curious

No. According to a RTC committee member that rang me last night they met last week. AGM? That person is also still doing the trial timekeeping as a volunteer.

I thought the Riccarton Turf Club was a trial only operation back in the day before the CJC "acquired" it? They now have one race day at Riccarton but don't run trials though their volunteers are still key contributors to the current trials. Don't think they ever held race meetings back in the day did they? Anyway, of course when betting was on course only, the on course turnover was higher. These days most turnover is off course. Understandably, many do not want to waste 6 hours of their time dealing with crap food and facilities in order to enjoy betting on 8 races when they can sit in comfort with select food and drink to do so and have plenty of time to do other things and bet elsewhere as well.

It was stuffed 25 years ago. Another 25 will just stuff it more by the look of this deal.

The only decent analysis that I recall was following the termination of Nelson as a galloping venue. When was that? I had that report at one time but can no longer find it. Of course there was no asset sale there either and harness continue to race there. Anyway, a few years later I'm sure an analysis was published which showed a significant decline in TAB turnover originating from that area. At the time I thought that might put a stop to removing licences from smaller self sufficient clubs. Boy did I get that wrong.

Wouldn't clubs still need a national or international platform through which punters could bet on their events? It would make me very nervous clubs operating a betting platform. Many have already paid the price of venturing into business areas where they have little or no expertise or experience. A lot can't even perform their core business like producing suitable tracks for the events they are conducting.

Withholding times are only a guideline anyway in an attempt to avoid positives from drugs being used therapeutically. I don't see why you wouldn't want them.

I think most punters and other participants as well.

Do you think the stake for the race should affect the penalty for any breach? Is that what you are saying?

Well in hindsight it would have saved a lot of grief but there's probably other ways to mitigate the risk of this type of error.

Seem to be more questions than answers emerging from the TA reporting to date.I think if they are going to reverse themselves and say anything after saying they wouldn't, I think they could be more transparent. Also Chief, I don't get that small stables are not subject to close scrutiny. My guess is it is greater.

Definitely were.

Is youtube NZ? Don't think that counts. Lots of betting operators advertise there.

You can bet with them from NZ can't you?

Definitely make less. Margin hovers around 12% but has been as low as 2% one year. Risky business.

NZTR appreciates the goodwill of all clubs involved. The new schedule is: Friday 23 June now Wanganui JC at Wanganui (was Otaki-Maori RC) Wednesday 12 July now Canterbury JC at Riccarton Park (was Cambridge JC) Thursday 13 July now Cambridge JC at Cambridge (was Wanganui JC) Friday 14 July now Otaki-Maori RC at Otaki – Matariki (was Canterbury JC)

I said the "primary immediate cause". The soil structure and condition issues causing the root problems have been there for quarter of a century.

A lot of matted turf growth with long grass stems lying on the surface of the track was evident. Where it was very dense, this matted material would have slowed the rate of drying so that any excess of water present at the surface would not have dried at quickly as would normally be expected.... Further to this the CJC are reviewing their mowing schedule, turf grooming and equipment which may also have contributed to the turf issues. Aside from that they mowed the track properly with suitable equipment that day and it was deemed safe for racing on Monday.

It was the primary cause of the immediate problem that caused the cup day abandonment

Except that Fairy is obviously also 3 months behind the play.

Why now post this report from early December last year?

Sounds like a lot more of the constant fluff to me. Otherwise known as more bs. How long have they been saying this? Who would want their business? said it had “commenced a process in relation to a partnering arrangement” and was in discussions with “a range of international wagering operators”. However, he said that what that partnership arrangement looks like “has not been determined, and any decision will be made in the best interests of all stakeholders”. And who the hell is Tom Pullar-Strecker?

I don't really understand why it needs to be tricky. It's not rocket science is it?

I don't really understand why it needs to be tricky. It's not rocket science is it?

OK. I didn't know they'd been involved prior the December 2021 Trentham abandonment when I thought NZTR decided they needed independent advice.