Quick update. I have it on good authority that both the RIB and SPCA are actively involved and reportedly the horses have been removed from the property.
It's not really comparable. That's my rating based on performance. The official ratings are in accord with guidelines about how many points they get for a win etc.
This was recently posted if there's anyone in Tauranga area that can help. NZTR's welfare system at its best and seemingly culpable licence holders.
https://www.facebook.com/vadasangelsanimalrescue
I wouldn't but don't they drive round on the inside of the track and have video from there for that purpose? We already discussed a case of CWJ on a horse of mine where he admitted a charge for consecutive strikes. I couldn't see that from the available vision either but the stipes did and he was convinced by the evidence. How on earth do you think that the other signatories to the IFHA guidelines (Australia; Britain; France; Germany) enforce it?
Why? And how would changing hands help?
Two strikes inside the 200 and clearly on the rump. Try specsavers! The horse is still learning. She's trying to teach it to get to the line, what the whip means, and to make sure she got something out of the gallop when there was nothing to push her which there may be next time.
Speaking of welfare matters, Justine, and yesterday's racing, I take it the stipes are going to ignore enforcing the new flank use whip rule? Multiple blatant strikes on the flank and no rule to disqualify the horse which gets a listed race win as a result. Not a whisper in the judicial report when blind Freddy could see it. Or, is it rules for some or, is the rule just tokenism? I wonder what the IFHA will think when advised?
I think the synthetic track issue became more of one when NZTR announced that they had data suggesting the anecdotal reports were in fact true. We are waiting on NZTR to issue the independent report now aren't we? That's due mid-year. And yes, follow-up checks have been done and no doubt more will be done before racing resumes on it.
But in that example, he accepted and digested the facts when he got them. That's my point.
Well, it worked on getting significant work on and a review of the synthetic tracks didn't it, when direct approaches to high level management had repeatedly got the brush off or retaliation?
I agree with that and certainly don't find it amusing. That said, he listens and accepts the facts when he gets them. He's a pleasure to do business with and puts his money where his mouth is. He's bought a nice horse and handled it patiently. Deserves all the success that she brings him for my part. As above, credit where it is due.