curious

I'm not sure what you are saying Weasel. It is the NZTR board that David is calling on to resign. RITA has no power to do anything about that and John Allen also has nothing to do with it.

Te Akau Monday Update 17 Jun 2019 David writes: This morning I went on to the NZTR website to see what the official reason was for the abandonment of the racing at Waipa yesterday, Sunday. I thought surely the Chairman and CEO would have comments on the debacle but NOT ONE word except a two liner that said: “The Waipa Races have been abandoned due to track issues. Please see New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) website for further information in the following days.” These cancellations are happening so often these days that is is not even “news” now, it’s becoming “expected”. It’s an absolute disgrace they way our industry is being run at a national level and I am calling for those the leadership of NZTR to resign. Recently that very same Board wanted to close down Avondale, one of our best tracks – we would be yet another track down so where are we going to race? It’s all so very sad. We have a government that has funds for an all-weather track yet NZTR hasn’t even formally announced where it is going and the timetable for it. It didn’t even ask Clubs for an expression of interest in where it would be established. Should the all-weather track be at Ellerslie, Counties, Matamata, Te Aroha or even Taupo? I am not pushing for one venue over another but I am firmly of the view that proper and thorough research needs to take place and yet there is no real evidence of this. One thing I do know is that NZTR keeps programming trials and race meetings on some tracks that can’t take safe racing – we are no hope of attracting and keeping new owners! I honestly hoped I would never have to say this but I am now officially calling on the NZTR leadership to resign – you have failed this industry. Surely the owners who spent all their money taking their horses to Waipa for the races on Sunday (and the trials there previously that were also called off) deserve an explanation from NZTR on the debacle – and surely someone at the top has to accept total responsibility and do the honourable thing.

I learned a long time ago to never put my foot underneath a horse's. They will inevitably leave it there until you cry uncle and probably longer. If you do try to get them to move they usually give it a little twist while remaining firmly planted.

Not a good comparison according to the science. https://www.paulickreport.com/horse-care-category/horses-more-sensitive-to-pain-than-previously-thought/ It hurts. I've done it accidentally and that through a rubber boot. Try it again and put some effort in or bend over and get the Mrs to have a go. Why would punters walk away? Because they can't figure out which horses are genuine and try from encouragement rather than pain?

Isn't this one of the things contributing to the "more pressing issues"?

Super kool dude!

And there will be one in the half hour before the Blues Super game tonight.

Wow! How inspiring is that?

It's a tricky one eh? Like all meds there are benefits and risks. The evidence is solid that Lasix reduces the incidence and degree of bleeding. This was just republished last month though. https://nationalhbpa.com/no-lasix-racing-good-idea-or-failed-experiment-2/ Of course the other downside of widespread use as in the US that is not often mentioned is that because better performed horse are more likely to become reproductive are we continually producing more and more horses with a greater propensity for bleeding?

I don't think there was any modification to the tax in Queensland. Just that the strike resulted in some of it going to Queensland Racing rather than other areas. The proposal here is for it all to go to racing. I guess we'll see but as Thommo points out, punters will pay for it and there's a risk they will shift their losses to other things.

JMO. If it has to be deemed "without support of substantial evidence" or is "arbitrary, capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion" , then they've got two shows, little and none.

What's that got to do with it? Completely irrelevant.

Just to be clear, the rule says the horse "may" be disqualified. There is a severity test for that and stewards still must determine that the interference affected the result of the race. In this sort of case it might be that a horse that probably would have finished fourth or better ended up 8th as a result of the foul. They do not have to show that the interfered with horse/s would have beaten the horse causing the interference though like here. It still took stewards 20 minutes to make the decision.

He is using the stakes funding data I think. https://www.nzrb.co.nz/sites/default/files/documents/NZRB_Club_Net_Stakes_2016.pdf

Yes, any horse. If he finished 10th he would still be subject to DQ. Not sure if they'd bother if no stake money was involved....

I wish we did. No arguments about whether the interfered with horse/s would have won or not. You just can't do it, even in the first furlong. Much safer and cleaner.

Because the rule is different there. Along the lines that if any horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with or intimidate or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, it is a foul any offending horses may be disqualified. To me, the disqualification was a certainty.

As far as I am aware, the reportedly some 1700 submissions on the Messara report have not been made public. If I'm missing them somewhere, would someone please point me to them.

Editorial space limitations?

You mean you think they've got it arse backwards which was the intention of the 2003 Act to allow? Kind of reverse Robinhood maybe?

Nice work Laurie. That's why the industry is headed for extinction. Where are Ellerslie, Trentham, Waikato, Awapuni etc?

I thought I'd move this thread here to disentangle it from the CEO one. Agree with most of the points here except I don't agree that the function of the Companies Act is in any way analagous to that of the Racing Act or that the NZRB is similar to a company formed under the Companies Act. They are different beasts. I agree that government does not own companies as you say. They are formed and must operate under the regulation of the Companies Act but can earn revenue as they see fit and do what they wish with those earnings. They are created and operate UNDER the Act, not BY the Act. The NZRB on the other hand is created directly BY the Racing Act as a statutory body. The Act also dictates how it may earn revenue and how any net revenue must be used, as you point out above Laurie. It also directly monitors performance, licenses it (for free) as the sole betting operator in NZ and gives the government direct control over appointment of directors. This does not happen with companies formed under the Companies Act. The question of ownership however, seems a step away from the question of relative government assistance for racing between here and Oz. It is about what the respective governments give and get from racing. My point is that the differential in favour of racing is far greater in NZ than in Oz, albeit in a different form. If you accept that betting duty, GST and other taxes etc. are similar in both places, though from slightly different structures, the primary difference is that the NZ govt. collects no licence fee and no income tax. So, when people read that an Oz government have given some of that back to racing, they fail to understand what the NZ government/taxpayer are already 'giving' by way of the Racing Act. So, for example, using the 2018 NZRB figures, the reported net operating profit was $155m. If that were in Oz or any other company here, the government would collect say, $50m in income tax from that. Add say a $15-$20m licence fee and you would have a situation similar to Victoria if those amounts were paid to government. Here, they are already given via the Racing Act. In Victoria, the government collects them then may choose to give some of that back to the industry. If they were collected by government here, then there may be some credible argument on a parity basis to say the government should provide more assistance. However, as it stands, racing here is getting much more in proportion from government than is Racing Victoria for example. So, to suggest otherwise, or say that NZ racing is receiving NOTHING from government is simply rubbish in my view.

Thanks Laurie. I don't have the 1992 figures to confirm that but the latest 2018 figures are here.https://www.nzrb.co.nz/sites/default/files/documents/NZRB1679_Annual_Report_2018_FINAL2.pdf if you want to take a look. I was about to write a fuller response but just saw this which is along similar lines to my thoughts that I was about to share. Good to have your input again. https://www.RP.net/node/3181

About 170 going round. Should be a good day. Weather looks not too bad. No word of closure as far as I know. Still destined as a training and trials venue only though with no immediate plans for racing but would be getting close to capability for that if needed.