Chief Stipe

So the All Stars have the best UDR of the top 5 stables and are first equal on stakes won so far this year. Yeah Na they haven't crashed. So if you agree with @the galah 's conspiracy I guess the All Stars still have the good stuff! 😉 😜 Yeah Na - a load of bollocks that falls over on one key point. With all the testing and modern technology available the RIB have found zilch.

Really? Don't they have the internet?

@the galah I don't mind you speculating and have a conspiracy theory about the All Stars but it isn't a time to speculate about Greg Sugars. The same goes foe @aquaman.

Yep. Hence why I asked @Pitman for a business case.

I give De Lore zero credibility.

Yes but what does 'flipping" mean? I suspect it means putting the right machinery over it with the right moisture content and de-compacting it.

I don't understand the term "flipping". Please explain.

I would doubt that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the Awapuni AWT other than a lack of regular maintenance.

But your theory falls over when the facts are looked at i.e. their season stakes won and the number of winners per starters. You also ignore the fact that other trainers are doing better. I presume according to your theory they have access to "stuff" that the All Stars don't! Well you have one foot in the grave on that hill and are still casting aspersions without any facts or evidence. Not every can see something that isn't there - except you of course. He still is at that level however he is transitioning the Purdon IP to another generation while he himself pulls back from the slog of training. As @Gammalite would attest and as I have experienced training horses is a very mentally and phyiscally demanding occupation requiring very very long hours. We've discussed this at length but you have a conspiracy theory and like most consipiracists will not waver from it even in the face of facts. THERE HAS BEEN NO NEW SPECIAL PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG discovered in the New York cases even after the seizing of a vast amount of drugs. The New York cases were all based around mail fraud/mislabelling and the illegal use of known drugs prior to compeitition without notification. HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO TELL YOU THIS? You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. What contacts? Blair Orange? Are these contacts the recreational drug users that were nabbed during INCA? Again the facts don't support your assertion.

Especially when we are led to believe that "many Jockeys and Trainers had concerns"!!

I'm not goading them. Would you turn up to work if your thought your workplace was unsafe? Would you race your horse on an unsafe surface if you knew beforehand? To be fair I've only seen firsthand one trainer scratch after walking a track on raceday morning. raceday-track-safety-inspection-involving-jockeys-procedure---revised-10-jan-2024.pdf

raceday-track-safety-inspection-involving-jockeys-procedure---revised-10-jan-2024.pdfThis is the VRC policy - note that Jockeys can express concern BEFORE racing commences: Racing Victoria and the Victorian Jockeys' Association (VJA) have agreed Stewards and jockeys will refer to the following Raceday Track Safety Inspection Involving Jockeys Policy in the event of a track inspection being required on raceday. If, at any stage on raceday prior to the first race or during the race meeting, the Stewards and/or jockeys express concerns regarding the condition of the track, the Stewards and jockeys will initially discuss those concerns in the Stewards’ room. If, following that discussion, it is considered necessary by the Stewards, the Stewards, the Track Manager, the Club CEO and all jockeys or delegation of jockeys who are engaged to ride in the first (or the next race) will inspect the track at the area(s) of concern. Jockeys who are also VJA Directors will be invited to inspect the area(s) of concern (irrespective of whether those jockeys are riding in the upcoming race). No other jockeys are able to enter upon the course-proper during this time and until a decision has been made in respect of the continuation of the race meeting. For the duration of the track inspection, all Jockeys will be under the strict control of the Stewards and must comply with any directions of the Stewards. Following the track inspection, the Stewards, the delegation of jockeys, and the Track Manager will discuss carrying out any remedial work which may address the concerns surrounding the affected area. If remedial work is considered possible, the Track Manager will be instructed by the Stewards to carry out that work. If remedial work is carried out, the site will be further inspected as per above. Note: If there is any concern regarding track condition prior to a race meeting the Track Manager must contact the Chairman of Stewards panel Chairperson for the meeting and the RV Tracks & Facilities Manager as soon as possible. The contact information is contained in this document. All of the above conditions apply to any RV organised trials. Training for club staff in revised penetrometer operation can be arranged by RV, if required. Raceday Track Safety Inspection Involving Jockeys Policy

If that's the case then the protocol is wrong for even confirming the track condition! No wonder the track ratings are often wrong! Which brings us back to the initial question what protocols/processes should be put in place to check the safety of a track before racing commences?

Really? They still outperforming everyone with stakes earnt.

Right so when did the 4 horses gallop? Before or after 7:30am? Wouldn't the protocols be that the RIB are in attendance as it is they who have the authority to abandon the meeting? Or is it a game of chicken? Was NZTR there when the 4 horses galloped? If before 7:30am?

Don't RIB take control Raceday. Are you saying they don't take control until the horses are in the birdcage for the first?

Yes and apparently FOUR horses were galloped on the track in the morning. Given that was under RIB control where is their report and recommendation?

Then why did Trainers and Jockeys start if they knew it was dangerous? Wouldn't a Senior Jockey publically pulling the pin BEFORE the meeting have more credibility than saying after the fact "I told you so!" The more important point is what protocols and processes should be in place to prove a track IS SAFE?

Then why did the new Track expert Kate Hercock elect to ride on the track? Surely if she was so sure beforehand she and her fellow senior jockeys could have pulled the pin? She didn't seem to worried when she hunted her charge up around the very piece of the track that she apparently knew was dangerous!!! Likewise with all the nameless Trainers who "knew beforehand" but still elected to race their horses? "No lets wait until after the abandonment and say we told you so then blame the Track Manager, Club Management and NZTR." If the RIB are in charge then why did they let the races go ahead if all these Jockeys and Trainers expressed their concerns? Apparently the Jockeys whisper beforehand and then sing loudly afterwards. But all this scuttlebutt aside HOW DO YOU TEST A TRACK BEFORE A MEETING? Someone has to vest and helmet up to test it don't they?

Of course it did. But how many race meetings did it actually affect? There have been fewer race meetings to host so not as many as some people assume. The majority of the HB Guineas meeting went North to the Waikato. Trentham got off lightly with only two or three extra meetings. Hardly a hammering. Waverley has taken up the slack. New Plymouth did SFA. But Waverley is like Ashburton why didn't they push back? Did both Clubs do a deal that secures track renovatipn funding and a license to race in the future?

What I'm saying is what meetings at Waverley occurred because NZTR had closed a track? Waverley had to accommodate Hawera and Woodville because although they were open tracks they weren't up to standard. The fact is there are 70 less race meetings since 2006 to run on Turf tracks throughout New Zealand. Which tracks get those remaining?

They're long gone and took the good times with them without leaving anything sustainable behind.

I realise you "don't care about numbers and stats" however what meetings from closed tracks were transferred to Waverley? My understanding is that the meetings that were transferred there were meetings that couldn't be held because of issues at open tracks.

But if there was lack of compaction then how would a horse slip? As I said earlier the horse lost its footing a the turf carpet square floating on the sand. Probably the same "surface tension" problem as Ellerslie as well!!!