Special Agent

Progressive would be a good descriptive word for the Riccarton Turf Club in their time. Those sort of clubs and people are sorely missed today. The Viv Jack ditty Freda relayed is so apt when applied to racing today, about not knowing what to do with all the bells and whistles. I think we should be more "back to the basics" and "grass roots".

The Riccarton Turf Club was one of those lost gems with the enthusiastic volunteers who knew how to run a good show and raise decent money. The first flexible running rail, would have been aluminium back then I think, at the CJC was courtesy of the Riccarton Turf Club.

Viv Jack would be turning in his grave.

Without knocking the high profile trainers who train large numbers and have all the stress associated with that, it seems the colour pieces on the small time trainers are the ones that capture the imagination of the reader or viewer. Nothing can capture intrigue like the underdog. The backbone of the industry should never be under estimated, nor what the backbone is.

I don't think NZTR could ever put a meeting off again using visibility as an excuse after letting Cambridge go ahead mid-week.

I don't know what the availability of any of their tracks are. I read on here recently how Riccarton horses went to Rangiora for grass gallops. Same goes for Awapuni to Foxton.

I find this little section interesting. Dressage action and speed is quite different to what we are talking about. Variety in training surfaces seems important but, I'm not sure what variety is regularly on offer at Awapuni and Riccarton apart from swimming.

Reads to me like 2-3 runs under a hold on the surface is enough to fit a horse's anatomy for racing on the surface. Are we to read a report as is, or are we supposed to read some other unknowns into the equation?

Without looking the rule up, I'm pretty sure the rules apply to trials, jumpouts and trackwork as well. These can be monitored by the same personnel who regulate rules on a raceday.

Do you think the questions and problems have been addressed?

For starters Curious, do you honestly believe a couple of little canter arounds will condition a horse's legs/bones for a flat out gallop at speeds they may never have experienced before?

Enlightening.

To be fair, not much. But this is utter garbage. If any licence holder is going to swallow this, OMG what are you on?

That's not what I am saying at all. I believe a whip should be carried/used both in training and in a race. But if there are rules to be adhered to in a race, some effort should be made to count the whip strikes, not hit them consecutively, not lift your arm above the shoulder, and not hit the horse on the head or flank. If you are licensed by NZTR there must be recognition of some competency.

I don't understand any trackwork rider who doesn't carry a whip. Maybe exercise riders of today are taught by different methods and different mentors.

Who would read that stuff kindly quoted above by Curious before unleashing it on the public, do you think? I see someone describing Michael Guerin's material as dribble x3. More and more offerings from NZTR and any associated organisation would be dribble to the power of, I don't know ... pick a number. It is very hard to take anything from them of supposed importance seriously. I thought acclimatization was reference to weather. Now it seems it refers to a horse's gait. Now that horse's gait can be rectified, and according to the report the horse's limbs can be trained to withstand pressure from the synthetic surface by giving it 2-3 workouts in a non-competitive setting, as it suggests working on the bit. Does that sound like bullshit to anyone else? Whatever amount was paid for the report was money wasted. I can't believe anyone could read that report and not laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Am I alone in this thinking?

When they come back after these suspensions they should only be able to ride minus a whip for a few weeks. I don't think the message is getting through to some.

Quite simply there are very few who have read the entire report, let alone understood it, and frankly the more you read the more silly it becomes, a little like the ever increasing rules and regulations NZTR put out. It is quite disappointing the obsession about what the NZTA are or are not saying or doing. A lot of the comment is unfounded. Another obsession is what jockey Kate Hercock has to say about tracks. I find it ironic that she rode in New Caledonia recently where track conditions and h & s go right out the window.

And Taranaki jumpouts Wednesday?

I think so.

So many ideas pop up and turn into rules with NZTR, like this bizarre trialling and vetting procedure if your horse hasn't raced within the previous 12 months. Now that it's in print that it appears 3 goes on an AWT is sufficient for a horse to be safely adapted to that surface, will it mean proof of 3 times on an AWT will be required before allowed to race on such a track?

No races tomorrow.

Did I?

If the track was described as shocking, which tracks was Wanganui being compared to? The two senior riders can't have ridden at Waverley on 21st April then. If the times were slick, just how shocking was the surface?

There are a lot of presenters employed.