curious

Completely agree that the undulations needed sorting at the time and that they had a significant impact, particularly on some imperfect horses. I also agree that the simple solution would have been to grade it level and resow it, not remove all the topsoil and replace it mostly with clay which not only would not grow carrots but can't really grow grass with any decent secure root structure. They rooted an otherwise perfectly good track that could have been fully ploughed up, the straight graded level and resown. A huge waste of money and there's been no inclination to fix it.

Freda might confirm, but from memory, the main reason for the 'renovation' was to get rid of the undulations in the straight. The issue with the track at the junction, actually from about the 500, has been there ever since and is due to the shallow topsoil layer, especially in that part of the track, over the clay base that they decided to lay. We all saw it happening. A plough and discs indeed may not be flash enough but I think that with the mission to centralise and the movement to overuse crap tracks like Riccarton, means that they are not prepared to put them out of service for the required 12-24 months every 5-7 years in order to do the necessary restoration, which I agree with you Reefton could be done exactly as you suggest. Maybe not Riccarton because there's probably not enough topsoil to work with in places.

I think the problem is tracks like Riccarton that have not been relaid in a quarter of a century, and it was a crap job then, are severely compacted and overused. Wasn't like that in the Grey Way, Showgate days etc. So when very dry, they are too unforgiving and irrigation to avoid that is not the right solution.

You mean the no usage bit wally?

Yeahh had a look around Awapuni a couple of weeks ago. It's a total disaster. Turf half dead and a complete swamp as of then.

OK, I'll hopefully have a closer look tomorrow.

What does that mean? Well developed root structure? Drainage working? Or just pretty on top with no usage?

I'm just a golf course away from there tomorrow. Anyone had a look around lately? Might go for a wander?

Gallops - News Ellerslie track passes first test Sat, 15 Sep 2018 Richard Edmunds Six weeks out from its scheduled return to racing, the renovated Ellerslie track passed its first test yesterday morning. Four horses from Nigel Tiley’s stable galloped on the newly laid surface, going around in pairs with Sam Spratt and Rowena Smyth in the saddle. Ellerslie tweeted that Spratt described the track as “great”, and that the lateral drains laid every five metres around the track were not noticeable at any stage. “It was like carpet,” she said. Further testing will take place within the next two weeks. Racing is set to resume with the Soliloquy Stakes meeting on October 27.

I'd be keen to find a market where a win dividend was routinely paid on more than one horse. Let me know!

OK. Apologies. My error. Just looked at the betting rules again and it clearly says: The Payout Rounding is down to the amount stated in the table. So, the price was correct.

I won't bother to say what the FO market was Turny, but this is tote, so you can't blame a human pricing error or FO pricing rort. It appears that someone has instructed the tote system to round down from $1.69 instead of to the nearest 10c. I hope I'm wrong and am missing something. We have enough integrity issues in the industry without the TAB getting into the action.

I was looking at an American race this morning on the NZTAB site. There was $2 in the win pool! Two horses were displayed with dividends of $1.60. As far as I know, the win pool deduction is supposed to be 15.5% and the payout rounding is supposed to be to the nearest 10c. So, how does that work? Should they not have been paying $1.70?

Same thing ....hang on Hughie, I can't see the post yet, when I do we'll put them away then .....no worries. Best I've seen. No doubt.

Gulfstream Park Race 11 #11 Weekend Mischief

Update on this. I understand that consents are to hand, contractors contracted, work expected to commence in a week or two and be completed in a further 8 weeks. So, should be done well before year end.

Well to be fair, as Chief Stipe noted, the DIA stopped the current legislation by robust analysis which rubbished the RB fairy-tale numbers. I expect they will do so again. The idea of colonising community assets to fund something that should, and should have been, funded from net revenue is such an atrocity that violates so many principles of natural justice, I fail to see how it could possibly be legislated and I suspect the DIA will concur. The only rationale appears to be based on a 50 year old report! If they even try to do that, I expect it will be tied up in select committee and possibly the courts for years, if not decades. The same applies to changing section 16 to colonise revenue produced by overseas product for the benefit of TR which would disincentivise (is that a word?) TR from improving their own product to improve revenue as it should be. Makes no sense. Nor does colonising pokie revenue for the benefit of racing rather than the benefit of the communities from whence it is derived. If I do bother making a submission it will be a 2 pager which is plenty to say what needs to be said about the cobblers in this review. I find the whole thing terribly disappointing, lacking thoughtful rationale and hardly worth the paper it is written on.

Yes and I'd expect they'll pretty much sort this themselves, submissions or no submissions.

Didn't they sow it down in kikuyu to begin with which struggled in the cooler temps and it had to be resown in ryegrass?

Indeed, but they are definitely ahead of their time!

Here ya go Thommo... I'll add to my 0 for 8. I think that's closer than the 0/18 that you dreamed up..... and mostly 20-30/1 shots in line with the thread ..... unlike your 2/1 losers. Gulfstream Park R5 #5 Alcuin R9 #8 Royalty Salvatore

You on the piss Reefton? Hard to make sense of that post!

Yes, I remember your posting and the ensuing conversation on that. I'm not sure why Messara has not also proposed that option. It would be good (maybe) to get that in front of the DIA via the call for submissions on the report. Then it seems logical that as part of the ToR for the upcoming P&E review, that both possibilities get extensive analysis by the reviewer/s.

While I agree with Messara that "the racing industry and NZRB should commit to spending a small amount of time and money to conduct further investigations on the opportunity" of outsourcing, it seems to me that other options, including one that I've previously proposed, should be looked at simultaneously. That is the idea that the RB (or whatever new entity replaces it) continues to operate the tote business and control racefields and media rights on NZ racing and sports, and that we openly license other operators to conduct FOB business in New Zealand, with those licences restricting the offering of any tote related products.

Firstly Frank, thank you very much for coming on here. I do have a couple more questions for you please. 1. For say an existing 2000m turf track, what is the likely cost difference between fully re-laying it as a conventional turf track cf. Strathayr? 2. Do you have or can you point us to hard data supporting the claim that Strathayr is safer than conventional turf? 3. I realise this will vary due to location and weather patterns etc., but what are the approximate water use savings that are likely with a Strathayr cf. conventional turf? Many thanks.