curious

Hard to jump on a plane these days but they could have a talk to Keeneland and Del Mar as well. I wonder if Pitty and Mills have ever ridden on one of these things?

Can you give us some numbers for that? The numbers I've seen for daily maintenance of AWTs being used daily for training are many times that for ploughs and sands etc. Tim mentioned 1.5m a year for Singapore but he doesn't seem to know any actual numbers for sure (nor does anyone else seem to), so I'm not clear where your claims come from? Can you point us to that data and analysis please?

That's the one that was rjeected isn't it? I can't seem to open it.

He reportedly doesn't know.

Fair enough again but if they have to find say an extra $1/2m a year to maintain an AWT, where does he think it will come from?

Fair enough but I have been told by CJC board members that the track is at full stretch there catering for 26 or 27 meetings a year. To run more will require a second track or a replacement of the existing one, say with a Strathayr. The available data suggests that an AWT installation is nowhere near feasible or affordable and where would the money come from for a major reinstallation of the existing one and where would they race in the meantime? 20 years ago I know, but you were always the first behind the wheel in the truck with a load of runners almost anywhere in the SI when I was down there. Also, not afraid to chuck a couple of decent ones on board for Trentham, HB, the Waikato or Auckland. Travel goes with the territory when you own or train horses. A number of us I know have an interest in having one or two in work in Canterbury but would like a clear indication of the state of play re tracks, costs etc. over the next year or two. Aidan O'Brien has just put 3 in quarantine as potential runners for the Melbourne Cup, half way round the world. He can't win it on his doorstep in Tipperary.

OK. Were you misquoted? “Personally, and I’m looking at this through rose coloured glass. I am based at Riccarton and have my own property at Yaldhurst, and I want to see more racing at Riccarton, and I don’t want to travel anymore because I’m sick of it.

No he wasn't allowed to ride. He was immediately stood down. When tested following the running of Race 1 rider C Johnson returned a breath alcohol reading in excess of that allowed under the provisions of Rule 656(4) and was stood down for the remainder of day. An inquiry was opened and adjourned until a date to be set. Rider Changes:Race2THE LAST WORD -B Murray replaced C Johnson (Excessive alcohol reading)3QUINTUPLE TWINS -C Barnesreplaced C Johnson 4BOYSLIGHTUP -T Comignaghireplaced C Johnson5TOP GHIA -B Murray replaced C Johnson6CAMINO ROCOSO -J Lowryreplaced C Johnson 7TURNCOAT -L Callawayreplaced C Johnson8HOT TAP-G Jogooreplaced C Johnson

They are maybe getting their act together to pre-empt the implementation of the Burgess report when Murrihy gets here to do that?

Seems like it. Even did pre-race horse blood testing at Riccarton last week. Thommo will be pleased. Maybe the pokies are going well and they can afford it?

I'll take the maiden. Sounds like a better chance.

Yes. A negative one. Refusing testing comes under a different rule and his original stand down was more of an indiscretion than anything. Well below the legal driving limit.

Oops. Sure does. And a rather big gap from Tim's 50k a year although that is not seemingly allowing for the 10 year relayment cost. “The question we need to address with the NZTR before anything is nailed down is how are we going to approach the situation in eight, ten or 12 years time when the material has to be relaid – that’s the question that still needs to be resolved." It seems peculiar that they are spending all this money on design and planning and holding meetings without first figuring out the actual costs and whether or not it might be affordable.

I'm hoping Tim's figure of 1.6m annual maintenance costs are $HKs. If so, his best estimate is somewhere between NZ50k and NZ300k per year for annual maintenance. You'd think they might want to narrow down that analysis a bit before they call any more pointless meetings spruiking the idea and then wonder why no-one bothers to show up.

http://www.theoptimist.site/riccartons-synthetic-track-debate-heats-up-as-roadshow-heads-south/ So Tim says " The annual cost of maintaining a Polytrack is dependent upon staff, equipment, the base, weather conditions and the amount of usage and the requirement of renovation, and is likely to be different for each track. I have seen documentation detailing annual costs of $1.56 million for maintenance of the Polytrack at the Singapore Jockey Club" And then he says"“If it’s costing $5,000 a week, which is $250,000 a year, there is no way we can run it. Our information is it will cost between $55,000 and $65,000 a year to maintain, and if you look at what we pay to maintain grass tracks, the plough and sand tracks, it’s not in excess of that figure." But they obviously have no idea. I'd say it can't be a goer and it seems that most SI trainers do not support it.

Do you think it's something catching?

Just give him the cattle and he gets the job done. Bourbon nightcap or not.

And that is probably why many of us who could or would have more skin in the game, don't.

What does the 15 year warranty cover? Just the base? Surely not the surface materials?

I'd probably add CJC members to that list.

I'd be interested to know how the 120 invitees were selected? Surely the invites should have gone to all owners, trainers and jockeys participating in Canterbury racing and the meeting should have been made accessible to those who are at a distance from Riccarton?

OK. No need to shout. I'll ring Tim since you who attended the meeting don't seem to have any answers.

If the costings haven't been done, why would Tim announce at the meeting that they were about 50k a year and you say the same thing here? Not much point me asking Tim for them if he doesn't have them.

Also, most trainers and owners who are not full time have other jobs and are unlikely to be able to attend a 1pm meeting in Christchurch. No video conferencing facility was provided which is the norm these days especially during Covid times. No copy of the presentations and Q&A session has been provided as far as I am aware even though the chief has offered to post it here. It's the 21st century. Not 1950.

Isn't it a matter for all Canterbury licensed trainers and owners to consider and comment on? And why should they only have the opportunity to do so by a staged meeting? Surely the detailed analysis and costings should be circulated to all for feedback. How hard can that be?