curious

Totally agree. They've had 10 years to do that. Now the only option they offer is to leave it to decay. . The only decent race viewing point remaining at Riccarton with the now tiring newer members stand set so far back from the course. Even better viewing now with the big screen there as well. A travesty.

Maybe true but what grandstands you have should be at the best viewing points. As far as tracks are concerned, the CJC has not spent a cent on a track that was totally screwed by a now 30 year old renovation and probably should have been redone straight away. The directive for that and insurance matters should have come from the board. They surely can't just leave that stand there decaying if the demolition is not approved. Some provision should have been made for that possibility.

I was interested to read the Victoria end of season review of AWT racing and their future plans for that. https://www.racing.com/news/2022-08-31/news-industry-synthetic-season-by-the-numbers It seems they intend to continue reducing AWT programming primarily because of participant preferences for more grass racing instead. In similar climatic conditions it also seems likely that a reapplication of binder and wax will be required here after 3 years of use in order to mitigate the kick back issues. It also seems that full resurfacing is likely to be required after 6 or 7 years rather than the 10 years mooted. To date, I am yet to see from NZTR or the clubs concerned, any sort of plan as to how this maintenance will be funded. It seems likely that Victoria may replace the AWTs with second grass tracks as part of a 10 year plan, certainly in the Pakenham case. It would be interesting to know if NZTR might have similar plans here for the Riccarton and Awapuni ones and if they similarly expect to reduce the AWT racing in the intermediate term. The Victoria experience and strategy seem like a good model to follow for that. In the mean time, the AWTs should continue to provide a decent surface for trackwork, trials and racing for another couple of years.

Correction. The above should read: a staggering increase of nearly 23% year on year in what punters are spending with overseas providers on NZ racing.

One of the striking (and worrying) things here is that BIUC distributions have gone from 18.5m to 22.7m, a staggering increase of nearly 23% year on year in what NZ based punters are spending with overseas providers. That makes it little surprise that punter spend with NZTAB is down dramatically and the above has occurred in the very same conditions that they are using to excuse their performance.

I'm not sure their core business is what you suggest. It seems to me that for the past couple of decades their core business has been sourcing other revenue streams to subsidise what was their core business, pretty much the opposite of the OZ model. The ATR approach is an extension of that.

Meanwhile, back in the CD, the Foxton trials have been moved to the Awapuni AWT

True though you'd have been a lot better off backing the ones that Tayla Mitchell was on.

6 of 30 wasn't it? Just had to pick the right ones I guess.

Which was my initial point. Why would you go round on the AWT for 14k if you can race on the grass a few days later for twice that?

Yes. If you are an owner, you might reasonably expect that sort of information about your horse from your trainer. Problem here seems to be that if losing punters think that having access to more public information from trainers about specific horses is going to improve their results, they are probably some distance from being successful punters. As a punter, I would have no interest at all in such information, especially if everyone else has it as well.

Still along way from the 75% of votes required to carry the motion. Was always going to be a dead duck.

Isn't it the job of the racing or syndicate manager who is in direct communication with the trainer to convey that to the owners. I don't really see it as their job to relate detailed horse by horse information routinely from the trainer to punters. Are there other trainers or owners that do that?

Fields were pretty solid at the last AWT meeting during National week. Most close to full fields and one well oversubscribed and split. As Freda says it may be partly due to the transition period, the end of the AWT season. I know for a fact that some of those horses are already spelling before prepping for grass races on better tracks.

True. I meant to say 2 or 9 days later. Also add that is except where there are no suitable races or where horses might not otherwise get a start.

Might be a programming issue. Don't think many will go round for industry stakes on a Thursday when they can run on the grass at the same track for twice the money 2 days later.

Bart would have charged me for doing the feed and work programme too.

Trainer Francis Henri-Graffard admitted the former Chris Waller star was “very rusty” in her first European test. “She was very rusty at the start of the race and you can’t make up ground on that track at the moment,” Graffard told the Racing Post. “She ran on at the end and she had a good blow after the race. I think she needed the race.” Graffard added to The Age: “The track here is tough today, you had to be a frontrunner on this track. No horses were making a run. “Frankie said she was a bit rusty in the early parts of the race, but she ran on really well and, for me as a training point of view, I think she did a very good comeback, considering the track and her position in the race. “I was not expecting her to be so off the pace in the early parts of the race. But as Frankie said she was a little bit rusty. She seems ok, we will see how she recovers but there are positives to be taken I think.” Despite the defeat, Verry Elleegant will continue to be aimed at the l’Arc (2400m) at Longchamp on October 3 and is expected to next run in the Prix Vermeille (2040m) at that same track on September 11. https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/08/22/verry-elleegant-pressing-on-towards-larc-after-failing-in-french-debut/

I thought that's what owners were supposed to do?

Looks a bit like she might need another mile now.

I realise that it is pie in the sky as SI jumps racing and the Grand National meeting are now in the post-mortem stage. However, you will not have jumps horses and riders there if you don't first have a substantive programme of races for them. It would take a large amount of commitment and resources to schedule such a programme where there are say 2 or 3 jumps races and maybe a highweight (AWT) once a fortnight through the season on the AWT days. Riccarton, while not as sinister as it once was, is still probably the best remaining steeplechase course in the country. If you did that, you might then attract a couple of the bigger jumps stables to set up satellite stables there for the season leading up to the National meeting. It would take some rebuilding time but I think if you got it going the horses would come, generating additional business for local trainers and adding to the training business for the club.

Seems you could run them almost between the flat AWT races. Different pool of riders for weighing out etc. Put the temporary fences wide out, outside fence in the straight if necessary to preserve the inside ground for spring racing. Most of the steeple course is essentially a separate track anyway.

I meant run them on the course proper at Riccarton on the AWT meeting days.

Racing's been good too. Looking forward to the chase. Mentioned the idea of running a couple of jumps races down there on the AWT days through winter when I was down there. Apparently, they'd considered adding jumps races for a few years but ruled it out because there were no horses and no riders. Seems to me that's getting the chicken and egg the wrong way round.