curious

Those too.

Yeahh. Probably time to close them all. Mostly an eyesore and a drain on the industry which had their day decades ago.

Did you back the wrong one in there nod?

Meeting News Tuesday Trials to Awapuni Due to rain, and not being able to complete the rail move at Foxton, the trials scheduled for Tuesday will now be held on the synthetic track at Awapuni. Track looks good and from the facebook post below, sounds like they got the rail moved during a working bee this morning. Hope someone told them not to bother. Working bee has been moving the running rail out 6m!

Connections did pay about $1250 in noms, acceptances and rider fees so it really only covers that as I said above.

A handicapping system is theoretically supposed to do that, so for me, I'd say fixing that so slower horses have an equal chance would both achieve HR's objective to a greater degree and make the wagering product more attractive. We do have a small amount of appearance money now (back to 10th) which seems reasonable. So, already those horses essentially race for free.

Not sure your extrapolation is valid based on the data. Isn't it the evenness of fields and competitiveness of them that adds attractiveness to the betting product? Our highest quality fields are our poorest earners relative to the stakes cost.

Yes, I wondered about Woodville. Also Foxton might have been called on for a couple of these to keep the pressure off those other tracks. Good they are fixing Awapuni, hopefully properly, but the pressure on some of these other tracks doesn't make much sense when there would seem to be other options in much closer proximity to the horse population.

Gosh that seems like a lot of pressure on tracks that are already struggling to cope, especially Trentham?

I don't think they are quite sure. The stewards' report says "With the weather becoming showery during race morning the track was inspected by Stewards with senior riders prior to Race 1. Following this inspection, a meeting was held with all riders with the decision made to continue with the programme. The abandonment report says "Around 45 minutes before the start of Race 1, steady rain began to fall, with Stewards undertaking an inspection of the track with senior rider representatives.

Didn't they decide they were going to run a raceday, then change it and abandon it after one race with no further evidence than what they had earlier? Btw, were a horse or horses galloped on the track that morning?

OK. I'd pursue the meeting then. Obviously, with you and Jeff, and as you propose, Walshy and Pitty if they are willing by video link. He did say in his original offer of a meeting "with whomever else you consider it appropriate to meet with."

That pretty much sums it up as I see it. No reply I take it?

Ok. So, did you then decline that meeting offer?

OK. So you've had no reply from McDonald to the letter you sent her? Can you post that letter from Clement? It is presumably the next step to respond to that then or maybe follow up with her, especially since the Minister referred the matter to her?

Did you receive a letter from the Chair accompanying this or what?

It certainly is strange and if as reported, they didn't in fact even begin to follow the due process outlined by the rules and the review policy, it definitely lends weight to Reefton's conspiracy theory. I also note that there seems to be no comment from or about trainers. No expression of concern about the track and no sign of any consultation with them in the decision making. Were any trainers in on the post race track inspection?

Don't think I'd do that. Probably just raise a question about what appear to be the two or three most glaring omissions and inconsistencies.

That's because to my surprise, it doesn't appear to have been mentioned by either the stewards' reports nor the reviewers'. In 7.1 of the latter, the reviewer sets out what is described as the 'relevant part of the protocol'. Oddly, that omits the key part which is that the policy must be triggered by a licenceholder expressing concern about the safety of the track. The Track Safety Review process commences when a licensee present at the meeting notifies the stipendiary steward in charge of the meeting that the track surface is or may be unsafe to ride upon and that he or she wishes the steward to begin a Track Safety Review. There is no report of that happening. Instead, the report suggests that the stewards themselves raised the question of track safety but I don't think that is their role. The report cites the Rule 602(1) which states what the stipes' role is. "determine any question as to whether that day of racing or any part thereof should be postponed, abandoned, or cancelled;" It seems their role is to determine any question of track safety and decide the outcome. The report suggests they have not only determined the outcome but raised the question themselves when that is the role of a licence holder. They have then determined their own question. Seems a very odd process to me as reported.

Well I agree with that. The reviewer seems to have made no attempt to talk to any of these people or verify what the stewards both on the day and subsequently, say is the evidence. on the other hand I think some aspects of the review are quite good in that they clearly grasped what was and was not the contentious issue, i.e. the evidence base or lack thereof for the decision, along with a small win for you in that they smacked the hand of the RIB to provide hard evidence e.g., photos and recordings, of the evidence supporting the abandonment decision. In that respect it is very surprising that there is no mention of any consultation with Walshy as the SI safety advisor, nor that he was there to support apprentices who may have been intimidated in the context of the stewards' consultation with jockeys.

Also, who was the licensee who triggered the track safety review by expressing concerns about its safety to one of the stipes?

I wonder would Terry stand by saying that to the 3 of you? That's a big part of the weight of evidence that your anonymous reviewer is reporting. I'm guessing David would. Was he at the so called consultation with jockeys (in his role as apprentice mentor and safety advisor)?

I think they really have to make a decision and there, witnesses can attend by teleconference. Might be someone in the community if not the club who could advise further. I'm sure it's within their jurisdiction and as you suggest a means of getting some accountability. H&S should not prevail over negligence. Happy to help how I can.

Hmmm ... Could go Disputes Tribunal and just go for the 30k max. A lot of work but little cost. Still holds them accountable.

Haha. I thought she meant mine but I'd say she's thinking of Divine Dive.