curious

Seems like a sensible strategy for that business.

Probably close to half of them and no indication of any races being split. SI racing and programming is a disaster of major proportions.

Racing NZ Thoroughbred Chat Page Colin Wightman · All-star contributor · rSentdspoo71h605a6u6tct411t8952thtf19m5au5m6u254httl1lhhh7uu · Just reading the comments of Brian Molloy on another thread relating to the likelihood of a further attack on community track assets around NZ now that Winston has legalised what is essentially theft of those assets. Brian has pointed the finger at 2 members of the whale community being complicit in that directive being handed down to our new CEO Matt Ballesty who released a document on Friday announcing a non-detailed “stamina” plan that his masters have put together which focuses on the infrastructure of racecourse assets. Being fair to Ballesty, he notes the disasters unfolding at Awapuni, Trentham and Hastings. But not fair when he points to Avondale as if it’s sale is a forgone conclusion using Winston’s dodgy new Racing Act that the whales got him to slip through 4 years ago during Covid without consulting stakeholders. The timing of Ballesty’s circular was interesting because it came off the back of an un-signed letter from supposedly the RIB threatening to censor those who dare question future moves by our codes administration. Speaking with many over the weekend, that threat has backfired. Many I’ve spoken to are angry that organisations working for us would attempt such a draconian or authoritarian effort. So I went digging to find out who the author was. I’m told from reliable sources that it was Matt Ballesty himself. It was his initiative, his idea, but one probably demanded by the whales who appointed him through the non democratic NZTR governance system. It sounds as if Ballesty asked the RIB to put their name behind it to give the impression of some authority, some threat, some punishment for those still exercising their right to be critical of racings administration. Apparently the draft letter written by Ballesty was so wank, so woke, that Harness refused to put their name to it initially and Greyhounds didn’t want a bar of it .. and still don’t. So there we are folks .. welcome to Thoroughbred Racing in NZ with its private little fiefdom controlled by un-appointed whales thinking they run the show. The question I have is: “How much longer will stakeholders in Thoroughbred racing tolerate this situation”?????

It goes to the operators

Good on it. Nobody else has!

One aspect I particularly like and have been on about for years. Move to a two-tier race meeting system (Premier and Standard) with flat stakes.

Racing’s two codes seek cohesive plan as big decisions loom By Michael Guerin Https://bitofayarn.com Racing Editor·NZ Herald· 11 Jul, 2025 12:19 PM4 mins to read Awapuni is one racetrack to have experienced recent track troubles. Photo / Race Images New Zealand’s two horse racing codes are set to join forces to plan for the future. The thoroughbred and harness racing codes were once considered staunch rivals. Despite plenty of cross-over between owners, punters and trainers, the two codes used to compete for turnover. Those days are all but gone, with harness offering little competition on thoroughbred racing’s biggest days, while both codes benefit from a stronger overall turnover at the TAB. At present, racing’s percentage of TAB profits is also shared with greyhound racing. But that code is now slated for extinction next July, after the death sentence handed down by Racing Minister Winston Peters in December. That decision is being challenged by Greyhound Racing New Zealand, although it may not get to argue its case in court until as late as next March. The other two codes, commonly known as “the gallops” and “the trots”, have announced they will work together on their infrastructure issues and which tracks are likely to survive the next five years. Racing’s ageing infrastructure is one of its greatest concerns, with abandoned meetings on tired tracks costing the industry tens of millions in lost turnover and eroding owner and punter confidence. So NZ Thoroughbred Racing and Harness Racing NZ have launched Project Stamina, supported by the TAB, which will work towards answering the infrastructure questions hanging over the industry. Some of the biggest questions will be around the Waikato Greenfields project, the almost certain closure and sale of Avondale and the troubled Central Districts, where Hastings and Awapuni have had serious track problems and Trentham may need a new grandstand that it cannot realistically afford. In harness racing, the Auckland region will need a new training track once Franklin Park at Pukekohe is sold and, with so many potential projects looming, the two codes are better working together, especially when applying for funding from the TAB or the Government. Project Stamina’s main purpose, according to NZTR chief executive Matt Ballesty, is to move from “reactive maintenance to long-term, future-focused investment”. That could mean no longer fixing tracks that don’t work or will eventually be closed, and instead spending money on those that make long-term financial sense. Working out which tracks are which, overcoming parochial bias and building a cohesive and affordable plan is a mammoth undertaking. Ballesty and HRNZ boss Brad Steele say they plan to use consultants initially, but are quick to emphasise that their boards will be making the final decisions, with input from TAB NZ and the new TAB Advisory Committee, which contains some of New Zealand racing’s biggest players. Working together makes sense for the two codes as it ensures a sharing of information and what each hopes to achieve, especially important as they already share some venues and could end up working together on others. “We have reached a critical point that calls for bold decision-making,” says Ballesty. “Project Stamina is about making the necessary decisions to ensure our infrastructure supports a thriving future for horse racing in New Zealand. “Working alongside Harness Racing NZ and TAB NZ, we have a chance to build something enduring and unified.” Steele echoed those sentiments and saw the potential in code collaboration. “This is a chance to reshape our future. Collaboration is key to creating venues that serve our people and our sport for generations. It’s time to build infrastructure that matches our industry’s potential.” Project Stamina is supposed to have a “first draft” of what the future of racing infrastructure may look like by December this year.

Why don't they do that then? You still haven't defined what is and isn't abusive?

What do you define as abusive behaviour? That is only mentioned in the code of conduct with respect to a person in a position of power or responsibility taking advantage of participants in a vulnerable position which is more what their open letter seems to be doing.

Oh it's last year's. That's why it says that.

It's not so much a structural problem in my view. It's an organisational thinking and behaviour problem that denies, dismisses and now even tries to shut down input from participants. So, they continue to walk at all levels. They stop breeding racing, punting or move to other jurisdictions to do so.

Open letter response to the recent open letter from the RIB, NZTR and HRNZ. Racing’s Call for Respect Risks Sliding into Authoritarianism By curious. An open letter recently issued by the Racing Integrity Board, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, and Harness Racing New Zealand aims to promote respect and professionalism in the racing industry. It outlines a unified stance against behaviours such as online abuse, public harassment, and negative commentary, and calls for all participants to model integrity and support one another. On the surface, the letter expresses admirable goals: protecting individuals' wellbeing, creating a safe environment, and upholding the dignity of the sport. But when examined more deeply, it raises serious concerns about how far central authorities are willing to go to control speech, enforce conformity, and discourage criticism. In the name of promoting unity, the message risks veering into authoritarianism. Central Control over What Can Be Said The letter promotes a singular, top-down vision of acceptable conduct—defined by governing bodies and enforced through disciplinary means. While civility and respect are important, when leadership dictates what constitutes “supportive” or “negative” behaviour, and equates the latter with moral failure or professional risk, the result is a chilling effect on open dialogue. Dissenting opinions—even those voiced in good faith—may be rebranded as harmful or abusive. This is not inclusivity; it is control. Https://bitofayarn.com Vague Standards, Broad Powers The letter cites “online abuse,” “unwanted attention,” and “negative behaviour” without defining them. This ambiguity gives the authorities wide discretion to determine what crosses the line. One person’s whistleblowing could be another’s misconduct. One person’s critique of governance might be labelled as “eroding trust.” Authoritarian regimes often thrive in such grey areas, where boundaries are not defined by law or principle, but by the mood of those in charge. The Threat of Punishment The letter makes clear that disciplinary action—including removal from participation—is on the table for those who breach these ill-defined standards. Without transparency about how such judgments are made, who hears them, or what recourse individuals have, this becomes less about justice and more about control. It fosters an atmosphere where people are less likely to speak out—for fear that their words might be misinterpreted as misconduct. The racing industry already operates in a tight-knit environment where reputations are hard-earned and easily destroyed. Introducing threats of punishment for loosely defined behaviour further concentrates power in the hands of a few, while silencing the many. Emotional Appeals as Tools of Compliance Finally, the repeated use of emotional language—“let’s stand together,” “lead with integrity,” “we all deserve to feel safe”—while seemingly benign, carries a deeper implication: that anyone who resists or questions the narrative is an outsider, undermining unity and progress. In authoritarian environments, emotional appeals are often deployed to equate obedience with virtue, and dissent with disloyalty. This framing discourages necessary friction and fosters an unhealthy culture of silence, in which genuine concerns or systemic issues are swept under the rug for the sake of "harmony." A Better Way Forward Respect in racing is vital. But respect must also be extended to those who speak out, ask hard questions, or challenge the status quo. If the industry truly wants to build a safe and inclusive culture, it must begin with transparent, democratic processes—not top-down decrees. There is a clear and present risk that the good intentions behind this letter could slide into an authoritarian approach to industry governance. Rules must be fair, specific, and consistently applied. Dissent must not be mistaken for disloyalty. And integrity must mean more than compliance—it must include courage, openness, and accountability at every level. Otherwise, New Zealand racing may find that in its effort to silence a minority, it has silenced the very voices that could have helped it grow.

Maybe they should have proof read it first instead of just copying and pasting? Page 3. Welcome to NZTR’s Statement of Intent & Business Plan for the next three racing seasons. These documents have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Racing Industry Act 2020. They set out NZTR’s strategies and plans for the future, with a focus on the 2024/25 racing season, and set out the verifiable measures against which Clubs and participants can measure NZTR’s performance.

Oh good work!

I've already almost written my response, so will get it up in due course. Was trying to decide whether to send it to the RIB and NZTR or post it on social media. I doubt it will get a response from authorities though. I think I've already articulated my reaction to this sort of behaviour anyway.