Forums

There,s a surprise.I wonder who acted for prosecution as opposed to the two drivers

R1–6 Thanks

This problem has become a real bugbere in the last few years of tracks becoming slippy and races abandoned.Its certainly a lot more prevalent now than in "the old days" and better men than me must find an answer.I worked at Awapuni For 4 years back when Ivan lord was the track manager.In those days our watering system was a heap of plastic hoses joined together with metal bands that had to be tightened and undone with a screwdiver.Its was painstaking and Ivan would be out in the summer after dark moving the hoses around the track.As a jockey I remember Awapuni as one of the best surfaces to ride on and I cant remember a day of problems until some brightspark decided that clover was no good on the surface and made the track slippery.I always thought that was crap and still do.we always had a beautiful cushion of grass and it was always kept reasonably short.It was only when they changed the grasses that they use today that problems started.Trentham was another example of a fantastic surface to ride on in the spring and summer.plenty of thick green clover that provided a great cushion and kept a bit of moisture in the ground.Then we used to get off at the barrier.Light a smoke,Until Wally MckewenTold me off. and walk round with lovely green grass up to our ankles.Admittedly in winter it was mud up to our ankles but didn't change the fact the track was safe.In the years that followed someone stuffed up big time.Got rid of all clover,that has a bloody good root system and holds moisture longer than the stuff they use now.Interesting someone mentioned on facebook that with watering the root system may not go as deep looking for water,and that could be a valid point but I always believed clover was a good surface and stable with a good root system.Could be wrong.  

Best tip ... " Next: Delusions "

This is bizarre if true. Surely not. I never heard of a prohibited substance offence where no B sample was provided. The only evidence for the hearing is that provided by the prosecution? The defendant has no opportunity to verify their findings independently? No rule is required surely. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice isn't it? I'd be defending on the basis that there was no opportunity to verify the RIU evidence when that should have and could been provided in line with international procedures. Otherwise, it is nothing but a kangaroo court and this is supposed to be an integrity unit? The sooner it is dismantled the better.