ShiftingGround

This proposed rule is very poorly constructed. If I was being asked to vote on it, that would be against. IMO I don't think it's necessary, nor will it fix any problem and will become a distraction or annoyance for some other stake holders in harness racing. It appears that it is supposed to fix the problem of a 'poor look' that maybe 'perceived' by some people. Perceptions are held in the mind of the individual so even if implemented those people who think this way will likely shift their view to include other areas that drivers have an option to talk together such as the stabling area, drivers room, or even travelling to and from race meetings. The issue doesn't go away. However let's give HRNZ board the benefit of doubt about their sincerity to improve things here and say it gets through and give some thought to that option. "After entering the racetrack" I can only guess they mean the track the race will be run on. A lot of clubs still have areas where the galloping track is used to transition from stable to parade ring/birdcage. They should clarify this point as once they leave the stabling area they are in full public view, as if on the race track. On many courses at least part of the stabling area is also available for public view or owners access. What value is the rule when this is considered? Who is going to monitor or observe the preliminary for any breaches of the rule? Having a rule that you don't intend to fully monitor and uphold would create a significantly worse perception for harness racing. Are clubs going to be asked to provide stewards for this purpose? Does it fall on the RIB stewards? Can the public report breaches, if so to who? What evidence is required or is word of mouth sufficient. When a breach is reported when is it going to be dealt with? What might be the impact on other aspects of the race day, protests, start times etc. Afterall there is not one breach but two if two drivers are talking. They may want to challenge it based on a safety concern (I thought I saw an issue with gear etc.) I can see the stipes being excited by this. Is a breach intended to be treated as a minor offence like the whip rule? Subject to a fine first up and fine or possible suspension for subsequent breaches. Is there to be a reset like the whip rule? Nearly there, it is absolutely necessary to implement such a rule then try to define it better. The real risk is during the race proper. The intention is to add this amendment to Rule 858 that is all about the start. Therefore make it effective from an existing requirement e.g. the starters 2 or 3 minute whistle depending on standing or mobile start. The right people are already in place and no additional requirements needed. Perceptions are generated where someone sees or hears something that in their thinking in wrong. Rules and penalties not being consistently applied leading to a perception if bias. Ensuring such actions and behaviours around existing rules will do a lot more that trying to influence perceptions with this rule amendment. Finally, perhaps the HRNZ board should focus more on governance of harness racing instead of getting involved in day to day operational matters that should be left to the CEO and team. There are far more important issues to be addressed.

The report and recommendations can be found here; Racing Industry Bill final report. There are changes and the provision in the recommendations only kicks in if there is no agreement within the commercial arrangements made by the codes (or Racing NZ on behalf of the codes) with TAB NZ. There are 3 references to distribution including one for the season 2019/2020, a separate one for transition year 2020/2021 and then one for the future. However, regulations made under subsection (1)(a) must not result in an amount to be distributed that exceeds,— (a) for the period beginning on 1 July 2020 and ending on 30 June 2021, 2.67% of TAB NZ’s betting profits: (b) for any period on or after 1 July 2021, 4% of TAB NZ’s betting profits. In this section, betting profits means profits for totalisator racing betting, sports betting, and fixed-odds racing betting or other betting (if any) conducted by TAB NZ calculated in accordance with the following formula: p = a – b – c where— 20 p is betting profits a is the total of all amounts received by TAB NZ or its agents (including the net return from bets laid off) for— (i) totalisator racing betting (other than equalisator betting conducted under section 67): 25 (ii) sports betting: (iii) fixed-odds racing betting b is the amount of refunds paid c is the amount of all winning dividends paid out in respect of amounts described above. Later Distribution from TAB NZ’s betting profits for period ending on 30 June 20 2020 (1) For the purposes of making a distribution of the Agency’s betting profits to each of the racing codes and Sport and Recreation New Zealand for the period beginning on 1 July 2019 and ending on 30 June 2020, section 63(1) applies as if the following paragraph were inserted above paragraph (a): 25 “(aa) for the period beginning on 1 July 2019 and ending on 30 June 2020, 1.33% of the Agency’s betting profits:” (2) To avoid doubt, a distribution made in accordance with subclause (1) may have retrospective effect. Not sure about the three different levels moving from 1.33% based on this year moving to 2.67% then finally up to 4.0% (wishful thinking?). Makes me wonder if those figures are more about the TAB's current financial position and the need to re-capitalize.

Maybe, then again the new owners may have insisted on the horse competing. Could have shifted Laz to another barn. Those battles with McWicked may have secured his opportunity to the breeding future in the northern hemisphere otherwise his purchase could have been a big washout. 'Ruined" hmm, the intention was probably not to race next year anyway and just make sure he secured a stud career, just guessing based on the actions. Southern hemisphere racing doesn't count for much up there, champion down under or not. Not saying I agree with how they treated Laz, just there is an alternative view.

Nothing has changed in 30 years. I have had over 35 years breeding and racing standardbreds and although we always bred to race here in NZ the odd sale of a horse that seemed to struggle here was a way to help reduce the other annual losses. Only ever sold when two things where in place 1) the horse was getting nowhere here, and 2) we believed it could at least win back its purchase price, travel costs and more. Keeping a reputation for possible potential sales was important to us. As for why did we sell well a story of one might explain ... 30 years ago we raced a horse who eventually won 8 in NZ and was subsequently sold to North America where he won at least another 13 that I know of. The core reason for sale on reflection was the lack of mid-grade horses in NZ. When he had 5 wins he was forced to compete in mobile C5 to C7 races every week which was tough on him as there wasn't the understanding of preferential barrier draw system. Then when he got to 7 wins it became C7 - OC mobiles. In the end it took a toll and we felt to be fair to the horse it was better to sell him into a better situation where he could compete fairly. Same applies today due to the combination of poor handicapping system and programming. IMO there is an over emphasis on falling back rating levels rather than building up mid rating levels regionally to ensure competitive fair racing across the rating continuum. The focus seems to be in getting horses back to below R60 as soon as possible. Australia or US offers a bigger opportunity that we can't offer in NZ. Owners will also need to take into account where the horse will sit in the system in Australia. There are far too many weird rated races programmed as well as Special and Discretionary handicap races. Buggered if I know how punters make sense of it all, you guys could tell me. AS are a red herring in this discussion. They will be talked about but unless you are focussed on Group/Listed racing then really don't contribute to the decision to sell overseas. Sometimes a change of environment or training methods can see a horse grow another leg. Have seen it happen a few times over the years, no idea why though.

Full agree, why is it that every abandoned harness code meeting ends up not being able to find a replacement day? The season doesn't close until July doesn't it? Can someone tell me why harness hardly ever has a Saturday meeting anymore? Clubs need to stand up for themselves and do what is right for them and NZ domestic racing. They will survive or not on the outcomes but seem to have little to no input into the calendar and structure of race meetings. If it was any other business they would be seriously pushing back on code and industry bodies. Harness needs the turnover ... find another day!

This is exciting, going to be an epic battle. Hope Laz is 100%.

And incorrect. Possession and Supply are very different sentences. From Community Law office. Possession - The maximum penalty for possession or use of a Class B drug – like speed (amphetamine), hash (cannabis resin), hash oil (cannabis oil), Ecstasy (MDMA), or pseudoephedrine (used to make P) – is three months’ jail or a maximum fine of $500, or both. (This penalty is the same as for cannabis and other Class C drugs.) However, if it’s only your first drug offence, you’ll usually just get a fine for possession or use of Class B drugs. Supply however is - The maximum penalty for dealing in speed, hash or other Class B drugs is 14 years’ jail. If you’ve got more than a certain amount of the particular drug in your possession, the law assumes you’re a dealer, and it’s up to you to prove that you’re not a dealer. The threshold is; Ecstasy (MDMA) – 5 grams, or 100 flakes, tablets or capsules Only in special cases will you get less than jail or home detention. But a “suspended” jail sentence may be justified if there’s no commercial element and the quantities are small (here you’re released but if you offend again within the next 12 months you have to come back to court again to be sentenced both for the original offence and the new offence). And in special cases there might be a sentence aimed at breaking addiction by courses of treatment. Given both current society & government discussion on the 'war against drugs' any sentencing is likely to be at the lower rather than maximum level as is often represented here.

That's my thinking too. Suggests that the original investigation started by information provided from the NZRB(TAB) as it progressed quickly from RIU to Police so there had to be significant information supplied to support the allegations. Similarly to obtain the digital search warrants, there had to be at least strong credible information. So either that original tip-off came from betting agency or someone in the betting ring who had been aggrieved for some reason. It interests me because regardless of what happens in the court cases the controlling organisations should be say something like "we are learning from all this and taking action to ensure it will be quickly identified and dealt with in future". Right now I am left with no confidence in any of the controlling organisations having the processes, tools, skills etc to address match fixing (race or sport) in the future.

That's a new twist for me, I thought it was a tip-off to the RIU that started it all. How did it start, anyone know the actual facts? The way everyone, including Winston the other day, saying that it proves the systems and processes work I have to speculate that the investigation started from within the organisations.

From the NZTR website; NZ Thoroughbred Racing will: Maintain currency and knowledge about international drug regulations Endorse the Racing Integrity Unit intelligence-led sampling procedures Support ‘out of competition’sampling New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Continue to ban the use of steroids Support NZ Racing Laboratory Services Ltd to maintain its ISO accreditation rating and independent operation for sample testing Maybe they don't have a specific policy and leave it to the RIU's discretion ... no 'intelligence leads', no testing? Wonder what that says to those that do get tested?