curious

I've done it now, though I think they could have asked better questions if they want a fuller picture.

Yes, I got it but haven't responded. The other news doesn't surprise me or if it does, it's that there are NO gains, rather than disappointing gains.

You mean because it's a cruel, dangerous sport?

I was there. Agree 100%. Cracker day.

And I pay zero attention to it myself. Don't punt based on position in running or tempo.

Great day for me there today. Backed a $10 winner and the jockey challenge winner for a tidy profit. Don't really care much about biases, tracks or whatever. There are always overs and winners.

It's on track to having to.

Nope. Couldn't be more wrong. I think my involvement and commentary in the last 25 years is to the contrary. On this, I simply believe that the online monopoly legislation is a bad move for NZ racing. It will simply drive more NZ punters away from betting on it. It's anti-competitive and is and will make betting with NZTAB less and less attractive to punters, particularly the younger generation of sports betting ones who are the ones primarily engaging with the likes of the crypto operators. Back to the headpost, you will note that some of these operators offer 100% matching for deposits up to 5k, for example. I should note that the DIA are doing their best to shut them out. The likes of Betfair, Stake, SpinBet, Gamdom, Roobet, BetVictor, Rizk, and 20Bet appear to have already withdrawn in attempted compliance but I'm not sure how effective that will be. NZTAB don't even offer a crypto deposit option at this stage. Hopefully, I'm wrong and the predicted recovery of $100m GBR will transpire.

https://www.bitcoin.com/gambling/betting/

The DIA themselves recognised this as a risk in considering the options in their RIS. Even with a monopoly there will be people who choose to gamble outside of New Zealand via a VPN, or with less scrupulous offshore operators which continue to offer black market sports and racing betting to New Zealanders.

It appears that is likely what will happen, helped along by this anti-competitive legislation, if stakes are dependent on betting revenue to any great extent. and it won't just be the mudders.

What? Tote betting is not peer to peer. Odds are not fixed and you don’t bet against other specific individuals — you bet into the overall market.

It's definitely not as far as I can see, but their use by NZ punters will no doubt increase given their lower margins and availability of peer-to-peer betting now that those options have been removed for NZ punters, unless the NZTAB offers competitive products. Or that they can find some way to regulate them under the current legislation.

They are already there I think and/or knocking on the door- crypto betting sites. Might already be 2-3% of the market. Perhaps more. Will certainly get a boost from the new legislation here.

Seems like a sensible strategy for that business.

Probably close to half of them and no indication of any races being split. SI racing and programming is a disaster of major proportions.

Racing NZ Thoroughbred Chat Page Colin Wightman · All-star contributor · rSentdspoo71h605a6u6tct411t8952thtf19m5au5m6u254httl1lhhh7uu · Just reading the comments of Brian Molloy on another thread relating to the likelihood of a further attack on community track assets around NZ now that Winston has legalised what is essentially theft of those assets. Brian has pointed the finger at 2 members of the whale community being complicit in that directive being handed down to our new CEO Matt Ballesty who released a document on Friday announcing a non-detailed “stamina” plan that his masters have put together which focuses on the infrastructure of racecourse assets. Being fair to Ballesty, he notes the disasters unfolding at Awapuni, Trentham and Hastings. But not fair when he points to Avondale as if it’s sale is a forgone conclusion using Winston’s dodgy new Racing Act that the whales got him to slip through 4 years ago during Covid without consulting stakeholders. The timing of Ballesty’s circular was interesting because it came off the back of an un-signed letter from supposedly the RIB threatening to censor those who dare question future moves by our codes administration. Speaking with many over the weekend, that threat has backfired. Many I’ve spoken to are angry that organisations working for us would attempt such a draconian or authoritarian effort. So I went digging to find out who the author was. I’m told from reliable sources that it was Matt Ballesty himself. It was his initiative, his idea, but one probably demanded by the whales who appointed him through the non democratic NZTR governance system. It sounds as if Ballesty asked the RIB to put their name behind it to give the impression of some authority, some threat, some punishment for those still exercising their right to be critical of racings administration. Apparently the draft letter written by Ballesty was so wank, so woke, that Harness refused to put their name to it initially and Greyhounds didn’t want a bar of it .. and still don’t. So there we are folks .. welcome to Thoroughbred Racing in NZ with its private little fiefdom controlled by un-appointed whales thinking they run the show. The question I have is: “How much longer will stakeholders in Thoroughbred racing tolerate this situation”?????

It goes to the operators

Good on it. Nobody else has!

One aspect I particularly like and have been on about for years. Move to a two-tier race meeting system (Premier and Standard) with flat stakes.

Racing’s two codes seek cohesive plan as big decisions loom By Michael Guerin Https://bitofayarn.com Racing Editor·NZ Herald· 11 Jul, 2025 12:19 PM4 mins to read Awapuni is one racetrack to have experienced recent track troubles. Photo / Race Images New Zealand’s two horse racing codes are set to join forces to plan for the future. The thoroughbred and harness racing codes were once considered staunch rivals. Despite plenty of cross-over between owners, punters and trainers, the two codes used to compete for turnover. Those days are all but gone, with harness offering little competition on thoroughbred racing’s biggest days, while both codes benefit from a stronger overall turnover at the TAB. At present, racing’s percentage of TAB profits is also shared with greyhound racing. But that code is now slated for extinction next July, after the death sentence handed down by Racing Minister Winston Peters in December. That decision is being challenged by Greyhound Racing New Zealand, although it may not get to argue its case in court until as late as next March. The other two codes, commonly known as “the gallops” and “the trots”, have announced they will work together on their infrastructure issues and which tracks are likely to survive the next five years. Racing’s ageing infrastructure is one of its greatest concerns, with abandoned meetings on tired tracks costing the industry tens of millions in lost turnover and eroding owner and punter confidence. So NZ Thoroughbred Racing and Harness Racing NZ have launched Project Stamina, supported by the TAB, which will work towards answering the infrastructure questions hanging over the industry. Some of the biggest questions will be around the Waikato Greenfields project, the almost certain closure and sale of Avondale and the troubled Central Districts, where Hastings and Awapuni have had serious track problems and Trentham may need a new grandstand that it cannot realistically afford. In harness racing, the Auckland region will need a new training track once Franklin Park at Pukekohe is sold and, with so many potential projects looming, the two codes are better working together, especially when applying for funding from the TAB or the Government. Project Stamina’s main purpose, according to NZTR chief executive Matt Ballesty, is to move from “reactive maintenance to long-term, future-focused investment”. That could mean no longer fixing tracks that don’t work or will eventually be closed, and instead spending money on those that make long-term financial sense. Working out which tracks are which, overcoming parochial bias and building a cohesive and affordable plan is a mammoth undertaking. Ballesty and HRNZ boss Brad Steele say they plan to use consultants initially, but are quick to emphasise that their boards will be making the final decisions, with input from TAB NZ and the new TAB Advisory Committee, which contains some of New Zealand racing’s biggest players. Working together makes sense for the two codes as it ensures a sharing of information and what each hopes to achieve, especially important as they already share some venues and could end up working together on others. “We have reached a critical point that calls for bold decision-making,” says Ballesty. “Project Stamina is about making the necessary decisions to ensure our infrastructure supports a thriving future for horse racing in New Zealand. “Working alongside Harness Racing NZ and TAB NZ, we have a chance to build something enduring and unified.” Steele echoed those sentiments and saw the potential in code collaboration. “This is a chance to reshape our future. Collaboration is key to creating venues that serve our people and our sport for generations. It’s time to build infrastructure that matches our industry’s potential.” Project Stamina is supposed to have a “first draft” of what the future of racing infrastructure may look like by December this year.

Why don't they do that then? You still haven't defined what is and isn't abusive?

What do you define as abusive behaviour? That is only mentioned in the code of conduct with respect to a person in a position of power or responsibility taking advantage of participants in a vulnerable position which is more what their open letter seems to be doing.

Oh it's last year's. That's why it says that.

It's not so much a structural problem in my view. It's an organisational thinking and behaviour problem that denies, dismisses and now even tries to shut down input from participants. So, they continue to walk at all levels. They stop breeding racing, punting or move to other jurisdictions to do so.