curious

Interestingly, the upcoming HBPA conference in Idaho has a whole session programmed on this very topic. There it is considered critical to success. Here, any attempt to even discuss it seems to be dismissed. The art of classifying and filling races will include a group of industry experts addressing the possibility of horse racing establishing a new classification system for race conditions. The panel debating this complex issue include racing consultant Rick Hammerle (Santa Anita, Kentucky Downs); Ocala Stud's David O'Farrell, the current Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association (TOBA) chair; and Andy Schweigardt, TOBA's director of industry relations and development; with racing talk-show host Steve Byk moderating.

Not sure that trainers are necessarily necessary in a track safety review? Conduct of a Track Safety Review The steward conducting the review must: • Inspect the track and in particular any areas which gave rise to the notification to the steward; and • Make any other inquiries the steward considers necessary to understand any issues with the track and whether they can be remedied; • Meet with representatives of the Club and consider their views on whether the track is safe. • Meet with the jockeys engaged to ride at the meeting about the state of the track and take into account their views on whether the track is safe. The steward may, but is not required to, meet with any other party and consider their views on whether the track is safe. Subject to these requirements, the steward may determine the process to be followed in conducting the review.

No idea what the Cox plate has to do with it. That's in October isn't it?

As I said, I don't know but I presume because of the 2kg weight difference when they met in the Lightening.

HIGH EXPECTATIONS (R Jaun) - Lost its footing when racing free of interference going into the turn near the 850 metres. Given the incident of HIGH EXPECTATIONS slipping near the 850 metres, a track inspection was undertaken involving Stipendiary Stewards, Rider and Club representatives, with the remainder of the meeting being subsequently abandoned due to safety concerns.

How could a track that was an S7 this morning be or become slippery?

I thought there might be someone already at NZTR with less and less to do at the moment who could be appointed to the task and help justify their salary. Certainly not a new appointment. They do have one quite efficient and effective unit there in the NRB which is in regular liaison with trainers anyway. Perhaps they could do it?

I don't know. I suppose it depends how you do your ratings in each distance category. I'm not good on international ratings but they look about right for the time-frame to me.

At least the polys haven't yet had a meeting abandoned have they? Meeting News Otago Races Abandoned Due to a horse slipping in Race 5 the remainder of the card at Wingatui has been abandoned. Further information will follow in coming days.

I'd like to think that they finally figured it out themselves based on 2 week old information. Not much help to the owners who were told sorry, you have to spend another couple of grand in training fees until we can maybe find a suitable race for your horse. The poor open class horses from the canned race at the said meeting are still going around waiting for a racing opportunity. I've said this on occasion before, but in the US, every club has someone charged with canvassing trainers every 2 to 4 weeks to ascertain what horses will be ready to race in different classes and the next month's programming is based on that (Pattern and other key races aside). I fail to see why NZTR can't appoint someone specifically to do that and make programming recommendations on that basis. Average starter numbers is a KPI and strongly driven by Entain as well. Something like the above seems a simple way of doing that and I'd bet would immediately increase field sizes by at least 1-2, thereby creating more attractive betting races and increasing wagering on those events as well as retaining owners. You can't simply programme 6 months ahead based on what was happening a year ago and add or delete the odd race later. It doesn't work.

Now, that would be fun to watch!

Maybe some programming common sense is emerging? Good afternoon A R65 1600m race ($17,000) has been added to the Canterbury JC meeting at Riccarton Synthetic on Friday 31 May.

Which one?

I see they have again managed to conflate breeding industry activity with racing industry activity, while still calling the report "Size and Scope of NZ Racing".

Answering my own question. https://nztr.co.nz/sites/nztrindustry/files/2024-05/Size and Scope of NZ Racing 22-23_Draft Report 2024 (HR)_0.pdf

Would you point us to that report please TAB?

It's interesting that they programmed a race with 5 acceptors when a week ago the CJC deleted one with 7 nominations. All seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Possibly. Come a lot closer than covering the extra stakes for innovation races certainly. Are they any better for feature level stakes?

You don't seem to have provided any evidence of that nor a link to where you suggest it has been discussed.

Where on FB and what pony are you talking about and what was it's racing name??

What ex-racehorses?