Chief Stipe

Rule Number(s): Rule 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of the O'CONNOR WARREN INSURANCE BROKERS MAIDEN an Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones against Apprentice Jockey Mr C Jones alleging that Mr Jones used his whip excessively prior to the 100 metres mark. Rule 638(3)(b)(ii) provides: a Rider shall not strike a ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): Rule 638(1)(d)Following the running of the O'CONNOR WARREN INSURANCE BROKERS MAIDEN an Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones against Mr S McKay the rider of ZAC BLACK alleging that Mr McKay allowed his mount to shift in when not clear of EL ROSEAY which was dictated in onto GOOD SOUL which was crowded ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): Rule 642(1)Following the running of the O'CONNOR WARREN INSURANCE BROKERS MAIDEN, an Information instigating a Protest was lodged by Mr N Tiley the Trainer of the second placed horse SOPHISTICAL against the first placing of DEVOTIONINMOTION. The Protest was pursuant to Rule 642(1) and was based on interference ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 9 (CR Grace/Tony Wilson Livestock 1650), Information A14109 was lodged with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that Mr Kareem allowed his mount RANGITATA to shift in near the 800m when not sufficiently clear of ZENA BELLE which was forced in, crowding SASSENACH which ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

I notice none of the horses that won on Saturday could be called "Wet Trackers"!

Don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative. The complaints came after the rock hard near dangerous track presented on the 3rd of October. They didn't just come from Te Akau. Indeed it would be fair to say that the complaints were universal. Of course we had Pitty saying it was a good track with Reefton joining him. To isolate out one Trainer or Stable from a long list is disingenuous and to infer that their success on the final day was reliant on the manipulation of the track is downright wrong. Te Akau might be the dominant stable in New Zealand but to suggest that they have influence over the weather is laughable. Just to remind you all what it looked like one MONTH earlier. I would say if a track like that had been presented on either of the Guineas Days then Riccarton would lose the final support it had for the Guineas to stay. Now you may unfairly select Te Akau out of those that complained about 3 October but don't forget they supported the Guineas staying in the South. We also forget that no one complained about the Cup week track until the last day. My only complaint was that it wasn't a D5 but a D4. Supposedly there was a bias and favoured horses who liked Dead tracks. The facts don't actually add up to support either contention. Now of course eveyone is ignoring the real issue the turf track is stuffed. Now Pitty and Reefton support the big spend on the All Weather Track but no mention of renovating the main turf track.

I agree. The very inside may have been worn but I think saying there was a bias is quite frankly BS. What happened was the first three races were won by horses coming down the outside. The fact they paid big dividends accentuated the dividends. I guess all the bias promoters will be looking forward to the supposed even nature of the new synthetic track. I'll also add that Riccarton being as wide as it is no one was disadvantaged as in no one was forced to race on the inside.

I believe it improved past a D5.

But it wasn't related. So your idiot mind at work again.

Dickhead. Do you actually read anything? Is there a light on the dashboard? As evident from the mistakes the system needs fixing.

As I've said many many times before the issue is the soil structure. To be blunt it's fucked. Turns to glue when it gets really wet and turns to concrete when really dry. There is no buffer to work with.

You're only privy to your own mind which is where you hear voices.

What narrative? The one you made up?

The point I was making is it is easy to blame the starter when the system should be foolproof. Didn't there use to be a flashing light?

Seems like a poor system if it isn't fool proof. No disrespect Freda.

Thomas can you stop posting the same stuff and external links.

It was clearly evident that Trackside was running a shoe string budget when people were being interviewed on course and they were wearing headphones and holding their own microphone. But it will be alright Saundry will sell a couple of race courses. All the same there should be a bloody inquiry into the Windsor Park/Randall and Co broadcasting con.

How do you know it was "wet" on the inside? The complaints were that it was "worn"...... If irrigation created a bias then why did this not happen on the first day?

Then you have a wider strip that could be worn. At the end of the day the protests of a bias are exaggerated. The inside was worn but Riccarton is a big track and you didn't have to run on it.

Why not point the finger back at MacKenzie and his Board (NZRB, RITA and TAB NZ)? The cuts are due to trying to mitigate the cost of the broadcasting/production contract they all signed up to. Now the costs have been shifted to the codes. At the end of the day no overall benefit to the industry and INCREASED costs overall.

Why would Jockey's listen to Pitty?

Thomarse you need to keep up. The tweet you tried to post was first posted weeks ago - October 20 to be exact.

Thomarse are you going to keep posting crap? A penetrometer reading wouldn't have told you that the inside was worn. Nor would that information have helped the punter. Especially if none of the Jockey's had bothered to walk the track nor think nor not follow the leader.