Special Agent

Good picking. I guess you won't be booking a couple of mares in any time soon though.

A conspiracy theorist would say it looks like a front for something else. I share your skepticism. Stake money won't be the problem soon. The real kicker is where the horses are going to come from to compete.

Good luck to Entain in turning these turnovers around. All bar Oamaru realised a drop in revenue from last season.

Neither did I. Maybe we read too much at whacky hours. Anyway, what happened to choosing the subjects you are interested in learning about?

Oooh and penalised they have been. Ridiculous. The person at NZTR should be looking for another job.

I think Ted said something along the lines of "Is that all they could write?" Needless to say, a little while later the obituary was embellished.

AWT enthusiasts are absolutely kidding themselves. Poor quality racing. The sooner they are ripped out the better. Why would an industry spend good money after bad, and sell up all the grass tracks to do it? Obviously those spending the money aren't treating it as their own.

How many times did we read articles explaining how surprised Wiremu and the Australian trainers were at having such a sizeable claim? The claim amount was issued and queried. Why should connections be penalised.

Such a ridiculous situation after the event. It's not as if the generosity of the claim was not pointed out prior to Wiremu race riding. Stake money by all would need to be paid back. What a mess that was totally avoidable. Incompetence personified.

Thinking is a dying art.

I think what you are both pointing out is that racing has changed which requires much thought to work out ways to progress the sport. I'm not sure harness has many thinkers at the helm.

I see there were only 8 submissions lodged with the Commerce Commission against the merger.

Especially with the number of races run. Please collaborate with Chief and put this bullshit to bed.

I don't know how many other ways it can be said but, there are still disbelievers.

To say in the Stipes' Report there is no evidence the horse was suffering an injury, what are they on? The horse ambulance was required. I know sometimes this action can be precautionary but, the vet believed the horse was injured. The vet is obviously competent or would not be employed. A fracture was discovered.

Didn't the vet report there was a fracture? Are the officials overriding a medical expert by saying that happened in the horse ambulance? The horse may have suffered an injury as early as the score up. If the horse was not injured during the running why was he loaded into the horse ambulance? There is not a lot of sense around this.

The listening by NZTR is required before the decisions are made. We are just informed of what is happening it seems. If would be good if the advisory system was transparent.

I think you need to attack this from a different angle too. You have already put time and effort in so, what sacrifice is a little bit more? Bear with me here as I have a bit on today and my brain isn't as crystal clear as it should be but, with the greyhound industry "on notice" and the Department of Internal Affairs hosting the Greyhound Review Final Report why are you pussyfooting around with your concerns? I think it is pretty simple. You have highlighted in yellow your concerns where each group has "dropped the ball". Without any personal attacks I can see how each aspect has accountable people attached who have not been accountable. You have highlighted three concerns and asked three questions. Why don't you put that to AGRC, GRNZ, RIB and DIA and copy in whomever is necessary to get some action and some answers? That's what I'd do. How different would your approach be, Chief?

Double standards. What sort of people are on these panels? I thought because there is renumeration it should mean professionalism. All we want is consistency. Is the horse okay? Once they go into that horse ambulance ...

Very few owners get to race in a group race so to put more money into group racing is not aiding the wider industry. Entain's idea is to put an extra $2,000, for argument's sake, into the winning stake of maidens. To me that is not rewarding mediocracy as indicated by Tesio. It is rewarding the winner, not the also rans. Historical evidence shows how when just a few big races are pumped up the foundation crumbles. If we can keep our horses from being sold at least long enough for them to pick up 10 or so more ratings points the pool of horses will be much more solid so, a more competitive environment and a better betting product. Everyone wins from the breeder, owner through the trainer, staff and jockey, to the punter and even sponsor. I don't see what people aren't getting.

Yankiwi, I agree with you in the fact that not only have GRNZ been slow to recognise (or be told as the case looks to be) the incorrect and endangering distances between lure and leader but, the board has so many knowledgable trainers who must be contributing nothing at meetings and just taking a fee for attendance. I acknowledge this is the tip of the iceberg but, reading your posts it seems the problems are all fixable. I also agree with Chief. You obviously have a degree of intelligence, a knowledge of what needs to be done and time on your hands. I think you should be the better man (I am assuming your gender which is a little dangerous in today's world) as the industry is bigger than us all but, needs saving from itself. Put a decent paper together and lodge it with GRNZ, meet with them and work on a solution of current greyhound woes. Why don't you take up Chief's offer of posting on here to keep us all informed, and we can also keep the authorities honest and accountable?

Money spent on those lower grades would assist everyone and may even push a few up the grades to improve the overall quality.

Here's a task for you Tesio. Get up the list of the rated horses in training for each trainer. You might be surprised how many horses each and every trainer has, as a percentage of their overall number in training, that are R65 or below.

Me neither.

This is a very good point. There doesn't appear to be any proof that any thought or rationale went into this "enhanced funding strategy". God forbid but, these seem to be figures plucked out of thin air because they don't make a hell of a lot of sense. I think we are supposed to be wetting our pants with excitement over this allocation of monies. I understand they are trying to be innovative. I still believe there is this air of grandeur and snobbery. For goodness sake we just want a fair suck of the sav for everyone in the industry, like many on here are saying from the bottom up, not the top to half way down. I can't understand why so many are oblivious to the bad decisions and how it hasn't dawned on them yet that we have heard it all before, just dressed a litle differently this time around.