Freda

I can't recall whether lateral drains were included initially - probably they were, but certainly since, including down the back straight where conditions are very different from the home straight.

Well I'm scratching my head too...because I can't see how it was supposed to work either. The amount of topsoil laid wouldn't have grown decent carrots. There is a slight camber in the straight - just ask Pitty - because he always maintained that watering the outside was counter productive as the water just ended up on the inside. Apart from all that, water is not going to percolate through clay, so what other option can there be?

If you refer to my above post, Duncan Laing implied that that had happened. He obviously couldn't be definite, but his experience and knowledge of the reconstruction process led him to believe that deeper cultivation than he had advised had taken place.

Glue when wet and concrete when dry

From what I can envisage - and a fair amount of 'creative' thinking involved here, I'm not a drainage or construction hero - the clay and scoria under the topsoil was supposed to provide a camber to guide the water to the drains along the inner. That may have worked initially, but, as Duncan Laing [of Laing's Construction] explained to me, the manual he had provided for the track manager at the time, didn't get passed on to the following managers [ so he thought ]. There was not supposed to be any deep cultivation at all, as that would bring the clay up to mix with the topsoil. That seems to be just what has happened and the makeup of the turf is consistent with a goodly amount of clay mixed in.

Lance Robinson was able to have a look at [some] of the lateral drains at one point...he said, drains had spiderwebs in them, clearly the water wasn't getting to them.

You can understand, that all this discussion has led to a great deal of chat between me and my English training partner, he - rightly - points out that many yards in England only have an AWT for use, and then race on grass without problems; John Dunlop being one. However, I would doubt that UK tracks would often - if ever - get as uncompromisingly hard and/or rough as can happen here and in Aus.

Anyway, I agree Freda with the point you seem to be making that to condition bone for firm surfaces, the bone needs to be exposed to work on firm surfaces. Where I thought the AWT would be helpful is that horses with beginning signs of shin soreness could continue to work on it, or resume work on it sooner, before being re-exposed to fast work on firmer surfaces, meanwhile still getting a degree of concussion that helped the bone healing and re-modelling without risking aggravation of the injury. Yes, [ sorry, Tim, for hijacking your thread ] that was the point, after all the furore about A. v D, and the highlighting of the injuries of predominantly UK horses in the Melbourne Cup recently, it seemed to me to be replicating the very conditions that may have led to those injuries.

Question - how, then, would a beautifully cushioned surface help with encouraging skeletal development with the aim of managing firm grass tracks?

I should think so, yes.

yes, fair point.

I think the Chief just refuted that....however, I always thought that JCA personnel had to be of a legal persuasion. Both McCutcheon and Ching were jockeys in the first instance, no legal training there.

Tim, what are your thoughts on the Cambridge AWT ?

Of course, this is all completely hypothetical - but, if the turf track was reconstructed, where does racing happen in the interim? NZ Cup on the allweather? perhaps, Rangiora? nope, closed. Motukarara? same. Timaru ? soon to be surplus. Maybe a few trips over the hill to avail ourselves of Reefton's hospitality.? When the first reconstruction was carried out, we raced at both Motukarara and Rangiora. Pleasant and enjoyable days, and worked just fine. Now those venues are kicked into touch, there isn't much wriggle room, is there?

I'm still trying to think of a wealthy ex-trainer.

How will that be afforded? No more govt handouts for tracks i don't think. The contractors concerned back in 1998 did the job as prescribed by the scope of work given by the then RIB; and as for the committee/CEO, again, are they construction experts? Not their field at all. Good or bad, they can hardly be held responsible for the design. They just had to follow instructions. Similarly, the current track management is not responsible for the soil structure....but they have to try and work with what they have. Not an easy job I wouldn't think. I agree, reconstruction of the turf would be ideal, but it won't happen unless there is a cash injection from somewhere.

By all accounts, the track was outstanding, compared to how it is often presented. I didn't hear one adverse comment from riders over the meeting, with a particular thumbs up from Lisa Allpress. But, should it take a rocket from one faction to achieve that? Should it not be in the best state possible all the time?

Well, yeah....plus it rained before Wednesday so that helped. Without the rain they might have got their ears chewed again.

Pffft.

Only speculation here....but, my thoughts are, that given the Canterbury climate with its summer heat and strong winds, the track dries out super-quickly, even after rain. Any irrigation would have been an attempt to keep the level of moisture at an acceptable level given the dressing-down received after earlier footing was deemed unacceptable.

I think it has changed, N.M, I seem to recall noticing that fairly recently...in the last 3 - 4 years anyway. It used be part of the entertainment watching a member of the public [ ex jock usually ] remounting a fallen runner and cantering down to the post. Not too many volunteered when there were still jumps to negotiate though!

Yeah, I get you now. Yes, it should be idiot proof. I could have worked it then. There is, I believe, a manual over-ride but again, I don't know how to trigger that. Too late now, anyway, the horse's racing career is finished , the owner won't invest again, and the rider was lucky to escape with a few bruises.

Exactly...that's why I stood back, I know nothing about the things.

And cameras aside, wtf was wrong with the track for two fatal injuries to happen on the same day? If 'wind-blown irrigation ' had created uneven footing, why was that not noticed earlier? To quote a certain smart commentator ...' bring in the clowns - oh, never mind, they're already here.'

Re -set button. I see now. We had permission to put a problem horse in the [ raceday ] gates following jumpouts. Got her in with a bit of 'discussion' and after she had [ finally ] settled and was standing quietly, it was time to let her pop out. But the starter had ambled off to do something else and was nowhere in sight. What to do? None of us watching had had any practice or knowledge of starting procedures. There was no guarantee the horse would remain calm until the bloke was found. Finally, one watching apprentice jockey volunteered to push the button. Logically, he had been closer to the procedure than any of the rest of us, so seemed the best call at the time. But they didn't open. And the horse, which up to then was having quite a good learning/confidence experience, hit the gates, and went absolutely berserk. Lucky she and/or her rider weren't killed.