Reefton abandonment - 5 January 2023

[Reefton]

8 minutes ago, billy connolly said:

Sorry squire, you've got my educated opinion whether you like it or not.

Note Omakau, who I rate as the best country track in the South Island with a huge populous of holiday makers in the vicinity has been done away with altogether. Back in the racing's halcyon days more people frequented Omakau races (in great summer weather) than they did Kumara.

 

Yeah well Mark Graham said 'Opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one'. 

And as far as Omakau goes well two wrongs don't make a right but how come they lost their permit?  Reefton saved its raceday and venue by strong (and I mean strong) argument. I have no idea about the Omakau people(equally I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for them) but I had been in charge I am pretty confident it would not have been lost. 

 

[Reefton]

17 minutes ago, Muzza said:

Can't get the RIB letter to open. It does not appear to have a file extension, or is it just me. the other files are ok.

Try the previous one(its the same letter.  I couldn't get that one to open but a lot of people have

[curious]

4 hours ago, Reefton said:

The response(and further correspondence) is where it really gets frustrating

the codes safety training is the thing this prick sent me.  Couldn't find the section on how to deal with a situation where no safety issue existed

 

RIB Letter to RJC 11 1 23 re raceday abandonment 134.39 kB · 12 downloads Codes Safety Training-1.pptx 1.92 MB · 3 downloads

Three things particularly struck me in reading this response. Firstly, how could they say "At no point in any of the films is it clear that Moseley’s horse hit the horse on its outside ... there was no identifiable interference"? You can not put a horse's shoulders into a half gap without hitting a horse, in this case it is clear from the vision that contact was made with both horses. It is difficult to imagine how 3 stewards could conclude otherwise. Makes me worry that it is not just the digital steward's vision that is poor quality.

Secondly, nowhere does Mr. Clement claim that the horse slipped in the incident. The conclusion is that the horse lost its footing and went off balance, not that it slipped. He refers to the reason for abandonment being the "shifting horse".  He didn't actually say what caused the horse to go off balance.

Finally, he now adds that the other reason for abandonment was the inconsistent track surface. If it were inconsistent to a point of being unsafe then surely the core sampling, penetrometer readings and physical inspections would have indicated this and they should have abandoned the meeting BEFORE race 1. Instead, despite this knowledge that the track was unsafe, they have again put horses and riders health and safety at serious risk before deciding to abandon.

 

[curious]

Sorry, meant to post this.

[Muzza]

48 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Try the previous one(its the same letter.  I couldn't get that one to open but a lot of people have

Thanks Brian. Managed to open it as a word docx.

[Reefton]

27 minutes ago, curious said:

Three things particularly struck me in reading this response. Firstly, how could they say "At no point in any of the films is it clear that Moseley’s horse hit the horse on its outside ... there was no identifiable interference"? You can not put a horse's shoulders into a half gap without hitting a horse, in this case it is clear from the vision that contact was made with both horses. It is difficult to imagine how 3 stewards could conclude otherwise. Makes me worry that it is not just the digital steward's vision that is poor quality.

Secondly, nowhere does Mr. Clement claim that the horse slipped in the incident. The conclusion is that the horse lost its footing and went off balance, not that it slipped. He refers to the reason for abandonment being the "shifting horse".  He didn't actually say what caused the horse to go off balance.

Finally, he now adds that the other reason for abandonment was the inconsistent track surface. If it were inconsistent to a point of being unsafe then surely the core sampling, penetrometer readings and physical inspections would have indicated this and they should have abandoned the meeting BEFORE race 1. Instead, despite this knowledge that the track was unsafe, they have again put horses and riders health and safety at serious risk before deciding to abandon.

 

You Curious are not the first one to say that.  If they thought that track was inconsistent(which it most certainly was not) then why the hell did they send riders out there at all?  They took the riders into the room at least once before the races started(Jeff McLaughlin thought twice but I didn't see the second time) so what were they talking to them about?  I repeat if they had concerns why did they let them go out at all and why did they allow one horse to go out without a shoe?  A couple of people(not riders themselves) have told me that riders told them the talk was quite intimidating and how is some young kid going to react to that?  A punter backing a horse with a kid onboard lacking confidence?????   That Kelsey Hannan was absolutely desperate to find a slip mark and even suggested where the trotters had been was evidence of slipping.  That was quickly dismissed by everyone.  What she was doing there I am not sure when senior riders were still in the jockeys room but Jason Laking was not one little bit concerned about the track(he was there) and Terry Moseley seemed(in hindsight) keen to cover his arse.

Oatham rushed out there when it started to rain three quarters of an hour before the first so why did he not pick up this apparent 'inconsistency'?

The reality is he wanted to shut every one of those Coast meetings down and we were the unfortunate one.  He drove Kumara to distraction the next day(Friday) and when I saw Jeff McLaughlin on the Saturday at the races he looked like he had not slept for a week.

The track is not inconsistent because it has never been touched(dug up).  Six days before an hour of the end of the trotting meeting I had them pouring water onto that track. The forecast was for six days of 30plus degrees and possible rain either our day or the day after.  We knew the risks and we responded.  That track was beautiful and 110% ready for the weather that arrived.  There is no bigger(historical) critic of that track than David Walsh and he had no complaints. Oatham was quite rude to Mouse McCann, who I took into the room with me, dismissing his views out of hand.  Mouse only rode around there 300 times so I don't suppose he would have any idea.

Why does anyone waste their time preparing tracks and venues when this sort of shit happens?  Quite apart from the Club what about the stakeholders carting horses from far and wide?  It is just a frigging joke.

[Reefton]

The next RIB letter back to us

RIB Response re abandonment 01 02 23.docx

[muzenza365]

I rode at Reefton for many years and i can honestly say that i enjoyed riding there and the other 3 Coast tracks also.

The reason i enjoyed riding there amongst other reasons,is a horse could win there as long as it had some basic speed, this led to many winners winning there, whereas they couldn't win at Riccarton,so in my opinion, there is clearly a place for tracks with a circumference like Reefton.

Just on passing,I Flying View got beaten there before he won the Telegraph and Brutus also ran there and then went on to win the Malbro Mile, so many quality horses have used Reefton to get ready for bigger assignments.

Another excellent aspect is how close the action is to the public.

What i have read here clearly suggests that Reefton has been the subject of bias by the RIU and I believe the response from the RIU is weak and appears to me to be covering their a##se.

It is clear to me that the incident was attributed to the rider angling out to force Laking's horse out, could not do it and slipped then angle back to rail and went on to win the race, also have you ever tried to run in a race with one shoe on, you would not have any rhythm and would be unbalanced, how this horse was allowed to start, minus a back plate is simply unbelievable and would, without doubt, contributed to the horse slipping for a stride and the outward movement by the winning horse was the sole reason why this incident happened, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRACK.

I have also watched the race on numerous occasions and i cannot see any horse slipping throughout the race.

[Reefton]

11 minutes ago, muzenza365 said:

I rode at Reefton for many years and i can honestly say that i enjoyed riding there and the other 3 Coast tracks also.

The reason i enjoyed riding there amongst other reasons,is a horse could win there as long as it had some basic speed, this led to many winners winning there, whereas they couldn't win at Riccarton,so in my opinion, there is clearly a place for tracks with a circumference like Reefton.

Just on passing,I Flying View got beaten there before he won the Telegraph and Brutus also ran there and then went on to win the Malbro Mile, so many quality horses have used Reefton to get ready for bigger assignments.

Another excellent aspect is how close the action is to the public.

What i have read here clearly suggests that Reefton has been the subject of bias by the RIU and I believe the response from the RIU is weak and appears to me to be covering their a##se.

It is clear to me that the incident was attributed to the rider angling out to force Laking's horse out, could not do it and slipped then angle back to rail and went on to win the race, also have you ever tried to run in a race with one shoe on, you would not have any rhythm and would be unbalanced, how this horse was allowed to start, minus a back plate is simply unbelievable and would, without doubt, contributed to the horse slipping for a stride and the outward movement by the winning horse was the sole reason why this incident happened, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRACK.

I have also watched the race on numerous occasions and i cannot see any horse slipping throughout the race.

You pulled one of those Reefton Trentham stunts yourself did you not Morty?  You and the late great John Carran had a horse called Meadowlands(?) that won at Reefton then cleaned up during Cup week?

It's a long way from a great racetrack but you are dead right the action is bloody close.  And it most certainly has not proven an unsafe venue over my time.  A horse called Brave Jack lost its life there but it was a simple misfortune and one of Pitty's (I think) fell there three or four years back after clipping heels, and there was the spectacular pilot error Raelene Fraser incident after the finish.  Prior to that I reckon Mouse falling off on the bend out of the straight thirty years ago?

I am not particularly proud of the track itself but I am proud of the way it is prepared and presented  and when the likes of John Oatham turn up and make a prick of themselves it pisses me off

 

 

[Doomed]

I would be fascinated to hear what those people who criticise Reefton think of Moonee Valley. Every race I saw from the Valley on Saturday the horse leading for home ran away and won easily. Give me Reefton any day.

I think if Reefton was to put on a $2m slot race it could be a great success. The TAB might even sponsor it.

[Reefton]

14 minutes ago, Doomed said:

I would be fascinated to hear what those people who criticise Reefton think of Moonee Valley. Every race I saw from the Valley on Saturday the horse leading for home ran away and won easily. Give me Reefton any day.

I think if Reefton was to put on a $2m slot race it could be a great success. The TAB might even sponsor it.

Well different tracks suit different types of horses.  Morty spoke of Flying View.  Won multiple races on the Coast but not sure he ever won one at Riccarton(though won the Telegraph so big courses held no fears for him)

Back in the seventies and eighties there were tons of horses that suited the Coast and/or the provincials.  My memory is mainly of the sprinters - the likes of Strad, Eros, Te Pango Nui, Great Blaze, Hi Roona.  None of them were terribly effective at Riccarton but the Coast suited them.  Of course there were tons more meetings over here and at the likes of Geraldine, Bank Peninsula, Nelson, Blenheim or wherever.  Racing went to the people and the people went to the races!

[Reefton]

My response to that RIB letter.  I was tired of Clement and his lies by this stage and complained to the Chair and Minister.  Waste of time as it turned out

Ltr RIB Chair,Minister re Reefton 05 01 23-1.pdf

[Doomed]

50 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Well different tracks suit different types of horses.  Morty spoke of Flying View.  Won multiple races on the Coast but not sure he ever won one at Riccarton(though won the Telegraph so big courses held no fears for him)

Back in the seventies and eighties there were tons of horses that suited the Coast and/or the provincials.  My memory is mainly of the sprinters - the likes of Strad, Eros, Te Pango Nui, Great Blaze, Hi Roona.  None of them were terribly effective at Riccarton but the Coast suited them.  Of course there were tons more meetings over here and at the likes of Geraldine, Bank Peninsula, Nelson, Blenheim or wherever.  Racing went to the people and the people went to the races!

I can certainly remember Flying View being placed at Riccarton in good company, he may even have won one. I recall he used to race in the Timaru Cup and then drop back in distance to the sprint on the second day. I even have a vague idea he may have placed in the big WFA sprint at Te Rapa.

Sad that the likes of Westport, Nelson, Orari and Waimate are no longer with us, they used to suit a certain type of horse.

[curious]

12 hours ago, Reefton said:

The next RIB letter back to us

RIB Response re abandonment 01 02 23.docx 63.34 kB · 9 downloads

Well that certainly sounds like a dead end and dismissal to me. Exactly why Mr. Clement came back citing the Rules around the RIB's authority for abandonment decisions on the day and the club's obligation to comply is beyond me. That is not what you are questioning and they did make the decision and you and other participants did comply.  It is the basis for and process used by stewards in reaching that decision which is in question. From the evidence we have seen here, it appears that decision was negligent. I wonder if the club has considered taking the matter and your compensation claim to District Court?

[Freda]

I think 'negligent ' is a very diplomatic term with which to describe the decision made.

[Freda]

8 hours ago, Reefton said:

Well different tracks suit different types of horses.  Morty spoke of Flying View.  Won multiple races on the Coast but not sure he ever won one at Riccarton(though won the Telegraph so big courses held no fears for him)

Back in the seventies and eighties there were tons of horses that suited the Coast and/or the provincials.  My memory is mainly of the sprinters - the likes of Strad, Eros, Te Pango Nui, Great Blaze, Hi Roona.  None of them were terribly effective at Riccarton but the Coast suited them.  Of course there were tons more meetings over here and at the likes of Geraldine, Bank Peninsula, Nelson, Blenheim or wherever.  Racing went to the people and the people went to the races!

Sad to recollect....I've got one in work now that I reckon would be deadly around some of those mentioned.

[Freda]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Well that certainly sounds like a dead end and dismissal to me. Exactly why Mr. Clement came back citing the Rules around the RIB's authority for abandonment decisions on the day and the club's obligation to comply is beyond me. That is not what you are questioning and they did make the decision and you and other participants did comply.  It is the basis for and process used by stewards in reaching that decision which is in question. From the evidence we have seen here, it appears that decision was negligent. I wonder if the club has considered taking the matter and your compensation claim to District Court?

Another point which I feel illustrates the prevailing culture within the RIB, is the matter of the missing shoe on the horse in question.

The rules are quite clear.  A horse must be presented at the races or trials correctly shod.  If that is not the case the horse must be scratched.

To make sure I was correct in my interpretation, I spoke to several farriers, including one who has officiated at both points on a raceday;  i.e the inspection plate where correct plates are checked off, and around at the starting gates, and was left in no doubt what the requirements are.

Madison Rose was presented with a plate missing.  The farrier alerted officials but Oatham overruled the protocols and allowed the horse to start.  Given the matter of a horse falling at Greymouth - free of interference -  because it had hooked a plate off in running and become unbalanced, that in itself is astounding

What is equally astounding is the claim the leg which the mare 'slipped' on could be clearly seen..really? as was the subsequent failure to stand Moseley on the mat for careless riding.

And for those who recall horses being re-plated at the barriers at various times, and wonder why I'm bringing this up;  the rules, which the RIB are charged with implementing, are quite clear and unequivocal.  A horse MUST be presented correctly shod AT INSPECTION.

The farrier at the gates is there to repair problems that may have occurred on the way to, or the gates.  They have the discretion at that point, and may either straighten or re-nail a plate, or, in some cases, remove the other one to give the horse more stability than racing with one plate missing.   It is NOT the job of the gate farrier to do at no cost, the shoeing that should have been attended to earlier.

[Reefton]

3 hours ago, Freda said:

Sad to recollect....I've got one in work now that I reckon would be deadly around some of those mentioned.

Vangelis?

[Reefton]

5 hours ago, curious said:

Well that certainly sounds like a dead end and dismissal to me. Exactly why Mr. Clement came back citing the Rules around the RIB's authority for abandonment decisions on the day and the club's obligation to comply is beyond me. That is not what you are questioning and they did make the decision and you and other participants did comply.  It is the basis for and process used by stewards in reaching that decision which is in question. From the evidence we have seen here, it appears that decision was negligent. I wonder if the club has considered taking the matter and your compensation claim to District Court?

Agree. That is why I was bringing up integrity, professionalism and competence - he can talk all he likes about their power and authority, what they can arbitrarily decide to do.  What he will not engage over because he knows he will lose is the application of those three qualities.

The District Court is a bit like the Ombudsman - They(RIB) will screech Health and Safety and a Judge/the Ombudsman will roll over.  You will be dealing with people who do not understand but given the Pike and White Island disasters H&S is always going to set alarm bells ringing.  And in the case of the District Court the cost for an unknown outcome and will the likes of NZTR and various industry participants want to testify against the RIB?  There is a fair chance of retribution whereas I have nothing to lose.  In two months time I walk away from the Club and to a large extent the game(here's hoping I keep my resolve!)   

 

[curious]

8 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Vangelis?

Haha. I thought she meant mine but I'd say she's thinking of Divine Dive.

[curious]

1 minute ago, Reefton said:

Agree. That is why I was bringing up integrity, professionalism and competence - he can talk all he likes about their power and authority, what they can arbitrarily decide to do.  What he will not engage over because he knows he will lose is the application of those three qualities.

The District Court is a bit like the Ombudsman - They(RIB) will screech Health and Safety and a Judge/the Ombudsman will roll over.  You will be dealing with people who do not understand but given the Pike and White Island disasters H&S is always going to set alarm bells ringing.  And in the case of the District Court the cost for an unknown outcome and will the likes of NZTR and various industry participants want to testify against the RIB?  There is a fair chance of retribution whereas I have nothing to lose.  In two months time I walk away from the Club and to a large extent the game(here's hoping I keep my resolve!)   

 

Hmmm ... Could go Disputes Tribunal and just go for the 30k max. A lot of work but little cost. Still holds them accountable.

[Reefton]

McAnulty's initial reply to the previous letter.

Basically saying I'm not interested and they(RIB) can do whatever they like

0966_001-1.pdf

[Reefton]

15 minutes ago, curious said:

Hmmm ... Could go Disputes Tribunal and just go for the 30k max. A lot of work but little cost. Still holds them accountable.

Think it is worth it?  Again running into the H&S angle of an adjudicator who will be spooked and also the problem of getting people to stand up and be counted

Worth thinking about though.  In the past my issue with the Disputes Tribunal is they have tended to just say 'We cannot arrive at a decision so you can both go away and carry your own costs'

 

[Reefton]

3 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Think it is worth it?  Again running into the H&S angle of an adjudicator who will be spooked and also the problem of getting people to stand up and be counted

Worth thinking about though.  In the past my issue with the Disputes Tribunal is they have tended to just say 'We cannot arrive at a decision so you can both go away and carry your own costs'

 

if I could round up enough ex jockeys who were there on the day and/or watched the video it might be a goer I guess

The fact that NZTR paid out the full meeting fees without question

Jeff McLaughlin being an ex stipe who dealt with the Coast tracks over and over

And an opportunity to question Oatham and Clement. 

Worth thinking about

 

[Freda]

39 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Vangelis?

Haha....bit early to tell yet?