Chief Stipe

Pottle kettle. Can you give us a race meeting where your theory applies? To further confuse punters like you. Regardless of whether the information is provided or not you haven't shown us how you would use it. The thin outline of methodology that you have posted so far is flawed. Nothing hard about it at all. But what's the point to the punter? The Jockey's are the only ones who can effectively use this information to improve their horse's chances. The punter can't.

Of course the Assistant Starter saw she wasn't ready......

Normally it is the horse in front that dictates where the field runs. So if you draw inside then I would have thought that you have a good chance of getting to the front and dictating where the field runs. If you are on locked in on the fence (this happens on Fast 1, Good 2, Good 3....well any track condition) you are more likely to get off the rail if it is a H10 or H11 or the inside running is off because all the jockeys are looking for the "better" ground. Generally on a Good 2 or 3 and you are locked 3 back on the inner then you have issues.

Does this only apply if it is a H11 not a H10? I just had a quick squiz at the results for Wanganui last September which was run on a H10. Half the winners draw 3 or better. Barrier 3 got 2 wins, 2 got 1 and 1 got 1. In the race that barrier 1 won the horse that was 2nd draw 2. As for the rest of the races it doesn't seem that the inside barrier affected any of the chances of the favourites.

I won't ask Thomaas this question has I'll get a Dickhead answer preceded by a Dickhead and ending with a Dickhead. Mardigras: How does SW&P discourage punters? For that matter how does Handicap racing encourage punters to bet more? In my opinion there are bigger issues with the handicapping system that would discourage punters e.g. the 2kg female allowance, the limited upper and lower weight limits and the corresponding lack of spread.

Who in their right mind would take any notice of Mick Guerin. Oh....you of course.

I thought it was the A & P Society.

Not at all. I for one have been consistent in my arguments and opinion.

So you had already selected your bet. The "information" you received only motivated you to put more money on. It didn't change the your assessment of chance. If the new meters measure moisture then they need to be calibrated on a track by track basis. For example a Strathayr track will always return a higher moisture content than a track that has poor soil structure yet be classed as Good. You'll eventually get caught out using this information they way you are. Too much variation for something that you have no control over. The person who got the "sling" will no doubt be knocking on your door again until the day it all goes wrong.

OK the debate is getting too hard for you. Quite simply if you can't explain how these new measurements are of any use to you then I suggest they are of no use to anyone. BTW I'm here to stay - if I go away then so does BOAY unfortunately.

You back to writing fiction Thomaas? Well at least you seem to agree that voice signals in such an environment are flawed.

LOL - "MAY not suit it"!? What's the Jockey going to do find the lane that suits it? LOL. Yep that's a winner! Given the size of our fields now and the width of the Wanganui track I don't see this as a problem. Who knows the Jockey might look fo the gaps through the middle. Again you have no control over the paths taken so why worry about it when reviewing chance?

Good question. Ask the RIU who is responsible for the Starters Card. Freda just gave us another example of where the information on it was lacking. I've done no such thing. I know it is beyond your comprehension because of the logical rationale behind what I wrote however at no point have I disagreed that the button shouldn't have been pushed. HOWEVER I believe that the process as described is FLAWED and is open to error. For a start a visual signal would be far better than a voice signal in an environment which is noisy and extremely busy. Don't the Japs use flags? For example: "The Assistant Starter is holding up the Yellow Flag which indicates that all starters are in the gates. The Starter has now raised the Green Flag which indicates he has Power and they are about to start"... What is so hard for you to comprehend that the Manual is FLAWED!!!! I doubt you have even read it.

I don't recall Mardigras calling me either. You consistently fire abuse at ANYONE who offers an opinion different to yours. Park your ego. So what? As a Punter you have no control over how the information is used by the only person that can effect a change i.e. The Jockey. So why bother including a variable you have no control over nor can definitively measure? You still haven't given us an example of how it changed your betting at Awapuni, Otaki or Wanganui or anywhere for that matter.

Precisely. Can't blame the Starter for something that is beyond his/her control. The Manual as it stands currently is flawed. If the Manual spent as much time on the procedures as it does on who can and can't have a bet then it would be a damn sight better.

Can you cut the personal abuse please or you are outta here. Not good to bite the hand that enables your insatiable desire for attention. So what if the rail is a death trap (no deaths been reported yet) - as a Punter you have no control over how that information is used so why bother including it in your assessments. The only reason it should be included is to confuse mug punters and enhance the return to better punters.

You EXPLAIN how it affects your punting strategies. As yet you haven't given us any examples. The fact is as a Punter you have ZERO control over how that information is used in a race. Only the Jockeys can respond to it.

RITA are joking aren't they? The NZTAB - "valuable"!

It didn't seem to have any effect on horses chances. Hardly surprising when half the races had less than 8 starters. Good to see the jockey's compensated.

Rule Number(s): 869(2)Miss Haley, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr Campbell the driver of JACCKA TED in race 6, used his whip on more occasions than is permitted by the Use of the Whip Regulations. This is a breach of r 869(2). Miss Haley identified JACCKA TED on the race films. She demonstrated that the Respondent, who ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(3)(b)Mr Munro, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr Hurrell (MOTORING MAJOR) drove carelessly in race 12 by shifting inwards when not fully clear of VIN SCULLY (R Holmes) which broke checking COOLHAND EASTON, PICK SIX TELF, LOCK IT IN EDDIE and NIRVANA BEACH. Mr Munro demonstrated on the films that MOTORING ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870(3), 1003(2), Breaking Horse RegulationsMr Munro alleged that in Race 1 horse number 10, SUSIES WAY broke in excess of 50 metres in the final 200 metres of the race. Mr Munro sought disqualification of SUSIES WAY pursuant to r 1003(2) Judges placings were: 1st - 3 DORA EXPLORER 2nd - 1 KAHRESS 3rd - 11 WILLANGUS LAD 4th - 4 SUNNY VALLEY 5th ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870(3), 1003(2), Breaking Horse RegulationsMr Munro alleged that in Race 8 horse number 6 WHATWILLBEEWILLBEE broke in excess of 50 metres in the final 200 metres of the race. Mr Munro sought disqualification of WHATWILLBEEWILLBEE pursuant to r 1003(2). Judges placings were: 1st – 2 MAJESTIC CONNIES 2nd – 8 SMOKEY MAC 3rd – 4 RITEUR 4th - 6 WHATWILLBEEWILLBEE ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Racing Reform Update #6 from Chair, Dean McKenzie 10 January 2020 With the new year underway, we wanted to write to you and your members again regarding the Racing Industry Bill. As you will be aware, the Government’s Bill is currently before Parliament and will, once passed, give effect to many of the critical changes required to revitalise the New Zealand racing industry. This is a very significant and comprehensive Bill and reflects a determined focus and commitment from this Government to the racing industry. The RITA Board welcomes the Bill and the opportunities it presents for everyone connected to racing in New Zealand. Prior to the Christmas break, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing provided an initial assessment of the Bill to clubs, outlining their early views on some of the key provisions. Subsequent to this, we have received a number of requests from racing clubs to provide RITA’s thoughts on the Bill and to clarify our position on elements of NZTR’s email that reference a view of RITA. While we will be holding conversations later this month with the industry to discuss the proposed legislation, the RITA Board is concerned that there is some degree of misinformation about elements of the Bill that should be cleared up as soon as possible. We wanted to cover off some of these aspects here, while also taking the opportunity to set out RITA’s position on some key aspects of the Bill. Future Industry Structure This Bill (which is the second piece of racing reform legislation) finalises the post-transition structure of our industry. Under the Bill, TAB NZ is established as a new entity, responsible for betting, broadcasting and gaming. Operating as a commercially focused wagering entity, TAB NZ has a legal responsibility to maximise its profits for the long term benefit of New Zealand racing. The three Racing Codes are responsible for governance and administration functions within their respective code. These functions include oversight of racing clubs, venues and participants, development of racing rules and animal welfare policies and distribution of revenue to clubs. In carrying out their functions, each Code is required to adhere to the rules of natural justice and exhibit a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates. These are important legal principles that will govern how a Code undertakes its functions (and provide important “checks and balances” for the comfort of clubs and all industry participants). Principle of “regulatory back stops” The Bill provides the Codes with a variety of tools and functions to effectively govern their industries. However, the Bill also introduces a number of regulatory/statutory backstops in the event that the Codes (or other industry participants) are at an impasse or otherwise require Government assistance. These are largely helpful fallback provisions and having a Minister being able to make a decision, in the event progress is not being made, is positive and may help deal with issues that have gone unresolved for decades and have held the industry back. In RITA’s view, generally, these provisions do not detract from the overall theme of the legislation which is to place appropriate control of the industry in the hands of industry participants and ensure clear pathways for decision making, enabling the industry to move forward. Further, clubs and Codes can take comfort from the fact that Ministerial decision making, if it comes to that stage, will also be subject to judicial review considerations (including principles of natural justice). New Revenue The legislation is intended to deliver real benefits for industry participants. Therefore, RITA is concerned by suggestions that no extra revenue will flow to the Codes directly under this Bill. Whilst this Bill is a complete rewrite of the Racing Act 2003 it incorporates all of the revenue initiatives introduced last year (as part of the first racing reform legislation). These initiatives (reduction in betting duty and the suite of offshore charges) have already, and will continue to generate much needed revenue for the industry. For example, funds already collected as a result of the betting duty reduction are being specifically ring-fenced by RITA until Government regulations are issued to determine the distribution of those funds between the Racing Codes and Sport NZ (with a proportion of those funds also being allocated to betting related harm minimisation initiatives). From mid 2021, we would expect these returns alone will be in excess of $14m per annum. Under the current Bill, the statutory offshore charges will be able to be set and collected following the implementation of regulations (which are currently being considered by the Government). The Minister has indicated he will direct the Select Committee to consider amendments allowing the industry to reach better voluntary commercial arrangements on the offshore charges regime. These amendments will be sent to the Committee when the Parliament resumes this year. In the meantime, a number of offshore wagering operators have already committed to paying voluntary charges, most recently SportsBet and Ladbrokes. The Bill also introduces provisions which are intended to allow TAB NZ to offer a broader range of betting products, to increase revenue for the industry (subject to an approval process and a number of important considerations being met, including in relation to harm minimisation). In our view this is not yet where it needs to be and is one area of the Bill that RITA will be considering closely as part of the Select Committee process, with a view to seeking increased flexibility for RITA in introducing new products. Venues We know the Bill’s provisions in relation to racing venues have generated much attention already. We understand that the new proposed processes are a source of concern for some clubs and so, with this in mind, we will separately provide a more detailed synopsis of the Bill’s venue provisions. The majority of the industry recognise that there are too many racing venues to support sustainably. In helping determine the optimum footprint of racing venues, the Bill provides a transparent, industry led evaluation process to identify any surplus racing venues based around a statutory prescribed process (venue assessment criteria). This includes clear opportunities for consultation with industry stakeholders and Codes will be bound by the natural justice principles outlined above, to ensure a fair process is followed. The intent behind the venue provisions in the Bill is that industry assets should continue to provide long term benefit for racing, whether that’s continuing as a racetrack, becoming a training facility, being developed for commercial benefit or selling it (which some incorrectly default to). Critically, the industry will be at the forefront of determining if a venue is not required for racing and then considering its alternate optimum use. In the event that the Code and the Club cannot reach an agreement, it is only then that the fall-back provisions of the Bill (which involve Ministerial decision making) come into play. Racing Integrity Board There has been significant discussion about the structure of New Zealand racing’s integrity functions and performance over recent years, which is unsurprising given the paramount importance in ensuring there is confidence in the integrity of racing. In undertaking a review of the structure and efficacy of the RIU and allied integrity bodies (as recommended by Mr Messara), Malcolm Burgess (who was commissioned by the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC)) engaged extensively with industry participants and administrators and with experts in the area of integrity - in New Zealand and Australia. His independent report made a number of recommendations, including the establishment of a new single governance Racing Integrity Board (RIB), which will be responsible for compliance and adjudicative functions. This recommendation has been adopted in the Bill and is one which RITA supports (the combined structure is not unique in the New Zealand context). In order for the industry and punters to have confidence in the integrity of racing, independence from the industry is vital. Accordingly, in RITA’s view, an independent, streamlined model (as proposed in the Bill) can only be a good thing for racing. While NZTR expresses concern that it will take a significant period of time to transition to the new RIB structure, RITA isn’t of the same view. Understandably it will take some effort to bring two organisations together, however plans and preparations are well advanced to get this done professionally and in a timely fashion once the Bill is enacted. The Bill also specifically requires the new Board to ensure the compliance and adjudicative functions are performed independent of each other. Major transaction The Bill requires TAB NZ to obtain written Ministerial approval for a “partnering arrangement”. This is an arrangement which would provide for a substantial proportion of TAB NZ’s betting, broadcasting or gaming functions to be undertaken by another person. Contrary to the NZTR note, RITA considers this clause is appropriate , given the significance of the TAB in New Zealand to not just racing but to all Kiwis. The TAB is a valuable, and arguably, the most important asset the industry has and therefore, it is understandable that the responsible Minister should make the final decision if such a significant transaction is proposed in relation to it. This is no different from similar arrangements overseas and provides clarity and ensures the process is robust. Governance NZTR has expressed reservations about the appointment process for the Board of TAB NZ. The Bill provides that the Minister will consider nominations from the Codes and Sports NZ and then appoint TAB NZ Board members. The Bill records that the Board members must have, collectively, specified skills. The MAC supported Code representation on the Board in its report, however, RITA considers the Bill’s “skills based” approach the most suitable alternative. It is clear from the skills set out in the Bill that any appointments would need to have significant experience in racing and betting, which should provide confidence to the industry that we will have a very capable and experienced Board leading TAB NZ. Clause 56 of the Bill largely maintains the existing process where TAB NZ is required to establish and maintain a dates committee who will determine and allocate race dates among clubs (after undertaking consultation processes with the Codes). RITA considers it imperative that TAB NZ, as the wagering operator, retains oversight of the dates calender process. This is so it can ensure that the racing calendar is structured in a way to maximise TAB NZ wagering profits for the benefit of the wider industry (as it will be legally responsible for doing). The current calendar process has, on balance, worked well and been refined annually based on input from the codes. Equally, the final calendar is the outcome of significant industry consultation, initially with the codes in its early development and then with the wider industry. By way of example, in the final round of consultation on the 2019/20 calendar there were only four submissions received, which would indicate a well-balanced process. In respect to Code representation on the Dates Committee, this has worked well previously and RITA would support the Codes nominating potential representatives to the Committee (for the TAB Board to then determine its membership). Racing Intellectual Property (IP) NZTR has indicated strong opposition to the Bill’s position on IP. The Bill confirms that, within Australasia, TAB NZ will have exclusive rights to all IP associated with racing betting information, racing betting systems and any audio or visual content derived from a NZ race. It is essential that TAB NZ has uninhibited access and usage of racing IP in order to be able to monetise that IP effectively and thereby maximise its profits for the benefit of the racing industry, as the legislation intends. In simple terms, for the benefit of the industry, TAB NZ needs to be able to use racing IP to function effectively as a wagering operator. RITA/TAB NZ does not see the enactment of this provision as radically changing the status quo for clubs or Codes. RITA is using racing IP today to drive profits (for the benefit of the industry). RITA is also entering into arrangements with third parties (such as Tabcorp) which authorise the usage of that IP in exchange for the payment of fees, again for the benefit of the industry. Other parties, including clubs and Codes, also use that racing IP. Race books and domestic Code website field lists are good examples of this. TAB NZ has no intention to constrain these types of activities and will ensure that industry players can use racing IP as they need to (subject to any contractual constraints restricting this). Vesting racing IP with TAB NZ does not mean that only TAB NZ will be able to use it; on the contrary TAB NZ expects industry players will continue to use racing IP as they do today for the promotion of the industry. RITA has and will continue to discuss this provision with the Codes over the coming weeks to ensure there is a workable, mutual understanding of how this will be applied. Next Steps Over the coming weeks we will meet with clubs, Racing Industry Organisations and other stakeholders to listen to the views of the industry on the Bill. While RITA was consulted in the development of the Bill, this is the Government’s legislation and we will be providing a submission ourselves which we will share with you when complete. The RITA Board encourages clubs to participate in the Bill process; as we have indicated previously we believe this will be the final opportunity to get the reform that the industry needs in place. If you have questions you want to send us directly, please email us at industry.conversations@tab.co.nz.

The Starter isn't responsible for the "Starters Card" - all he has to do is pick it up at the beginning of the day. Like a lot of things in the "Manual" it is ambiguous who is actually responsible for collating that information. I would suggest it is the Stewards/RIU who seem to have the right to approve or not approve behind the gates gear. Given that they are then maybe it is one of them who should be responsible for giving the All Clear.