Chief Stipe

Rule Number(s): 869(A)(2)At the conclusion of Race 1, the Western Electrical Ltd/Fordes Pet Food Trot 1609 metres an information was lodged by Mr Stratford under 869A(2) alleging interference to horse No 5 BIG IRON (T Stratford), which was placed 3rd by the Judge, by horse No 2 DORA EXPLORER (D McCormick) placed 1st. The allegation ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 2, Selwyn Rakaia Vet Services Three-Year-Old, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J P Oatham, against Licensed Jockey (Class A), Mr D L Turner, alleging that Mr Turner, as the rider of DEVIOUS in the race, “allowed his mount to shift outwards forcing ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Friday’s Waipa races have been cancelled due to a lack of entries. A 1400-metre maiden has been added to Ellerslie on Saturday, where preference will be given to those horses that were nominated at Waipa. View the full article

View the full article

The Autumn Sun will be sent for a spell with a decision still pending on his racing future. The valuable colt claimed his fifth Group One win in Saturday’s Rosehill Guineas in a tough slog on a heavy track. Trainer Chris Waller said he had advised the owners, who include John Messara of Arrowfield Stud where The Autumn Sun will eventually stand, the colt should be rested. “This decision was formed on the basis that he is still is a young horse who is continuing to grow and develop and whilst it may not be seen in that light by racing enthusiasts and his growing fan base, it is my job as his trainer to look after these horses to ensure they can be followed and continue their careers with distinction,” Waller said in a statement. “It is not my job to make a decision on when he retires, however it is my job to manage the horse to the best of my ability and I take great pride in what has been achieved thus far. Waller detailed his reasons: “This time last year he had not commenced his racing career and since his first start on April 25, 2018 he has now had nine starts including five Group One wins. “As a two-year-old he had his first race start less than 12 months ago on April 25 over 1200 metres which saw him run 1:08.6 at Randwick, and on that occasion he came from well back on the turn to pull away late for a brilliant victory. “Also at two, he tackled a Group One race at only his third start which he managed to win, defeating two very good horses in Zousain and Fundamentalist. “Following his first Group One win, he was given a let up before resuming over 1500 metres as a spring three-year-old on a very heavy track and as a victim of circumstances suffered his only ever defeat. “In his second start as a three-year-old, he dropped back to 1400 metres for the Gr. 1 Golden Rose, and from the outside barrier came from last to first to come away with his second Group One win in what is regarded as one of Australia’s premier stallion-making races. “At his third start in the spring he raced in Melbourne in the Gr. 1 Caulfield Guineas, his first attempt racing left-handed and came away with a four-and-a-half-length win. “Following a spell, he returned for his autumn preparation which has seen his winning sequence continue, where he has now extended his record to eight wins in 10 months of racing. “This horse has exceptional ability and that has allowed him to win five Group One races at this very early age and in an immature state.” Waller has publicly said he would like to train The Autumn Sun as a four-year-old and would outline his reasons to the ownership group, which is yet to meet to make a decision. That decision may be influenced by the death yesterday of The Autumn Sun’s champion sire Redoute’s Choice at Arrowfield at the age of 22. View the full article

The Murray Baker and Andrew Forsman-trained Vin De Dance and Zacada will continue along the Sydney Cup path despite disappointing performances at Rosehill last weekend. The pair finished second-last and last in the Gr. 3 N E Manion Cup, more than a dozen lengths from the winner Midterm. Vin De Dance’s jockey Blake Shinn said the 2018 New Zealand Derby winner “didn’t have the best run from a bad draw”, while Opie Bosson was unable to provide an excuse for last year’s Sydney Cup runner-up Zacada. Forsman told www.theinformant.co.nz yesterday that the pair will be given another chance in the Gr. 2 Chairman’s Quality at Randwick on April 6. “We thought both horses would perform much better last Saturday than they did, so it was disappointing,” he said. “But the track was quite deep and testing, so all we can do is forgive them. They’ve come through it well, so at this stage we’ll press on to the Chairman’s and, all going well, the Sydney Cup a week later.” View the full article

Internationally successful jockey Grant Cooksley is the latest addition to the New Zealand training ranks. Cooksley has been granted a trainer’s licence and begins a training partnership at Byerley Park with Bruce Wallace, but he will retain his jockey’s licence. ‘’I’ve thought about training for a while now,’’ Cooksley said. ‘’I had a couple of options in Sydney, but it was too early at that stage. I just wanted to concentrate on riding at the time. “Now this opportunity has come up to train in partnership with Bruce and it’s too good to turn down. If I started on my own I’d have to do it from scratch, but I’ve been given the opportunity to start with an established stable. “Besides, I’ve had a long association with Bruce and his family. I used to ride a bit for Bruce’s father, Ray, and I first rode for Bruce when I was living in Sydney and he brought over Kingston Bay and Lord Revenir. We’ve had a good run together.’’ Cooksley and Wallace have combined over the years to win Group One races on both sides of the Tasman. That list includes the Auckland Cup on Able Master, Sydney’s Metropolitan on Lord Revenir, two JRA Auckland Classics on Star Dancer, the Futurity Stakes in Melbourne on Star Dancer and the Canterbury Guineas on Kingston Bay. It was also on a Wallace runner, Lion Rock Hill, that Cooksley notched his 1000th New Zealand win in November 2011 at Ellerslie. Cooksley has had the experience of riding for numerous leading trainers and had more than 1600 winners overseas with success in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Macau and New Caledonia to go with his list of major triumphs in Australia, including 12 years when based in Sydney. In recent years he has regularly ridden trackwork at Byerley Park for Wallace. “I’ve been going out to Byerley Park to ride work for Bruce for the last three or four years and riding at the trials and races for him too,’’ Cooksley said. Cooksley (59) has 66 Group Ones to his credit, the most recent being the 2017 Tarzino Trophy at Hastings on the Shelley Hale-trained Close Up, who was also runner-up in the Gr. 1 Windsor Park Plate. Though raceday rides have been scarce in recent years, Cooksley still enjoys riding and has no immediate plans to relinquish his jockey’s licence. ‘’I’ll obviously be concentrating on training, but I still plan to ride when I can,’’ he said. Wallace is looking forward to joining forces with Cooksley. ‘’Grant has all the experience as a jockey and he’s passionate with what I want to do,’’ Wallace said. ‘’It’s a new challenge for him and I’m sure he’s up to it.’’ Cooksley replaces Allan Peard, who has been Wallace’s training partner for three seasons after several years as foreman after serving his jockey’s apprenticeship with the stable. ‘’It’s happened to coincide with me looking at the business model and trying to grow the business,’’ Wallace said. ‘’Grant put forward a proposal and I saw the opportunity to grow the business with him. ‘’Allan felt what he wanted to do wasn’t with Wallace Thoroughbreds, so he’s looking at other options. Allan has been with me since he was 15 and I wish him well.” View the full article

The competition leader won’t be there, so the door is slightly ajar for someone to sneak in at the 11th hour and claim the Canterbury Country Cup championship from Airpark Flyer at Methven on Sunday. Sunday’s Mt Hutt Trotting Club Cup is the final race in the Canterbury championship and therefore carries double points for those competing. That means Airpark Flyer, who currently holds a 15-point lead over his nearest rival, Di Caprio with a further five points back to the third-placed Johnny Eyre has one hand on the trophy, but can’t quite grab the other just yet. Both Di Caprio and Johnny Eyre are missing from the nominations for Methven as well, leaving just three horses who could beat him; Gore Bay, Mogul and My Wee Man. All three would have to win to outright grab the prize, although a second placing for Gore Bay on Sunday would see him draw level with Airpark Flyer. The winner of the championship gets $6,000 and a dress rug while there are also cash prizes to the connections of those who finish second and third. Both the North Island and Southland championships won’t be decided until late in April. The championship has been running in Canterbury since the Westport Cup on Boxing Day which, incidentally, was won by Airpark Flyer. His trainer, Trent Yesberg had designs on being at Methven this week but after Sunday’s Waimate Cup he pulled the pin on those plans. “It was going to be a bridge too far,” Yesberg said. “Getting off those handicaps when they’re running along in front, it’s just too much to ask of him so he’s in the paddock for eight weeks. “And I’m pretty excited about being able to do that with him because he’s been up for a long time and come a long way at the same time.” Despite being well beaten on Sunday, Airpark Flyer still ran the fastest time of the race – adding credence to Yesberg’s comments about having to come off handicaps. Since lining up first for Yesberg in September last year, Airpark Flyer has had 13 starts for six wins and three minor placings. “He’s effectively gone from being a struggling one-win horse to all but open class in one campaign, he’s come a long way. “And now, with a good break ahead of him, hopefully he can come back even better. “We’re going to give him the best possible chance and also give him the opportunity to take on the good ones, too.” Yesberg said the Methven Cup in October, a race in which Airpark Flyer appeared very unlucky in last season, would be the first main aim. View the full article

BEST BET: RACE 3: AIN’T NOTHING BETTOR (1) - BEST EACHWAY: RACE 6: MILNER (1) - BEST LONGSHOT: COMMANDER ONE (10) Want to read this content? For free user content sign up here Free Online Content View our subscription options and get behind The Informant paywall Already a member? Login here View the full article

Predicted rain towards the end of this week has brought a smile to the face of Pukekohe trainer Nigel Tiley. The South Auckland horseman will travel south to Palmerston North with juvenile Qiji Spirit to line up in Saturday’s Gr. 1 Courtesy Ford Manawatu Sires’ Produce Stakes at Awapuni, and he believes his charge will appreciate the wet track conditions. “He worked really well this morning,” Tiley said. “The weather forecast is for a bit of rain down that way, which I think would really help him and the 1400 metres will be right up his alley. There are only 12 left in the race, so I would be silly not to go down.” Tiley is buoyed by the return to Awapuni on Saturday, with his Charm Spirit gelding finishing runner-up to The Fugitive on the Palmerston North track on debut in December. “I thought his first start was outstanding, he made up some really good ground late,” Tiley said. “I am confident that he will run a good race. He has got three-year-old written all over him. “When you have got a nice horse like him that you know has raced well at the track before, and there’s only so many Group One races for two-year-olds, I only think it’s fair that we have a crack at it with him.” While Tiley believes Qiji Spirit will develop into a better three-year-old, he said he is eyeing a tilt at the Listed Buffalo & Co Champagne Stakes with Qiji Spirit if he pulls up well after Saturday. “If he comes through it in one piece I’d probably have a look at a race like the Champagne Stakes with him at Ellerslie,” Tiley said. “Running 1600 metres on a big roomy track I think would really suit him. Then we would probably give him a little break and bring him back for the spring.” Tiley will head into Saturday in good form after having an outstanding day at Avondale last Friday, winning three races on the seven-race card. “It was a good day,” he said. “I have been a bit quiet over the Christmas period, but I have got a new wave of lightly raced horses coming through that have just needed a bit of time and a little bit of cut in the ground. Hopefully it’s the start of a few more.” Tiley said he was quietly confident heading into Friday, but said it was quite interesting that two horses that he and wife Lee part-own broke through for their maiden victories on the same day. “It’s quite interesting because Sir Aglovale and Riding The Wave, I actually bought them on the same day at the same sale, in Melbourne, and they both happened to win their maiden on the same day, which was a little bit uncanny.” View the full article

While Matamata trainers Graham Richardson and Gavin Parker were delighted with Volpe Veloce’s win in the Gr. 2 Japan NZ International Trophy, they were less thrilled with the performance of stablemate Tiptronic. The Group One performer finished towards the tail of the field and his connections were concerned about their runner after the race. “Nothing went right for him. He was three-wide and sometimes he was four-wide and just over-raced a little bit,” Richardson said. “He had a very hard run. I was a bit worried about the horse, I went running down to see if he was okay. His action up the straight didn’t look that good, but he’s as good as gold.” The son of O’Reilly will now head towards the Gr. 2 Manco Easter Handicap at Ellerslie next month and Richardson said his charge should appreciate a return to his favourite track. “I’m going to save him for the Easter,” he said. “He’s better right-handed. Most of his best achievements have been right-handed and he loves Ellerslie. “I was contemplating the mile and a quarter (2000-metre Gr. 2 City of Palmerston North Awapuni Gold Cup) down at Awapuni this weekend. But he’s had a hard run and left a bit of tucker, so he won’t be going there.” View the full article

Multiple Group One-winning trainer Karren Zimmerman will change direction in coming weeks when she takes up the position of stable foreman for Pukekohe trainer Nigel Tiley. Zimmerman won four Group One races in her training career. She won the Captain Cook Stakes with Rodin (2004) and Cinder Bella (2000), with the latter also taking out the Kelt Capital Stakes in 2001, while Barinka recorded Zimmerman’s last Group One in the New Zealand Thoroughbred Breeders’ Stakes at Te Aroha in 2011. Tiley said he is delighted to have someone of Zimmerman’s experience join the stable. “She is going to join us in about three weeks,” he said. “We advertised for a foreman/assistant trainer and Karen was very keen to take it on and we would have been stupid if we hadn’t taken her straight away. “When she sent me through her record this morning I texted her back and said ‘I should actually be working for you’. She’s a horsewoman too, her horses always look immaculate on race day. “I’ll be able to travel a few more horses and be very comfortable that I have got somebody at home that’s more than capable of doing the job for us.” View the full article

Yeah right. Only 63% own their own home. I'd suggest you get in touch with the real people out there. Most of them are sick of Taxinda. Meanwhile the industry awaits for the Mesiah Mesara and Winsome Winnie to deliver. Yeah right!

Want to read this content? For free user content sign up here Free Online Content View our subscription options and get behind The Informant paywall Already a member? Login here View the full article

Want to read this content? For free user content sign up here Free Online Content View our subscription options and get behind The Informant paywall Already a member? Login here View the full article

Redoute’s Choice, pictured here with John Messara (left) late last year, has been humanely euthanised at Arrowfield Stud. Breed-shaping Australian stallion Redoute’s Choice has died at the age of 22. Arrowfield Stud said in a press release this morning that the son of Danehill suffered “a traumatic loss of mobility which could not be restored”, and the decision was made to humanely euthanise him. “Redoute’s Choice is such a big part of all our lives and right now it’s hard to imagine Arrowfield without him,” Arrowfield’s John Messara said. “He has given us so much. Arrowfield has been built on his back and he’s allowed all of us and many, many other people to fulfil our dreams and ambitions. “I thank Muzaffar Yaseen for allowing us to buy into Redoute’s Choice almost two decades ago. Our partnership has always been amicable and it has achieved all that we could hope for, and more. “I’m grateful to all my team, past and present, who are part of his story, especially those who have cared for and worked with Redoute’s Choice every day, and have ensured that he’s had the long and wonderful life he deserved. There are many tears being shed at Arrowfield today. “I also thank everyone who helped us launch his stud career, his shareholders, and those who bred to him, and bought, raced, trained and rode his progeny. He has blessed us all.” Redoute’s Choice won five of his 10 starts on the track, headed by the Gr. 1 Blue Diamond, Manikato Stakes, CF Orr Stakes and a memorable victory in a star-studded Caulfield Guineas. But it has been at stud that he has made his mark, with Arion Pedigrees statistics crediting him with 1050 winners from 1393 runners. He has sired 163 individual stakes winners, 34 of them at Group One level including the likes of Miss Finland (Golden Slipper, Thousand Guineas, VRC Oaks, Australian Guineas), five-time Group One-winning champion sprinter Lankan Rupee, and this season’s boom three-year-old colt The Autumn Sun. His progeny have tasted Group One success in New Zealand through King’s Rose (1000 Guineas) and Redoute’s Dancer (New Zealand Derby), while Abidewithme and Vavasour were multiple Group winners on this side of the Tasman. Redoute’s Choice is also making his mark as a sire of sires, including the likes of super-sire Snitzel, Not A Single Doubt, Stratum, and New Zealand stallions Nadeem, Burgundy, Coats Choice, Duelled, Fast ‘N’ Famous and Lucky Unicorn. View the full article

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V G DIXON - RESERVED WRITTEN DECISION DATED 22 MARCH 2019 - CHAIR, PROF G HALL Created on 25 March 2019 BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JCA AT HAMILTON UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Informant AND MR GARETH DIXON Open Horseman/ Licensed Public Trainer Respondent Informations: A8709 Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman Mr D Jackson, Member Appearing: Mr S Symon and Ms E Smith, for the Informant Mr M Branch, for the Respondent RESERVED DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE [1] The informant, the RIU, has laid an information with respect to the respondent, Mr G Dixon. [2] Information No A8709 alleges “On Friday the 25 May, 2018, at the Pukekohe TAB in Auckland, did aid and/or abet in the commission of a serious racing offence, by assisting licensed open horseman Simon Lawson to commit a breach of Rule 505(1) & (2) of Harness Racing New Zealand Rules by placing a futures bet on a horse for Simon Lawson, namely “Mr Natural” in a race, namely Race 10, the “Book An ATC Bus to The Jewels” Mobile Trot, in which he knew Simon Lawson was driving the horse “My Royal Roxy”, and by doing so therefore committed a breach of Rule 1001 (1) (y) and/or (z) and therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 1001(2)(a)(b) and (c) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.” [3] Rule 1001(1) provides: Every person commits a serious racing offence within the meaning of these Rules, who, in New Zealand or in any other country: (y) does or omits any act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit a serious racing offence; or (z) abets any person in the commission of a serious racing offence. [4] Rule 1001(2) provides: Every person who commits a serious racing offence shall be liable to the following penalties: (a) a fine not exceeding $30,000; and/or (b) suspension from holding or obtaining a licence, for any specific period or for life; and/or (c) disqualification for a specific period or for life. [5] Authorisation from Mr N McIntyre, General Manager of Stewards, dated 14 January 2019, to lodge the information was before us. [6] The matter was heard at Hamilton on 25 February 2019. [7] The following facts were not disputed and were admitted by consent of all parties. 1 Background 1.1 Gareth Dixon is a licensed public trainer and trials horseman under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. 1.2 Mr Dixon was at all material times aware of the rules that relate to betting by harness racing drivers. 1.3 Mr Dixon was aware that Simon Lawson was a harness racing driver at all material times. 2 Racing Integrity Unit investigation 1.4 At the end of 2018 the RIU commenced an investigation into Race 10 at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting at Alexandra Park on 25 May 2018. 1.5 The New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB) provided the RIU with the following material relating to betting on that race (a) NZRB betting records detailing: (i) the bets placed and corresponding winning dividends; (ii) the date and time the winnings were redeemed; and (iii) how the bets were paid for and how the winnings were collected, including transactions from the Pukekohe TAB and Patumahoe Hotel; (b) Photographs of the two men who placed the bets queried and the man who collected the winning dividends at Pukekohe TAB on 5 June 2018; and (c) CCTV footage from the Pukekohe TAB regarding bets placed on 25 May 2018. The footage is produced as Exhibit 1. 2.3 This material was provided to Basil Payn, a Betting Analyst employed by the RIU, to examine. Mr Payn's examination established that: (a) On 25 May 2018 Mr Lawson placed a number of bets himself, as did Mr Dixon: (i) At about 1pm at the TAB in Pukekohe Mr Lawson entered a bet in a self-service betting terminal and created a voucher for $744.70 (the voucher) (ii) At 1.04.43 pm Mr Dixon used the voucher to place a bet for $40, using a self-service betting terminal, on the horse "Mr Natural" in Race 10 at Alexandra Park. (iii) Mr Lawson then used the voucher at 1.05.55 pm in a self-service betting terminal to place a $200 bet. (iv) Mr Dixon then used $50 cash in a self-service betting terminal to place bets on “Mr Natural” in Race 10 at Alexandra Park. (v) Using the same voucher, at the TAB in Patumahoe, at 3.57 pm Mr Dixon placed a bet on the horse "Mr Natural" in Race 10 at Alexandra Park. (b) Various other bets were placed using the voucher between 25 May and 5 June 2018. (c) On 5 June 2018 Mr Lawson collected $2,559.20 from the voucher, of which he gave a half-share to Mr Dixon. 2.4 A representative of the RIU, Neil Grimstone, interviewed Mr Dixon in relation to the above events on 18 December 2018. The recording (and transcript) of that interview is produced as Exhibit 2. 3 Self-service betting terminal 3.1 When a bet is placed using the self-service betting terminal, the information displayed is as per Exhibit 3. 4 Race betting offences by Simon Lawson 4.1 Mr Lawson was interviewed by Police and the RIU in relation to suspected race betting offences. The recordings (and transcripts) of those interviews are produced as Exhibits 4 and 5. 4.2 An information was laid alleging that he had breached the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing by betting on a horse in a race in which he was driving. 4.3 Mr Lawson admitted the charge and accepted that he had bet on the horse "Mr Natural", and that he had cashed the TAB voucher for $2,559.20, which he then split evenly with Mr Dixon. He accepted that he was driving another horse in that race, "My Royal Roxy", and that had “My Royal Roxy” won the race he would have won approximately $450. [8] Mr Symon stated there were two issues for the Committee to determine: whether the respondent knew Mr Lawson was driving in the race; and whether he placed the bet for Mr Lawson. [9] The informant stated it would prove its case by calling Mr Lawson, who had been summonsed to attend the hearing, and by showing CCTV of the respondent and Mr Lawson in the Pukekohe TAB. [10] Mr Lawson answered his summons and gave evidence. He stated that he had known the respondent for some four or five years. They both trained horses and they were friends. They were “quite tight”. They had been betting together over that time. He said he would bet at Pukekohe but at other places as well. He did not have a TAB account. [11] Mr Lawson agreed he was driving in the race on which Mr Dixon had placed the bets on MR NATURAL. He could not remember whether he had told Mr Dixon this. He did not believe he had told Mr Dixon to bet on the race. Mr Symon alleged that Mr Lawson was trying to cover up for Mr Dixon. Over the objection of Mr Branch, we allowed Mr Symon to – in effect – cross-examine Mr Lawson but on a limited basis, namely to put certain propositions to him (along the lines of the aforementioned allegation of a cover up) or otherwise to have him comment on the accuracy or otherwise of his previous statements to the RIU and to the police. We determined that the witness ought to be confronted on these issues, even if he was answering the RIU’s summons as Mr Symon’s witness. Mr Branch observed in his objection that Mr Lawson had failed to come up to brief (ie to give evidence consistent with his earlier statements) and submitted that Mr Symon should not be permitted to treat him, in effect, as a hostile witness. [12] Mr Symon said he would take Mr Lawson through his statements in his interview with the RIU and with the police and ask him to comment. He said he also wanted Mr Lawson to comment on what was going on at various times in the CCTV footage. [13] Mr Branch said the respondent was prepared to concede – in order to truncate that process — that the statements recorded in Mr Lawson’s interview with the RIU and the police were made and were accurately recorded in the transcripts. [14] With respect to the police interview, Mr Lawson said he was confused as to what he was asked by the interviewer. He had just assumed that Mr Dixon knew he had a drive in the race in question. He said he had had a bet on the horse. He was the one in the wrong. [15] Mr Symon pointed out that the police and RIU interviews were two weeks apart. Mr Lawson agreed he had talked to Mr Dixon in that time. He was not sure if he had discussed the police interview with Mr Dixon. [16] When asked why he had assumed that Mr Dixon knew he had a drive in the race, Mr Lawson replied, “I don’t know.” He said they had been talking about other bets but not the one on MR NATURAL. He denied he was forgetful because he now realised he would get Mr Dixon into trouble. He said he did not know what Mr Dixon was thinking when Mr Dixon placed the bet. [17] Mr Lawson agreed he had asked Mr Habraken to place a bet for him, but he said he had not told Mr Habraken that he was involved in the race. Mr Branch objected and said any evidence regarding Mr Habraken should be disregarded as he had no discovery regarding that man. [18] The footage of Mr Lawson and Mr Dixon at the Pukekohe TAB was shown. Mr Lawson said was not sure what he could be seen to be writing. And while he agreed there was a degree of interaction with Mr Dixon, he did not recall what was being discussed. Nor was he sure who had completed the slip for the bet on MR NATURAL. He was not sure if it was Mr Dixon providing him with the betting slip or the voucher. Whilst they were exchanging tickets, these could have been any tickets. [19] Mr Lawson said he left the TAB and went back to work and then to the track. He said he could have discussed with Mr Dixon where he was going. He did not know if he had told Mr Dixon he was driving that day, but he assumed Mr Dixon would have known he was going to the track. [20] When Mr Symon asked him why he had given the voucher to the respondent, he said he did not know why he had done so. He added it was a friendly thing to do to let Mr Dixon use the voucher. It was not because he was driving in that race. [21] When asked why it was a number of reasonably small bets on MR NATURAL and did he think that this was likely to attract less attention, he said, “No -he had no idea if one big bet would draw more attention”. [22] Mr Lawson said he knew nothing about the respondent going to the Patumahoe Hotel to place a further bet. He said they split the voucher evenly later that week. He could not remember why. He said he would have given the respondent half because they were friends. When asked directly if he had given Mr Dixon half because he had bet on the race for him, he replied quite adamantly, “No”. [23] Mr Lawson did not know if Mr Dixon had watched the race and after the race there was no discussion about his driving in MR NATURAL’s race nor was there when they were collecting the winnings. [24] Mr Branch questioned Mr Lawson as to whether he and the respondent had half shares in the voucher. Mr Lawson replied, “Yes.” He confirmed he did not believe he had told Mr Dixon he was driving in MR NATURAL’s race. When asked if his response to the police questioning was based on an assumption that Mr Dixon knew he was driving in the race, he said, “Yes.” [25] Mr Lawson said he did not have a formal business partnership with the respondent. They operated out of separate barns. [26] Mr Lawson said he was filling out forms for Mr Dixon because Mr Dixon required reading glasses and he did not have them at the time. Mr Dixon had never said anything to him about Mr Dixon backing MR NATURAL. [27] Mr Lawson said he never discussed his drives with Mr Dixon. He stated that they bet together and on other occasions he had let him use his voucher. He was not sure whether he owed Mr Dixon money when the voucher in question was started. He thought he may have owed him $100. He was also not sure why he gave Mr Dixon a half share in the $2,559.20 but he later confirmed to Mr Branch that Mr Dixon’s entitlement to share in the voucher – by halves – was a result of his owing Mr Dixon $100. The voucher, and Mr Dixon’s interest in it and its proceeds, as a pool, were 50/50. [28] Mr Branch called Mr Dixon to give evidence in his defence. The respondent confirmed he did not have his reading glasses with him on the day in question, so he had asked Mr Lawson to fill out the betting slip for him. He said it was not his practice to put bets on for other people. [29] Mr Dixon said he had had 30 to 35 years in the industry and agreed, when questioned, that he was familiar with the rules concerning driving in a race. He understood he was not able to help another driver put bets on in a race in which he or she was driving. [30] Mr Dixon said he and Mr Lawson had known each other for about four or five years. They had separate barns and would work horses in company, but that was all. They were mates and would spend time together, such as playing golf. [31] Mr Dixon said they did not bet together all the time. A bet slip with them “both in” did not happen very often. Mr Lawson owed him money. He had an agreement with Mr Lawson but there was no record of this. He knew Mr Lawson was driving that day and had asked him to fill out the slip because he had no glasses. He believed it was a multi bet. It was his decision to put MR NATURAL in the multi bet. He was confident that MR NATURAL was a good bet. [32] Mr Dixon said he had checked the fields when they came out. It was an average looking field. He had checked the field on Monday, and he had no idea who the drivers were as these were not out until Wednesday. He said he normally never checked the drivers. He would base his selections on watching videos. He bet on horses not drivers. He knew Mr B Butcher was driving MR NATURAL. He had spoken to the blacksmith about the horse, but the fact Mr Lawson was driving in the race did not come up in conversation. [33] Mr Dixon was adamant he did not know Mr Lawson was driving in the race. When asked did he not see Mr Lawson’s name on the TAB betting screen, Mr Dixon replied that without his glasses the screen was blurry. He could not see the screen “well”. [34] When questioned as to what he and Mr Lawson were discussing at the TAB, he said he did not know. He was given the betting slip by Mr Lawson because it was his bet. He said Mr Lawson’s bet on MR NATURAL was Mr Lawson’s bet. He did it. As to his second bet on MR NATURAL at the Pukekohe TAB, he said it was a cash bet for himself. It was not shared with Mr Lawson. The share arrangement was with the voucher only. It was a joint investment. He did not think Mr Lawson would be silly enough to bet on a race in which he was driving. [35] Mr Dixon agreed he had later used the voucher a second time to put a bet on MR NATURAL. He said he still did not have his glasses. [36] Mr Dixon said he was disappointed when he later found out that Mr Lawson had had a drive in the race. He knew it was a serious racing offence. He said he had not told the RIU or the TAB. He had simply distanced himself from the bet. He agreed with Mr Symon that he had punted using the voucher the next day and had had no objection to taking half of the money. [37] With respect to the origin of the voucher, he said instead of Mr Lawson paying him money that Mr Lawson owed him, Mr Lawson had had a bet at Palmerston North, which had been successful. [38] Mr Dixon said he did not believe he had done anything wrong. He had no idea he was implicated. He had thought it was all to do with Mr Lawson. [39] With respect to the bet at Patumahoe, he said he had punched the numbers into the machine and not filled in a betting slip. The screen was blurry as he did not have his glasses, but he had “got around it”. Closing submissions [40] Mr Symon said the key issue was whether Mr Dixon knew Mr Lawson was driving another horse in race 10 at the time he placed the relevant bet. He pointed to the documentary evidence, the video footage, and Mr Dixon’s experience and knowledge of the rules. [41] Mr Symon said the Committee should put to one side Mr Lawson’s and Mr Dixon’s accounts, as these were both self-serving. Mr Lawson was endeavouring to assist a friend. Mr Dixon’s explanation was implausible and Mr Lawson’s explanation had shifted. He had told the police, when questioned, that Mr Dixon was involved. It was only after he realised that he would get Mr Dixon into trouble that he had changed his account both in the RIU interview and at the hearing by saying Mr Dixon did not know, and that he did not know what Mr Dixon was thinking. [42] Mr Symon stated Mr Lawson was not a credible and reliable witness. [43] Mr Dixon’s account, Mr Symon said, was implausible. He had had 35 years’ experience in the industry, and he knew the rules relating to betting and assisting drivers to place bets. He knew it was wrong to bet on a race if Mr Lawson was driving in it when they were friends who were betting together. [44] Mr Symon said Mr Dixon knew Mr Lawson was driving that day and thus he was on notice that with any bets he placed that day it was likely Mr Lawson would be involved in the race. The video footage showed Mr Lawson was on the phone and had then filled out a slip which he gave to Mr Dixon with a voucher. There was no plausible reason for him to do this other than to avoid placing the bet himself. The Committee could infer that Mr Dixon knew he was placing the bet because Mr Lawson was involved in driving in the race because Mr Lawson could otherwise have placed the bet himself. Mr Dixon’s statement that it was his recommendation to place the bet was implausible. He said Mr Dixon had to say it was his suggestion to back MR NATURAL otherwise he could not explain why he was placing the bet. [45] Mr Symon said Mr Dixon’s account that he was asking Mr Lawson to fill out the slip for MR NATURAL was implausible, as was his evidence that he did not consider who the other drivers in the race were, especially when it was a not an insignificant sum that was being placed on the horse. His statement that he considers the horse and not the drivers was self-serving. Mr Symon said the information on the screen would show horses and drivers. It would have been clear to Mr Dixon that Mr Lawson was driving a horse in the race. His evidence as to not being able to read without his glasses was also self-serving. This was the first time Mr Dixon had raised this issue. Mr Symon also alleged it was implausible that when Mr Dixon placed the cash bet for himself that he could not see who the other drivers were. [46] Mr Symon submitted there were multiple small bets in order to conceal the offending because Mr Dixon knew it was improper. The voucher was joint property so why not make it a larger bet on the horse. The purpose was to disguise the level of betting on the horse. Mr Dixon had then had a further bet on the horse at a different venue. Again, he was using the voucher and it was implausible to say he could not see that Mr Lawson was in the race. It was fortunate, was it not, that he could see just enough to know which race and which horse to bet on, but not the other drivers in the race. [47] Mr Dixon’s response, Mr Symon said, was consistent with his knowing the betting was wrong and his wanting to distance himself from it, but to collect the winnings. Again, it was implausible in these circumstances for Mr Dixon to carry on betting by using the voucher and to be present with Mr Lawson when it was cashed out. [48] Mr Symon concluded by stating Mr Dixon’s actions were consistent with his role in the enterprise which was to place bets when he knew Mr Lawson could not. It was reasonable for the Committee to infer that he knew Mr Lawson was driving in the race. [49] Mr Branch said what happened after the bets were placed was not relevant to the charge. There was no obligation upon Mr Dixon to go to the RIU. [50] Mr Dixon did not think he had done anything wrong. The cash bet was not part of the charge. Even with the fullest of knowledge, this was not an offence. The charge did not relate to the Patumahoe bet. As to Mr Dixon comments being self-serving, that was true of any defence. [51] The issue for the Committee was whether the RIU had established to the required standard that the respondent had breached the rule. He said they had not. Their case was based on inferences and actions being implausible. [52] Mr Branch submitted that the RIU had never given up questioning Mr Lawson on whether he told Mr Dixon he was driving in the race. At this hearing he had said, “No”; the rest had to be inference. He said Mr Lawson was not New Zealand’s leading driver; he was not driving in every race on the card. It was a reasonable inference that Mr Lawson was driving at that meeting but not in that particular race. [53] There was no requirement for a licence holder to report a breach of the rules and it was not aiding and abetting not to do so. [54] Mr Dixon was part of a betting syndicate. Mr Branch said, “When it’s your bet it’s your bet; it’s not a bet by committee”. Mr Dixon’s bet was his; Mr Lawson’s bet was his. The $200 bet was made by Mr Lawson on his own. [55] Mr Branch said what was implausible was that there was a betting conspiracy. He said if there was, Mr Dixon and Mr Lawson would not be in the TAB at the same time using a betting voucher. [56] Mr Branch submitted it was not unusual to back a horse not knowing who was driving every horse in a race. That was Mr Dixon’s practice as disclosed during evidence. What was more important was the horse and it was more plausible that the respondent had looked at the field and thought there was one very good horse and that the rest were very poor. [57] Mr Branch observed the RIU interviewer had never asked Mr Dixon why he did not fill out the form for himself. Mr Lawson when interviewed had said that he owed Mr Dixon $100 and the Palmerston North winnings became their fund. [58] Mr Branch concluded his closing by saying there was little detail in the informant’s case as to the actual assistance Mr Dixon had given Mr Lawson. There was no obligation upon Mr Dixon to step in and stop Mr Lawson breaching the rule. He believed the RIU had failed to establish the elements of the offence. A point he emphasised in his written closing submissions which we have had regard to and have carefully considered. [59] Mr Symon disputed this stating the RIU had been clear as to what Mr Dixon’s role was and the allegation was in the charge. The respondent had aided and abetted Mr Lawson by placing bets for him. It was reasonable in the circumstances to infer that the respondent knew what Mr Lawson was doing and to infer that Mr Lawson knew he had been aided and abetted. [60] Mr Branch replied the core question was whether Mr Dixon knew Mr Lawson was driving in the race. And this was denied. The authorities emphasised there has to be actual assistance or encouragement and an intention to provide same. Causation has to be more than mere presence. That was absent from the RIU case he submitted. Nothing was gained by Mr Dixon rather than Mr Lawson putting the bet on. It provided no protection or assistance to Mr Lawson. Both men were present in the TAB betting with the same voucher. Mr Branch submitted it would have been an entirely different matter if Mr Lawson had stayed outside the TAB and Mr Dixon, with full knowledge of the offence, had placed the bet. That did not happen. There was no intent of subterfuge or any disguise of the fact that Mr Lawson was placing bets on a race when he should not have been doing so. [61] Mr Branch concluded his written submission by stating there was no evidence whatsoever of any encouragement, any intention to encourage, or that Mr Lawson had any knowledge that he was being encouraged by Mr Dixon. The RIU had therefore failed to prove to the required standard the elements of either charge. Decision [62] We believe the informant has correctly identified the two key issues in this case, although we would word them a little differently. We see the first question as being whether the respondent placed a bet on MR NATURAL for Mr Lawson; and secondly, if he did, whether at the time he placed the bet he had knowledge that Mr Lawson was driving in MR NATURAL’s s race. We would add a third issue, which is were there to be an affirmative finding with respect to issues one and two, whether Mr Dixon aided or abetted Mr Lawson to breach r 505(1). [63] The informant’s case is based on the interviews of Mr Lawson and Mr Dixon with the RIU, Mr Lawson’s statement to the police and his evidence before us at the hearing, and the video footage. [64] We start with the video footage. Both Mr Dixon and Mr Lawson placed bets using a voucher for $774.70 created by Mr Lawson. Despite being able to synchronise the placing of the various bets with the footage, there is no way of knowing what was being discussed by Mr Dixon and Mr Lawson at the relevant times. Mr Dixon is handed the voucher and the betting slip, which had been filled in by Mr Lawson. The explanation is that Mr Dixon did not have his reading glasses and could not see to fill out the slip. It was his bet with the voucher and Mr Lawson was simply filling in the slip for him. Mr Dixon has said in his evidence before us that it was his decision to back MR NATURAL, not Mr Lawson’s. [65] In the RIU interview conducted by Mr Grimstone, Mr Dixon said, “We had a bet on the horse and as Simon said, it was, he obviously had a drive in the race as you know, but that was never discussed, there was no, it was, I don’t even know if I knew he had a drive in the race.” Later he stated, “We put the bet on, it was a stupid thing to do.” [66] It is evident that the voucher was being shared by Mr Dixon and Mr Lawson. As we have noted, they both used the voucher to place bets. These bets were of varying amounts on MR NATURAL. Mr Lawson used the voucher on one occasion to place bets to the value of $200, while Mr Dixon placed two voucher bets on MR NATURAL, only one of which, a $40 multi-bet at the Pukekohe TAB, is the subject of the charge. Mr Dixon also placed a $50 cash bet on the horse. [67] We are told that Mr Lawson owed money to Mr Dixon and the voucher had its origins in a winning bet that was placed on a meeting at Palmerston North. When cashed, the voucher had a value of $2,559.20, which was collected by Mr Lawson and shared 50/50 with Mr Dixon. [68] Mr Lawson, when interviewed by the police, acknowledged that Mr Dixon was placing bets for him. We accept it is common when sharing a voucher or when in a betting syndicate that each person has his or her own bet, or as Mr Branch put it, betting is not by committee. With the voucher being shared by Mr Dixon and Mr Lawson, each stood to gain from the other’s bet. That being the case, we conclude that Mr Dixon did place a bet on MR NATURAL from which Mr Lawson stood to gain financially. Despite Mr Dixon’s assertions to the contrary, and in particular that he had selected MR NATURAL himself, and it was his decision to bet on the horse, we conclude on all the evidence before us that Mr Dixon did place a bet for Mr Lawson, that being the $40 fixed odds bet at the Pukekohe TAB. We add that we do not accept that two persons betting together would discuss horses but not the one each placed a bet on, using the same voucher, within just over a minute of each other, especially when Mr Lawson was the person who filled out the betting slip for the first bet and then Mr Dixon followed it up with a cash bet of his own on the horse. We also note that in the RIU interview Mr Lawson states that he and Mr Dixon discussed the fact that MR NATURAL was a good bet and that they would use the voucher. [69] We turn next to the vexed question of whether Mr Dixon had knowledge that Mr Lawson was driving in MR NATURAL’s race at the time he placed the bet in question (the $40 voucher bet at the Pukekohe TAB). [70] When Mr Grimstone said to Mr Dixon in the RIU interview, “You’ve acknowledged that you knew Simon was driving”, he responds, “No, no I didn’t acknowledge that. I said I don’t even know if I was sure if he had a drive in the race. You know, I said he put the bet on is all I acknowledged.” Later in the interview he again refutes that he knew Mr Lawson was driving in the race, saying, “I can’t recall whether I knew or not…. I would have probably said something if I did know, but I didn’t even think about it so.” Thus, there is no admission by the respondent to Mr Grimstone that he knew Mr Lawson was driving in the race. This is despite the issue being raised repeatedly with him in the interview. [71] Mr Lawson was a far from convincing witness. He could not recall what he said to Mr Dixon at the relevant times other than the fact he had never told Mr Dixon he had a drive in MR NATURAL’s race. Mr Symon accused him of simply wishing to protect his friend after he realised that he had implicated Mr Dixon when he was questioned by the police. [72] Despite repeated questions from Mr Symon as to Mr Dixon’s knowledge, Mr Lawson, as we have said, did not flinch in his evidence that he did not know whether Mr Dixon knew he was driving in the race. On other issues he simply could not remember the conversation he had with Mr Dixon on the day. [73] Mr Lawson has explained his statements to the police on the basis that he had simply assumed that Mr Dixon had knowledge he was driving in the race. [74] Mr Lawson stated in his interview with the police, “Gareth’s (Mr Dixon’s) put money on for me, yeah.” And, when questioned about the CCTV footage showing Mr Dixon betting, that “it’s quite clear that Gareth knew all about what was going on there didn’t he”, he replies “Yeah”. And when asked what did Mr Dixon say to you about backing the horse in your race, “Nothing, I don’t think.” The informant has submitted we should conclude that “all about what was going on there” is a reference to the fact that Mr Lawson was driving and when asked what did he say “about backing the horse in your race” that “Nothing” infers it was discussed but he did not demur from the placing the bet. Significantly, these are inferences we are being asked to draw from this evidence. Neither the wording of the questions nor the responses thereto, amount to a statement to the effect Mr Dixon knew Mr Lawson was driving in the race. [75] The questioning of Mr Lawson by the RIU Investigators, whilst comprehensive, again did not pin Mr Lawson down with respect to whether Mr Dixon knew he was driving in MR NATURAL’s race. When he was asked whether Mr Dixon discussed using the voucher, he replied, “Not really, like I mean, oh obviously yeah, um you know I said I think he’d be hard to beat and so we’ll just back that and just use the voucher and I was like, oh yeah okay where I should have been like, yeah no it’s not okay, I’m driving in the race obviously.” [76] Then when asked, “He knew you were driving in the race too?”, Mr Lawson responded, “Yeah. Um yeah, these ones are obviously with the voucher, they were, he’s having a bet with it because I don’t bet like that.” Mr Lawson’s response, as Mr Branch has submitted, suggests that his mind is turned principally to the use of the voucher and not to whether Mr Dixon knew he was driving. [77] The follow up question was to ask Mr Lawson “How does Mr Dixon rationalise it in his mind?” Mr Lawson said, “I’m not sure but yeah I mean it’s my mistake, I should be. I should have just been I can’t do that, or no.” Again “it” could have been taken by Mr Lawson to be a reference to Mr Dixon betting on Mr Lawson’s behalf or his betting in the knowledge he was driving. Either conclusion is available. [78] The questioning continued with Mr Cruickshank stating “But he, okay so you, it’s your mistake as far as you placing the bets. But him placing bets for you on a race he knows you’re driving in, how does, so that’s his mistake, is that what you’re saying?” Mr Lawson responds, “I suppose it’s, yeah. It’s not his problem I guess it’s fine isn’t it.” When told “no” because Mr Dixon is aiding and abetting in the commission of a serious racing offence, Mr Lawson says, “Oh well, I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know what he’s thinking, yeah you’ll have to ask him.” [79] Again, these answers are not definitive with respect to whether Mr Dixon knew Mr Lawson was driving in the race. We are required to infer from Mr Lawson’s answers that Mr Dixon knew he was driving. It is implicit that Mr Lawson assumed he did, but at no time does he state that he and Mr Dixon discussed the fact that he was driving in race 10 or even the fact that he was driving that evening. [80] Mr Dixon has given explanations for his actions that are exculpatory. Like Mr Symon we are surprised that he had no knowledge of who was driving in the race in question other than it was Mr B Butcher driving MR NATURAL. [81] Mr Dixon’s evidence as to his not having his reading glasses on the day was raised for the first time at the hearing. Other than submitting that Mr Dixon’s evidence was self-serving, it was not challenged by the informant. [82] The non-disputed facts that were before us do not state that the voucher bet or the cash bet were fixed odd bets, although the informant’s case has proceeded on the basis that they were and this has not been challenged by the respondent, and we note he stated he believed one of the bets was a multi bet. The informant has produced photos that are screen shots of what Mr Dixon would have seen when he placed a fixed odds bet (although not the actual bet in question). These demonstrate that the names of the drivers of each horse in the race are prominently displayed. Mr Dixon said in evidence that without his glasses the screen was blurry and as a consequence he could not see the screen “well”. [83] Of concern to us is the CCTV footage that shows Mr Lawson had filled out a bet slip which he gave to Mr Dixon with the voucher. This was the $40 bet on MR NATURAL. Mr Symon submitted there was no plausible reason for Mr Lawson to do this other than to avoid placing the bet himself. Yet 70 seconds later Mr Lawson places a much larger ($200) bet on the horse. Mr Symon has asked us to infer that Mr Dixon knew he was placing the bet because Mr Lawson was involved in driving in the race, otherwise Mr Lawson could have placed the bet himself. Mr Dixon has said it was his suggestion to back MR NATURAL and that he did not have his reading glasses and thus could not fill in the betting slip. Later when he placed a bet at Patumahoe, he explained he had just punched the bet into the machine rather than use a slip. [84] Mr Branch is correct when he has submitted that the informant’s case is based on implausibility and inference. The standard is on the balance of probabilities (r 1008A). We do not need to consider the effect of Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 (consideration being given to the seriousness of the charge) in the context of this rule, given our decision as to the outcome of this case. [85] We find that there is insufficient evidence before us upon which we can reach the conclusion that Mr Dixon at the time he placed the $40 bet for Mr Lawson had the requisite knowledge, ie that Mr Lawson was driving in race 10 at the Auckland Trotting Club’s meeting on 25 May 2018. [86] That finding means that it is not strictly necessary for us to deal with the third issue we have identified, but for completeness we do so, assuming for this purpose that Mr Dixon did have the requisite knowledge. Mr Branch’s submission is that for a charge of assisting or abetting Mr Lawson to breach r 505(1) to be proved there has to be actual assistance or encouragement, an intention to provide same, and an awareness by Mr Lawson that he is being assisted, although the last matter is not contentious on the facts of this case. Other than Mr Symon emphasising that the placing of a number of different size bets on MR NATURAL might have the effect of deflecting an investigation into betting activity, there was nothing to be gained by Mr Dixon rather than Mr Lawson putting the bet on in the circumstances that prevailed on that day. The placing of a $40 bet, when both men were present in the TAB betting with the same voucher, and in circumstances where Mr Lawson himself placed a much larger ($200) bet on the horse some 70 seconds later, is not clear evidence of Mr Dixon intending to and in fact assisting (aiding) Mr Lawson to breach the betting rule, nor is it evidence of encouragement. Rather, it is evidence of two men betting together and sharing a betting voucher. Thus, we do not find Mr Dixon’s actions were intended to aid Mr Lawson by disguising the fact that he was placing bets on a race when he should not have been doing so or to encourage him to so bet. Mr Branch is quite correct when he submitted it would have been an entirely different matter if Mr Lawson had stayed outside the TAB and Mr Dixon, with full knowledge of the offence, had placed the bet. That did not happen. [87] We thus do not view Mr Dixon’s placing of the $40 multi-bet on MR NATURAL in race 10 at the Auckland Trotting Club’s meeting on 25 May 2018 as being an act done for the purpose of aiding or to abet (encourage) Mr Lawson to commit a serious racing offence. [88] The RIU has failed to prove to the required standard the elements of either charge. The charges under r 1001(1)(y) and (z) are dismissed. Costs [89] We require the parties to submit written submissions as to costs. The respondent’s submissions are to be with the Executive Officer of the JCA by 4 pm Friday 29 March 2019 and the informant’s by 4 pm Friday 5 April 2019. Dated at Dunedin this 22nd day of March 2019. Geoff Hall, Chairman Documen

AUSTRALIA’S KING OF SIRES REDOUTE’S CHOICE DIES AT ARROWFIELD Arrowfield Stud announces with great sorrow that the Champion Sire Redoute’s Choice died this morning at the farm, near Scone in the Hunter Valley. The rising 23 year-old son of Danehill and Shantha’s Choice was humanely euthanised after suffering a traumatic loss of mobility which could not be restored, despite intensive care by Arrowfield’s veterinary and stallion teams. Arrowfield’s John Messara said, “Redoute’s Choice is such a big part of all our lives, and right now it’s hard to imagine Arrowfield without him. “He has given us so much, Arrowfield has been built on his back and he’s allowed all of us and many, many other people to fulfil our dreams and ambitions. “I thank Muzaffar Yaseen for allowing us to buy into Redoute’s Choice almost two decades ago. Our partnership has always been amicable and it has achieved all that we could hope for, and more. “I’m grateful to all my team, past and present, who are part of his story, especially those who have cared for and worked with Redoute’s Choice every day, and have ensured that he’s had the long and wonderful life he deserved. There are many tears being shed at Arrowfield today. “I also thank everyone who helped us launch his stud career, his shareholders, and those who bred to him, and bought, raced, trained and rode his progeny. He has blessed us all.” REDOUTE'S CHOICE Hero. Champion. Legend. 1996 - 2019 Redoute’s Choice was the rarest of thoroughbred horses, who exceeded even the lofty expectations of his glorious physique, powerful pedigree and brilliant racing career, to become a world-class stallion, a sale-ring sensation, a dominant sire of sires & broodmares and a major influence for years to come. His death comes in a season of fresh recognition and achievement, including his 34th Group 1 winner Galaxy Star, a trio of million-dollar colts at the Magic Millions Gold Coast Sale and a spectacular 3YO campaign by his best racing son, The Autumn Sun, who won his fifth Group 1 race, the Rosehill Guineas, last Saturday. The Autumn Sun’s place on the Arrowfield roster is already reserved, alongside four other Redoute’s Choice sons: record-breaking Champion Sire Snitzel, leading sire Not A Single Doubt, Scissor Kick, whose first yearlings are being offered at 2019 sales, and Pariah, who served his first book in 2018. Almost 13 years after he won the first of his three General Sires’ Premierships, Redoute’s Choice remains a top 5 sire and is likely to secure his first Australian Broodmare Sires’ title this season with earnings of $15.2 million and 15 stakeswinners to date, among them Group 1 winners Extra Brut, Amphitrite and Arcadia Queen. Redoute’s Choice was bred by Muzaffar Yaseen, foaled on 15 August 1996 and retained to race in the now-famous yellow, red, lime & orange Teeley Assets colours. Mr Yaseen sent him to Melbourne trainer Rick Hore-Lacy who prepared the strikingly handsome colt throughout his 10-start, 5-win, $1.6 million racing career. He made headlines and history immediately, after winning a Listed Race at his 2YO debut on 20 February 1999 and lining up a mere seven days later in the Blue Diamond S. G1, which he won by two lengths from his great rival Testa Rossa. His Spring 3YO campaign began with a 1200-metre weight-for-age victory in the Manikato S. G1 and peaked in the heroic, one-for-the-ages battle with Testa Rossa for the Caulfield Guineas G1, won by Redoute’s Choice only in the final metres. Redoute’s Choice returned in the Autumn to add a fourth Group 1 success, defeating Miss Pennymoney and Intergaze in the C.F. Orr S. G1, and retired to Arrowfield as Australia’s Champion 3YO Miler. He served 134 mares in 2000 at a fee of $30,000 which did not increase until his fifth season, in 2004. That was after the appearance of his first stakeswinners Not A Single Doubt and Tahni Girl, the 2003/04 Champion First Season Sire title and his first million-dollar yearling. It was in the 2004/05 racing season that Redoute’s Choice, with 137 runners from two crops of racing age, emerged as a potential champion stallion and the inheritor of Danehill’s crown. He unleashed a staggering 16 stakeswinners, four at Group 1 level: 3YO filly Lotteria and 2YOs Fashions Afield, Stratum and Undoubtedly. Only Danehill and Zabeel headed him on the Australian General Sires’ Premiership and his 2005 Inglis Easter Sale results included the Tugela colt, sold for a then all-time Australian record price of $2.5 million. He served a full book of 196 mares in 2005 and continued to serve at least 100 mares each year until the last two seasons when his book was restricted to 74 and 45 mares. Redoute’s Choice claimed his first General Sires’ Premiership with three crops racing in 2005/06, the season of six Group 1 winners: Champion 2YO Miss Finland, Snitzel (Oakleigh Plate), God’s Own (Caulfield Guineas), Nadeem (Blue Diamond S.), Fashions Afield (Flight S.) and Lotteria (Myer Classic). His second Premiership came in 2009/10, the year of diversely gifted fillies, the dual Group 1 winning-sprinter Melito, Queensland Derby winner Dariana and Toorak Handicap winner Allez Wonder. That season also marked the arrival of his statistically most notable crop, eventually the source of 21 stakeswinners from 107 named foals – a remarkable strike rate of 19.6%. Flag-bearer for that 2009 cohort was World Champion Sprinter, Horse of the Year and five-time Group 1 winner Lankan Rupee who helped propel Redoute’s Choice to his third and final Premiership, in 2013/14. Snitzel’s second-place finish in 2014 resulted in a father-&-son Premiership quinella unprecedented in Australian thoroughbred history and signalled the passing of the baton to the next generation of the Danehill dynasty at Arrowfield. Redoute’s Choice now has 22 stakes-siring sons, 10 of them also Group 1 sires. They are responsible for 279 stakeswinners, while his daughters have left 86 stakeswinners, including 13 at Group 1 level. International recognition of Redoute’s Choice’s contribution to the Australian thoroughbred industry has grown steadily in recent years. Only last month leading bloodstock analyst Bill Oppenheim announced that his APEX A Runner index of 3.82 earned him the No. 1 spot among Australasian sires, ahead of Snitzel, I Am Invincible, Savabeel and Fastnet Rock. John Messara said, “It is a great consolation to me that Redoute’s Choice leaves us at the top of his game, having sustained his greatness as a sire from start to finish, across the full span of his career. “His legacy to Australian breeding and racing is immense, through his sire sons, his broodmare daughters, his final crops still to come and all the people he touched over the past two decades. “Thank you Redoute’s, for everything.” Tags: Arrowfield, John Messara, Lankan Rupee, Miss Finland, Muzaffar Yaseen, Redoute’s Choice

Awapuni Henree Winkler and Miss Oahu were stand-out performers at Awapuni this morning. Fast work took place on the plough (good), with two gallops recorded on the course proper (dead). Henree Winkler and Miss Oahu used the plough and reeled off a smart 800m in 48.2, the last 600m in 36.2, with both horses revelling […] Want to read this content? For free user content sign up here Free Online Content View our subscription options and get behind The Informant paywall Already a member? Login here View the full article

I think you are drawing a long bow that Taxcindas recent performance will secure her victory in the next election. As they say a week is a long time in politics. When the electorate starts looking towards their back pocket and the Governments failed promises then you see a tide change. Contrary to the view of the Left leaning media I don't believe she has handled the situation as a true leader should. I note for one she hasn't solidly rebuked the offensive commentary of her Green Coalition leaders.

No the lead time was officially 34.88 she ran home quicker than that.

A below-par gallop at Matamata this morning has put a query over pre-post Manawatu Sires’ Produce Stakes favourite Yourdeel. The last-start Sistema Stakes winner is the clear favourite at $2.60 on the TAB’s fixed odds market to complete the two-year-old autumn Group One double at Awapuni on Saturday. But the Dundeel gelding looked anything but when overshadowed by stablemate and race rival Equinox over the final stages of the Jamie Richards-trained pair’s 1000-metre hitout. Yourdeel’s rider Opie Bosson offered no encouragement when he reported that he felt nothing like what he expected, leaving Richards to ponder his weekend assignment. “Apart from what we just saw everything else about him has been fine, his bloods are good and he’s very bright,” Richards said. “We’ll keep pushing on for now and see how he looks in a bit of three-quarter-pace work on Thursday.” Balancing that, Richards was left well satisfied that Equinox, the winner of two of this three starts, is right on target for Awapuni. With last-start winning rider Michael McNab under suspension, the Exceed And Excel colt will be ridden on Saturday by Johnathan Parkes. “He’s a talented colt and is obviously very well, all we want is a decent track,” commented Richards. View the full article

Like most of the time I have no idea what you are ranting on about.

Rule Number(s): Rule 869(4)Following the running of Race 2, the Equibreed Mobile Pace 2200m an Information was presented by Mr Mulcay in which he alleged that Mr Poutama ' failed to concede his position entering the first turn which resulted in his gelding breaking and losing its chance'. Mr Poutama was present at the hearing ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): Rule 869(2); Clause (d) of the Use of The Whip RegulationsFollowing the running of Race 5, the Fairview Motors Mobile Pace 2200m an Information was presented by Mr Mulcay alleging that Junior Driver Mr S Iremonger, driving ROMY FRANCO, 'used his whip on the final bend when out of contention.' Mr Iremonger, assisted by Mr J Abernethy, was present at the hearing ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article