curious

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.

He certainly trumped John Allen who comes across as defensive, hapless and with absolutely zippo in any rationale for what they are doing. Nothing surprising to me from either of them. He kept talking about the Karaka sales. Isn't he the Minister for Racing? What's the bet that the budget thing alluded to is a tax break for wealthy breeders?

Comes across as not having a clue to me. Passing the buck to Messara. Where did he get the $1.6 billion industry from?

Especially when a colleague was pinged for the same thing at Flemington 18 months ago. https://www.racenet.com.au/news/xtravagant-trainer-fined-for-treatment-20160910 It just seems that everyone else knows it's illegal both here and in Oz but if he were intending to cheat, why would he enter the illegal treatment in the log that investigators were likely to peruse and then mislead Queensland stewards about NZ rules? Something doesn't add up.

Correct Boxie and indeed a shame for the owners that the trainer did not comply with the rules, largely at their cost probably but think about this. Let's say horses a and b both have an equally testing gallop on Tuesday. Horse a is trained by a trainer prepared to break the rules so gets treated with a recovery assisting alkalinising agent that day through Friday - 4 days. Horse b trained by a trainer complying with the rules treats his horse for only 3 days with the same treatment. Assuming the treatment has at least a minimal effect, then surely horse a has a better chance of running towards its best capability on Saturday. So, while the rule being effected may have negatively impacted the owners of two horses in this instance, had it not been implemented it would potentially have disadvantaged the owners of all other horses in their two respective races. That's simply not fair and should be stomped out. The larger implication is that horses given such an illegal advantage may perform better than punters expect them to. So, this behaviour potentially disadvantages punters who expect all horses to be treated equally and within the rules as well and punters are the ones that provide the revenue that provides stakes for owners. To continue to do that, they need to trust that rules are being adhered to and there is a level playing field in the same way that other owners and trainers do.

Not clear I get your point. 1 clear day is 12.01 am the day before raceday till 12.01am on raceday. 5 a.m. is 5 hours into that clear day, so clearly breaches the administration rule. Is that clear or am I misunderstanding your point/question?

I agree. It is the implication only of what Mr. Pike has said to Queensland stewards and we only know what has actually been reported. It is not reported that he clearly stated it is his usual practice. However what Dark Beau said indicates that it is. Perhaps Dark Beau would revert and tell us all how he knows what he said and thus potentially confirm it or otherwise.

I doubt it. The definition of clear day was quite clear when the rule was gazetted in 2016 if people can't understand it from reading the rule. It could only be misinterpreted by those who haven't or can't read the rule IMO. Here is the rule as gazetted in 2016: 4. Rule 804(5) – Prohibited Substance Offences This amendment makes it an offence to administer, attempt to administer or cause to be administered any substance that meets the definition within the Rules of an “alkalinising agent”. “Clear Day” means a 24-hour period from 12.01am to 12.00 midnight. 804(5)(a) A person, except for a Veterinarian who is an official, shall not, during a day of racing, administer by injection, nasal gastric tube, gastric tube, ventilator or nebulizer to a horse entered in a Race, or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies, on that day of racing any substance whatsoever, unless such administration occurred after the horse has raced or under the direction of a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator. For the purposes of this sub-Rule the day of racing is deemed to commence at 12.01am and to conclude after the last Race. (b) A person must not administer an alkalinising agent, in any manner, to a horse which is engaged to run in any Race, trial or jump-out: (i) at any time on the day of the scheduled Race, trial or jump-out and prior to the start of such event; and (ii) at any time during the one Clear Day prior to 12.01am on the day of the scheduled Race, official trial, or jump-out.

That should be easily established by the RIU, especially given treatment logs, owner invoices and even purchase invoices aside from the usual interviews.

While that's beside the point imo, alkalinising agents are recovery aids and commonly used for that purpose as soon as possible after racing. Providing recovery assistance to a horse the day before a race in this way is prohibited and provides an unfair advantage to trainers doing so over those complying with the rules.

Word for word identical Boxie. In a nutshell!

And here's the Doomben stewards' report that indicates clearly that whether knowingly or unknowingly, he lied to Queensland stewards who didn't bother to check the veracity of his advice to them. Following advice from the QRIC Integrity Investigations Team during routine stable inspections this morning, it was discovered that the treatment book for horses trained by Mr T. Pike, being SACRED MASTER (Race 3) and THE BOSTONIAN (Race 6) revealed that they had been administered with Neutrolene Plus which is an alkalising agent. The administration took place yesterday morning which is in breach of AR178AA. Acting under this Rule both horses were withdrawn at 11.45 a.m. by order of stewards. Mr Pike advised that the administration was performed in error as the Rules regarding the administration of alkalising agents to horses one clear day prior to the race differ from that in New Zealand. Mr Pike pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined $500. In determining penalty stewards acknowledged Mr Pikes forthright evidence and that it was an inadvertent error. It beggars belief that a trainer of Mr. Pike's experience and standing nor his veterinary advisor/s do not know the rule. If he has also been doing this routinely in NZ as Dark Beau suggests, then at the very least all stake earning runners from the stable during the period he has been doing so must surely be disqualified. It is out and out cheating. And we wonder why owners and punters are fleeing NZ racing.