Special Agent

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.

Racing and breeding dogs (i.e. ALL greyhounds) cannot be exported to Australia RIGHT NOW. FFS. It's more than sad for the "participants" in the greyhound industry. Just because it's a bit of fun betting, or choosing not to bet, on greyhounds there are a whole lot of human beings who have lost their livelihood. Not only that but, the poor bastards can't recoup any dosh by selling any competitive or well bred ones to a greyhound racing country. Plus you must find suitable homes for your soon to be finished dogs, which must be desexed no matter the age. How legal (or sane) is any of that??!! Pick any other industry operating in New Zealand (i.e. freight companies, meat workers, forestry, electricians etc) and see how those families would cope if the breadwinner of the family was told he/she only had months to continue earning. I don't think On Track have enough personnel to cope with the fall out on this one. As for phrases like "tidy their act up" WTF does that mean? Too many are talking through a hole in their head. This isn't a game. It's an absolute disaster, even if it doesn't effect you. No one is looking at the big picture. I hate the word woke but, FFS open your eyes we are being ruled by a woke minority!!

Yes I agree. If there's not enough money to challenge it I hope trainers and owners are talking with their MP's who were obviously voting blind on closing the entire greyhound industry. If I was working my way towards a law degree this would be a fun project with a group of like minded students looking for a thesis subject.

What is your take on NZ dogs not being able to be exported to Australia to race or breed? If a NZ trainer can relocate to Australia to train do you think, when NZ government has already thwarted their livelihood, it is okay for them not to be able to take their competitive dogs too? Should those dogs just be added to the list of rehomers?

High density housing is a bad idea in any area. Clean green nothing in NZ any more. Looking at that photo can't you just see the sewer pipe problem in a few years clogging up the waterway out yonder. The traffic is diabolical now so, lets add some more. So would high density allow for extra water tanks like is compulsory in other councils? Doubt it!! Take away the green areas, nothing to do, and another stack of slums with undesirables jammed into this "affordable housing". Well done NZTR, Racing Minister, government and whoever else dares hold their hand up.

I think you will find clubs with a history of surviving controversity and adversity will be among the favoured runners to repeat the dose. Clubs, of course with owners and trainers as members. One thing for certain, those who have only come onboard with the stakes and novelty races will be long gone. None of this is unexpected. I have wondered all along how the Entain model was going to survive, hoping somehow it would. I'd hate to be in charge, holding the baby. I think a nappy change is nigh.

The way I look at it the owner selected a horse judging by the price that was not wanted by the experts. He has entrusted the training to Sam Wynne, a newbie in the training role, who has done a tremendous job fitting the horse for racing with the added bonus of being the raceday rider. As the horse has won it's last five why would you be looking for another jockey? As Mike Kneebone said "what a story". Sam is as competitive as any other jockey who will be riding at Ellerslie. With all the bullshit she endured from Bernard Saundry and co at NZTR and Tim Mills at the CJC during Covid I'd say she'd handle whatever criticism anyone is prepared to throw at her like water off a duck's back. I wouldn't know Colin Wightman if I fell over him but, if there is an inkling he's looking at replacing Sam in the saddle the big crowbar he'd require to prise his hoop off is likely to be wrapped around his head by Sam herself.

I think that release of pressure would only be short term.