Special Agent

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.

I doubt it. I would have thought Edward Rennell had contacts from his harness days he could have called on.

So if those senior riders were at the meeting what are they saying now?

They talk a bit about track staff salaries. Seems odd in the context of the meeting.

Not sure about who come up with another committee to be formed. Who were representing the trainers and jockeys? We'll blame them.

Evidence - oncourse punters were talking about it. I would have assumed fixed odds bets would be put on using a phone. Questions were confusing to punters and slowed up the queues. Tote staff were a little sharp with the customers, from all accounts.

Is it happening at every oncourse venue where the tote staff are pushing Fixed Odds bets over Tote? Apparently you have to specify if you want a bet on the tote.

Not buying into any arguments. Trainers haven't had much option at some tracks. You are the statistics man.

Take a study purely on the Awapuni synthetic training fatalities then. See if the volume and nature has any bearing vs pre synthetic.

Rubbish. There are loose, deep, holding, puggy etc versions of the same heavy ratings for a start. As Freda said about Riverton vs Riccarton, what about Wanganui vs Trentham vs New Plymouth vs Otaki. That's why the jockeys' opinion after riding a track on race day is important, despite your opinion of them.

I've heard this quoted quite a bit recently by NZTR and other NZ racing subsidaries like it's something new. Grey Way is a good example of this. There were many more prior to him, back in the days when racing was less frequent, trials and irrigation were futuristic. Talk by trainers and riders away from media is quite negative around what is happening in racing. There are some frustrated bodies out there. One aspect that is quite a hot topic is the trialling and vetting of horses that have not raced within the last 12 months, another cost to owners. Well done to two in that category at Wanganui. Pretty obvious Jordan Rogan's big divvy winner with jumpout wins under it's belt didn't need vetting.