EmJayBee

Thanks Iraklis. I guess it is just coincidence from random selection. The first 3 horses I quoted in the first round of heats were 1, 2 and 3 again last night. I see that Act Now finally has decent draw in the final round of heats after winning from the outside of the front row in the first round and a close third, from the second row over last night's sprint distance. I think he is the best of Emma Stewart's many contenders. Interestingly he clashes with Expensive Ego in the final heats for the third time in a row. Best

As a follower of the ID22 one thing puzzles me about the fields for the pacers. Hopefully someone can help me out. For round 2 at Shepparton tonight the first heat includes exactly the same horses who filled the first 7 places in one of the first round heats. Namely: Act Now, Expensive Ego, Mach Dan, The Black Prince, Pete Said So, Wolf Stride & Huli Nien. I would have thought there would a conscious effort to mix the fields around. But presumably the fields are randomly selected each round and this is just coincidence. Is there any contributor with the knowledge on the field selection process? would appreciate their comments. Thanks.

Maybe. More likely I think that the Stride Corp are annoyed he is stuck in Brisbane with the covid lockdowns and cannot readily transit back to Melton to oversee his team. He doesn't have much racing at the moment but I presume most of his good horses are back in training. He spent time driving at the Tasmania carnival a couple of months ago so they must have had some arrangement. Pure speculation but it would be interesting if the connections of Copy That decided to leave him in Australia - with Butt. And Copy That comes up against Wolf Stride later in the year!

One of the biggest news stories in the past couple of days is that Anthony Butt and Sonya Smith have ceased private training for Emilio Rosati. They won over $1.8m for Rosati during their 18 month tenure. The horses have been farmed to various trainers. With the stable star, Wolf Stride, going to Andy Gath. Butt says it was a mutual, amicable decision and they intend to train a smaller team and he will continue to freelance drive. Their spectacular training successes with Rosati will ensure they are not short of good horses to train.

Thanks for this Pure Steel. Had a look at the race and hard to imagine more flagrant flouting of the Rules. Maybe the Victorian driver thought he could get away with it in another jurisdiction. Two subsequent points. The further Inquiry is to be headed by former Racing NSW Chief Steward, Ray Murrihy. So they are serious. Second, at Bully Delight's last Victorian start the same driver was fined for excessive whipping offences, among other things. More serious the Stewards adjourned an inquiry into the driver dropping his foot out of the sulky in the straight. For further investigation. If they find the driver also kicked the horses back legs in this event his enforced holiday maybe extended. Incidentally, although Anthony Butt's drive was knocked out the main event, at the start, he drove the winners of 3 other races on the program. So some recompense.

Hi. I just come on here occasionally and saw this thread. I'm a kiwi, living in Australia during covid-19 time, and follow the Australian harness scene a bit. To add to some of the comments above. Alta Orlando has won a tad over $350k since he moved to Australia some 18 months ago. So yes, a great return for the Dunn's as part owners. On Skyvalley's success, as a sire of the final winner and 4th placed horse, in the Great Southern Star trotters heats and final at Melton at the beginning of the Feb. It was interesting to me that both those horses, Tornado Valley and Pink Galahs, were resuming from spells. Tornado Valley hadn't started for 4 months and Pink Galahs for 3 months. I would have thought the need to race twice in less than 3 hours would have favoured the race hardened contenders. I could write a bit more about people/horses of NZ interest on the Australian scene if anyone is interested. Maybe starting with the incredible run of success that Anthony Butt is having since taking up training in late 2019 for Australia's biggest owner, Emilio Rosati.

The comments by Cyril Rioli struck a chord. About ‘concentrating on older horses that can race year after year’. I’m a kiwi based in Australia, semi-retired. Previously had a long small-time involvement in NZ racing, both thoroughbred and standardbreds. Now have time to follow the comments on Race Café periodically. And Australian race results and news. The main harness track in NSW, Menangle, race at least twice a week, once for better class horses and once for the lesser lights. Last Tuesday’s meeting for the lower grade horses included a Claimer. The 9-horse field raced for a $A7,000 odd stake. The interesting thing about the race, for me, was that the average number of lifetime starts for the 9 runners was around 140 starts. The most was 215, the least 91. The winner was having his 191 start. Every horse was averaging over $1,000 in earnings per start. So seemingly, pretty much all paying their way. Three of them have earned over $40,000 each this season. 5 of the field were NZ bred. There was one 10yr old, one 9yr old, three 8, three 7, and a lone six year-old. On the humorous side, ironically, one of the NZ’ers was called Underworked, he was only on start 141! Another horse, the favorite, led but faded in the straight to last. His excuse might have been that he was the novice of the field having only his 91st start. So, on reflection, what can be learned? First of course it illustrates the durability of the standardbred. Second it shows that with flexible programming there is a place for all. These warriors had a competitive race. Seems like there is a suitable race at Menangle for these horses every week. In summary Cyril has a good point. Not necessarily concentrating on such horses but making sure there is a better balance of programming and adequate opportunities for all.

For those interested in books on racing/punting for Xmas reading (or whenever) I recommend a recently released Australian book called ‘Please Gamble Irresponsibly’ by Titus O’Reily. As noted in the sub-title it is a history of the rise, fall and rise of sports gambling in Australia. From early European settlement to takeovers by international online betting agencies in recent years. It is not, as the title may imply, written from some judgmental viewpoint, although the author notes he is not a gambler. Rather the title is a dig at State Governments who benefit from, and continue to depend on, significant taxes on gambling. Neither is it some dry history. While fact laden, the author’s style makes it entertaining and fascinating reading. For me, at least. Although the sub-title refers to sports betting, 90% of it concentrates on the racing industry. Not sure when, or if, it will be available in NZ. (These days I’m based in Australia). But those interested can make their own further inquiries on the author’s website – titusoreily.com

Thanks for your welcome and comments. I’m not qualified to comment on South Island racing issues, in fact my lower Nth Island knowledge is dated, to say the least. So, the cases for Timaru and Oamaru continuing I can’t say. But assessment logic similar to what I suggested in my original post should still be applicable. Whether the cost of an all-weather track is justified in the South Island. The justifications for all-weather tracks by the ‘Authorities’ is they would (1) provide an alternative venue for meetings cancelled due to unsafe track conditions and, (2) provide a better winter training facility. On transferring race-meetings I, and presumably others, have questions about how it would work in practice. I see back in the New Year a couple of West Coast meetings had to be abandoned and one in Central Otago. Would it be practical from a trainer’s (and other stakeholder’s) viewpoint to simply transfer the meetings to Riccarton? Even with at least 48 hours notice. Or is it just intended to arbitrarily transfer dates when the annual meetings calendar is set? If winter training facilities need upgrading they could surely be improved to a satisfactory standard with a more cost-effective solution than a synthetic track. I agree the outsourcing needs careful consideration. $100m per annum sounds very low given, on my reading, the NZRB is already generating some $140m per annum. Even given capital development costs re betting technology, and other direct wagering costs, would be saved. Doubt they with make up the difference.

Greetings everyone. Just joined this Site. I want to give my 10c worth re the Messara Report (MR). But first some background. Was once an avid galloping and harness racing fan from a teenager in the late 1960’s. Raced a few in both codes, bred a couple, and was Secretary of Masterton racing and harness clubs (now Wairarapa HRC) for a while back in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. Worked overseas since 1985. Still maintained interests in both codes until a decade ago – last galloper I had an interest in was about 8 years ago. My interest now only resurfaces when the Australian spring racing comes around each year. But I still have friends back in NZ who remain strongly involved in racing. I don’t get any pleasure from seeing the Industry continuing to track downhill for the past 50 years. This week, looking around race news, I came across the MR and Race Café comments. If nothing else, my background gives me first hand experience of the parochialism which has historically pervaded NZ racing. Back in the time when I was a Race Club secretary some of the older committee members of Masterton and Wairarapa Racing Clubs would not talk to each other (20km down the road). It was a scandal for some when Masterton HRC changed its name to Wairarapa HRC! Now the next generation (aging themselves now) reached the stage, a couple of decades ago, where Wairarapa HRC combine with Wairarapa RC to successfully run a joint program each New Year at Tauherenikau. So, changes can be made to the benefit of all. Masterton HRC used to race at Hutt Park. Similarly, Hutt Park had its issues. But, in my opinion their ultimate demise was mainly due to the indifference of the Wellington public together with the small base of harness horses trained in the region. My comments on the Messara Report: As everyone knows this is another in a long line of Reports, dating back to the Reid report in the mid 1960’s. The difference this time is that there is a Minister of Racing who seems keen to assist the Industry make changes. When is this likely to happen again? I think another round of inaction this time isn’t an option. Structure 1. Agree that improving prize money is the key 2. Agree that NZRB should administer wagering, broadcasting and gaming only and other current responsibilities be handed back to the Codes. 3. The Industry doesn’t have the scale to support NZRB’s current cost structure. They should be required to cut their cloth to fit their size. Wagering 1. Outsourcing of TAB operations. I agree outsourcing should enable economies of scale. An example being the funds currently being allocated for ‘fixed odds’ betting developments in NZ ($40m+?) would not have to be spent and would be available for redistribution – stakes and/or facilities/track refurbishment. Why? - because already large scale international wagering operators annually spend considerably more than this amount on similar developments in other countries. The improvements should be available in NZ at no extra cost. 2. An issue with outsourcing TAB operations that doesn’t seem to have been discussed to date is on course betting facilities. I’m assuming on course betting equipment is (still) owned and operated by the NZRB/TAB. My cursory research reveals that in 2016, 85% of race-meetings were attended by less than 2,500 patrons. I think the majority of these would have attendances of less than 1,500. The on-course turnovers must have been corresponding low. It follows that operating on course betting facilities at these meetings is very likely a loss-making operation. It would be interesting to know what break-even turnover is. But the point is - how long would an international operator want to continue this? What is the solution? Should they be forced to continue it as part of their deal? Should on course betting facilities be discontinued at meetings where historical on-course turnover has been less than break-even (whatever that is). Should on-course patrons just have access to screens with the odds and bet on their TAB accounts via their mobile phones. Not sure of the answer but I think the issue is going to have to be considered soon. Race Course Closures/Rationalization 1. I think the MR is weakest in this area. It only contains cursory reasoning on which courses should be closed. It seemingly relies on other Reports and maybe selected industry figureheads. It takes their word as gospel. 2. The old chestnut! Everyone agrees, so long as it is someone else. In the various Reports, there is broad consensus that around 28 courses, along with the proposed synthetic tracks, would suffice. 3. What has changed however, in the past 50 years is the steady decline in on course attendance and turnover. A decline in public interest in attending race meetings. This should be an important factor in deciding which courses should be closed. 4. The decline in race-day attendances should mean, that racetrack location i.e. must be in or near the largest population areas, is not so important. Quality of the track (or relative cost to get it back to good quality), proximity to horses in training etc should be more important. 5. This, of course, is leading to a comment on the Courses in the lower North Island with which I used to be familiar. I think if the various club accounts were unpacked properly, along with a detailed estimation of the monies needed to be spent on the track restoration/improvements, then Trentham would be shown to be beyond resuscitation. Book profits, if they exist, are meaningless if adequate monies are not spent on the track and facilities. 6. I know Trentham has a proud history and I used to really enjoy going there back in the day when it was a mecca for racing. But in reality it has steadily gone downhill since the yearling sales were moved back in the 1970’s. In my view the Wellington public are largely indifferent to the situation. 7. In terms of racetrack quality, horses in training, I think Woodville has a stronger case to continue. Sure, it is a smaller scale course but these days we are talking about conducting meetings primarily for broadcasting racing to off track punters. Smaller scale, less cost to maintain. 8. So, sell Trentham and use the proceeds to improve Central Districts racing. 9. I see there is a proposal in the Waikato region to build a ‘Greenfields racing/training Centre’ funded by the closure and sale of existing courses. Waikato today is NZ’s primary racing area. I don’t know the ‘specifics’ but it seems its go-ahead is independent of adoption of the MR. If so, the question is, if the largest players can agree on rationalization, why can’t the ones in smaller areas reach agreement? 10. The broad proposal to sell various racecourses as part rationalization plans might have a better chance of success if it was legislated/regulated the funds raised from the sale of each racecourse can only be spent on improving infrastructure in that region. Maybe. 11. As I understand it the MR recommends all racecourse land be vested in the NZRB not just the proceeds from racecourses sold. This might help solve what seems to be long standing animosity between some clubs e.g. Auckland and Avondale. If my suggestion per para8 above was adopted then a way also needs to be found so members of various Clubs in a regions have a say in policy decisions and operations of the remaining racecourse in their area – they are community facilities. That is, Avondale RC members have a meaningful say in in Auckland racecourse policy and operations. Not just at the whim of the ARC executive. Again, maybe easier said than done. General 1. All sectors of the industry need to contribute to meaningful change. 2. The MR recommends that the Government forgo the betting levy – currently around $13m per annum. In effect this is the general punter’s contribution. 3. The Racing Clubs are expected to contribute by agreeing to rationalize and forgo some of their autonomy/independence. 4. The breeding industry should also contribute. In my view a levy on all thoroughbred sales should introduced. It should be payable by the vendor and scaled. Maybe up to $50k should be nil (to encourage small breeders), K50,001 to $150,000 at 5%. And proceeds above that levied at 10%. So if a horse was sold for $200,000 the levy payable would be $10,000 (first $50k nil, next $100k at 5% =$5,000, next $50,000 10% = $5,000. Total $10,000). To be fair some of the larger Studs race their mares in NZ thereby significantly contributing to racehorse numbers. But they should also contribute levies on sales. 5. Race meetings nowadays are conducted primarily for broadcasting racing to off track punters. It therefore follows that track renovations (and some landscaping) should be a priority over new grandstands. 6. Significant improvements in on-course attendance at race meetings are not going to happen. There are too many competing activities. But it might be marginally improved if there was some betting exotic that was only available on course. Unfortunately it is not in the TAB’s (or any outsourced wagering organization) interests to offer that. 7. I see the Harness Racing section of Racing Café has a few, mainly positive, comments about the MR. Contributors don’t see it as impacting negatively on their Code. Sorry my 10cents worth has turned into a novel (fiction of course). But best of luck to an industry that once gave me pleasure and one I still care for.