Chief Stipe

But those aren't the penalties are they? So once again you are writing fiction. Feel free to post your review submission on BOAY.

Wrong. The stats don't show that at all.

We are still waiting for your Masterclass on how it makes a difference specifically to your punting tips especially when you consider you have no control over what the Jockey decides to do with or without the information. Nor do you have any idea how those reading will change during the day. Statistically draws didn't make a difference at Riccarton so the Stipe was right and maybe Fry not so.

Possibly by a younger horse.

But they don't HAVE to be licensed. To me it just seems odd that a horse can spend 6-8 weeks being trained with someone else and then in 2 weeks is ready to race with a licensed trainer.

I've stated in various ways on the Thoroughbred forum similar opinions - largely been shouted down! However I believe this is the weakest link in both Harness and Thoroughbreds. Pre-trainers should be licensed and subjected to the same controls and QA measures as the rest of the industry. A mate of mine told me a story about one of his horses being trained by one of the "top" Thoroughbred Trainers. He went to the trials to see it have a hit out. Had been told the horse had arrived from the pre-trainers a month before. One of his other mates was there and asked "how long has your horse been in XYZ's stable?" "About a month was the reply". His mate said "Well look at all of the other XYZ horses here. See how they are groomed, the way their manes and tails are cut? How come yours isn't the same?" The implication being that the horse had probably been in the pre-trainers a lot longer than was said. Different daily rates as well! We talk about Trainers not seeing the horses they train but having owned racehorses in the past I made sure I always regularly pitched up to the stable to see it. In fact if I couldn't afford to do that or have a representative do it for me then I wouldn't bother owning a horse.

Partly but you could get the same penetrometer reading on two different parts of the track BEFORE they raced on it. But after they have raced on it one part might become shifty and the other not. You only have to go back to that track last October which you and Pitty said was fantastic to see the difference in the clouds of dirt. Regardless you will see that bias is often overstated as is the impact on barrier draws. If you watch the races you will see the Jockey's migrate to what they think is the best part of the course anyway. How many horses got blocked for a run on Saturday?

The only option Riccarton have at the moment is to shift meetings to other local tracks - Motukarara, Ashburton. It was clearly evident that the track at the last meeting wasn't going to be any better than the previous meeting. It will be interesting to see what they do to the main track when the AWT kicks in. I imagine they don't have much cash floating around and the next big meetings will have jumps racing won't they? I guess you could run a hybrid meeting using the outside of the turf track for jumps and the AWT for flat racing while the inside of the turf track was renovated. But in saying that it is going to be a big job.

The Penetrometer or even the Going Stick won't tell you if the surface will break up and become shifty either.

Train it to do what?

So based on that Bosson averages about once a year getting pinged for too many strikes of the whip. Mmmmm not tying hard enough.

So you are both smoking the same stuff? The results don't show any bias with regard to draws. But who would have known - not you. That aside if any trainer had walked the track prior to scratching time they would have seen it's state. "You would not have to be a rocket scientist to work that out"! Expecting it to be any better than the previous raceday on the same part of the track would have required extreme optimism. Perhaps Frye should have scratched as soon as the draws came out.

Rule Number(s): 869(7a)(b)Following the running of Race 9 Mr Mulcay submitted an Information alleging that Mr Kriechbaumer 'shifted his gelding inwards over the marker pegs rounding the final bend'. Mr Kriechbaumer, assisted by Mr Abernethy was present at the hearing. Initially he indicated on the Information that he did not ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)This is a defended hearing arising from the running of Race 2, the Ellerslie Jewellers and Engravers 2100. Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham filed an Information pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) alleging Ms Thornton allowed her mount TRIGON LAD to shift out not sufficiently clear of HONESTY which was checked ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)This charge arises from the running of Race 7, the Group 1 Bonecrusher Stakes ($200,000). Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham filed an Information pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) alleging J Riddell (ROYAL PERFORMER) permitted his mount to shift out near the 400 metres making heavy contact with MELODY BELLE ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870(3) and Breaking Horse RegulationsFollowing the running of Race 7, Pryde’s Easifeed Southern Lights (Handicap Trot) (Gr3) 2700m, pursuant to Rule 870(3) Stipendiary Steward, Mr V Munro lodged an Information A10670 instigating a protest into the fourth placed horse by the judge, alleging that SMOKEY MAC (J Morrison) broke in excess of ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)This charge arises from the running of Race 3, the Gravity 2100. Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham filed an Information pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) alleging the Rider of WHEAO (L Satherley) directed her mount out in when not clear of TIA D’OR which was crowded and checked near the 300 metres. Ms Satherley ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Can you give us all a masterclass using a hypothetical scenario showing us how you as "NZ's most prolific tipster (after the race has run)" would apply this Going Stick information? I'm sure many of us would be fascinated to understand and no doubt would help you lobby for this information.

Fantasy and Fiction.

Another extra cost is you need more staff for the Thoroughbreds. They are far more highly strung than your average Standardbred especially when lit up and fit. If you have 30 well bred horses in your stable you probably have easily over $10 million in horse flesh. So you tend to have more stable staff with some dedicated to just a handful of horses. Plus with Standardbred's you can slap a dozen of them on a jogger pulled by the tractor. Doesn't quite work the same with a Thoroughbred.

I can think of many costs that are different and more expensive. For a start every time you step a Thoroughbred out on the track at a Training Centre they clip the ticket for the privilege of often running on a crap track. I doesn't take much to provide a circuit to train a Standardbred on.

Well what do you expect? Are the Trainers and Owners responsible for maintaining the quality of NZ Racing? Isn't that the role of the Administrators (NZTR) and the revenue arm (TAB NZ)?

So sitting in a sulky 5 days a week jogging your horse round and round and round the track is a lot harder than instructing someone who 90% of the time can't follow instructions to trackwork your horse while you watch through binoculars from a distance?

Fair enough. However shouldn't they BOTH be congratulated? Melody Belle winning 14 Group One's. Ocean Billy winning the Group One Auckland Cup. However if you diminish the achievement of one then you must equally diminish the achievement of the other if you apply the same criteria.

So what does the cost of purchasing the horse have to do with it? Surely you don't propose some market regulation? Same comment as above. The second horse cost $90,000 - hardly "expensive" in today's market. Yes wonderful story. Yes there doesn't seem to have been as much positive publicity around the win. However equally there hasn't been the same bashing either for the same reasons as the other Grp winners. Arguably there is more material to "bash" with! What was once one of the premier staying events of the NZ Racing Calendar (arguably THE premier staying event) has fallen to the level of a poor quality R90 (the average rating was R84). Not even Handicap now but SW & P with a weight spread of 5kg's. The second and third horses overseas bred. So I pose the same questions - The "problem" is - what has caused the decline of NZ racing? Then the followup question is what in your opinion should be done to turn things around?