Chief Stipe

Opened up the TAB website and was surprised to see there were three races to be run at Stratford in the dark.

I thought we should have a Topic for posting bloopers, bugs and general stuff ups from TAB-NZ.

Right so Cambridge Jockey Club with a horse training population of 1,200 needs a subsidy to keep their centre going? Doesn't bode well if training facilities need subsidisation from other parts of the industry to pay their way. Tell what happens when you close those other tracks down that are helping to subsidise the training centres? Who pays the bills then? But there weren't scores of meetings abandoned in the South Island anyway! On the rare occasion that meetings were abandoned they didn't cost the industry anything as they were budgeted to be abandoned and stakes weren't paid out. NZTR never had enough funding to deliver all the meetings they put on the calendar. There you go everyone. The South Island's leading trainer is being up front and honest - the rest of the clubs in the South Island will be bled to support the AWT. Start packing you kit bags and floats and head to the promised land of Riccarton. You might have to build your own stables in the car parks but nirvana awaits you. Just don't expect to gallop on the main turf track. I'm sure most of your owners are wanting to know when the main grass track will be renovated. After all the races run on that course are the money and glory races run on warm sunny days. Rubbish! If I did it would be a case of pot kettle back on your part. Pits - YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS!!! Otherwise you cannot plan you own business!!!!! Anyway you contradict yourself - on the one hand you say you will have many raceday starters on the AWT but then say probably not as they will only be industry days. The implication is you will use the AWT for training to get your horses fit for the Premier Days on the Turf Track. Good luck with that approach. But make up your mind.

My apologies you posted on the forum "12 industry days run between May and September" not 14. You intimated possibly more than 12.

Freda I suggest you and those in the "none of us" group give Peter Moody a ring at Pakenham and ask him what horses are suited by the Polytrack. Or ring a few of those trainers that have been working with the Cambridge AWT. Oh and while you are on the phone ask some questions about what impact grooming the track has on the firmness of the surface and the relationship between the frequency of that grooming and the surface consistency. I'd advise any trainer that is going to continue to train at Riccarton to do their research and adjust the type of horse they have in their stable.

I'm not against the AWT's per se. What I am against the rationale for having them, the lasting damage that will be done, the continual drain on resources and funding. Pits I would have thought that as the South Island's leading trainer and presumably an able businessman with a considerable investment in racing that YOU would have the business plan at your finger tips or at the very least perused it at length. However it is painfully obvious that you have NO IDEA! That does not bode well for the future. Are you sure about that Pits? I've NEVER EVER LIED - where have I lied on BOAY? But closing Timaru is the inevitable conclusion of installing the AWT at Riccarton. Connect the dots!!!! How else will they fund the damn AWT? How else will they pay for the renovation of the main Turf track at Riccartion without pillaging all the other tracks in the South Island? Pits all you can see is a big flash new shiny white elephant that makes you feel good and to hell with what once made the racing industry strong. Take a look at what turned Canterbury around - they administrators realised they need to feed the other unions in the Super franchise and needed to keep the Club network strong. What is racing doing? Creating 3 bleeding great black holes that are going to suck the life out of the regions and the non-elite clubs.

It wasn't a great ride from JMac. He got into that mindset that he had to get her to the outside and in doing so she started to fight him. I believe she is mature enough now to settle where she was. She expended a lot more effort and covered more distance than Adeybb in what was a slowly run race.

It's called ducking for cover on your part when you are called out. Still waiting for your explanation on the form of: Manhattan A Bettor Act A Delightful Act You see some of us just don't accept your narrative is true just because you can post it on the internet. BTW I suppose you see ghosts with the substantial drop in form when A Bettor Act went from the All Stars to Kerr.

Do you do ANY research? It got sick during its first prep in OZ. Was sold on Gavelhouse in September for AUD$27,000.

OK then expert - detail for the rest of us where they significant form changes were in the three horses that you described "as losing a leg since changing stables"? A bet you can't because you can't put your biased narrative to one side and objectively analyse the form. Manhattan A Bettor Act A Delightful Act Here is what I wrote so readers don't have to go back and search: OK - you can't say A Bettor Act has "lost a leg" since changing stables. It last won a race 10 October 2019 and has had one other placing since then in 9 starts! It has only had two starts from the Williamson stable. Its best success was when it was in the All Stars stable BEFORE going to Kerr! Manattan has had only 7 starts yet to win a race and has only run two places 7 months ago! Those two placing's were hardly in top fields! You might have a point with A Delightful Act but it has hardly set the world on fire. Last win was October last year and its next five starts returned one placing when it was in the Kerr stable. Perhaps it has reached its mark.

Supposition and very doubtful to be backed up by fact. I guess though it wouldn't be too hard to find a West Australian sucker. Galah pushing your narrative and repeating the same BS over and over won't fool me nor make what you say true. I presented the facts above and they are undeniable. One of the horses you pointed out to have "lost a leg" last won a race 9 starts and 18 MONTHS ago. Only 2 of those starts have been in a new stable!!!!!! FFS how the hell would YOU interpret THAT form? "ooohhh" says The Galah "a big drop in form after two starts in a new stable. Must have been on good juice at Kerr's".....

The general public don't give a damn about Greyhound racing. Won't matter how much spin you put on it. I'd be very surprised if Greyhound Racing in New Zealand survives this review.

Yes when I wrote that comment I immediately thought that it might have been exported. So it hasn't "lost a leg"! I was being somewhat facetious with regard to the RIU performance. My point was in relation to license holders. The data matching required is well with the rules of racing/gambling and they are quick to do it when there is a hint of "match fixing". I would have thought that a red flag would have been raised by both the amount being bet and lost and the fact that he was a license holder. There is no mention in the judgement that Kerr had been banned from betting in New Zealand. The RIU Betting Analyst only approached Ladbrookes for information after the RIU had "received information" from a third party i.e. a snitch. It was made clear in the judgement that NZ has a formal agreement with overseas bookies to legally receive the information it requested. BUT this was only AFTER someone had snitched. It isn't that hard to proactively monitor for issues especially when you have full time staff hired to do the analysis!!!!!

Hasn't raced for a year!

Karrots don't be sucked in by a particular narrative - it pays to follow up and check the facts.

OK - you can't say A Bettor Act has "lost a leg" since changing stables. It last won a race 10 October 2019 and has had one other placing since then in 9 starts! It has only had two starts from the Williamson stable. Its best success was when it was in the All Stars stable BEFORE going to Kerr! Manattan has had only 7 starts yet to win a race and has only run two places 7 months ago! Those two placing's were hardly in top fields! You might have a point with A Delightful Act but it has hardly set the world on fire. Last win was October last year and its next five starts returned one placing when it was in the Kerr stable. Perhaps it has reached its mark. So the evidence doesn't back up your assertion. As you keep telling us the RIU is doing a great job so if there had been any issues surely they would have been uncovered.

Actually the assertion that Kerr's horses lost form after moving stable, if in fact true, highlights what a loss the talented young Kerr is to the industry. Afterall we have an impeccable RIU and a world class drug testing regime so it must be just pure talent.

Aren't you overlooking some of the points made - for example if the RIU Betting Analyst is tasked with monitoring betting anomalies by NZ licensees how did Kerr slip under the radar? Are there other examples being "overlooked"?

Oooohhh! Another conspiracy theory perhaps.

Actually that might work shift ALL the industry days to the AWT (who cares about those horses that want soft tracks) and move the Premier days to the regions. That way they will get better turf surfaces. Freda will you sack those horses that require softer tracks as the AWT won't suit them?

But costs are not covered now nor does it seem enough is spent on maintaining existing surfaces so the increase in maintenance costs from the AWT will not be offset by an additional 50 horses!!!! Simple maths really isn't it? Strangely as evident in the ambiguity of your responses that you, as the leading trainer at Riccarton, are not privy to the business plan/case for the AWT. Which begs the question was there one? If there is one why hasn't the CJC been transparent by publishing it? A bit like the flawed premise that the AWT's were built on i.e. that they would stop the losses from abandoned meetings. That was a myth. As for the number of "extra" meetings I believe you mentioned 14+ on the AWT. I guess they will be bled from the regions. Where the horses and more importantly the new owners are going to come from is anyone's guess. However at this stage of the exercise we are still working on the costs not revenue. As for me knowing everything given the number of questions I'm asking (and getting ambiguous answers) would contradict that!!!! Sadly you don't seem to have the answers either!

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 1, Mr Goodwin lodged an Information with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 638 (3) (b) (ii) in that B Lammas used his whip excessively prior to the 100 metres. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Lammas confirmed he understood the Rule and admitted the breach. Mr Oatham used ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 3, (Aquashield Roofing Maiden), an Information was lodged by Mr Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) in that R Aukett permitted his mount RODENT to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of LITTLE TEXAS SKY (F Lazet) which was checked near 1000 metres. Mr Goodwin ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 2, Mr Goodwin lodged an Information with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 638 (3) (b) (ii) in that M Gibbs-Manssen used his whip excessively prior to the 100 metres, and continuing to use the whip inside the final 100 metres when out of contention. At the outset of the ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 4, Mr Goodwin lodged an Information with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 638 (3) (b) (ii) in that K Hercock used her whip excessively prior to the 100 metres. At the outset of the hearing, Ms Hercock confirmed she understood the Rule and admitted the breach. Mr Oatham ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article