Special Agent

I heard all these great comments about Ellerslie from jockeys interviewed in the media. All the stuff we all wanted to hear. However, I know that not every jockey who rode at trials on the Ellerslie surface were asked. Some in that group were not so brimming with compliments and had some helpful critiques. Everyone who is licensed to ride by NZTR must have some form of experience so, to be excluded from any discussion is short sighted. In hindsight the rush to get back racing at Ellerslie should have been tempered by further trialling to take any hint of imperfection out of the equation.

I don't think you can cut corners and I think Flemington set a pretty good standard with how they maintain and rejuvenate the track after every Spring Carnival. All tracks should be looked after in the same manner.

Checks and balances need to be stringent and opinions need to be sought from all, not a selection.

There's an example of any amount of walking the track, jumpouts and trials being quite different to race day. The track had the clean bill of health from all concerned before a disastrous return to racing.

Ask Gary Vile what not being quiet does for your business and life.

I'm all about having my say if I think things are wrong but, I don't think every aspect of the industry needs a grandstanding approach. For instance, I agree with you that yesterday's interview should not have aired. Had the Wanganui running rail problems been addressed the public would be none the wiser. I don't know what or if the Jockeys' Association have submitted on this issue. If it's just a moan that has not been through correct procedure that's a perfect situation where "quickly and quietly" would have been preferred.

Just to clarify, I think the synthetic tracks are an absolute waste of money and impossible for the industry to fund the upkeep of, and I do not believe the Awapuni surface is of a sufficient quality to be racing and working horses safely on. However, of the three artificial tracks currently in operation Awapuni appears to get the tick from the jockeys to ride on. It's like a greyhound track but, maybe the camber is okay. The field size should never be increased as a safety imperative and apprentice jockeys should be mindful of everything and everyone around them.

I guess this demonstrates how walking the track and riding the track can be two different things. Of the jockeys I have spoken to the Wanganui rail definitely throws the horses out (or in). Check out the Stipes Report and marry it up with the replays and you will see those that hit the running rail. At first look you might blame the jockey but, if the jockeys are correct the rail alignment would seem a valid excuse. Also take into account these are animals, not cars. Of other tracks in central, the Awapuni synthetic is another with a rail alignment problem. Jockeys definitely need their wits about them, especially if sitting two or three back on the fence. From what I can gather the riders have to give themselves a bit of room when racing at Awapuni, as a safety measure. As Kate was explaining, jockeys work these things out for themselves quickly and quietly.

I think the Stewards have the overriding decision to abandon as they are in charge of the meeting.

How did they do it? And why is no one doing it here?

Today's coverage was a new experience. The way the footage was shown at the express wishes of Stipendiary Stewards was unusual. Trackside Presenters were giving their opinions on such matters they would normally be told to refrain from. Then, when emotions are running at high levels a jockey was interviewed at length, on cancellations of three different race meetings. I'm not sure if this is part of the new protocols, and whether she was a chosen jockey representative, self appointed or selected by Trackside. Bevin Sweeney said Jonathan Riddell asked all jockeys who rode in the first race and all were happy with the state of the track. I think experts need to spend time reviewing footage. I know presenters stated the horse fell free of interference. Some points to ponder ... the horse was a first starter, it had a long stride and was in close proximity to three runners ahead of it, a clipping heel touch can be minimal and barely visible to cause a fall, the tail carriage may suggest discomfort from having struck itself prior to a further strike before falling/losing the rider, if the track was slippery why did the second horse not slip, were the slip marks before or after the fall, were there any concerns from pre-race protocols, even the presenters said they'd walked the track so how many red flags were put up at the "slipping" point?

1. Jockeys used to make up their own minds and leave the course individually if they didn't wish to ride. You cannot make a jockey ride if they don't feel safe. Most jockeys raced on with sheets of water coming off flooded tracks, poor visibility and freezing cold conditions. Tracks weren't generally wet at this time of the year. Officialdom still called the races off mostly with the consesus. 2. Track conditions and track surfaces are different now. The tracks are hammered nowadays. There weren't the number of race meetings on so few tracks and hardly any trials or jumpouts. Tracks were wetter in winter but safe. I think there are more slippery tracks due to interfering with nature. 3. Pressure was definitely on the jockeys then, particularly from prominent trainers, and apprentices did what they were told. They didn't get the same opportunities so were not in a position to argue. 4. Noel Eales did not agree with watering tracks. I'm not sure when the over watering began but, I think influenced by Australian imports. The rule of thumb used to be water to grow the grass, not alter the track rating/condition. Other changes in this time frame include a softening of all people in NZ, less farming activities on tracks, administrators with NO idea taking over clubs, apprentices being able to race ride when not competent, top jockeys being exported, horses are definitely less educated presently, most horses race in aluminum plates as opposed to steel, there are a lot more foreigners riding in races, corners seem to be cut on track preparation, less horses seem to gallop on grass in training. That's a start. Many others can add a lot more.

If you hadn't ridden in the first you must be guided by someone whose opinion you trust. Only Jonathan Riddell and Kate Hercock appeared to be checking the track. I think they were worthy jockey representatives and you'd imagine what they suggested would be accepted.

Darin Balcombe talked about this at one of the road shows but, I'd say these protocols are changing quite often. Listening to what Bevan Sweeney said happened whilst he was in the room, and putting two and two together, it sounds like there is a conflab between jockeys behind closed doors then when they go in with the Stipes they might ask each jockey around the room whether they feel it's safe to ride, or not. As mentioned 16 yes'es or no's isn't going to take long.

Thank you for putting those interviews up. The take from others on what was said differs from my own. Kate was talking about the running rail at Wanganui, not using senior riders in assessing the track at Hastings, and jockeys' decisions overall when deciding if tracks are safe enough to race on. I haven't heard anyone in person bagging jockeys for not riding. I think most jockeys would agree about running rails being in the true position and most who visit this site would agree there are not enough tracks. None of it is rocket science. Administration just needs to listen to the people of the industry who live and breathe it.

As they have a track that is used for racing, are they not subsidised by NZTR to provide a good racing surface? I await the Stipes Report. Jockeys were not riding as if the track was slippery or felt unsafe under them. There was tightening and bumping that didn't result in slipping or falling.

Thanks for the alternate view of the race which showed no clipping of heels. Could you be absolutely sure the horse hasn't struck itself as a cause to fall? Evidently riders reported to Jonathan Riddell they felt no problems with the track. No surface or running rail problems were detected prior to racing, and a different situation to the day before at Wanganui where there were heavy downpours at intervals.

Some good news then. A bloody disaster otherwise.

I've only watched a replay. Did a report come through on Chris Dell at all? I'm wondering if the races were abandoned due to the state of the rider, rather than the track as it didn't look like a slip to me.

Looks like the horse in blue clipped heels to me.

Perhaps it takes one to know one. I wouldn't think you'd do much riding now, old grey mares included. It would also be a while since you bowled a maiden over. Do you still roll out for that old people's game?

How do you know he owns half? Two owners in the book don't have to own equal shares.

Could it have something to do with the irrigation system they now have? Other than that, no idea.

Hawera has been moved to Waverley too due to the state of the track. Not enough tracks to spread the load I'd say. Does anyone know when the synthetic track report will be out?

Okay people, go away and do a bit of research. Come back and tell us how to get around the "duty of care" regulation that forbids you to dogtucker any slow or nasty ex-racehorse, or one that you can no longer afford to feed. While you are at it give us a list of how many, and locations, of operations where you can offload your horse for petfood. Apparently in Auckland it's about $800 to end the life of a sick, old or injured horse ($300 for the vet and $500 to dispose of the body). Next assignment is to enlighten us as to what areas in NZ allow horses to be buried. I might need "happy to see the greyhounds go" and "pushing back" defined too because I am at a loss as to explanations of some of the ill informed comments on this subject.