Pam Robson

I don't think we have too many ' big picture thinkers ' .....

Just as a matter of interest - given that the three codes are funded from the same 'bank' how is stopping a galloping club from racing on a particular course, but allowing harness to maintain its involvement going to 'save money' ? Harness will still have to attend to track surfaces, stabling, tie-ups etc - as well as have the 'fixed costs' of TAB staff, doctors/veterinary etc....

I think it's odd too....Timaru a far better option for mine.

Think they have been directed to run at Oamaru

You make good points re. track consistency, form was certainly not easy to follow yesterday, but how does that equate to some of the country Aus tracks.? ...and how about UK tracks which are variable in the extreme?

Would be a tidy sum.

Up or down?

Quite right Col....it is generally considered that the CD is in an even more miserable state than we are...

I tried to multi-quote.but I can't make it work, I'm too thick.

Personally - I don't think R 65 should be run at feature meetings, I probably will get shouted down, but if we must put up with ' Industry days' then run maidens, and R 60 - R 65 there. A lesser rating penalty for performance at such days would soften the blow of running for modest stakes, but help to get horses up through the grades. For mine, a maiden is a maiden whether is races at a premier day or not...let it's subsequent performances prove whether it has a future or not.

There is no doubt that there are more solutions than ever with many having good ideas...but nothing happens. Someone mentioned Wheels on this - or another thread - ffs, while I have enormous respect for the trainer he is/was, he has been on the Members' Council for years..and done - what, exactly? He and Rogie stormed Parliament on one occasion yapping about minimum 10,000 stakes, c'mon guys, is that the best you two could come up with? Leggy has the right idea about framing races to fit the population - but I think it might be too complicated in application. If the framework of major races / carnivals is set, year on year, with the major middle distance handicaps, sprints, and age group races factored in, then the ratings races can be added from a database of horses in training in any area. Clubs have track fees paid, how hard would it be to get information about horses in training from them? That should in itself create certainty for trainers/owners. It shouldn't be necessary to attack a black-type race for your backward baby just for experience, and blow its lights out in the process. Neither should your potential distance 3 year old have to be screwed down to blast along over 1000m just for practice. Jumpers - a dying breed it is said, it will be sad if that happens, but again, where is the incentive? Riverton is an awesome course, but who in their right mind decided to give first-starters their look at race conditions on a H25 - which it so often is? And the home of the Grand National doesn't even hold a jumping race outside the GN meeting any more. The demise of highweights have a lot to do with the lack of jumps riders down here - no riders, so no races. There are many honest sorts who appreciate going just a fraction of a second per furlong slower, and don't mind a bit of weight to boot. I harped on for ages about allowing highweights to be modified and run as welters - thus allowing flat riders to ride without penalty. Oh, said someone in officialdom, trainers will just put up flat riders because they are better and the jump jocks won't get a go. Of course they will, said yours truly, if a small rule change is made to ensure jump riders are not to be bypassed if available. Retrenchment, all the way.

Yes, I'm also very concerned about how a ' windfall ' might be spent. When Monday/ Tuesday racing was first mooted - the brainchild of former NZTR CEO - the folly and waste of resources was loudly commented upon. The wear and tear and cost of having 6 - 7 race cards was discussed ad infinitem....but that protest has dwindled away so that we now have random days all over the place with little relevance to the next random day. Some of the 2 - 3 day carnivals have been split up and the days just dropped in anywhere...I just cant comprehend the logic. Change can be beneficial but change just for the sake of it, no. One prominent local trainer thinks NZTR is ' doing a good job ' and I think the same chap is on the programming committee....if he's not, he was. What show do we have? I think our club CEO might be involved in that as well.... As for trainers protesting their concern? Whinging about the ratings system is about as far as it gets...I realise it isn't perfect but it works well internationally. It is the hammering of the consistent gelding that is - IMO - the biggest problem there, and the way it is applied here - a race based penalty as opposed to a pool based system - continues to throw up anomalies. To send a horse around to get beaten and lose points is, while not illegal, is unethical IMO....and also requires a certain type of horse that remains genuine ( and sound ) while going around to make up the numbers.

Another good post. Why aren't you on the programming committee?

I think [ in many cases ] sponsorship from local businesses would be far harder to generate as well.

None that I can see, and a real negative in that racing is removed from the community concerned.