RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Fredd002

Another track rating disgrace

Recommended Posts

at Woodville today. Start Race 1 as a Dead 6 and at the end of the race it is rated as a Slow 9 with jockeys saying it is really a Heavy 10. Forget about the poor owners who pay to attend these hillbilly meetings, and lets just rate it based on the small puddle on the car park. Surely racing in NZ hasn't deteriorated into untruths to get horses racing at these clubs. When can we expect some accountability from those responsible and recompense for the poor suffering owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are lucky. I am an owner of a horse who raced in the 3rd, and I think our trainers comments pre-race summed up the attitude of a lot of owners/trainers there today. We went expecting a top run but ended up watching a horse struggling in the conditions. Yet we allow this to happen week-in and week-out. When will we get some accountability from clubs and administrators. Owners and trainers get fined pretty quickly for any misdemeanour yet administrators appear to be immune from any wrong doings   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed you would be rightly upset !

 

I had flights booked a month or so back to go to a meeting up in the North Island to see a horse run. Thankfully it was clear a few days in advance the track would be too wet and I cancelled and got my $ back.

 

If it had been today I might have ended up on track to see the horse be scratched.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 2Admin2

LOL it was only a few weeks ago that there were complaints about how hard the tracks were......come in Fasthorse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL it was only a few weeks ago that there were complaints about how hard the tracks were......come in Fasthorse?

The problem is not the wet tracks? The problem is the incompetence of those in charge to provide accurate track readings before the first race. Punters deserve better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 2Admin2

The problem is not the wet tracks? The problem is the incompetence of those in charge to provide accurate track readings before the first race. Punters deserve better.

 So do owners - nothing worse than having to pay for transport to the meeting to then get scratched because of the track.  Particularly when the track rating was wrong before race 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tracks are very inconsistent after changeable weather so its a risky proposition for all involved, not to mention the fact these people are using a device with a dubious track record,im not sure they were that far out this morning and the maidens recorded 1.12 in the 6th which would suggest a track not to far removed from the early reading...to describe tracks this time of year is tricky and maybe due to inconsistency of these surfaces tracks should be described across more than one rating band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tracks are very inconsistent after changeable weather so its a risky proposition for all involved, not to mention the fact these people are using a device with a dubious track record,im not sure they were that far out this morning and the maidens recorded 1.12 in the 6th which would suggest a track not to far removed from the early reading...to describe tracks this time of year is tricky and maybe due to inconsistency of these surfaces tracks should be described across more than one rating band.

Gruff - where did you get the time from? Because the TAB results show race 7 to be won in 1.15.07 ( and that was for 2100mtrs ) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at Woodville today. Start Race 1 as a Dead 6 and at the end of the race it is rated as a Slow 9 with jockeys saying it is really a Heavy 10. Forget about the poor owners who pay to attend these hillbilly meetings, and lets just rate it based on the small puddle on the car park. Surely racing in NZ hasn't deteriorated into untruths to get horses racing at these clubs. When can we expect some accountability from those responsible and recompense for the poor suffering owners.

Didn't see any jockeys carrying penetrometers ? Have a look at the times!!! 

HILLBILLY??????? I think there is only one hillbilly here and it's not the Woodville/Pahiatua  Racing Club? 

The Equipment provided was used and used properly  This is only my record of events but I know that you sitting in your air conditioned office would probably know better!! : Soft8 Nom day, Soft8 Withdrawn day Done by Venue inspector Foskett. Soft7 Wednesday AM , Soft7 Wednesday night , Race morning Penetrometer read 1 point under a soft 7 therefore a dead6 ,at 7.30am a thick fog came in for approx 2 hours so in hindsight it should probably had been rated a soft7 . all the sensationalism about it being a heavy10 etc the racing industry does not need , some industry participants just keep shooting themselves in the foot!!!!

 This Hillbilly club produced a turnover on that INDUSTRY DAY of just under $80.000 , Over Half the sponsors were new to the Industry , a fair majority of the crowd had not been to the races for years , Do you see many club doing that turnover on an Industry Day????

 This Hillbilly club Won a award for Entertainment over the Xmas Period running through the Interislander Xmas festival of Racing , there is only 5 awards.

 Next time you want to run our club down you ring me personally and don't hide behind a nom de plume!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tracks are very inconsistent after changeable weather so its a risky proposition for all involved, not to mention the fact these people are using a device with a dubious track record,im not sure they were that far out this morning and the maidens recorded 1.12 in the 6th which would suggest a track not to far removed from the early reading...to describe tracks this time of year is tricky and maybe due to inconsistency of these surfaces tracks should be described across more than one rating band.

Are someone with a bit of intelligence.  I agree completely , I was also not aware that the penetrometer had a dubious track record???  In hindsight the reading on race morning was 1 point under a soft 7 so reading a dead6 we probably should have put down a soft 7 as the fog rolled in immediately after we did penetrometer for 2 & 1/2 hrs. We galloped 2 horse and the riders commented it was a very good soft . Maybe there is room for a better range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are lucky. I am an owner of a horse who raced in the 3rd, and I think our trainers comments pre-race summed up the attitude of a lot of owners/trainers there today. We went expecting a top run but ended up watching a horse struggling in the conditions. Yet we allow this to happen week-in and week-out. When will we get some accountability from clubs and administrators. Owners and trainers get fined pretty quickly for any misdemeanour yet administrators appear to be immune from any wrong doings   

You Nominated your horse on a rating of soft8  , you accepted your horse on a rating of a soft 8 , These readings done by venue inspector Foskett.. Good weather improved the track to a soft 7 the next day (Wednesday) , Racemorning a reading of 1 point under a soft 7 gives a reading of a dead6 in hindsight maybe it should have been left at a soft7 as the fog rolled in for 2 & 1/2 hours straight after taking the reading! I am struggling with your comments "We were expecting a top run"  you were expecting a top run so you nomonated and paid up on a soft 8,. Raceday times show that it was probably around a soft 7 or better . If I can remember properly a trainer got on the trackside television before race 3 and I am presuming it is your trainer it may not have been but he said his horse is only about 80% ready, now  you say you are expecting a top run yet the public are being told different??????????  accountability???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RIC bloke was interviewed by Des C on Radio Trackside his view was that an inexperienced person took the readings hence the mistake.Is there any truth in this or do we assume the RIC is making up a fictionary scapegoat.

May be a small point but i'm sure the word SLOW has replaced SOFT.

Keep up the hard work Woodville great club  many hardworkers as always behind the scenes in country venues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RIC bloke was interviewed by Des C on Radio Trackside his view was that an inexperienced person took the readings hence the mistake.Is there any truth in this or do we assume the RIC is making up a fictionary scapegoat.

May be a small point but i'm sure the word SLOW has replaced SOFT.

Keep up the hard work Woodville great club  many hardworkers as always behind the scenes in country venues.

 

good one Puha  and go for it John Shannon  you do a great job

not much left at Woodville now except the horses and  a lot of hard workers

no Ropihas, Syd Browns, Lynds, Marsh , Baker and Finnegan has gone for good

$80.000 on course on an industry  Thursday is fantastic

 

are you  still out of the meat business??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr L.J Shannon - why are you being so defensive on this The simple fact is that at scratching time the track was rated a Dead 6 and straight after the first race, it was downgraded to a Slow 9 (with some experienced jockeys indicating it was worse). There was no change in climatic conditions 1.e. it didn't rain so why was there such a big change/variance to the listed reading? This is the real question.

As I said earlier, yours is not the only club who have had to change their penotrometer reading so early in the day, but as an owner it is a frustrating and expensive cost to us.

Just for your information, I do not sit in an air conditioned office, I was born in Pahiatua, went to Tararua College and members of my family sponsor racing at the Woodville-Pahiatua Club. When I move back to the area, I will more than welcome an opportunity to become part of the club but in the meantime, I raced a horse (even at "80%" we expected her to feature prominently at the finish), expecting a Dead 6 but in reality it was at least, a Slow 9. As an owner, who has to pay float fees, a jockey fee, etc  we would not have accepted if a rating of a Slow 9 had been advised by scratching time, but these costs still get added to my training fees.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fredd002,

 

I, and I'm sure all others on this Forum, appreciate your commitment to the thoroughbred racing industry.

However, on this occasion, I feel that you are off-target.

 

Despite a good deal of rhetoric to the contrary, the fact appears to be that the track was never worse than a "rating 7" on raceday.

The times, and there being only one late scratching, tend to support this assumption.

 

Your gripe would appear to be with the person who authorised the downgrade of the track to a "rating 9" as this person has caused you to misread the situation. Further, those who appear to have given opinions that do not appear to be justified on the basis of the available facts, have not helped your situation either.

 

If this is indeed the case, then your horse may have simply not handled the type of track you were expecting or, maybe, just had an "off" day. I have to say that, in my most humble opinion, wet winter tracks are no place for horses that are not fully fit.

 

Mr Shannon has been and is a most generous supporter of racing...providing time, money, effort and everything else that the survival of racing in his area and elsewhere requires.

 

 

I understand the sense of frustration he feels when avoidable inaccuracies and loose gossip serve to undermine what is, in fact, a terrific achievement.

 

Cheers.

Ashoka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL it was only a few weeks ago that there were complaints about how hard the tracks were......come in Fasthorse?

You called admin,

 

Easily fixed and it doesn't have to be a problem.

1st Lets blame the ausses, the true villains . 

 

Here's  some reasoning that would solve the problem.

 About fifteen years   ago, perhaps longer, we had 5 track ratings  (,fast firm, easy, soft, and heavy) , possibly one more.

The  wanna be ausse attitude turned us into copy cats and now we have an ausse rating system with 11 different ratings so a lot more potential for  discrepancy and there fore complaints.

 

We could return to the old system , abandon any attempt to be perfect and the problems would disappear.

 Every body would be happy.

 

There you go Admin, it's not really that difficult , is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RIC bloke was interviewed by Des C on Radio Trackside his view was that an inexperienced person took the readings hence the mistake.Is there any truth in this or do we assume the RIC is making up a fictionary scapegoat.

May be a small point but i'm sure the word SLOW has replaced SOFT.

Keep up the hard work Woodville great club  many hardworkers as always behind the scenes in country venues.

Thanks for your comments Puha, , Maybe the last reading on race morning a more experienced person may have swung to a slow7 in hindsight we probably should have . Through the winter months should we be doing another penetrometer reading an hour before the races as well??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fredd002,

 

I, and I'm sure all others on this Forum, appreciate your commitment to the thoroughbred racing industry.

However, on this occasion, I feel that you are off-target.

 

Despite a good deal of rhetoric to the contrary, the fact appears to be that the track was never worse than a "rating 7" on raceday.

The times, and there being only one late scratching, tend to support this assumption.

 

Your gripe would appear to be with the person who authorised the downgrade of the track to a "rating 9" as this person has caused you to misread the situation. Further, those who appear to have given opinions that do not appear to be justified on the basis of the available facts, have not helped your situation either.

 

If this is indeed the case, then your horse may have simply not handled the type of track you were expecting or, maybe, just had an "off" day. I have to say that, in my most humble opinion, wet winter tracks are no place for horses that are not fully fit.

 

Mr Shannon has been and is a most generous supporter of racing...providing time, money, effort and everything else that the survival of racing in his area and elsewhere requires.

 

 

I understand the sense of frustration he feels when avoidable inaccuracies and loose gossip serve to undermine what is, in fact, a terrific achievement.

 

Cheers.

Ashoka

Good to hear from you Ashoka, Yes you are right in my opinion the track was never worse than a slow7  , I am not sure who actually put it at a slow9 was it the Jockeys ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great club Woodville, and you are made to feel welcome when you race your horses there. They are very proactive in every way.

I commented on TeAroha a few weeks ago about an inaccurate reading, and not many people commented, although I did get plenty of support after I raised the issue on the Des Coppins show.

All we want is honesty, and it seems that this is an honest mistake on Woodville's behalf.

At least they didn't try and pull the wool as TeAroha did saying the 14mls of rain over the past month had made the track a slow 8.

All the money that has been spent on the Integrity Unit and we still get no answers or accountability from them.

Still we all seem happy with the state of NZ racing, and our positive leaders taking us nowhere!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You called admin,

 

Easily fixed and it doesn't have to be a problem.

1st Lets blame the ausses, the true villains . 

 

Here's  some reasoning that would solve the problem.

 About fifteen years   ago, perhaps longer, we had 5 track ratings  (,fast firm, easy, soft, and heavy) , possibly one more.

The  wanna be ausse attitude turned us into copy cats and now we have an ausse rating system with 11 different ratings so a lot more potential for  discrepancy and there fore complaints.

 

We could return to the old system , abandon any attempt to be perfect and the problems would disappear.

 Every body would be happy.

 

There you go Admin, it's not really that difficult , is it ?

 

 

Agree with your post Chris but it must be difficult to solve the problem as the pentrometer has been a failure from day....yet its still here !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr L.J Shannon - why are you being so defensive on this The simple fact is that at scratching time the track was rated a Dead 6 and straight after the first race, it was downgraded to a Slow 9 (with some experienced jockeys indicating it was worse). There was no change in climatic conditions 1.e. it didn't rain so why was there such a big change/variance to the listed reading? This is the real question.

As I said earlier, yours is not the only club who have had to change their penotrometer reading so early in the day, but as an owner it is a frustrating and expensive cost to us.

Just for your information, I do not sit in an air conditioned office, I was born in Pahiatua, went to Tararua College and members of my family sponsor racing at the Woodville-Pahiatua Club. When I move back to the area, I will more than welcome an opportunity to become part of the club but in the meantime, I raced a horse (even at "80%" we expected her to feature prominently at the finish), expecting a Dead 6 but in reality it was at least, a Slow 9. As an owner, who has to pay float fees, a jockey fee, etc  we would not have accepted if a rating of a Slow 9 had been advised by scratching time, but these costs still get added to my training fees.   

Defensive!!! HELLO!!!? where in gods name do you get a slow9 or heavy10, do jockeys carry a penetrometer in their whips? You nominated and paid up on a slow8(Penetrometer  done by Gary Foskett -Natoional venue manager) we had very pleasant weather right through Reading done the day before were a slow7 , on race morning it read 1 point under a slow7 realistically in hindsight now we should have left it at a slow7 but the penetrometer calibrated to a dead6. 

 Quite obviously you have had a reasonable bet on your horse and it has not performed and you are looking for a scapegoat . and what is better to blame but the track? I am still struggling to why the connections of the horse are expecting a good run but the trainer tells the public it only 80%?? If it doesn't like wet tracks why would you be starting a fresh campaign in the winter? 

 You want to become part of a club where we all play banjo's and call ourselves Festus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we are discussing Woodville in this instance - let me use the CD as an example.

Everyone knows that a H11 at Trentham is totally different to a H11 at Wanganui.

How do we know that? - experience !

 

To my mind the solution is simple - let the racing clubs be responsible for their own track ratings. If they have track staff that have been with that club for some time the track ratings will become reliable and consistant for that track - yes?

 

In time, then everyone will know exactly what to expect when a certain track is rated at a set rating!

 

Keep NZTR and the RIU out of track ratings and stop them from interfering.

 

Mr Shannon - all the best to your club. It sounds like you will get the support you deserve, hope to bring a horse to one of your meetings at some point. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.