curious

Well that certainly sounds like a dead end and dismissal to me. Exactly why Mr. Clement came back citing the Rules around the RIB's authority for abandonment decisions on the day and the club's obligation to comply is beyond me. That is not what you are questioning and they did make the decision and you and other participants did comply. It is the basis for and process used by stewards in reaching that decision which is in question. From the evidence we have seen here, it appears that decision was negligent. I wonder if the club has considered taking the matter and your compensation claim to District Court?

Sorry, meant to post this.

Three things particularly struck me in reading this response. Firstly, how could they say "At no point in any of the films is it clear that Moseley’s horse hit the horse on its outside ... there was no identifiable interference"? You can not put a horse's shoulders into a half gap without hitting a horse, in this case it is clear from the vision that contact was made with both horses. It is difficult to imagine how 3 stewards could conclude otherwise. Makes me worry that it is not just the digital steward's vision that is poor quality. Secondly, nowhere does Mr. Clement claim that the horse slipped in the incident. The conclusion is that the horse lost its footing and went off balance, not that it slipped. He refers to the reason for abandonment being the "shifting horse". He didn't actually say what caused the horse to go off balance. Finally, he now adds that the other reason for abandonment was the inconsistent track surface. If it were inconsistent to a point of being unsafe then surely the core sampling, penetrometer readings and physical inspections would have indicated this and they should have abandoned the meeting BEFORE race 1. Instead, despite this knowledge that the track was unsafe, they have again put horses and riders health and safety at serious risk before deciding to abandon.

Pretty obvious what happened. No slipping involved. Appears to have also hit the rear of the leader and possibly clipped heels. Unfortunately, it's a shame the stewards vision is such poor quality (a pet peeve of mine sorry).

I agree both ways but remember that getting the cattle is part of the skill of being a successful trainer.

.

I agree. It's a good day, decent racing, and attracts new people e.g the BGP group which turns over a bit of dosh on the day. Also, gets some younger folk interested in both wagering and racing a horse. However, it should be funded (other than the usual premier day NZTR funding) by the beneficiaries, as Freda says, along with any sponsorship they can obtain such as that from Entain.

What horse lost it's footing? One getting back on the float for the long trip home? Like Muzenza, I'm a strong advocate for health and safety of horses and riders and them not being put at risk in race conditions to test the security of the footing. Nothing like that appears to have happened here.

Fair enough point. It's an antiquated instruction that should have been updated.

They've been online for years so I think most trainers would understand that means the online form. It doesn't say paper.

Yes, but ... it crashed again today with no racing which they said was what was causing the problem. So, they obviously have no clue what is going on.

YELLOW JERSEY (T Mitchell) – Commenced to buck shortly after the start and was retired from the race. Connections were advised that the gelding would be required to barrier trial to the satisfaction of Stewards prior to racing next. Underwent a post-race veterinary examination which revealed no abnormalities

Poverty Bay another good example though they got in earlier and kept the money which would have been more difficult for the WRC but when the shit hit the fan PB were prepared to move their meetings and race at HB albeit with a very healthy bank balance.

At least the money is going back where it should. To the community that paid for and developed the land. I say very well done WRC.

I'm not sure the Minister is entirely correct. The below is from the DIA briefing paper to him last year. He is also responsible for appointments to the board including the chair. Not sure who is doing that if he is not.

Must be some German plates that are part of the country's development and history that I'm not aware of.

Isn't that how New Zealand was built?

Probably depends a bit on the arrangements between the parties. Remember though that the stake for 12th is 700k.

I see they are now saying it's Entain in partnership with NZTAB but the Trackside slot? The glamour son of Savabeel will contest the A$20 million The TAB Everest (1200m) at Randwick on October 28 in the Trackside slot held by the New Zealand TAB, in partnership with Entain.

I don't think that's the point is it? This is surely about taking the Trackside brand to Australia and the world.

Really? Can't really think of any comparable marketing initiative by Trackside in recent times? In fact, I'm struggling to recall any significant marketing initiative by Trackside at all.

Those of you who wanted something different to happen, it's happening!

I'm not convinced there is the stated potential but there is no doubt about the counterfactual.

Yes. The other $15m either comes from the $150m Entain upfront payment or reserves.

Indications from NZTR are that the legislation, if any, won't be before early next year. The Entain deal is already done and not contingent, however, there is apparently an additional $100m payment from Entain to NZTAB if it goes through.