Executioner Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 In no way am I being critical, as I don't have the knowledge to do so.... This post is just a plea for an explanation, as I am a great racing fan but I do not possess any knowledge as to track presentations or variations etc.... My query is to why the track at Riccarton a few weeks ago was met with such negative criticism, when it was presented as Good 3..... And the 1400m races were run in 1.24 and 1.23.... whilst Ashburton, yesterday, was presented as a Good 3 with 1400m races run in 1.22 and 1.23 ... Both of these meetings appear to have presented a very similar pattern of track and times.... Yet the Riccarton meeting was meet with universal condemnation and vitriol, in stark contrast to the praise that seems to have been heaped on Ashburton..... Can anyone avail me of an explanation as to why there are such diverse reactions to such apparently comparable situations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lane Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 1 hour ago, Executioner said: In no way am I being critical, as I don't have the knowledge to do so.... This post is just a plea for an explanation, as I am a great racing fan but I do not possess any knowledge as to track presentations or variations etc.... My query is to why the track at Riccarton a few weeks ago was met with such negative criticism, when it was presented as Good 3..... And the 1400m races were run in 1.24 and 1.23.... whilst Ashburton, yesterday, was presented as a Good 3 with 1400m races run in 1.22 and 1.23 ... Both of these meetings appear to have presented a very similar pattern of track and times.... Yet the Riccarton meeting was meet with universal condemnation and vitriol, in stark contrast to the praise that seems to have been heaped on Ashburton..... Can anyone avail me of an explanation as to why there are such diverse reactions to such apparently comparable situations... It is an interesting question. The main critic of Riccarton has just posted on Facebook extolling the virtues of Ashburton. I too can't see the difference but someone with more knowledge - maybe @Freda - might know more. It couldn't be that CW has some sort of agenda. Or could it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 2 hours ago, Executioner said: In no way am I being critical, as I don't have the knowledge to do so.... This post is just a plea for an explanation, as I am a great racing fan but I do not possess any knowledge as to track presentations or variations etc.... My query is to why the track at Riccarton a few weeks ago was met with such negative criticism, when it was presented as Good 3..... And the 1400m races were run in 1.24 and 1.23.... whilst Ashburton, yesterday, was presented as a Good 3 with 1400m races run in 1.22 and 1.23 ... Both of these meetings appear to have presented a very similar pattern of track and times.... Yet the Riccarton meeting was meet with universal condemnation and vitriol, in stark contrast to the praise that seems to have been heaped on Ashburton..... Can anyone avail me of an explanation as to why there are such diverse reactions to such apparently comparable situations... Because it's not about the ratings or times, it's about the surfaces and soil structure which are nowhere near comparable. The Riccarton track has been the subject of such widespread criticism on and off for 30 years. It's not a new phenomenon. Here's a pic of it I took a few weeks ago. Holes everywhere filled with dirt and a bit of grass seed, never put back properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 I was away two weeks ago (watching one race at Hastings) so I wasn't aware there was widespread criticism of Riccarton. I certainly didn't see anything mentioned on here. Was it a bad track that day? I didn't see any races. Ashburton certainly seemed to favour front runners yesterday, but then again so did Te Rapa, Rosehill and Caulfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 I'm no expert, but the difference is to do with the soil profile. Ashburton, with very limited resources, on the whole produce a decent track. They have strong nor'westers to deal with and light, free draining soil which dries out quickly. The ground down the back straight yesterday was pretty dry but the home straight looked level with a reasonable sole of grass. Upgraded from 4 to 3 after consultation with jockeys. Riccarton has permanent track staff but the compacted nature of the soil makes for an unforgiving surface with no yield for the horses. As well there is an unfortunate history of track ratings not being overly accurate and maintenance not pleasing many. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 1 hour ago, Pete Lane said: It is an interesting question. The main critic of Riccarton has just posted on Facebook extolling the virtues of Ashburton. I too can't see the difference but someone with more knowledge - maybe @Freda - might know more. It couldn't be that CW has some sort of agenda. Or could it? Isn't that your answer for everything Lane? That there is "some sort of agenda"? Yes there is a an agenda and that is to draw attention to the state of the race track surfaces at Riccarton. There are many issues. One is the inconsistency and variability across both tracks. Another is the accurate reporting of the turf track firmness. I have real doubts that Riccarton was only a Good 4 raceday morning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted October 13 Share Posted October 13 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Isn't that your answer for everything Lane? That there is "some sort of agenda"? Yes there is a an agenda and that is to draw attention to the state of the race track surfaces at Riccarton. There are many issues. One is the inconsistency and variability across both tracks. Another is the accurate reporting of the turf track firmness. I have real doubts that Riccarton was only a Good 4 raceday morning. I think if CW and many others have an agenda it's as above, or perhaps to uncover the cover-up and non-transparent agenda that we see from some clubs and other authorities. I don't think he actually had a particular problem with the track on the 28th other than it was much firmer than advertised. He won a race after-all. He was condemning of the track produced for the jump-outs there 2 days later however, and rightly so imo. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lane Posted October 13 Share Posted October 13 4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Isn't that your answer for everything Lane? That there is "some sort of agenda"? Yes there is a an agenda and that is to draw attention to the state of the race track surfaces at Riccarton. There are many issues. One is the inconsistency and variability across both tracks. Another is the accurate reporting of the turf track firmness. I have real doubts that Riccarton was only a Good 4 raceday morning. I actually asked a decent question Graham. Your reply is at your usual level. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 13 Share Posted October 13 23 minutes ago, Pete Lane said: I actually asked a decent question Graham. Your reply is at your usual level. Really Lane? You posed a nonsense question. The same nonsense question you frequently post. If you had bothered to read the discussion about the Riccarton Track that has been happening for at least 10 years you'd fully understand what the problem is. The introduction of the AWT has exacerbated the problems as now the available resources are stretched even thinner. Quite frankly you appear to have little understanding of any of the issues facing those that provide the product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lane Posted October 13 Share Posted October 13 God you really are a tosser. Keep talking amongst yourself with your alter egos. Bye. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 13 Share Posted October 13 1 hour ago, curious said: I don't think he actually had a particular problem with the track on the 28th other than it was much firmer than advertised. He won a race after-all. He was condemning of the track produced for the jump-outs there 2 days later however, and rightly so imo. Yes in my opinion and from what I've heard the track ratings were well off. Yes you would expect a kinder track for jump-outs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 13 Share Posted October 13 20 minutes ago, Pete Lane said: God you really are a tosser. Keep talking amongst yourself with your alter egos. Bye. What do you expect? You ask the same dumb question on multiple sites with the inference that Colin Wightman has some nefarious agenda. The fact is he is concerned about the state of the two racing tracks at Riccarton on which his sizeable investment in bloodstock will race. It's a shame that many trainers and owners also affected feel too intimidated to publicly agree with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted October 13 Share Posted October 13 1 hour ago, Pete Lane said: I actually asked a decent question Graham. Your reply is at your usual level. Oops. Didn't mean to like that. I thought that CS's reply was a decent answer to your decent question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 In this age of health & safety, and animal welfare, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect properly prepared track surfaces that have consistent penetrometer readings track to track. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray Fish Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 13 hours ago, Special Agent said: In this age of health & safety, and animal welfare, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect properly prepared track surfaces that have consistent penetrometer readings track to track. Not unreasonable, but rather difficult! Surly the big city clubs are in a better position to deliver? Seriously, more and more, who would and to put their hands up to be a Track Manager Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 I guess it's alright if you are left to do your job without anyone poking their nose in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 26 minutes ago, Special Agent said: I guess it's alright if you are left to do your job without anyone poking their nose in. Only if you have sufficient resources to do your job. Most Track Managers are working with SFA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 Yes granted but NZTR are providing relevant machinery these days. I don't know staffing levels across the country, at some tracks there seems to be ample. There are courses track managers are sent on as well. Now it sounds like I am sticking up for NZTR and clubs, which I am not. The Awapuni and Riccarton synthetic tracks at the very least should be disposed of. Feedback from the latest Awapuni meeting is at least two bowed tendons. As they are not deaths they won't figure on many reports. More trainers vowing never again. Shame they didn't make that declaration earlier. Many trainers still send their horses out without checking the surfaces they will be racing on in advance. Owners are paying for and relying on their trainer's expertise and advice. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 3 hours ago, Special Agent said: Feedback from the latest Awapuni meeting is at least two bowed tendons. As they are not deaths they won't figure on many reports. More trainers vowing never again. Shame they didn't make that declaration earlier. I've been told the Awapuni and other CD trainers didn't want the track in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 3 hours ago, Special Agent said: Yes granted but NZTR are providing relevant machinery these days. Where is the evidence of that? It would appear that the relevant machinery wasn't being used at Riccarton. At least not until recently when some people started blowing whistles. 3 hours ago, Special Agent said: I don't know staffing levels across the country, at some tracks there seems to be ample. There are courses track managers are sent on as well. But were resources increased at Awapuni and Riccarton when the AWT's were added to the workload? Those two racecourse were struggling before their addition of the AWT's. There is no evidence in the CJC accounts that additional resource was added nor that sufficient revenue has been generated to pay for any additional resource. The proof of under resourcing is clearly evident with the poor track outcomes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Where is the evidence of that? It would appear that the relevant machinery wasn't being used at Riccarton. At least not until recently when some people started blowing whistles. But were resources increased at Awapuni and Riccarton when the AWT's were added to the workload? Those two racecourse were struggling before their addition of the AWT's. Seemingly not. We were told that track fee increases were unlikely as there were fewer tracks to maintain. It has been pointed out that staff numbers are unchanged...i.e. no less. Don't think any more either, with four working tracks to look after cf 15. There is no evidence in the CJC accounts that additional resource was added nor that sufficient revenue has been generated to pay for any additional resource. The proof of under resourcing is clearly evident with the poor track outcomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 Ashburton track well presented again...and Timaru stables to the fore. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 7 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: I've been told the Awapuni and other CD trainers didn't want the track in the first place. Absolute FACT. RACE have local trainers who rent facilities over a barrel. These trainers are reluctant to speak out or even ask questions in case they do a "Gary Vile" on them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 15 minutes ago, Special Agent said: Absolute FACT. RACE have local trainers who rent facilities over a barrel. These trainers are reluctant to speak out or even ask questions in case they do a "Gary Vile" on them. It seems the NZTR/club strategy is to not listen in the first place, then to shut them up by any means possible that they deem necessary. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojan Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 46 minutes ago, curious said: It seems the NZTR/club strategy is to not listen in the first place, then to shut them up by any means possible that they deem necessary. Yes and now they have their staff fighting a rear guard action on Facebook in response to recent concerns raised about the Synthetic Tracks. 2 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.