Otaki 22 February 2025 - Abandoned after race 1.

[Freda]

Sadly, yes.

[Murray Fish]

6 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Probably still is but it has a crap irrigation system and the club probably can't afford to pay for the water and power to run it!

the poison chalice  Job of racing, the provincial track manager and their off sider or two! The modern bane of watering the track with a length of hose! that needs to be moved  x  distance, x amount of times, all different cambers and winds etc to deal with.  I know of one track that is prone to a wet spot, that has lead to problems! sigh, a tough day at the office for Kane today!!!

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, Murray Fish said:

the poison chalice  Job of racing, the provincial track manager and their off sider or two! The modern bane of watering the track with a length of hose! that needs to be moved  x  distance, x amount of times, all different cambers and winds etc to deal with.  I know of one track that is prone to a wet spot, that has lead to problems! sigh, a tough day at the office for Kane today!!!

Yep I suspect all of the above.  Of course the Club Exec are probably to old or too young and busy to help.

I have the utmost sympathy for all the Track Managers in NZ - they have been under-resourced for decades.

Can you image a turf track in New Zealand successfully running a meeting every Thursday for 3 and half months without an abandonment?  That's about 15 race meeting one week after another. 

Well the Hastings Track Manager managed that when the Track Manager at Pakenham in Victoria.  Over 20 years experience in track management and turf culture. 

He is only about three months into the job at Hastings and the Hawkes Bay Guineas meeting is abandoned not because of anything he did but because of decades of insufficient investment in maintenance and renovation.  The track gets closed down - the reasons why we are still not entirely sure but for at least a couple of seasons.

Then a Senior Jockey on Trackside today puts the boot in!

[Newmarket]

On this site there are trainers and ex jockeys, maybe you could answer below questions if they were asked 30 yrs ago….lets say around 1990.

1, Who made the decision to call off racing, was it mainly jockeys like today? 

2, Are the majority of  track conditions worse now than then?

3, Did the clubs, trainers & owners apply more pressure on jockeys to continue riding even if conditions not ideal? 
 

4, Compare both eras regarding track watering?

Thanks, be interesting to hear, also anything else that has changed in this timeframe that could help me understand…
 

 

 

[Special Agent]

31 minutes ago, Newmarket said:

On this site there are trainers and ex jockeys, maybe you could answer below questions if they were asked 30 yrs ago….lets say around 1990.

1, Who made the decision to call off racing, was it mainly jockeys like today? 

2, Are the majority of  track conditions worse now than then?

3, Did the clubs, trainers & owners apply more pressure on jockeys to continue riding even if conditions not ideal? 
 

4, Compare both eras regarding track watering?

Thanks, be interesting to hear, also anything else that has changed in this timeframe that could help me understand…
 

 

 

1.  Jockeys used to make up their own minds and leave the course individually if they didn't wish to ride.  You cannot make a jockey ride if they don't feel safe.  Most jockeys raced on with sheets of water coming off flooded tracks, poor visibility and freezing cold conditions.  Tracks weren't generally wet at this time of the year.  Officialdom still called the races off mostly with the consesus.

2.  Track conditions and track surfaces are different now.  The tracks are hammered nowadays.  There weren't the number of race meetings on so few tracks and hardly any trials or jumpouts.  Tracks were wetter in winter but safe.  I think there are more slippery tracks due to interfering with nature.

3.  Pressure was definitely on the jockeys then, particularly from prominent trainers, and apprentices did what they were told.  They didn't get the same opportunities so were not in a position to argue.

4.  Noel Eales did not agree with watering tracks.  I'm not sure when the over watering began but, I think influenced by Australian imports.  The rule of thumb used to be water to grow the grass, not alter the track rating/condition.

Other changes in this time frame include a softening of all people in NZ, less farming activities on tracks, administrators with NO idea taking over clubs, apprentices being able to race ride when not competent, top jockeys being exported, horses are definitely less educated presently, most horses race in aluminum plates as opposed to steel, there are a lot more foreigners riding in races, corners seem to be cut on track preparation, less horses seem to gallop on grass in training.  That's a start.  Many others can add a lot more.

[Special Agent]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Then a Senior Jockey on Trackside today puts the boot in!

Today's coverage was a new experience.  The way the footage was shown at the express wishes of Stipendiary Stewards was unusual.  Trackside Presenters were giving their opinions on such matters they would normally be told to refrain from.  Then, when emotions are running at high levels a jockey was interviewed at length, on cancellations of three different race meetings.  I'm not sure if this is part of the new protocols, and whether she was a chosen jockey representative, self appointed or selected by Trackside.

Bevin Sweeney said Jonathan Riddell asked all jockeys who rode in the first race and all were happy with the state of the track.  I think experts need to spend time reviewing footage.  I know presenters stated the horse fell free of interference.  Some points to ponder ... the horse was a first starter, it had a long stride and was in close proximity to three runners ahead of it, a clipping heel touch can be minimal and barely visible to cause a fall, the tail carriage may suggest discomfort from having struck itself prior to a further strike before falling/losing the rider, if the track was slippery why did the second horse not slip, were the slip marks before or after the fall, were there any concerns from pre-race protocols, even the presenters said they'd walked the track so how many red flags were put up at the "slipping" point?

[Wingman]

13 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

4.  Noel Eales did not agree with watering tracks.  I'm not sure when the over watering began but, I think influenced by Australian imports.  The rule of thumb used to be water to grow the grass, not alter the track rating/condition.

Other changes in this time frame include a softening of all people in NZ, less farming activities on tracks, administrators with NO idea taking over clubs, apprentices being able to race ride when not competent, top jockeys being exported, horses are definitely less educated presently, most horses race in aluminum plates as opposed to steel, there are a lot more foreigners riding in races, corners seem to be cut on track preparation, less horses seem to gallop on grass in training.  That's a start.  Many others can add a lot more.

This is what I like about this site, Popeye asked some valid questions and may I say Special Agent you have answered in an excellent manner without derision.

To add to what Special Agent said, Noel Eales was a master trainer who not only disagreed with watering but also did not agree with moving the rail. Kate Hercock in her interview today after the abandoned Otaki meeting said as much about moving the rail. In short, "move it and we will still go wider if we think that's best so leave us, the jockeys to do what we are paid to".

If only the suits would pay attention!

Back to watering where I both agree/disagree with Mr Eales is Summertime racing. I think it was sometime in the nineties that Trentham did not water for their summer meeting and one of the days racing was on a rock hard track leaving most runners jarred up.

I was livid a year ago as to the over watering of the Otaki track for the G1, today raced at Ellerslie, however I have no problem with watering through to Wednesday night prior to a Saturday meeting. Nature then decides what will be. 

The real problem, excluding lack of investment towards track wellbeing, is the suits deciding that a uniform soft 5, previously, a dead track, prior to that an easy track, must be presented at all times. They want vanilla, we want variety and given variety is the spice of life that is why the suits in charge are rapidly pushing the industry towards the sunset.  

[Shab]

New guy going to be earning a bit of his million a year sorting this out.

Maybe Entain can put up some new markets with odds for us to bet on in the meantime - no abandonment, abandonment after race 1, race 2, race 3......

[Freda]

5 hours ago, Special Agent said:

1.  Jockeys used to make up their own minds and leave the course individually if they didn't wish to ride.  You cannot make a jockey ride if they don't feel safe.  Most jockeys raced on with sheets of water coming off flooded tracks, poor visibility and freezing cold conditions.  Tracks weren't generally wet at this time of the year.  Officialdom still called the races off mostly with the consesus.

2.  Track conditions and track surfaces are different now.  The tracks are hammered nowadays.  There weren't the number of race meetings on so few tracks and hardly any trials or jumpouts.  Tracks were wetter in winter but safe.  I think there are more slippery tracks due to interfering with nature.

3.  Pressure was definitely on the jockeys then, particularly from prominent trainers, and apprentices did what they were told.  They didn't get the same opportunities so were not in a position to argue.

4.  Noel Eales did not agree with watering tracks.  I'm not sure when the over watering began but, I think influenced by Australian imports.  The rule of thumb used to be water to grow the grass, not alter the track rating/condition.

Other changes in this time frame include a softening of all people in NZ, less farming activities on tracks, administrators with NO idea taking over clubs, apprentices being able to race ride when not competent, top jockeys being exported, horses are definitely less educated presently, most horses race in aluminum plates as opposed to steel, there are a lot more foreigners riding in races, corners seem to be cut on track preparation, less horses seem to gallop on grass in training.  That's a start.  Many others can add a lot more.

Excellent analysis. 

I will add that one major difference between 'then' and 'now' is the H&S laws which affect us all, not just in racing.

[Freda]

16 hours ago, Special Agent said:

Thanks for the alternate view of the race which showed no clipping of heels.  Could you be absolutely sure the horse hasn't struck itself as a cause to fall?  Evidently riders reported to Jonathan Riddell they felt no problems with the track.

No surface or running rail problems were detected prior to racing, and a different situation to the day before at Wanganui where there were heavy downpours at intervals.

I couldn't see a heel clip either, although it can be very hard to pick.  It looked to me as if the horse lost its back end first.    Your observation about the unusual tail carriage might be relevant?

[Newmarket]

7 hours ago, Special Agent said:

1.  Jockeys used to make up their own minds and leave the course individually if they didn't wish to ride.  You cannot make a jockey ride if they don't feel safe.  Most jockeys raced on with sheets of water coming off flooded tracks, poor visibility and freezing cold conditions.  Tracks weren't generally wet at this time of the year.  Officialdom still called the races off mostly with the consesus.

2.  Track conditions and track surfaces are different now.  The tracks are hammered nowadays.  There weren't the number of race meetings on so few tracks and hardly any trials or jumpouts.  Tracks were wetter in winter but safe.  I think there are more slippery tracks due to interfering with nature.

3.  Pressure was definitely on the jockeys then, particularly from prominent trainers, and apprentices did what they were told.  They didn't get the same opportunities so were not in a position to argue.

4.  Noel Eales did not agree with watering tracks.  I'm not sure when the over watering began but, I think influenced by Australian imports.  The rule of thumb used to be water to grow the grass, not alter the track rating/condition.

Other changes in this time frame include a softening of all people in NZ, less farming activities on tracks, administrators with NO idea taking over clubs, apprentices being able to race ride when not competent, top jockeys being exported, horses are definitely less educated presently, most horses race in aluminum plates as opposed to steel, there are a lot more foreigners riding in races, corners seem to be cut on track preparation, less horses seem to gallop on grass in training.  That's a start.  Many others can add a lot more.

Thanks

[Newmarket]

6 hours ago, Wingman said:

This is what I like about this site, Popeye asked some valid questions and may I say Special Agent you have answered in an excellent manner without derision.

To add to what Special Agent said, Noel Eales was a master trainer who not only disagreed with watering but also did not agree with moving the rail. Kate Hercock in her interview today after the abandoned Otaki meeting said as much about moving the rail. In short, "move it and we will still go wider if we think that's best so leave us, the jockeys to do what we are paid to".

If only the suits would pay attention!

Back to watering where I both agree/disagree with Mr Eales is Summertime racing. I think it was sometime in the nineties that Trentham did not water for their summer meeting and one of the days racing was on a rock hard track leaving most runners jarred up.

I was livid a year ago as to the over watering of the Otaki track for the G1, today raced at Ellerslie, however I have no problem with watering through to Wednesday night prior to a Saturday meeting. Nature then decides what will be. 

The real problem, excluding lack of investment towards track wellbeing, is the suits deciding that a uniform soft 5, previously, a dead track, prior to that an easy track, must be presented at all times. They want vanilla, we want variety and given variety is the spice of life that is why the suits in charge are rapidly pushing the industry towards the sunset.  

Thanks

 

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, Special Agent said:

The tracks are hammered nowadays.  There weren't the number of race meetings on so few tracks and hardly any trials or jumpouts. 

That's not correct.  25 years ago there were over 5,000 Thoroughbred foals registered - last year barely close to half that.

Between 2016 and 2024 there have been 100 less races at 2459 races.

50 Tracks were used in the 23/24 season for Racemeetings, Trials, Trackwork and Jumpouts.  That doesn't include the 3 Synthetic Tracks.

If we take some liberty with the total races held in 23/24 and assume that the Calendar Year for 2024 was the same number (I don't have time to count exactly) then of the 2,459 races 236 were held on the Synthetic Tracks.

Arguably taking all the above into consideration - the tracks are not getting hammered today.  As I argue they were hammered 20 to 30 years ago and no investment was done on renovation.  That said a lot of money was spent on facilities for track attendees!

[Chief Stipe]

13 hours ago, Murray Fish said:

the poison chalice  Job of racing, the provincial track manager and their off sider or two! The modern bane of watering the track with a length of hose! that needs to be moved  x  distance, x amount of times, all different cambers and winds etc to deal with.  I know of one track that is prone to a wet spot, that has lead to problems! sigh, a tough day at the office for Kane today!!!

That said @Murray Fish the Otaki racecourse irrigation system was upgraded in 2023.   

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, Special Agent said:

4.  Noel Eales did not agree with watering tracks.  I'm not sure when the over watering began but, I think influenced by Australian imports.  The rule of thumb used to be water to grow the grass, not alter the track rating/condition.

I disagree.  In  my opinion they haven't been irrigated enough nor in the right quanitity at the right times.  Often it is too little too late and field water capacity is left to get too low too often.  The only reason I can think of for that is the expense of purchasing the water and cost of irrigation - power and labour.  I hope Ellerslie have a good deal with the council for their water needs!

Even your average pasture farmer knows that pasture species during drought will be overtaken by hardier weed species.  

If you don't irrigate you will end up with patchy turf.  Noel Eales only needed to review the photos on his wall of the state of some tracks particularly Trentham when races were run on them 40 to 60 years ago.

As for the track rating - I remember when a horse I had a share in won the Taranaki Cup nearly 20 years ago.  The track was rated a F1.  Her galloping style suited hard tracks and she fair skipped across the ground however many horses went home that day jarred up.  It would be interesting to see the longevity of the horses that raced that day.  So I have no problem with them aiming for a G4 on raceday morning.  What I do have an issue with is when they BS the ratings as we have seen at Trentham this season.

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, Special Agent said:

Then, when emotions are running at high levels a jockey was interviewed at length, on cancellations of three different race meetings.  I'm not sure if this is part of the new protocols, and whether she was a chosen jockey representative, self appointed or selected by Trackside.

I personally think it was wrong to have broadcast that interview.  Now we have Jockeys who are experts on track management.  Really?

How many still walk the track, their place of work before they go to work on it?  On the occasions that I have had to be on course early in recent years the only Jockeys that I've seen walking the track pre-race have been apprentices (must be in their curriculum) and OZZIE visitors.

Hercocks comments about the Wanganui rail placement is interesting and I didn't get what she was on about.  Do you know @Special Agent ?  What she was suggesting was leave the rail in the true position and let the Jockey's decide where to race.  Um given very few of them or their agents walk the track how to do they decide and when do they decide where to ride?  After race 1 or race 2?

Also if they decide to not run on the inside because it is soft or rough then how is that different from the Track Manager placing the rail out?

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, Wingman said:

To add to what Special Agent said, Noel Eales was a master trainer who not only disagreed with watering but also did not agree with moving the rail. Kate Hercock in her interview today after the abandoned Otaki meeting said as much about moving the rail. In short, "move it and we will still go wider if we think that's best so leave us, the jockeys to do what we are paid to".

Would agree if the Jockeys made the effort to walk the track before race start.  Jockeys can't have it both ways.  They expect the track to presented as safe to ride on but if the track manager decides that the inside is not safe and puts the rail out then the Jockeys will decide.

Ironically of course there wasn't a unanimous opinion at Hawkes Bay to abandon.  Far from it.  Probably the reason for the individual vote protocol however what happens if 51% want to ride?  Does the meeting continue?

[Special Agent]

3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Ironically of course there wasn't a unanimous opinion at Hawkes Bay to abandon.  Far from it.  Probably the reason for the individual vote protocol however what happens if 51% want to ride?  Does the meeting continue?

I think the Stewards have the overriding decision to abandon as they are in charge of the meeting.

[Special Agent]

12 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Hercocks comments about the Wanganui rail placement is interesting and I didn't get what she was on about.  Do you know @Special Agent ?

I guess this demonstrates how walking the track and riding the track can be two different things.

Of the jockeys I have spoken to the Wanganui rail definitely throws the horses out (or in).  Check out the Stipes Report and marry it up with the replays and you will see those that hit the running rail.  At first look you might blame the jockey but, if the jockeys are correct the rail alignment would seem a valid excuse.  Also take into account these are animals, not cars.

Of other tracks in central, the Awapuni synthetic is another with a rail alignment problem.  Jockeys definitely need their wits about them, especially if sitting two or three back on the fence.  From what I can gather the riders have to give themselves a bit of room when racing at Awapuni, as a safety measure.  As Kate was explaining, jockeys work these things out for themselves quickly and quietly.

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Of the jockeys I have spoken to the Wanganui rail definitely throws the horses out (or in).  Check out the Stipes Report and marry it up with the replays and you will see those that hit the running rail.  At first look you might blame the jockey but, if the jockeys are correct the rail alignment would seem a valid excuse.  Also take into account these are animals, not cars.

What alignment?  Where is the rail "crooked"?

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

As Kate was explaining, jockeys work these things out for themselves quickly and quietly.

Really?  What does quietly achieve?  I suppose the Trainers are "quiet" as well?

[Special Agent]

Just to clarify, I think the synthetic tracks are an absolute waste of money and impossible for the industry to fund the upkeep of, and I do not believe the Awapuni surface is of a sufficient quality to be racing and working horses safely on.

However, of the three artificial tracks currently in operation Awapuni appears to get the tick from the jockeys to ride on.  It's like a greyhound track but, maybe the camber is okay.  The field size should never be increased as a safety imperative and apprentice jockeys should be mindful of everything and everyone around them.

[Special Agent]

2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Really?  What does quietly achieve?  I suppose the Trainers are "quiet" as well?

I'm all about having my say if I think things are wrong but, I don't think every aspect of the industry needs a grandstanding approach.  For instance, I agree with you that yesterday's interview should not have aired.

Had the Wanganui running rail problems been addressed the public would be none the wiser.  I don't know what or if the Jockeys' Association have submitted on this issue.  If it's just a moan that has not been through correct procedure that's a perfect situation where "quickly and quietly" would have been preferred.

[Special Agent]

10 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Really?  What does quietly achieve?  I suppose the Trainers are "quiet" as well?

Ask Gary Vile what not being quiet does for your business and life.

[curious]

My geometry isn't flash. Does moving a rail out on a corner tighten the angle into the straight if it is moved out equidistant all the way round?