Chief Stipe Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 This is hearsay but I heard that NZTR forced Ruakaka to irrigate their track last week when it was at G3. It was G4 on raceday morning. Now clearly there was rain forecast - New Plymouth was brought forward (justified). But WHY was Ruakaka forced to irrigate? A sand based track that from my knowledge has never had a meeting abandoned due to slipping. Wind once if I recall correctly. Did someone from NZTR inspect the track to confirm it needed irrigating? BTW I'm not against irrigating and in some cases not enough enough is done but as the old saying goes horses for courses. Or should that be "hoses for courses"?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray Fish Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 12 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Or should that be "hoses for courses"?! sigh, back in 80's when I was working 100+ meetings a year! all pre watering - the starting date I have never tracked down - I can hardly recall a meeting me put off? I recall a Awapuni meeting being put off because the major carpark was flooded! I struggle to recall to many others. re Watering, yes, but gee (and with the benefit of hindsight) from a serious punting point of view! waterboarding comes to mind!!! lol, as ever! I live in Hope! Might not bet much! but have Hope of finding a winner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, Murray Fish said: sigh, back in 80's when I was working 100+ meetings a year! all pre watering - the starting date I have never tracked down - I can hardly recall a meeting me put off? I recall a Awapuni meeting being put off because the major carpark was flooded! I struggle to recall to many others. That was the era when we should have invested in renovating the tracks. But everyone took the money and ran. Those that grew crops in the Bombay Hills south of Auckland found that their yields were failing around the same time. Why? They hadn't renovated or looked after the soil the Patamohe Clay Loam. Lincoln College (my Alumni) helped them sort it out. Same with Dairy Farmers - paddock rennovation soon became a mantra. Unfortunately our old school racing committees didn't get the memo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: That was the era when we should have invested in renovating the tracks. But everyone took the money and ran. Those that grew crops in the Bombay Hills south of Auckland found that their yields were failing around the same time. Why? They hadn't renovated or looked after the soil the Patamohe Clay Loam. Lincoln College (my Alumni) helped them sort it out. Same with Dairy Farmers - paddock rennovation soon became a mantra. Unfortunately our old school racing committees didn't get the memo. Yet even a generation prior, paddocks were ploughed up every 4 or 5 years, fallowed, a cover or rotation crop sown, ploughed back in and then the pasture resown. Edited August 19 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: This is hearsay but I heard that NZTR forced Ruakaka to irrigate their track last week when it was at G3. It was G4 on raceday morning. Now clearly there was rain forecast - New Plymouth was brought forward (justified). But WHY was Ruakaka forced to irrigate? A sand based track that from my knowledge has never had a meeting abandoned due to slipping. Wind once if I recall correctly. Did someone from NZTR inspect the track to confirm it needed irrigating? BTW I'm not against irrigating and in some cases not enough enough is done but as the old saying goes horses for courses. Or should that be "hoses for courses"?! I would be shocked if that was true. I never bet at Ruakaka anyhow, but my god that was horrible racing on Saturday. A tearaway leader straight to the front and the race was all over. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 18 minutes ago, Doomed said: I would be shocked if that was true. I never bet at Ruakaka anyhow, but my god that was horrible racing on Saturday. A tearaway leader straight to the front and the race was all over. So what were the other Jockeys thinking? "It'll come back to me because I know how to assess pace!" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: So what were the other Jockeys thinking? "It'll come back to me because I know how to assess pace!" Are you saying that might be a competence issue rather than a track bias? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 5 minutes ago, curious said: Are you saying that might be a competence issue rather than a track bias? How many Jockeys do you see in NZ that are on a horse that jumps and lands handy and they give up their position? They panic about being wide wide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 10 hours ago, curious said: Yet even a generation prior, paddocks were ploughed up every 4 or 5 years, fallowed, a cover or rotation crop sown, ploughed back in and then the pasture resown. If you look back at mediaeval farming practice in England, they used to have fallow years, and rotational cropping. They were supposed to be primitive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 11 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: This is hearsay but I heard that NZTR forced Ruakaka to irrigate their track last week when it was at G3. It was G4 on raceday morning. Now clearly there was rain forecast - New Plymouth was brought forward (justified). But WHY was Ruakaka forced to irrigate? A sand based track that from my knowledge has never had a meeting abandoned due to slipping. Wind once if I recall correctly. Did someone from NZTR inspect the track to confirm it needed irrigating? BTW I'm not against irrigating and in some cases not enough enough is done but as the old saying goes horses for courses. Or should that be "hoses for courses"?! I recall one year at Reefton [ yes, again..!] the track was a 2 or 3, can't remember which, and Peter O'Malley was told to irrigate x ml by Gary Foskett. That'll create a skating rink, says Pete, bugger off and let us get on with it. He did, and they did, and the track raced beautifully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 11 hours ago, Doomed said: I would be shocked if that was true. I never bet at Ruakaka anyhow, but my god that was horrible racing on Saturday. A tearaway leader straight to the front and the race was all over. Exactly dull and boring racing from that venue is a constant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 8 minutes ago, Huey said: Exactly dull and boring racing from that venue is a constant. You haven't found why it's dull and boring? @Doomed infers an on pace track bias. But there isn't any evidence to support that. If there is a bias it is a Jockey driven one which is reflective of most racing in NZ. If Ruakaka is dull and boring which tracks in NZ are bright and exciting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.