curious

You'd probably remove them from the tracks that are currently stuffed and can't cope with the increased load of race days they now have. This would allow resting of tracks for major refurbishments and in regions like the coast, say rest one track each season on a cyclical basis. Would that work?

Yep.

Chosen ones? By whom?

I might add that the FRC has not changed its constitution. In fact I pointed out to NZTR that the request to do so was pointless and the Bell Gully opinion supporting that was in direct contradiction to an earlier one from the same outfit addressed to Mr. Moncur which just happened to have fallen into my mail box. What would be the point in doing so anyway? In the event of the club winding up, a 2/3 majority of members can amend the constitution however they wish with respect to distribution of assets. Remember that the Racing Act can not override the provisions of any other Act. If your club decided to tell Moncur to get stuffed, then you probably deserve what you got. Did you reapply for a grant after the first decline? Foxton had to.

Because I think his best performances are at 7-9f and deteriorate the further he goes. 1 1/2 miles depending on the competition that actually lines up is probably beyond him at this level. JMO.

I'd put a different spin on that. Too many tracks around the country have been stuffed, in part by trying to conduct too many meetings on them. The FRC also has an obligation to trainers domiciled there to provide a safe and suitable surface for those trainers to gallop horses there. It currently also attracts horses from other venues for that purpose. To remain self-sustaining, that revenue also needs to be preserved. So, I'd call it sensible management. This will probably just rub salt in your wound, but did you know that the FRC also got a $50k grant from the RSDF toward renovation of the stand to make it race ready? You bloody Molloys certainly know how to stir. I agree with you there. IMO, you can rest assured that Foxton will see a return to racing in due course. Probably for more than one code.

I don't agree. There are as many horses going round Foxton at racing speeds in trials as a club holding 6-8 race meetings a year. The club meets the eligibility requirement and the projects meet the purpose of that fund. Why would you say that is a waste? The fund is not limited to clubs which hold race days. It could be also used to access funds to improve the safety of equestrian facilities on a racecourse, for example. We prefer building projects that will improve: • safety at Racecourses • the quality of facilities at Racecourses Only the following organisations can receive grants from this fund: - a thoroughbred, harness or greyhound racing club registered with: • New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Racing Safety Development Fund grants support the improved safety of riders, spectators, officials and others involved in racing at racecourses; and the improved health and safety of the animals at racecourses.

He might but that would be out of line with what he did for country racing in NSW wouldn't it? Tuesday, November 24, 2015 Country and provincial racing in New South Wales, Australia will enjoy a prize money boost of A$21 million from July 2016 as part of the state’s wagering tax parity announced last week. The increases, which account for more than 60% of the proceeds from the second and third years of parity, will see prize money for country races climb to approximately A$69 million per year, an increase of 120% since 2011. Racing NSW will also introduce Showcase Country Race Meetings and from next July, will commit A$1 million per year to a new traineeship and apprenticeship scheme for youth in regional New South Wales. Racing NSW has also committed about A$50 million–from accumulated race field fees–to capital works at country and provincial tracks. Racing NSW Chairman John Messara added, “While our first year’s receipts from parity are earmarked to fund The Championships and Highway races, we are pleased to announce this significant rise in Country TAB and Provincial prize money from July 2016. Country prize money of A$20,000 per TAB race along with the new Showcase meetings make for the biggest-ever injection of prize money into Country racing.”

I'd say it may be one of the best summer surfaces too. But I don't know what surfaces you are suggesting may be better in winter in the CD? It does have its flaws. Completely hopeless when the water table gets extremely high. Nowhere to drain to.

Hard for me to comment on that Huey. Only been around here the last 15 years or so and haven't ridden on it for a few years now. Probably depends on in what time-frame and in what way you are suggesting it has deteriorated?

Can't win the Belmont IMO.

The main objective of Foxton is to create the best training and trial facility that it can while concurrently bringing the venue up to standards required for racing. Once that is done, they will be in a position to apply for a community race day and the track would be available as an alternative venue for other race days. Trial days earn money to keep the club afloat. Sponsorship aside, a community industry race day does not. The gates will pay back the clubs investment in a year of trial meetings at the current allocation compared with the cost of relocating gates from elsewhere, which also causes additional wear and tear on gates. Trials and racing require the same health and safety standards to be met. The existing rail was falling apart and wrapped up with duct tape in places. To provide the trial facility designated by NZTR for the facility new rail was essential. The old rail will likely be recycled to provide safer railing on the outside of the course proper. Consulting and negotiating with NZTR and providing a solid rationale to NZTR and the Racing Safety Development Fund to achieve that, to me is not "sucking up" or pissing in anyone's pocket. I think it is simply good business practice in the best interests of the club, the community and the wider racing industry.

Huh? What potential savings?

This was not the distribution provided for under the Act. It was additional to that. They can do what they want with the original distribution, yes. That's why I was suggesting they take money for tracks from that and still apply the additional amount to stakes.

That was specified in the agreement by the NZRB in making the additional distributions.

Nah, plenty galloping on it this morning when I was there. Think they just wanted to give the track a bit of a rest. Already been trials this month and more next month. Might have also hoped the new plastic running rail could be installed in between though it still hasn't turned up as I understand it.

Yes, and you have to think NZTR could have done that. Used the extra NZRB funds to replace existing stakes (because it had to be used for stakes) and take some or all of that amount of funding from the regular distribution and use that that to start relaying existing tracks, build an all weather or whatever, but something constructive to improve the product.

To me that seems much easier to understand than most of this government's policies. It's pretty clear that the IRD experts will easily be able to determine the racing potential of a horse. I'll then hire them to pick a couple out for me.

Sounds sensible. I wonder why clubs opposed it? I wonder if NZTR will follow suit? And, I wonder if they've figured out how the hell they will be able to police this?

Lovely mare. Not a Winx but we'd all love to have just one like that.

Anyone know how many the industry has sent on this trip this year? Great to see for the first time I can remember in recent years, one of the NZ delegates actually presenting - NZTR deputy chair Victoria Carter on an important topic, women in racing leadership and the benefits of that. Big ups for that effort.

Oops that should have read: I'm also not quite clear how the expanded Australian rule 178AB (one clear day for ANY injections) could cause any confusion about the rule 804(5) (b) here and its equivalent rule 178AA there with respect to alkalanising agents.

Not sure what you're on about Weasel. No testing was involved. The breach was for administration during the pre-race period where that is not allowed. Maybe go read the 'Tony Pike's Horses Scratched at Doomben for Late Treatment' thread and come back to us.

And perhaps, given it seems they have straightened out Pike's misinformation to Queensland stewards, will they be investigating whether or not he has been doing the same here which he has implied and others on here have appeared to confirm. If no action is taken, then the already dubious state of integrity in NZ racing will have added further grist to that mill. If the rule is not going to be vigorously enforced then they might as well get rid of it rather than expand it. I'm also not quite clear how the expanded Australian rule 178AB (one clear day for ANY injections) could cause any confusion about the rule 804(5) (b) here and its equivalent rule 178AB there with respect to alkalanising agents. Also the response on the testing question is waffly. In March and April TCO2 testing was performed at only two North Island thoroughbred meetings and on a total of 23 horses. Is that adequate? I note that will not detect the use of alkalinisers such as Neutrolene administered in the one clear day space.

No, but other racing leaders who raced 90 horses couldn't name them either.