in wagering, which is what was blatantly lacking in the last half dozen years of NZRB governance. The Robertson quote also reminds the industry of the enormity of the Government bail-out of the TAB last May, which in the Government’s view, places the TAB firmly in its grip (virtual administration), and which somewhat neutralises the devolvement of power to the codes that came with last June’s new legislation. As was the case with Peters, Robertson’s problem is he’s time-poor for racing and will rely on faceless advisors to steer racing policy. It didn’t work with Peters and won’t work with Robertson. Administratively speaking, we are as badly off now as we have ever been and potentially worse off by the time August arrives, and the DIA at its full-speed-ahead snail’s pace, announces this new board. DIA: Appointments to the Board are expected to be made by August 2021 Why are they taking so long? In the addendum to the Candidate Information Sheet, which went out to the 42 applicants, it states: “Appointments to the Board are expected to be made by August 2021 (to be confirmed).” It also mentions wagering and gaming governance in the addendum, but not as an absolute requirement in its 12-bullet point requirement set out under ‘Skills and attributes sought.’ The ‘to be confirmed’ proviso is ridiculous. Even without a further delay beyond August, the late announcement will determine the unlikelihood of seeing a cohesive TAB board operating before Christmas, given the time it will take for seven people to familiarise themselves with each other and develop a strategy going into 2022. Reliable sources have whispered the selection panel requested both the Greyhound and Harness codes each submit new nominations in place of the unacceptable Stephen Henry (Greyhounds) and Shaun Brookes (Harness). Both codes have reacted in the most negative way possible. The two codes arrogantly resubmitted both Henry and Brooks in an unbelievable display of defiance and disrespect towards the panel, the process, and the Racing Act of 2020. …money that belonged to heartland racing people, which went down the drain Most will be aware that Greyhounds CEO Glenda Hughes, and new Harness CEO Gary Woodham, along with Henry and Brooks, were all part of the NZRB team that built the FOB platform. They were all party to approving the ongoing commitments to Paddy Power and Openbet, which has cost the racing industry an estimated $200 million – money that belonged to heartland racing people, which went down the drain. All four names were belatedly given ‘the shove’ for very good reason, and genuine supporters of those two codes along with the thoroughbred code should be appalled that these people haven’t been warned off all racing involvement – instead, they are like a bad smell that won’t go away, and are now trying to bully their way back into TAB governance. Remember, we are only two years down the track from switching on the FOB platform. As Chair and part of the executive team, these four condoned the ongoing $17 million/year commitment to Paddy Power (5 years) and Openbet (10 years), which are binding contracts. From all accounts, the only way to get out of the contract with the software providers, Openbet, is to write them a cheque – a huge cheque. And this will most likely happen because there is an inevitability about partnering the TAB, which is the only path available for increasing the income and reducing outgoings for a sustainable racing future. Henry and Brooks won’t survive this arrogant second attempt because the Act says: “The Minister may veto a nomination made by the racing codes under subsection (1) but, if the Minister does so, the codes may make 1 or more further nominations until the Minister and the codes agree on the nominee.” …NZTR now control the thoroughbred racing IP… NZTR, as usual, has remained relatively quiet, but something is in the pipeline, and information suggests an announcement will occur in May with stakes money connotations. The trump-card held by NZTR is they now control the thoroughbred racing IP (Intellectual Property), and there’s nothing to stop NZTR from negotiating with an international wagering operator. The codes getting back control of their IP was the biggest win of the Racing Act 2020. At the February/March 2020 Select Committee hearings at which almost 100 people delivered oral submissions, RITA Exec-Chair Dean McKenzie in delivering his submission, was alone in his stance against the IP returning to the codes. Fortunately, he failed. NZTR now has the facility to make headway in the foremost requirement to increase prizemoney. In the last couple of weeks, field sizes have started to decrease, which is symptomatic of fewer horses in training. When field sizes reduce, so does betting The annual income received from racefields or Business Information Use Charge (BIUC) is currently running at around $10 million, but it has the potential to reach $20 to $30 million pa, and if NZTR can sell a good deal on the IP, an increase in stakes money is not out of the question. The previous blog published here highlighted the continued decline of the ratio of available stakes against the rising costs of racing horses in New Zealand. The monetary stats demonstrated the viability of racehorse ownership had decreased annually and would further decrease without drastic changes. Increased TAB profits generated in the COVID year have been retained with no extra money returning to owners and stakeholders. NZTR argued retention was necessary due to the need to avoid last year’s situation when stakes money was received in arrears and owners were late paid. “Every time we talk about how well turnovers are doing, it seems to generate an immediate cry for the need to increase stakes across the board.” – Bernard Saundry In ‘Note from Bernard Saundry’ which appeared about three weeks ago in an edition of Raceform, Bernard wrote: “Every time we talk about how well turnovers are doing, it seems to generate an immediate cry for the need to increase stakes across the board.” It’s as though NZTR is reluctant to confront the only issue that foremostly matters for the future sustainability of racing, or alternatively, the relative prosperity of the industry we jealously view in Australia, where they race for far greater stakes money. Racing needs not only a good TAB NZ board but also the current NZTR board to step up and make a splash in the interests of the poverty-stricken participants they represent. The drawback at NZTR is having a chair residing in Australia and a CEO who has one foot in the departure lounge at Wellington airport – Bernard Saundry’s contract finishes mid-2022. How do you get dynamic performance from that situation? The Racehorse Owners’ Association has now written to NZTR officially requesting that Cameron George resign his Chair position.

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 7 (Weatherley Bloodstock Mdn) Information A14138 was filed with the Judicial Committee. The Informant alleged that Mr Diego Montes de Oca used his whip excessively in the home straight. Mr Montes de Oca said that he understood the Rule, Charge and confirmed that he admitted the breach. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 3 an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham against Class A Jockey Ms S Spratt, alleging a breach of Rule 638(3)(b) (ii) “Struck her mount ART DE TRIOMPHE excessively prior to the 100 metres”. Ms Spratt acknowledged that she understood the Rule and ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 8 an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham against Jockey Ms S Wynne, alleging a breach of Rule 638(3)(b) (ii) “Struck her mount BELLE FASCINO excessively prior to the 100 metres” Ms Wynne acknowledged that she understood the Rule and confirmed her ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 7 an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham against Jockey Mr A Balloo, alleging a breach of Rule 638(3)(b) (ii) “Struck his mount STREET FIGHTINMAN excessively prior to the 100 metres”. Mr Balloo acknowledged that he understood the Rule and confirmed ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

True forgot about them which isn't hard to do.

There are probably only four truly professional team sports in NZ. At the elite level Rugby, League and Cricket with ETNZ being the fourth. I can't think of any other team sport where we have fulltime paid athletes.

It's "not something else altogether" and it is related to this discussion. You are standing on the sidelines with an elevated opinion of how the sport actually operates. It only operates and exists at its current level due to many many unpaid individuals either volunteering or participating as amateurs. Even though the latter may be licensed at different levels. By the way licensing doesn't constitute professionalism or confer high standards.

What's the reward got to do with it? This is an example of something that is quite common in harness racing. Been like it for decades.

Nope the rules aren't applied the same. How many times have ALL the drivers been breath tested on raceday?

Was this driver treated differently? IDEAL GRACE - junior driver T Bamford was questioned regarding the manner he drove shortly after the fallen horse incident when despite being unaffected he restrained his horse, causing it to lose touch with the field until near the 800 metres. Mr Bamford (assisted by M Purvis) explained that in a recent race the event had been called off due to a fallen runner and as there had been a lot of yelling he was unsure as to whether this race had also been called off before realising all other runners were continuing and so urged his runner. After considering Mr Bamford's explanation and noting the exceptional circumstances and his significant inexperience Stewards reminded him of his obligations under Rule 869(3)(g).

They may be licensed but many if not most are not paid.

Not all Drivers are paid. Take D D McCormick. Are you suggesting he pays himself when he drives his three horses in work? http://jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/appeal-d-d-mccormick-v-riu-reasons-for-decision-of-appeals-tribunal-dated-23-march-2021-chair-hon-j-w-gendall-qc

Explain this Gammalite and MarkyMark - Why are the rules applied differently I.e. inconsistently between some participants based on their differences in expertise and degree of professional ranking?

Not all participants are paid and not all make a living from the game. Compare that to a Super Rugby or NRL team. All the players are well paid and earning a living. It is very easy to paint Harness Racing as something it isn't and expect the same level of standards from ALL participants. You forget about the many owner/trainer/driver's in the game and the amateur licensed participants. Do you see anyone in a truly professional sport pitching up and not getting paid? Making Harness Racing a truly professional sport would be the final nail.

It isn't a professional sport. Never has and never will be in New Zealand. About time everyone in the industry, particularly the administrators, accepted that fact. There are very few that make their sole living from training and/or driving harness horses. Certainly nowhere near what most administrators and RIU employees earn.

That is debatable. Arguably anyone can drive a race horse. Only two controls to worry about. Statistically I would suggest it is safer to drive a harness horse if you have been trained to do so. For a start all the horses are travelling in the same direction! Not ALL harness drivers are "professionally paid horsemen" just as all vehicle drivers are not professionally paid either. So this reasoning is irrelevant. No I'm not defending Blair Orange's actions nor the actions of Chris Johnson either even though the latter requires a damn sight more skill standing in stirrups on top of a horse. At least the harness guys have training wheels! The point is Orange could legally drive at 100km/h a high powered motor vehicle to the races but can't drive a race horse! It is one of those rules that is a nonsense (a bit like whip rules). So either have the limit at zero or the same for driving a motor vehicle. But if you have it at zero then you further inhibit the attraction of harness racing as a career. If the current was so important why don't they test ALL drivers before the start of race one EVERY race day?

Incorrect. The limit is NOT zero i.e. "free from alcohol" as you infer.

But he can legally drive a motor vehicle to the course or a horse truck loaded with horses. Why should the limit be different? Isn't that the key question here?

We didn't need to water them. But the 80's was probably the peak of the useful life of our main tracks. From that point on the decline started and that decline has accelerated as we put more and more pressure on those tracks. We started closing tracks and shifting more and more meetings to a central location. Look at the CD and Canterbury. This further accelerated the decline. Think back to the 80's and remember the tracks that were still functioning. List them. NZ has under invested in the key infrastructure that is the key to holding a race meeting - the race surface itself. What has our solution been? Let's build 3 AWT's! Where is the plan to fix Te Rapa, Awapuni or Riccarton? I didn't mention Trentham - it is a dead duck. The only major metropolitan track in NZ that has a plan to fix their track is Ellerslie but they are relying on getting their hands on the Avondale dosh.

Again the irrigation is a symptom of an underlying cause which is a stuffed soil profile and structure. Do you think any course in New Zealand could have run on a Soft 7 after 10 days in which 360mm of rain fell? It was only a few weeks ago that a Metrop track in OZ put nearly an inch of irrigation on their track on the Friday and raced on a G3 perfect surface the next day! Irrigation in NZ is being used to try and fix a problem that it isn't designed to fix and which it can't fix however it is the only tool available to keep the grass growing and to have a reasonable cushion to race on. If you don't irrigate and keep the soil moisture content up and instead roll the dice you risk the chance of a shower of rain turning the track into a skating rink. Here is one for Reefton - how many race meetings have been abandoned due to NOT irrigating, a shower occurring on raceday, a horse slipping and the meeting called off?