Otaki 22 February 2025 - Abandoned after race 1.

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, curious said:

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?

Ask Ellerslie.

[Special Agent]

There's an example of any amount of walking the track, jumpouts and trials being quite different to race day.  The track had the clean bill of health from all concerned before a disastrous return to racing.

[curious]

6 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Ask Ellerslie.

Would they know? To me, if I ride a gallop on the rail, the curve to straight angle is greater, whereas if the markers are on the outside, the turn is tighter. Or is that my imagination? If true though, then moving the rail out will always make the corner more difficult to negotiate, so why would you do that if the turn and rail position was correctly designed in the first place?

[Special Agent]

Checks and balances need to be stringent and opinions need to be sought from all, not a selection.

[curious]

2 minutes ago, curious said:

Would they know? To me, if I ride a gallop on the rail, the curve to straight angle is greater, whereas if the markers are on the outside, the turn is tighter. Or is that my imagination? If true though, then moving the rail out will always make the corner more difficult to negotiate, so why would you do that if the turn and rail position was correctly designed in the first place?

And fwiw, Google agrees with me.

A larger radius results in a smaller curve to straight radius angle, and vice versa

[Chief Stipe]

If you move the rail out evenly all round the track then then bend is easier to negotiate as long as you shorten the straight.

[Chief Stipe]

56 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

There's an example of any amount of walking the track, jumpouts and trials being quite different to race day.  The track had the clean bill of health from all concerned before a disastrous return to racing.

Then what was wrong with the protocols?  Hell if all the Jockey experts throught the track was OK how does the Track Manager work it out?  

[Chief Stipe]

Instead of blaming everyone why don't we all admit that all our tracks are fundamentally stuffed. 

[Special Agent]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Instead of blaming everyone why don't we all admit that all our tracks are fundamentally stuffed. 

I don't think you can cut corners and I think Flemington set a pretty good standard with how they maintain and rejuvenate the track after every Spring Carnival.  All tracks should be looked after in the same manner.

[Special Agent]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Then what was wrong with the protocols?  Hell if all the Jockey experts throught the track was OK how does the Track Manager work it out?  

I heard all these great comments about Ellerslie from jockeys interviewed in the media.  All the stuff we all wanted to hear.  However, I know that not every jockey who rode at trials on the Ellerslie surface were asked.  Some in that group were not so brimming with compliments and had some helpful critiques.  Everyone who is licensed to ride by NZTR must have some form of experience so, to be excluded from any discussion is short sighted.

In hindsight the rush to get back racing at Ellerslie should have been tempered by further trialling to take any hint of imperfection out of the equation.

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

I don't think you can cut corners and I think Flemington set a pretty good standard with how they maintain and rejuvenate the track after every Spring Carnival.  All tracks should be looked after in the same manner.

Correct but it is an expensive exercise.  I draw up a plan once that involved treating our tracks like they were a group of pasture paddocks or crop fields and arranging a rotation plan.  So for example the CD could have 6 main tracks and any one year one track was under going soil rejuvenation and the other 5 carried the races.

Some tracks were wide enough to split in two and so shorten the cycle.

Even Flemington has to have a full rest occasionally.

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

However, I know that not every jockey who rode at trials on the Ellerslie surface were asked.  Some in that group were not so brimming with compliments and had some helpful critiques. 

There is a lot of looking the other way at the moment.  

[Chief Stipe]

10 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

In hindsight the rush to get back racing at Ellerslie should have been tempered by further trialling to take any hint of imperfection out of the equation.

 But there are two fundamental issues with Ellerslie - one was long standing - the shape and camber which wasn't fixed in order to "keep the iconic shape".  I also think they didn't shift the 2400m shute because of commercial income reasons.

The second issue is they basically have a hydroponic grass growing system.  It is pure sand with a dash of moss (the moss decays very quickly and anyone knows who has added it their garden - it oxidises) and some plastic mesh.  No wonder the grass roots matt across the top.  How economical or even practical is it to pour 45mm of water on the track with 48 hours of race time, tyne and verti-drain the surface twice in the week prior to raceday in order to create a forgiving surface that the horses can get their hooves into! 

[Special Agent]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

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!

I can't argue with statistics but, if I think about some areas where tracks are not being used it's hard for my brain to make sense of them.  On the West Coast and in Marlborough there are four tracks less with the non-use of Westport, Hokitika, Nelson and Blenheim.  In Canterbury there's no Rangiora, Motukarara or Orari and infrequent use of Washdyke and/or Ashburton (whichever one, sorry I've been out in the sun and a bit hot and giddy).  Otago/Southland has lost Waimate, Waikouaiti, Oamakau, Winton I think is only trots, and there will be more.  Central has had some tracks only open for some of the months in each year like Trentham, Hastings, Wanganui, Awapuni, New Plymouth and tracks not being raced on include Foxton, Levin, Feilding, Wairoa, Gisborne, Waipukurau, Bulls, Marton, Stratford (some of these may be more than 30 years ago).  In the north I can think of Dargaville, Paeroa, Waipa, Avondale, Thames, Te Teko but, there may be others including Te Aroha that was out for ages.

So, please excuse me but I still think that's less tracks taking the racing load.

[Special Agent]

15 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Correct but it is an expensive exercise.

Who would ever think these systems would be cheap?

I guess the question is what is the value of keeping horse and rider safe so racing can be a competitive enjoyable sport for all?

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

On the West Coast and in Marlborough there are four tracks less with the non-use of Westport, Hokitika, Nelson and Blenheim.

From a Thoroughbred perspective those tracks lost trainers years ago.  None of them going has put pressure on those that are left.  Especially with the decline in horse numbers.  With respect to Hokitika the only benefit racing wise was the opportunity to shift a meeting easily if one of the other West Coast tracks couldn't run theirs for some reason.  Although there was very little inclination or co-operation to do that.  The biggest loss from any track loss is the lack of access to the sport by a wider community.

11 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

In Canterbury there's no Rangiora, Motukarara or Orari and infrequent use of Washdyke and/or Ashburton (whichever one, sorry I've been out in the sun and a bit hot and giddy).  Otago/Southland has lost Waimate, Waikouaiti, Oamakau, Winton I think is only trots, and there will be more.  Central has had some tracks only open for some of the months in each year like Trentham, Hastings, Wanganui, Awapuni, New Plymouth and tracks not being raced on include Foxton, Levin, Feilding, Wairoa, Gisborne, Waipukurau, Bulls, Marton, Stratford (some of these may be more than 30 years ago).  In the north I can think of Dargaville, Paeroa, Waipa, Avondale, Thames, Te Teko but, there may be others including Te Aroha that was out for ages.

I'm not going to go through each of those but many still provide trial, jumpout and workout facilities as well as training.  There isn't the horse numbers to support all of them with race meetings no matter how nostalgic you want to be.

 

15 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

So, please excuse me but I still think that's less tracks taking the racing load.

But if horse numbers have halved so has the racing load.

Hell there used to be 100 race courses in NZ a bit like there was a pub every 20km because that's about as far as you wanted to ride a horse each day.

[Special Agent]

I think you are skirting around the point.

With tracks closed or not available due to maintenance, there are definitely not enough tracks to provide decent racing surfaces on a regular basis.

[Huey]

50 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

I think you are skirting around the point.

With tracks closed or not available due to maintenance, there are definitely not enough tracks to provide decent racing surfaces on a regular basis.

Exactly , the too many tracks argument makes no sense at all. 

Balcombe didn't give any degree of certainty around a plan to resuscitate the industry with regards to tracks, get as many as possible up to racing standards and use them or prepared to be very embarrassed again and again.

[Chief Stipe]

51 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

I think you are skirting around the point.

With tracks closed or not available due to maintenance, there are definitely not enough tracks to provide decent racing surfaces on a regular basis.

I disagree.  There are more than enough tracks to provide decent racing surfaces.  How many race meetings should a track hold per year to be financially viable and how many meetings should a track be able to sustain per year? 

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, Huey said:

Exactly , the too many tracks argument makes no sense at all. 

Does the "Not enough horses argument"  make any sense?

3 minutes ago, Huey said:

Balcombe didn't give any degree of certainty around a plan to resuscitate the industry with regards to tracks, get as many as possible up to racing standards and use them or prepared to be very embarrassed again and again.

They don't have a plan nor can they fund the necessary capital works.  They abandoned the 2023/24 plan to upgrade Riccartons irrigation - has that gone ahead and at what cost?

[Huey]

16 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Does the "Not enough horses argument"  make any sense?

They don't have a plan nor can they fund the necessary capital works.  They abandoned the 2023/24 plan to upgrade Riccartons irrigation - has that gone ahead and at what cost?

Exactly no plan.

They have enough horses because they aren't getting a run on the allocated tracks.

[Special Agent]

4 minutes ago, Huey said:

They have enough horses because they aren't getting a run on the allocated tracks.

Trainers shouldn't be forced out of their area to get a run, nor should they have to run on tracks they don't want to.  It depends upon how many starts you give each horse in a campaign too.

Like beating the old familiar drum, a lot of this could be solved by decent programming.

[Huey]

9 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Trainers shouldn't be forced out of their area to get a run, nor should they have to run on tracks they don't want to.  It depends upon how many starts you give each horse in a campaign too.

Like beating the old familiar drum, a lot of this could be solved by decent programming.

They don't seem to worry about that in the SI.

[Special Agent]

27 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

How many race meetings should a track hold per year to be financially viable and how many meetings should a track be able to sustain per year? 

That depends on the dates you get.

Kumara, Cromwell and Tauherenikau have good days with good turnovers.  A club could be financially viable with just 1, 2 or 3 days with the right circumstances.  If your track is also accommodating training or you have full time all year round staff and mainly industry days with poor crowds likelihood is you go broke.

The number of meetings is the same, dependent on what days you are allocated.  Three meetings close together, or in the winter might not work but if your track is picking up the slack from the abandoned meetings it is definitely going to suffer.

[Special Agent]

I think admin people just like the sound of centralisation because they can't even make it work on a small scale.