curious

Wasn't there, so can't really say but Mereana Hudson described it as "more like a 9" after the first. I was also told yesterday that "a lot of jockeys complained about it shifting on the bend".

Hardly need to do I, when it's the view of many jockeys and quite a few trainers, let alone a fair number of serious punters?

I agree with them and they are the ones riding the horses on these tracks with the rail out and then after it's been moved back so have to be the best (maybe only) judges of how horses are handling it. Part of the problem is that they seem to be trying to use moving the rail out 8-10 metres to essentially try to turn one track into two in terms of the amount of racing it can handle. The issue with that as many jockeys are pointing out, is it changes the angle of entry into the straight and on a number of tracks the camber is designed for racing on the rail in true. Cambers on turns for many tracks level out towards the centre. They are not designed for optimum safety with the rail out there. You then get a similar situation as what they have on the home turn at Ellerslie where there is no camber on the home turn and it is difficult to keep horses balanced. Combining those two is also more likely to make the track slippery more easily. The other part of that is when the rail is moved back in, the fresh ground is not consistent with that further out and may have its own challenges. As noted by Jonathon Riddell at Wanganui on Saturday saying the fresh ground they had been given wasn't too flash.

The weird thing about the above is that the Minister appoints the TABNZ board. Why would he then think they need an advisory group in order to do their jobs? Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Where did you get that?

As above. Review feedback and develop a proposal for changes and improvements to the RTA (Regional Track Advisers) model to be consulted on with the RTA Group

https://nztr.co.nz/sites/nztrindustry/files/2025-05/June 2025 Racing Operations Report.pdf

TRACKS UPDATE Industry Meeting Update: Tackling Track Infrastructure & Performance As advised in our previous newsletter, a dedicated industry meeting was held on 6 May 2025, bringing together stakeholders including trainers, jockeys, breeders, racecourse management, RIB and NZTR. We were also fortunate to have Liam O'Keefe from Victoria Racing Club present who was a highly experienced and neutral participant. The purpose: to address growing concern around racetrack performance, infrastructure, and the impact of track-related issues on racing outcomes. There was open and honest views expressed and in-depth discussion. The stakeholders were very clear in their opinions that the status-quo could not continue and there needed to be clear lines of accountability. There is a need for improved processes to ensure tracks are prepared on a more reliable basis for racing. The meeting was not just a talkfest and as a result of all the productive discussions, the following list of Actions was agreed to. These actions will be continually monitored, refined and progress will be updated to stakeholders. Agreed NZTR Action Points Review feedback and develop a proposal for changes and improvements to the RTA (Regional Track Advisers) model to be consulted on with the RTA Group. Benchmark current track staff salaries across the industry to understand where they sit in the turf industry. Following this work consider more broadly that the industry support for track manager salaries is appropriate Develop guidance regarding rail movements and where possible the rail should move from true outwards, then back to true with regard to avoiding inside fast lanes where possible. Require Clubs to submit a rolling three-month schedule of probable rail movements as part of racecourse compliance. These can then be reviewed by the RTA Group or new structure. Review and strengthen the escalation process for non-compliance with rail movement procedures. Confirm timing for the next data portal update and report back to the group. Confirm rollout process and support plan for track managers using the portal and develop further to ensure that everyone utilises the technology. NZTR to investigate the feasibility of collecting benchmark data from all tracks to consolidate a national dataset including moisture meter. Confirm the ability to analyse and mine this data effectively from existing and future sources. Update the Track Preparation Policy language to align with current track rating terminology (amend Good 2) Include a standardised datasheet in the Track Preparation Policy and upload it to the portal. NZJA Encourage jockeys to provide track feedback via the text platform that was previously developed. Schedule another meeting to update on progress and consider future venue strategy in more detail. NZTA Commitment The NZTA remains committed to holding NZTR accountable to these outcomes and ensuring the voices of trainers and industry participants are heard and acted upon.

Yes. The correlation between penetrometer readings and speed is also established in the literature but obviously that is only useful if the penetrometer readings are taken and reported accurately.

Maybe, but it's the only data they have which is why one of the key recommendations in the report "is to standardise the measuring of track ratings (essentially firmness) across the country and to enforce Quality Control standards.", as you say.

The research I have seen doesn't use race times but last 600 times to assess the speed, thus largely taking race tempo out of the equation. It correlates with injury rates on both that measure and reported track conditions.

Understand that they roll it and possibly groom at a shallower tine depth?

Why do you say it is spurious? I'd say it is well established.

I know it's not what they currently do, certainly at Riccarton generally the opposite, but that is one of the clear recommendations of the report for remediation and should be able to be effected immediately. It would also probably make the synthetics suitable for a wider range of horses and potentially improve starter numbers. Analysis of race-day sectional times demonstrates that horses are running at faster speeds on synthetic tracks than turf tracks. Faster speeds are a risk factor for injury, and preparation of the synthetic surfaces could be altered to reduce the respective speed of horses on the synthetic tracks and thus the injury risk profile.

That might also be because they are better adapted to one or the other surface?

That's what I mean too, though minimal not no. That's impossible.

Yes. That's pretty much my conclusion from reading to date. At the moment they appear to be as safe or safer than firm grass tracks, particularly Cambridge, and that with a more rigorous maintenance and measurement regimen, preparation to a softer measurement, and trainers ensuring horses are adapted before racing on them, they would be as safe or safer than good grass tracks.

Sold out I understand.

Super effort Ears Back. Had to improve after the Trentham run. The $20 was nice and I'd say from the betting @Transparency had plenty on. Good effort Malfy too. Just didn't want to go the first 200 as planned and couldn't when she needed to at the 1200. Premium paddock reserved for them next week. Worth the trip though when there were no races for them down here for months. Huge thanks to Suzy Gordon and the Foxton club for hosting us and the job they all did the last 2 weeks. Also the Whanganui Club for the track they produced in difficult circumstances. And yes Doomed, they might have to have a look at the listed status of the Timaru Cup.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. The main question that I was hoping would be answered was what needs to happen for NZTR and the clubs involved to improve the safety of our synthetics for both horses and riders. I've only had a preliminary read so far and need time to read more thoroughly and digest it, but from that, it appears to have answered the above to a large extent with quite specific recommendations and provided some interesting information and data as the basis for that.

There are some errors in the report too. For example, it says "Within New Zealand, turf tracks are prepared so they produce a track condition of a good 3 (penetrometer reading 2.3-2.5) for race day (New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, 2013)." That's obviously very dated. The current policy says: "Clubs should aim to produce a track with a GOOD rating (i.e. a track with good grass coverage and cushion) for the majority of the race meeting". That is either a Good 3 or 4 in today's ratings which were changed 3 years ago and include what was a dead 4 back in 2013.

There are clearly major deficiencies in the track maintenance practices and considerable variance between tracks. One quick example is the Clegg hammer readings which are apparently a contractual requirement of Martin Collins but Riccarton only started doing them this year and still don't publish them for racedays which is an NZTR requirement.

I think this is a good outcome. However it will have to be implemented and monitored carefully for it to work.

I'm not sure about that. It may vary between tracks but is it recorded at the gap which track each horse is using? I.e. do they know whether horses work on the poly or another training track and is that reported to NZTR and available to the researchers?