Chief Stipe

But the numbers don't add up. You've trained horses at the beach? Where was the firmest ground with the most compaction? Which meeting? Are you going to say ALL of them? Of course no one wants to run on the AWT's. Ironically Waverley got a Woodville meeting because the latter couldn't put enough water on their track!

I thought wet sand was more compact than dry sand? Don't you train horses on the beach @curious? For a start that puts to bed the myths flying around that there was NO water applied. So 23mm of water leading up to the raceday wasn't enough? When evaporation rates were low? Has Awapuni got a pond or is there a natural spring near by? The water rates bill might become expensive.

Awapuni Racecourse Track Update A statement from RACE Inc. General Manager Brad Taylor In the wake of the abandoned race meeting at Awapuni Racecourse on Friday, RACE, in conjunction with New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR), has made the decision to bring forward the planned renovation of the track, with work to commence immediately rather than following the James Bull Rangitikei Gold Cup meeting on May 17. The race meeting was abandoned after Race 1 due to safety concerns arising from a slip on the newly renovated Awapuni track. Brad Taylor, RACE’s General Manager of Racing, expressed the Club’s disappointment at the situation. “We are extremely disappointed with the abandonment of Friday’s race meeting,” Taylor said. “We understand the frustration and disappointment from participants, stakeholders, and fans. However, the safety of both horses and jockeys is paramount, and under the circumstances, we fully support the decision to abandon the meeting.” Taylor explained that the incident was most likely caused by the compaction of the surface and how quickly the track dried between the initial moisture reading at 6:30am and Race 1 at 1:14pm. The moisture reading at 6:30am showed an average of 38%, which was within the target range of 38–40%. After 5mm of irrigation on Wednesday night and 18mm of rain earlier in the week, readings taken on Thursday were 44% at 8:30am and 42% at 3:30pm. Based on these readings, and with a forecast low of 4 degrees, a joint decision was made not to irrigate on Thursday night. Following the abandonment, moisture readings taken in the area of the slip ranged between 29% and 33%. The rail for Friday’s meeting had been moved out six metres, a decision made based on advice from track specialists engaged during the 19-month renovation process and grow in process. “There were two reasons for putting the rail out six metres,” Taylor said. “Firstly, after Verti-Draining, a small area near the 600m mark required repair after a rock was brought to the surface. Secondly, the trials held on April 8 with 13mm of rain caused significant damage to the renovated track leading to the decision to put the rail at 6 metres.” Taylor added that the area where the slip occurred had been subjected to significant use during reconstruction, including a gallop session involving 28 horses on Tuesday morning in preparation for Friday’s scheduled meeting. Following a meeting yesterday between the Club, NZTR, Racing Integrity Board (RIB) representatives, and track specialists Liam O’Keeffe and Callum Brown, an immediate plan of action has been put in place to address the compaction issues. “We are grateful for the advice from the experts as we continue to refine the preparation processes for this new track surface, which differs considerably from the previous Awapuni track,” Taylor said. RACE will now commence renovation works immediately, involving coring, verti-draining, and adding additional sand to the surface — actions originally scheduled after May 17. RACE sincerely apologises for the inconvenience caused and greatly appreciates the support and understanding of the racing community. The Club remains focused and committed to working closely with all stakeholders to ensure the best outcomes and remains confident in the future of the renovated Awapuni track. Corporate Communications New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing nztrcommunications@nztr.co.nz

Watering them during the night before the races is what Ellerslie does to keep the "new" customised Strathayr raceable. It is costing them a fortune in irrigation with up to 35 to 40mm required each time. I hope the hell when they renovate Hastings they don't go down this sand path!!! BTW @Special Agent when was the last time Hastings could truly be considered a Premier Track?

No I don't nor do I think the primse cause - pure sand based turf tracks are any good either!! Hercocks answer BTW is to water the shyte out of them so they are permanently soft and presumably no kickback!! Well that's not the case at Ellerslie is it?

So you reckon "Yes the tracks are getting hammered". In the figures I posted above I didn't account for the fact that not only were there 400 less races last season than in 2006 but another 300 races (30 meetings) were run on the AWT's! That's 700 less races on the turf tracks and you are saying they are getting "hammered"! Hell some are saying that Trentham has been hammered and it had 3 extra meetings than what is normal!!! Tracks being hammered by too much racing is a myth not supported by the facts. If Tracks are behaving as if they are hammered it is because they are stuffed!!!

Well lets make Hercock the National Track Manager. How much irrigation did she recommend prior to the meeting?

So what is the logical outcome of your very valid analysis? Assuming that we expect a racecourse to live within its means AND to keep racing and training infrastructure up to scratch what are the key sources of revenue? Horses trained on course - 500 minimum; Horses trialed on course - 20 trials a year?; Horses raced on course - 25 meetings a year? If you look at number 1 and consider that there are currently only just over 2,500 horses registered - half of which are trained at Cambridge and Matamata - how many courses do we need? We certainly don't need Trentham which only provides on half on the third criteria - 12 meetings a year. If it wasn't for Ellerslie's capital invested (which incidentally must have taken a hit recently) they'd struggle as well.

I agree with the majority of your post - it is well thought out and reasoned. It's just this quote I don't agree with. Are tracks really "being hammered"? In 2006-07 Season: In the 2023-24 Seaon: There were 292 meetings - 7 less than 2006-07 BUT 404 less races which is the equivalent of 40 less race meetings. Are tracks really getting "getting hammered"?

How much time? What protocols will you use to test that it is ready that were different to those used prior to the race meeting? Obviously simply galloping four horses across it on race morning, running a couple of hundred horses across it in trials and a total of 500 horses run across the surface is too complicated. What is the ubloody uncomplicated approach you recommend?

Nothing had been done to fix the issue after many abandonments.

When was it last a Premier Track? That is a serious question.

So you are looking for a scapegoat? Someone to blame Just like you've found Bryce Mildon at Hastings to blame based on the advice amd misinformation from who knows. So you find these scapegoats and their heads are rolled. Then what? What are you going to do at Hastings? What are you going to do at Awapuni that hasn't already been done? If you are going to employ someone else who are they?

Wheres the Watu?

Might be too late by then. They don't seem keen to speak out for some reason. I'm not sure their Association has any nerve or desire to rock the boat even behind the scenes.

I stand corrected @SLB2.0 check out R8 at The Valley - a horse lost its footing similar to Awapuni. Will there be an abandonment?

What you are inferring is that the All Stars had some magical advantage. What I'm saying is that factually that doesn't hold up and also the gap between a lot of trainers has closed. Also contrary to your assertion the partnership between Mark and Nathan Purdon is performing at a similar level to the other partnerships that Mark has had with a smaller number of horses. In the 2024 season they still picked up $2.2m in stakes with a UDR of 0.3745. They were 2nd in the 2023 Trainers Premiership with 83 wins, a UDR of 0.4572 which was miles ahead of everyone else and over $3m in stakes. Their stakes winnings was $1m more than the Dunns who won the Premiership. So I need to correct myself - they do seem to be as dominant as always. They just don't have the same number of horses.

Well you've probably had a share or two in a horse at one stage. I bought into the Winnie funded largesse on two occasions prior to the AWT's. Didn't buy into them nor have a bought into this over inflated short term stakes increase. Would love to see some nice turf tracks that played fair in all seasons and weren't shifty sand based. I've never worked out why Trainers just accept what they are given and adapt. So it is great to see them fighting back over Levin.

Where have I said any Trainer or Jockey is "useless"? There hasn't been a complete renovation like the one done this time in the last 25 years. The last big renovation was just on the troublesome bend. Flemington does a complete renovation every 4 to 5 years! We have this expectation in NZ that a track will last forever. They don't. You need to work extensively on them EVERY year to extend their usefulness otherwise you get the problems we are facing now. So if you are going to apportion blame, which you seem intent on doing, then it is those that didn't commit enough capital or resource to renovate on a regular basis. Dairy and dry stock farmers had to adapt why didn't our Racing Clubs? The degradation was a slow gradual decline. Trainers from what I've seen are reluctant to work together and demand better. BTW in 100 years you would expect to do a serious renovation on a track a minimum of every 10 years - so TEN times! He wouldn't have the reasons for the abandonment. Everything was done to ensure that the meeting went ahead and completed successfully. A horse slipped. Why? Where was the system failure? Hell Ellerslie spent 10 time what Awapuni has and look what happened there!!!! NO I'm not running Trainers and Jockeys down I'm just saying as the customer of the tracks they like all stakeholders have been part of the problem. In effect I'm blaming everyone. We all stood by and put up with crap for decades and never addressed the problems or demanded that capital be invested in infrastructure for the benefit of the horse. Not flash stands and parties and over the top stakes but good safe surfaces to race horses on and safe clean secure stabling to house them. Easy now to blame management, track managers and turf science experts who are trying to fix the years of neglect. One of the few things that Messara got right in his report was his assessment of the state of our tracks.

Obviously you are new to the Sport. I've seen horses doing it for 55 years. The difference is with better breeding there are more able to do it. The Bettor's Delight influence has been significant.

Fantastic so some of you are in "I told you so" mode. I guess they have been saying it for the last 20 years that Awapuni has had problems? Those who let this gradual degradation of our tracks to happen over the last 20 plus years. I don't blame the under resourced track managers over that time at all. Where were these experts that you refer to demanding that tracks were maintained adequately? How often do these trainers renovate their day paddocks? That's reactive and only an incompetant CEO would have gone down that path without the full information being available. To do otherwise could have opened a whole raft of litigation. So you want blood - you want heads to roll of the very people that have attempted to fix the mess that took decades of neglect to occur. Those calling for blood seem to have very short memories and conveniently forget the part they played. Remember the Awapuni meetings abandoned in 2010, 2015 (The Kevin Morton vs RIU Case), 2017 and others? Be greatful that finally they are trying to do something to fix the problems and spending nearly $6m to do it.

That's not correct. She was interviewed quite a time after the abandonment. Not only that she repeated what she had said the previous times she has been interviewed. Her answer is to tell the track manager they should have irrigated more. She hasn't said how much! The track had had 17mm of water in the previous 7 days. 5mm in the 24 hours before raceday. Should they have put the 30-40mm that Ellerslie need to put on their track in the days leading up to a meeting? Hell just imagine the screaming from trainers not wanting a track that was too soft! In reality what is he going to say? Just come out and bag Club Management and the Track Manger as well as the Track renovators? The Manager of Awapuni was interviewed on Trackside WELL before Hercock and gave a guarded opinion about what happened and what was happening next. You couldn't expect anything else. As for the anecdotal negatrive reports from nameless trainers and Jockeys about the trials. Well they don't seem to align with the trial videos nor the public comments of Jonathan Riddell, Leah Hemi and Kate Hercock herself. To quote Hercock - " First-time rider on the track, Kate Hercock, was equally impressed. “The track is lovely, it’s very consistent all over.”

@curious I've been thinking about the moisture reading that track managers now seem to be obliged to provide on a regular basis. For some reason some aged neurons formed during my horticultural science days got me to thinking and revisiting some of the science of moisture reading and field capcity. I've come to the conclusion that the moisture reading on its own as the measure of a track condition is a load of nonsense. Even as a measure of the water content it is only relevant at the point in time it was taken - water is constantly draining or being added. However the meter needs to be calibrated to the field capacity of the soil type. Depending on how you measure it the field capacity of sand is 15 to 25% by volume (the % can change relative to the size of the sand grains) with a water holding capacity of 5% to 15%. Applying these benchmarks and correlating the moisture readings then you could assume that Ellerslie is largely pure sand. Awapuni has produced a higher moisture reading and was rated at a Good 4. Why can't they give us penetrometer readings anymore? Or find a more reliable repeatable multi-factor measurement tool for measuring a tracks firmness? Would a Going Stick which measures firmness and shear be a better tool? Would measuring shear have given an indication that the surface was unstable?

She's been interviewed three times now on the same subject but at different tracks. She seems to be Tracksides "Go To" and I'm wondering who is behind that choice. Her repeated assertion that the fix is to irrigate more is way off the mark. Quite ironic really when you consider the other group of stakeholders primarily trainers saying in the past that they irrigate too much!!! Who would want to be a Track Manager? What we have now is a disparate bunch of groups all with different opinions on the issue. The cynic says it is a deliberate divide and rule approach.

Basically a sand loam to which has been added organic matter which helps with drainage, reduces the need to artificially fertilise and has increased the water holding capacity to reduce the affect of droughts BUT not at the expense of natural drainage.