Harness4All

Surely this is disappointing, or am I just a pessimist? We are nearly 2 years into a 25 year strategic contract between a very large gambling power house and the monopoly holder of racing and sports betting in NZ and they need an 'advisory committee' already! They have one role, grow the betting revenue and profits in collaboration with the codes and sports bodies. Seems they have no idea how to do that. The announcement talks about the industry not just betting, what does that mean? The racing industry is bigger than just the gambling (yes I know they rely on it for funding) so does it suggest that maybe they will look to advance proposals that simply follow on from the Messara report that Winnie was so keen on, or try to influence the code boards? Frankly I'm surprised and somewhat nervous about this.

Probably a stupid question on my part but, what's the point of these Big Bet Alerts? What is the purpose. I can't see it attracting other big punters to do likewise, nor can I see the small social punter being influenced by it. I just don't get it. Someone tell me what I am missing.

Racing calendar 66Setting of racing calendar and allocation of racing dates (1) This section applies only if there is no provision in any commercial agreement between TAB NZ and each or all of the racing codes providing for— (a) the setting before the end of one racing year of a racing calendar that comprises all of the dates in the subsequent racing year on which betting races will occur; and (b) the allocation of those dates among racing clubs; and (c) any conditions of those allocations. (2) TAB NZ must establish and maintain a committee (the dates committee) to carry out the functions specified in subsection (4). (3) The dates committee must include at least 1 person appointed by the racing codes (acting jointly) to represent the collective interests of the codes. (4) The dates committee must, before the end of each racing year, set— (a) the racing calendar that comprises all of the dates in the subsequent racing year on which betting races will occur; and (b) the allocation of those dates among racing clubs; and (c) subject to subsection (6), any conditions of allocation. (5) Before carrying out its functions under subsection (4), the dates committee must consult each of the racing codes on the proposed dates, allocation, and conditions. (6) The conditions of allocation must include— (a) the name of the racecourse at which the betting races will occur; and (b) that the racecourse must be approved for racing by the relevant racing code. Compare: 2003 No 3 s 42

The Racing Industry Bill has a $1 each way on all outcomes. It allows for individual codes to negotiate a commercial agreement with TAB NZ, or Racing NZ (as described above) or if no commercial agreement has been agreed then TAB NZ can constitute a Dates Committee and decide the Racing Calendar. So we could see multiple outcomes or mix and match. In the end the determining factor is TAB NZ resources available to support the dates requested and if the venue can support the TAB NZ operation on what TAB NZ considers 'commercially acceptable' terms. It will be interesting to see just how it all works and whether the codes can work together or if NZTR or greyhounds will try to go alone leaving harness on the outer? Or perhaps TAB NZ will decide that no commercial agreement can be reached and control the calendar just as it does now. The betting licence can only be issued by TAB NZ and since they also control the resources required to running a successful meeting in betting terms they ultimately hold all the power. Add to that the possibility that if a club is not given dates for two seasons in a row it can be set up for closure the politics could be a mine field. The next couple of years are going to be interesting to observe.

Yes. Where is the funding for stakes going to come from? RITA balance sheet is weak and fully borrowed against. Currently trading at best break even, but most likely weekly losses. No reserves left to call on. So stake funding would need to come from government bailout/support, club reserves or nomination and acceptance fees returning. Hope I am wrong. No matter what stakes next year will be a significant reduction on what they were. Now is the time for our administrators RITA & HRNZ to be transparent, open & honest with the racing community, and not mislead by omission. Not going to hold my breath on that, but RITA CEO has been an improvement over anything we have had for for a decade.

Stakeholders such as owners, punters, clubs, trainers, drivers, breeders, RITA/TAB, HRNZ are the major ones. My observation is that they function from a perspective of self interest and with short to medium term view leading. My belief is that harness racing will need a well defined long term plan (10/20 years) which each stakeholder group can buy into. A plan including setting priorities and actions will require compromise with a focus on the strong long term benefits. A collective, not just collaborative, approach will be required to rebuild the code. Of course all that will require some exceptional leadership given the passions that exist within each stakeholder group. I cannot see how all the core issues can be addressed without collective stakeholder input and agreement. I am sure that this COVID19 thing will reshape the agenda too so hope for clear heads and commitment to really make a difference when it is all over. Then again my opinion might be miles off the mark and is just that, one persons opinion.

May just be the disruption big enough to require a full reset of the harness racing code and demand every stakeholder group to be included and involved. Anything would be an improvement on the dysfunctional groups of dysfunctional stakeholders currently being demonstrated within the code. There is an opportunity to make real change across the board. OR it could just reduce down to a Canterbury thing! That IMHO would be equally disastrous. TAB could survive, just, by government support and e-sport/virtual racing. We are in for some interesting times over the next 6 to 12 months.

Back to the Thornley / Copperhead Rose theme on this thread ... Is there an emerging responsibility here for trainers of horses who they know will require 'constant persuading using the whip to deliver a potential winning run' to have a conversation with owners about the impact of that on drivers and potentially refuse to train these horses? For the good of the industry & drivers should the Copperhead Rose type horses be left unraced or retired? How many racing horses are like this ... 1% or less of the racing pool?

Why doesn't someone from RITA simple confirm what particular section of the AML & CFT Act requires the TAB to maintain records for transactions $1,000? From my read the domestic threshold is $10,000 and the International threshold is $1,000. Therefore it should not be required for domestic transactions. I'm no lawyer but if it is required by the Act then I'm sure they can tell us exactly which section calls for it.

There might be a way ... The Official Information Act applies to the NZRB. I am sure they would find a way to avoid a response to an OIA request on betting activity, probably some bull about 'commercially sensitive' information.

Sums it up nicely really ... the telling point is getting an independent to consider the issue. If legal wins then they remain out as can only challenge the legitimacy of the Racing Act, if code wins then they have a good shot at getting back to driving as it is more about interpretation. Retired Judge hearing I'm currently 60/40 that legal wins. Having said that my betting record would demonstrate I often get it wrong!

The same that will be facing a number of clubs in the medium term future ... safety (asbestos in the building) and not up to earthquake regulations. It is a huge issue that many of the racetracks will have to confront given the age of some of the facilities.

Given that these are the first court cases involving the Match fixing amendment to the Crimes Act I suspect it could take months to reach a conclusion in the courts. A good Defence counsel will be challenging and testing all the technicalities they can find. This was hurried legislation in late 2014 to have it in place before NZ co-hosted the Cricket World Cup in 2015. Had some criticism at the time which has still not been addressed since. How this all started is of more concern to me at this time. If it was truly from a tip-off to the RIU then that suggests that the systems and process that are supposed to protect the integrity of the racing industry are not working and further similar events are possible/probable in racing & sports betting in the future.