curious

It certainly is strange and if as reported, they didn't in fact even begin to follow the due process outlined by the rules and the review policy, it definitely lends weight to Reefton's conspiracy theory. I also note that there seems to be no comment from or about trainers. No expression of concern about the track and no sign of any consultation with them in the decision making. Were any trainers in on the post race track inspection?

Don't think I'd do that. Probably just raise a question about what appear to be the two or three most glaring omissions and inconsistencies.

That's because to my surprise, it doesn't appear to have been mentioned by either the stewards' reports nor the reviewers'. In 7.1 of the latter, the reviewer sets out what is described as the 'relevant part of the protocol'. Oddly, that omits the key part which is that the policy must be triggered by a licenceholder expressing concern about the safety of the track. The Track Safety Review process commences when a licensee present at the meeting notifies the stipendiary steward in charge of the meeting that the track surface is or may be unsafe to ride upon and that he or she wishes the steward to begin a Track Safety Review. There is no report of that happening. Instead, the report suggests that the stewards themselves raised the question of track safety but I don't think that is their role. The report cites the Rule 602(1) which states what the stipes' role is. "determine any question as to whether that day of racing or any part thereof should be postponed, abandoned, or cancelled;" It seems their role is to determine any question of track safety and decide the outcome. The report suggests they have not only determined the outcome but raised the question themselves when that is the role of a licence holder. They have then determined their own question. Seems a very odd process to me as reported.

Well I agree with that. The reviewer seems to have made no attempt to talk to any of these people or verify what the stewards both on the day and subsequently, say is the evidence. on the other hand I think some aspects of the review are quite good in that they clearly grasped what was and was not the contentious issue, i.e. the evidence base or lack thereof for the decision, along with a small win for you in that they smacked the hand of the RIB to provide hard evidence e.g., photos and recordings, of the evidence supporting the abandonment decision. In that respect it is very surprising that there is no mention of any consultation with Walshy as the SI safety advisor, nor that he was there to support apprentices who may have been intimidated in the context of the stewards' consultation with jockeys.

Also, who was the licensee who triggered the track safety review by expressing concerns about its safety to one of the stipes?

I wonder would Terry stand by saying that to the 3 of you? That's a big part of the weight of evidence that your anonymous reviewer is reporting. I'm guessing David would. Was he at the so called consultation with jockeys (in his role as apprentice mentor and safety advisor)?

I think they really have to make a decision and there, witnesses can attend by teleconference. Might be someone in the community if not the club who could advise further. I'm sure it's within their jurisdiction and as you suggest a means of getting some accountability. H&S should not prevail over negligence. Happy to help how I can.

Hmmm ... Could go Disputes Tribunal and just go for the 30k max. A lot of work but little cost. Still holds them accountable.

Haha. I thought she meant mine but I'd say she's thinking of Divine Dive.

Well that certainly sounds like a dead end and dismissal to me. Exactly why Mr. Clement came back citing the Rules around the RIB's authority for abandonment decisions on the day and the club's obligation to comply is beyond me. That is not what you are questioning and they did make the decision and you and other participants did comply. It is the basis for and process used by stewards in reaching that decision which is in question. From the evidence we have seen here, it appears that decision was negligent. I wonder if the club has considered taking the matter and your compensation claim to District Court?

Sorry, meant to post this.

Three things particularly struck me in reading this response. Firstly, how could they say "At no point in any of the films is it clear that Moseley’s horse hit the horse on its outside ... there was no identifiable interference"? You can not put a horse's shoulders into a half gap without hitting a horse, in this case it is clear from the vision that contact was made with both horses. It is difficult to imagine how 3 stewards could conclude otherwise. Makes me worry that it is not just the digital steward's vision that is poor quality. Secondly, nowhere does Mr. Clement claim that the horse slipped in the incident. The conclusion is that the horse lost its footing and went off balance, not that it slipped. He refers to the reason for abandonment being the "shifting horse". He didn't actually say what caused the horse to go off balance. Finally, he now adds that the other reason for abandonment was the inconsistent track surface. If it were inconsistent to a point of being unsafe then surely the core sampling, penetrometer readings and physical inspections would have indicated this and they should have abandoned the meeting BEFORE race 1. Instead, despite this knowledge that the track was unsafe, they have again put horses and riders health and safety at serious risk before deciding to abandon.

Pretty obvious what happened. No slipping involved. Appears to have also hit the rear of the leader and possibly clipped heels. Unfortunately, it's a shame the stewards vision is such poor quality (a pet peeve of mine sorry).

I agree both ways but remember that getting the cattle is part of the skill of being a successful trainer.

.

I agree. It's a good day, decent racing, and attracts new people e.g the BGP group which turns over a bit of dosh on the day. Also, gets some younger folk interested in both wagering and racing a horse. However, it should be funded (other than the usual premier day NZTR funding) by the beneficiaries, as Freda says, along with any sponsorship they can obtain such as that from Entain.

What horse lost it's footing? One getting back on the float for the long trip home? Like Muzenza, I'm a strong advocate for health and safety of horses and riders and them not being put at risk in race conditions to test the security of the footing. Nothing like that appears to have happened here.

Fair enough point. It's an antiquated instruction that should have been updated.

They've been online for years so I think most trainers would understand that means the online form. It doesn't say paper.

Yes, but ... it crashed again today with no racing which they said was what was causing the problem. So, they obviously have no clue what is going on.

YELLOW JERSEY (T Mitchell) – Commenced to buck shortly after the start and was retired from the race. Connections were advised that the gelding would be required to barrier trial to the satisfaction of Stewards prior to racing next. Underwent a post-race veterinary examination which revealed no abnormalities

Poverty Bay another good example though they got in earlier and kept the money which would have been more difficult for the WRC but when the shit hit the fan PB were prepared to move their meetings and race at HB albeit with a very healthy bank balance.

At least the money is going back where it should. To the community that paid for and developed the land. I say very well done WRC.

I'm not sure the Minister is entirely correct. The below is from the DIA briefing paper to him last year. He is also responsible for appointments to the board including the chair. Not sure who is doing that if he is not.

Must be some German plates that are part of the country's development and history that I'm not aware of.