curious

Haha. Sharrock should probably have read the legislative net bill before he summarised it as he did.

I didn't say that no-one supported whip use or racing that includes whip use, but by way of perspective and reality 97,000 is about 0.4% of the population of Australia. What do the other 99.6% think. If you want to use biased data to support your fallacious argument, then good luck to you. I'll stick with mine.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/568323512653211

From their facebook page on Monday.

Nope. More subjective observation. Pretty sure the ones I had to step over trying to get to the rail to watch a race didn't see many races though. I doubt they would have been in a fit state to fill out a formal survey.

Because I love horses and the people involved with them, and want to not only do the best for them but what I can to preserve the game that both the horses and the humans involved also love. Ignoring human and animal welfare issues and the public acceptance of those will mean it won't survive here in the longer term. Did you listen to the interview with Mr Engelbrecht-Bresges the other day? He and those in other jurisdictions get it. NZ authorities don't yet, and by the time they do it may be too late.

A lot of them probably didn't watch a race or have a bet either. They were there for an event, not the horse racing.

McGreevy, P. D., Griffiths, M. D., Ascione, F. R., & Wilson, B. (2018). Flogging tired horses: Who wants whipping and who would walk away if whipping horses were withheld?. PloS one, 13(2), e0192843.

An earlier study in Australia found similar results. Of the 1,533 respondents from across the country, only 25% (113 women and 271 men) supported the whipping of racehorses.

Many of those aren't interested anyway. And did you miss this bit? 74% say it has, or will, impact their engagement with the sport. That's about the same level of public perception that got greyhounds shut down.

They also say they don't think there is a problem with the public perception. I wonder if they've bothered to do any surveys. Wouldn't that be a reasonable task for the new welfare department? This is from the latest British (BHA) one: The latest polling report shows: 39% of adults state that concerns about horse welfare discourage them from engaging with racing. The biggest welfare concerns are (in order of impact) deaths and injuries, perception of cruelty/use of the whip, and what happens to horses when they finish racing. of these: 74% say it has, or will, impact their engagement with the sport. 42% say they have either stopped engaging with racing or will stop in the future. This is not just a barrier to our future audiences, but our existing one as well. When asked what would improve their opinion, the public response cited limiting use of the whip (35%) and ensuring strong penalties are in place (35%) as the top two requirements. The most negative perceptions of the whip come from younger audiences, particularly those aged 18-34.

Do you mean with hands returned to reins between strikes?

As I've said, it should be hands on reins between strikes. Not only stop the cheating but also significantly improve the public perception.

I don't think there's any issues with NZTR. That is a good relationship as far as I know. They certainly give them plenty of trial dates. Also, I think they can apply for a one day licence which they originally said would probably be available once everything was up to snuff. But, they probably make more money today than they would from an industry day.

https://www.miragenews.com/austrac-takes-ladbrokes-and-neds-operator-entain-1379104/#google_vignette AUSTRAC Takes Ladbrokes And Neds' Operator - Entain Today, AUSTRAC commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against Entain Group Pty Ltd (Entain), which operates online betting sites including Ladbrokes, Neds and other online betting brands. The proceedings allege serious and systemic non-compliance with Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) laws. AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas said the agency considers there were systemic failures in Entain's approach to its AML/CTF obligations. "AUSTRAC's proceedings allege that Entain did not develop and maintain a compliant anti-money laundering program and failed to identify and assess the risks it faced. We are alleging this left the company at serious risk of criminal exploitation. "Money laundering is often a symptom of serious criminal activity, including fraud, scams and corruption, all of which have equally serious effects on our communities," he said. AUSTRAC's allegations include that: Entain's board and senior management did not have appropriate oversight of its AML/CTF program, which limited its ability to identify the ML/TF risks it faced and its vulnerability to criminal exploitation. Entain operated a 24/7 business through its website and app, which created risks that persons unknown to Entain could access and use Entain's betting platform including through third party providers. Third parties, including businesses and individuals, accepted cash and other deposits on behalf of Entain to be credited into betting accounts in ways that could obscure the proceeds of crime. Cash is less transparent than other forms of money and is at higher risk of being the proceeds of crime. Entain did not have appropriate controls to confirm the identity of customers making these deposits and the source of this money. Entain did not conduct appropriate checks on 17 higher risk customers, including examples where Entain did not appropriately deal with the risk that its online betting sites were being exploited by criminals to spend the proceeds of serious crime. This includes allegations that Entain deliberately obscured the identity of some high risk customers, on its own systems, through the use of pseudonyms to "protect their privacy". "This is the first time AUSTRAC has brought civil penalty proceedings against businesses operating in the online betting sector, and the Australian arm of Entain is part of one of the world's largest sports betting and gaming groups," Mr Thomas said. "The online betting sector, and all other businesses regulated by AUSTRAC, must take their AML/CTF obligations seriously. This includes ensuring they have appropriate procedures to know who their customer is, even when they rely on third parties to process transactions." The action taken today is part of AUSTRAC's ongoing work focussed on gambling businesses in Australia to fight money laundering opportunities in the gambling industry. Following the Federal Court ordering Crown pay $450million in penalties over 2 years in 2023, this year AUSTRAC has seen the Federal Court order SkyCity to pay $63M penalty for breaches to the AML/CTF Act, accept an enforceable undertaking from Sportsbet, continue the Federal Court case against Star and we are continuing our regulatory focus on a number of other gambling entities across Australia. Additionally, the launch of the money laundering National Risk Assessment this year highlighted the highly exposed nature and vulnerability to money laundering online betting agencies face. This valuable resource has been developed support business better understand and develop appropriate measures to mitigate their risks.

20 heats tomorrow at Foxton and horses from as far afield as Hastings, New Plymouth and Cambridge. What is wrong with the system that horses have to go to the expense and trouble to travel that far for a trial? 30 heats at Pukekohe!

Who are they?

What? I doubt it.

if the call for a referendum was held, 74.8% (992/1327) would vote in support of a ban on greyhound racing. Furthermore, 58.8% of respondents stated they would be disappointed in the government if they did not ban racing (780/1327), 68.3% (906/1327) agree that a ban on the greyhound racing is the right thing to do, and 65.5% (869/1327) believe it would improve New Zealand’s reputation for animal welfare.

I agree and I think the last quarterly data I saw showed injury rates to be double what they were for the same quarter last year. Then you have a bigger problem with the public perception and surveys showing that 75% would support a ban if there were a referendum. Hard for politicians to go against that I would say.

NZTR to Implement Interim Co-transition Leads Following the resignation of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) CEO Bruce Sharrock, The NZTR Board has planned an interim structure to take effect from 31 December as they continue the process to recruit a new CEO. The Board has appointed Chief Operating Officer, Darin Balcombe and Head of Legal, Jill Gregory as Co-Transition Leads to support the CEO function following Sharrock’s departure at the end of the year. NZTR Chairman Russell Warwick believes this approach will ensure comprehensive coverage across both the racing and commercial sides of the business, as both parties are already immersed in their respective areas through their current roles. “Recruitment for the CEO role is well underway, and the Board is encouraged by the quantity and quality of the applicants who have applied,” said Warwick “The Board expect a shortlist to be presented at the end of the month. However, it was important to have leaders in place who would keep the business progressing in the absence of a CEO. “Both Darin Balcombe and Jill Gregory are already heavily involved in the racing and commercial areas of NZTR, and it made sense for them to co-lead the NZTR team during the transition phase.” NZTR will continue to communicate the transition process over the next several months. Any questions or concerns can be directed to Darin Balcombe or Jill Gregory. Corporate Communications New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Contact: Catlyn Calder +64 27 252 2803 nztrcommunications@nztr.co.nz

NZTR are planning for it to be in effect by February as of the latest road show info. They've tentatively budgeted for the extra money. I'm similar to you though. I do 5-10% of my turnover on TAB/Betcha. That will probably halve once the 'no deductions' is gone. If I can't bet overseas, I'm still not going to find any more bets at value on the NZTAB unless they significantly improve their pricing. They certainly won't get any of the turnover that I currently bet offshore. I'm sure there are many like us. I'd love to see the business case for this. I wonder if that could be obtained? Perhaps by an OIA request if necessary?

True.

If there is such evidence, at this stage anyway, code specific punters will still be able to bet on the code, just not NZ racing.