Chief Stipe

There is a lot of looking the other way at the moment.

Correct but it is an expensive exercise. I draw up a plan once that involved treating our tracks like they were a group of pasture paddocks or crop fields and arranging a rotation plan. So for example the CD could have 6 main tracks and any one year one track was under going soil rejuvenation and the other 5 carried the races. Some tracks were wide enough to split in two and so shorten the cycle. Even Flemington has to have a full rest occasionally.

Instead of blaming everyone why don't we all admit that all our tracks are fundamentally stuffed.

Then what was wrong with the protocols? Hell if all the Jockey experts throught the track was OK how does the Track Manager work it out?

If you move the rail out evenly all round the track then then bend is easier to negotiate as long as you shorten the straight.

Ask Ellerslie.

Really? What does quietly achieve? I suppose the Trainers are "quiet" as well?

What alignment? Where is the rail "crooked"?

Would agree if the Jockeys made the effort to walk the track before race start. Jockeys can't have it both ways. They expect the track to presented as safe to ride on but if the track manager decides that the inside is not safe and puts the rail out then the Jockeys will decide. Ironically of course there wasn't a unanimous opinion at Hawkes Bay to abandon. Far from it. Probably the reason for the individual vote protocol however what happens if 51% want to ride? Does the meeting continue?

I personally think it was wrong to have broadcast that interview. Now we have Jockeys who are experts on track management. Really? How many still walk the track, their place of work before they go to work on it? On the occasions that I have had to be on course early in recent years the only Jockeys that I've seen walking the track pre-race have been apprentices (must be in their curriculum) and OZZIE visitors. Hercocks comments about the Wanganui rail placement is interesting and I didn't get what she was on about. Do you know @Special Agent ? What she was suggesting was leave the rail in the true position and let the Jockey's decide where to race. Um given very few of them or their agents walk the track how to do they decide and when do they decide where to ride? After race 1 or race 2? Also if they decide to not run on the inside because it is soft or rough then how is that different from the Track Manager placing the rail out?

I disagree. In my opinion they haven't been irrigated enough nor in the right quanitity at the right times. Often it is too little too late and field water capacity is left to get too low too often. The only reason I can think of for that is the expense of purchasing the water and cost of irrigation - power and labour. I hope Ellerslie have a good deal with the council for their water needs! Even your average pasture farmer knows that pasture species during drought will be overtaken by hardier weed species. If you don't irrigate you will end up with patchy turf. Noel Eales only needed to review the photos on his wall of the state of some tracks particularly Trentham when races were run on them 40 to 60 years ago. As for the track rating - I remember when a horse I had a share in won the Taranaki Cup nearly 20 years ago. The track was rated a F1. Her galloping style suited hard tracks and she fair skipped across the ground however many horses went home that day jarred up. It would be interesting to see the longevity of the horses that raced that day. So I have no problem with them aiming for a G4 on raceday morning. What I do have an issue with is when they BS the ratings as we have seen at Trentham this season.

That said @Murray Fish the Otaki racecourse irrigation system was upgraded in 2023.

That's not correct. 25 years ago there were over 5,000 Thoroughbred foals registered - last year barely close to half that. Between 2016 and 2024 there have been 100 less races at 2459 races. 50 Tracks were used in the 23/24 season for Racemeetings, Trials, Trackwork and Jumpouts. That doesn't include the 3 Synthetic Tracks. If we take some liberty with the total races held in 23/24 and assume that the Calendar Year for 2024 was the same number (I don't have time to count exactly) then of the 2,459 races 236 were held on the Synthetic Tracks. Arguably taking all the above into consideration - the tracks are not getting hammered today. As I argue they were hammered 20 to 30 years ago and no investment was done on renovation. That said a lot of money was spent on facilities for track attendees!

Yep I suspect all of the above. Of course the Club Exec are probably to old or too young and busy to help. I have the utmost sympathy for all the Track Managers in NZ - they have been under-resourced for decades. Can you image a turf track in New Zealand successfully running a meeting every Thursday for 3 and half months without an abandonment? That's about 15 race meeting one week after another. Well the Hastings Track Manager managed that when the Track Manager at Pakenham in Victoria. Over 20 years experience in track management and turf culture. He is only about three months into the job at Hastings and the Hawkes Bay Guineas meeting is abandoned not because of anything he did but because of decades of insufficient investment in maintenance and renovation. The track gets closed down - the reasons why we are still not entirely sure but for at least a couple of seasons. Then a Senior Jockey on Trackside today puts the boot in!

Listen to the Stipes video above. I'm sure that's what he said. "Each Jockey was asked individually". I'm not sure if that's just going around the room and asking each one in the room or talking to each one individually. I corrected my post. Not sure what the protocol is.

In my opinion Hercock's comments about Hastings didn't correlate with what happened. Did Jockeys actually gallop the track in the morning? She said they were "uneducated riders". Uneducated in what way? The slip was past the post (assuming she is talking about HB Guineas day). I doubt a gallop along the inside of the track early in the morning would have found the part where the horse slipped which was wider out and on the bend past the winning post. Also her comment about her horse not letting down - well couldn't that happen for a number of reasons?

Interesting there is a new protocol for determining whether to continue or not. Each Jockey is interviewed individually alone. Each Jockey is asked... Not sure if that is a RIB or NZTR protocol or how it is done. I also picked up that there are policies around moving the fence to avoid a bad part of the track.

Isn't a reaction to the amount of money actually bet? The bookies very rarely intervene to set a price as it is done programmatically.

They get peanuts and after decades of peanuts when gold bars were required you get tracks now that are near impossible to manage.

Probably still is but it has a crap irrigation system and the club probably can't afford to pay for the water and power to run it!

Rubbish or rather crap. You can't compare jumpouts or trials or gallops with raceday conditions! Who cares if someone sits up on your horse in a jumpout or goes slower to avoid an issue. You miss the point. The industry doesn't have enough infrastructure to adequately look after half the tracks it has now let alone any of the others you infer. Half the problem at Otaki is they don't have an adequate irrigation system and can't afford to fix the one they have. It has been an issue for at least two decades. Banging the same drum over and over isn't going to make your view correct. Are you suggesting Hawkes Bay isn't one of what you call the "chosen OBC few"? Hell the WRC can't afford to look after Trentham properly! Ye reap what ye sow!

If we had more tracks we would just spread the abandonments. The issue is a lack of investment in infrastructure and track renovations for decades. Arguably we don't have enough spare capital to fix the problem so adding more underfunded tracks is only going to make it worse not better.