Track Declarations & Retrospective Upgrades

[jess]

Just wondering if someone can explain a situation I've seen a bit of lately - where a track is upgraded early in the card & said to be "retrospective to Race 1".  Is this because the track is tested early in the day & then by start of racing time it's dried out?  I get it that in the course of the day during the races, a track can dry out to a better rating, but it seems strange that an accurate track rating for Race 1 couldn't be declared BEFORE the start of Race 1?  But maybe I'm missing something ... 

Maybe this will be what happens at Otaki tomorrow.  Now have I got this right - irrigation was planned last night (Friday) but in the end - was not carried out?  But despite bugger all irrigation & no rain for a week + hot sunny weather - we still somehow have a Soft 5?  Do you guys feel satisfied we get the full & the correct facts on these tracks?   

 

[SLB2.0]

It's very stupid. Te Rapa is Soft 5 atm, and it's dry as a bone in the Waikato.

Why can't we race on a good 4? And yes, the track will get upgraded to a Good 4 after the first, which again, applies stupidity.

[Freda]

40 minutes ago, jess said:

 

 

 Do you guys feel satisfied we get the full & the correct facts on these tracks?  

 

No.

[jess]

3 minutes ago, SLB2.0 said:

It's very stupid. Te Rapa is Soft 5 atm, and it's dry as a bone in the Waikato.

Why can't we race on a good 4? And yes, the track will get upgraded to a Good 4 after the first, which again, applies stupidity.

Yep thanks SLB.  So there are 2 sides to it - what track we should have/want to have/need to have (for "insurance" purposes if showers are forecast arrive on race-day etc) - I guess everyone will have different takes on all of that.  So maybe they planned to irrigate Otaki yesterday - then at some point - the track manager (or his bosses?) pulled the pin on it (if so - arguably that should have been announced when it was decided that their actions would be different to what they'd declared?).

The other side to it - which is more what my post was aimed at - is transparency & accurate/current facts about those tracks.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I'm starting to think the racing/betting public - for whatever reason - are not getting that.  I am happy to be wrong if someone can explain it ....    

[jess]

2 minutes ago, Freda said:

No.

Heya Freda - thanks.  And ok - I'm arriving at the same conclusion - next question is - why not?

The info/decision making is all known & readily available - the means of disseminating that info in a (very) timely fashion is also available (at a few strokes of the keyboard) - so why doesn't it happen?

The more cynical version of myself has a saying - "everyone has an agenda"  - what's the agenda here - and whose is it?!

[Chief Stipe]

There have been a number of threads and posts on this Topic over the last few months.

It is clearly evident that:

1. On many (All?) tracks that the pre-raceday gallops as per the NZTR protocol is not done;
2. That a penetrometer or any other device other than a moisture meter is used on the tracks leading up to and including raceday.  Ellerslie have openly said they only test for moisture and DON'T use a penetrometer.  Other StrathAyr tracks use a Going Stick.  Ellerslie seem to have special dispensation to treat their track as an AWT;
3. The moisture meters used are probably not calibrated regularly hence readings that don't correlate with the official track ratings;
4. The track rating an hour before race 1 is often not the actual rating for the track - how can it be when no horses have galloped nor has any testing occurred.   A morning of sunshine can quickly turn a doubtful S5 into a G3!;
5. It would appear that the S5 readings are often G4.  This is probably to get around the NZTR mandate that on race morning the track should be no better than a G4;
6. Some trainers have been misled by the official ratings leading to scratchings that may not have occurred if the rating had been accurate e.g. Crocetti being scratched at Trentham when the track was reported as Soft yet raced as a Good 4 and better;
7. Jockeys have openly said after race that the official rating is wrong.  In at least one instance the Jockeys told the Stewards who refused to upgrade;
8. There are rumours that one track alters the readings taken by track staff before presenting to NZTR;
9. It is apparent that there is no QUALITY CONTROL checking by the RIB Stewards that all the protocols and measurements have been undertaken as prescribed;
10. The worst offenders are Ellerslie, Trentham and Riccarton.
11. This list could go on....

With regard to there being a conspiracy - well the choice is either between a conspiracy and a cockup.  I would go with the latter i.e. a cockup laced with some collusion.  

 

 

[curious]

8 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

There have been a number of threads and posts on this Topic over the last few months.

It is clearly evident that:

1.   This is probably to get around the NZTR mandate that on race morning the track should be no better than a G4;

Where is that mandate? Is it new? I thought it was that the track be prepared to provide a good rating for the majority of the meeting.

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, curious said:

Where is that mandate? Is it new? I thought it was that the track be prepared to provide a good rating for the majority of the meeting.

What any Good rating?  A G4 or a G3 or a G2?  OK you're probably right there isn't a mandate but I thought there was some policy.  Feel free to add to the list or correct it.  You won't get moderated for disagreeing.