Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Complete without any downtime ×
Bit Of A Yarn

curious

Members
  • Posts

    6,327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    127

Everything posted by curious

  1. If bone and soft tissue is conditioned to working round bends by working and galloping round bends, doesn't that mitigate the risk of injury when racing around bends though? Part of the issue here is that horses are presented for racing that don't have that conditioning whether it be for track surfaces or bends, that will increase the likelihood of injury when they meet those bends and surfaces under race conditions?
  2. I suppose if you were serious about preventing catastrophic race day injury you could require that all horses have one before they can race.
  3. The other less catastrophic issue is that if young horses (or indeed older horses in their first preps) are trained primarily on AWTs then raced or galloped on firmish grass tracks, 90% of them will go shin sore.
  4. I don't think so. That's too short a training period for bone to adapt or de-adapt as I understand it.
  5. Quite agree with Lee. In fact I posted this on another channel recently: I wonder where they got that figure? The 6 months I mean. Seems a bit of an odd request. Wouldn't requiring bone imaging, say CT scans, before they are cleared to race be a better and more pragmatic option?
  6. Isn't that just until the neew track is functional at Ellerslie? This is from Lichter's article: Pukekohe would be retained as a training centre but the opportunity would be there for increased income through the sale or development of unneeded land.
  7. Yes. To alter the constitution. Don't see that as a likely problem do you?
  8. Isn't the intention to retain Counties for training? I thought that's what I read. Yes they have total assets, mostly property of around 13m.
  9. Don't Counties own their land?
  10. Presumably Riccarton is not considered part of the metropolitan area of Christchurch? https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/423144/how-a-christchurch-city-race-track-bagged-provincial-growth-fund-money
  11. "All regions of New Zealand are eligible for funding under the PGF, excluding the metropolitan areas of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch."
  12. I think we realise that but can the soak holes cope with the water from the additional area? If not, any surplus will infiltrate the course proper from the swales won't it?
  13. Interesting that Auckland which missed out on the AWT funding have gone for the Strathayr. And it looks like all 3 clubs will be involved.
  14. But surely it could be or have been if that's what had been applied for?
  15. I may not understand this but the runoff from the tarmac now has to be absorbed on either side of that 16m doesn't it, whereas before it could percolate directly down through the grass track it is replacing?
  16. Hopefully the engineers have it right but according to the plan in the resource consent, the drainage from the outside of the AWT is supposed to go to the area between the two tracks. have I got that wrong?
  17. Once the course proper is getting the runoff from the AWT, that should settle the dust.
  18. Is it the Paparua stream that runs through the back carpark area? Or has that disappeared? They may not be allowed to run the water into that.
  19. Oh I see now it's the 1400 and 1600. The 1600 looks a bit questionable with that turn so soon after?
  20. Is there evidence for these claims in the proposal? The proposed synthetic surface is advantageous, when compared to the current grass training surface, for many reasons including: • reduced horse injuries (through superior cushioning); • reduced on-going maintenance costs; • no requirement for irrigation; and • the elimination of dust (being a dust-free surface).
  21. You'd think they'd have run it to the stream?
  22. if you are not taking the piss, it IS the public grandstand! Now unused.
  23. What are the two chutes? 1200 and 1400?
  24. Looks about as good as it can get to me.
×
×
  • Create New...