Freda

Good on them, at least, for putting out the report, far better than the last two mobs.

Exactly. Which is my point about the AWT's, which seems to be taken as an inference that I am against them. I'm not, not at all, but I don't see the sense in a bankrupt industry throwing taxpayers' money at a supposition. As far as the sale of trialled horses - I think that MM's concern is valid, just that it is not the only driver of our dropping revenue. Certainly, nice young horses retained here to race and bet on, would help maintain interest and boost revenue...and the dregs that are left, definitely lack the excitement factor. A levy on sales has been suggested, I'm not sure whether I think that would help a great deal. I guess some funding is better than none.. but they would have to be bloody big levies to get us out of the shit we are in now.

I'm referring to the Asian market for educated horses. Huge numbers at trial days, with the nicer performers off overseas, never to grace our racetracks. Few of those winners will remain to add interest to local fields.

I can certainly confirm it wasn't you who made that comment. As for the rest of your post..? You've missed the point completely. None of the factors about which you speak can be shown to increase punters' losses - which is the only measurement of revenue. And, without a significant increase in betting revenue, we are still sliding down the slope to oblivion.

I'm not entirely sure that horse exports are the total cause of our malaise, definitely one problem for sure, but brought about by the trainwreck that is NZ racing - IMO. A vibrant industry would have no need to flog off its assets....but those assets depart in ever-increasing numbers, with no financial recompense for the structures that developed them. I suspect that is your concern, as well as the 'dumbing down' of the remaining 'product' . TAB [dis]function, handicapping, programming, stakes allocation, track maintenance, integrity, rider/trainer education, horse welfare, are issues that all have their part in the thing not working. All matters that have been tossed around here and elsewhere by some very intelligent and enlightened posters...but given little heed by those who really should take notice.

Agree with the above comments; I haven't heard any 'business case' to justify costs, as far as Riccarton is concerned it seems the biggest driver for support from trainers is the provision of a top-class training surface. That, and less travel. While a long, cold trip home from Oamaru in the winter is not particularly enjoyable - and becomes less so when the transport bill arrives- that, by itself, can't justify the expenses incurred. But most either haven't considered cost or don't care. One said to me ' they don't give a sh## if I go broke, why should I care if they do? I'll take it while I've got the opportunity. '

Sounds reasonable.

Preaching to the converted, K.

Cannabis.

You are both correct inasmuch as due process....but, my thoughts are that the apathy referred to facilitates an ' old boys club ' because nobody gives a toss, or is too busy, to follow these things up. Curious will be well aware given a situation he faced recently..not implying that there was any 'corruption' involved, just no one on their tail.

True enough.

its not just balls/gumption, its the sheer cussedness needed to put up with the obfuscation that will accompany any attempt to correct this very undemocratic practice.

Tiered racing is out of place in NZ ( imo ), there isn't the population of horses or the geography to implement it well, as in Australia. Anomalies crop up all the time. But it is the ratings of the opposition that dictate the level of penalty, not the stake necessarily. Allweather racing will ( or should have ) it's own separate ratings, as with hurdlers and chasers, such as happens in other jurisdictions. I agree it's not well done and just typifies our broken systems.

Old Boy's Club.

Ok, have to apologize here. Apparently there was a notice to advise that clubs could host groups of 100 if they could do so safely.

I was talking to an Ashburton dairy farming couple on Friday, asked them how they had come through the micoplasma bovis matter...then was sorry I asked. Twenty minutes later, after a very emotive and heartfelt discourse, it seemed that dealing with the useless 'suits' of MPI, and various other departments was very similar to racing, with corrupt and/or inept management protocols.

The inconsistency was what really pissed me off. Just such a poor attitude to the connections of the more modest runners...you lot don't matter.

I am assuming that NZTR has gone 'overboard' with its rules and regulations to prove to all and sundry that racing can be conducted safely in this climate of uncertainty. Obviously, Australia, despite the recent infections in Vic racing, has conducted racing pretty safely all along, so I don't really have an issue with being careful. But, it would make more sense if the three codes were on the same page. Galloping owners cannot even go to the trials, whereas harness and the greys are much more lenient in that respect. It is annoying, insulting even, when Riccarton has to close its doors to owners and patrons, and those same patrons can go 500 yards across the road and stand shoulder to shoulder in the Racecourse Pub. Chris Johnson was allowed to drive the Parsons truck to Auckland, attend the horse as a strapper, but couldn't ride it. Insane. Now we have connections of high profile horses allowed at Hastings..? I had an owner ring me, bitterly disappointed that he wasn't allowed to go, but could see the privileged ones on TV. What a slap in the face for loyal people who have paid through the nose for years, breeding and racing their modest performers.

I also notice that Saundry refers to the ' NZ Racing Board ' . That has been defunct for two years.....

So....do I take from this missive, that three companies / three codes, means that there is to be a consultant company for each code. Paid for by which body/bodies? HRNZ,NZTR,GRNZ...? or the 'new' Racing NZ..? [ is it even up and running yet? ] or TAB NZ? which isn't what they are supposed to be doing...? Saundry's beaming countenance heading the copy...so do we then assume that he is the driver of it all? or what..? I'm astounded. Like J.B, I'm not speechless very often..but..ye gods..

Yes...and I don't want to be thought negative, or backward-looking; but it just doesn't seem to me that all the factors have been considered. Even the graphs shown above, to me, are pretty sanitised We can get temperatures over the summer months of 30+ and for days, weeks at a time ; and the nor-wester on top of that would provide a real challenge to the consistency of moisture, I would think. As well, temperatures can drop 10 deg in an hour. That doesn't happen in a lot of other areas.

Yes, that is my understanding also, from Martin's report on proceedings. However, he ( being an import ) is not au fait with the history of b/s and cockups that we have been served . He is also not as aware as we locals of the funding issues - we don't have Sheikhs installing an AW gallop at Newmarket and naming it after their Guineas winner, or magnificent, privately owned stables with superb facilities. Nor do we have an industry, well run, that can keep facilities up to date on what is returned through betting revenue. And, all that notwithstanding, the facilities we do have at Riccarton, while very good by comparison to most here, are not as well maintained as they could or should be. The sand is of a type that will strip fetlocks of horses vulnerable in that respect. When rain affected, the water is supposed to percolate through to the base, and be channelled to the drains on the inner. It doesn't, and we get a sludge that provides no cushion, and horses will cut through to the base. And it doesn't rain that much here, as observed above. The gallop grasses are rough, and unless a new strip with fresh ground is used, hard and bare. The clay soil is very hard underneath and, unless the rain is significant, will chop out quickly and be slippery on top. So, no not ideal. How will this management structure cope with looking after a surface that MUST be properly handled? And the contract to supply and maintain the AWT, with 3 monthly visits from the team, will that still be valid if the interim maintenance isn't up to scratch?

Yes, there were a few who really should have attended.

Yes. And that is very likely the main reason [ apart from apathy ] that many stakeholders just can't be arsed going to these roadshows....because they don't get given any significant information. I am told that the presentation by the engineers was excellent, however.

The 1 65 mill was referring to the Singapore Polytrack, so I would assume that figure would be Singapore dollars, not HK dollars. That makes things a helluva lot pricier!