Scotch Thistle

Members
  • Content count

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Scotch Thistle


  1. 11 minutes ago, THE TORCH said:

    Jason Tan thinks he is something special in front of a screen. He is a terrible presenter who cant even inform us of anything worthwhile and he actually takes his job ultra seriously. Wake up Trackside.

    Agreed.

    The best NZ Trackside performer, for mine, was the "amateur", Jason Waddell.   

    Most of the rest were cringeworthy. 


  2. The report says

    Experts consulted by WorkSafe found Malthus was not competent to have been put in charge of a racehorse at the Alfriston training track in July 2016, having been given no formal training, being not riding fit and having only ridden quiet horses and never at a gallop.

    I don't know that it will profit us taking this discussion further, best to allow the hearings to reach their conclusion on a fully-informed basis. 


  3. The RIU seems to have settled on "inconsistent surfaces" as their go to description when abandonments take place.

    Integrity might be served by the RIU holding inquiries as to culpability when clubs present inconsistent surfaces (unless there have been intervening downpours or other obvious causes beyond a club's control).  These could commence on raceday and resume at a later date (for Waipa, at Taupo on Wednesday) with full records of penetrometer readings, watering, rainfall, etc presented.

    My guess is that clubs find themselves obliged to pay too much attention to having yeilding surfaces in the interest of getting more racing from horses which are "day to day propositions" with poor feet or joints. 


  4. 47 minutes ago, Crow said:

    Takes you back to his effort on Zed Leppelin  earlier in year when he sat up and got beaten, makes you wonder if he's is on the job

    Indeed.  His suspension for butchering Zed Leppelin finished just yesterday.  First day back and he's out again.  Hard to judge whether he is incompetent or a crook.


  5. Having listened through the interview, I'm encouraged by Rutherford's recognition and admission of the mess Te Rapa is in and the earnest response needed to get things back in order.  This response seems to include flicking off two industry meetings in September to other tracks, and undersewing grass, but meantime having plenty of hooves help to force that sand from the surface into the ground.

    A question Coppins (useless interviewer) didn't ask Rutherford is why the club didn't have anyone competent overseeing the work done in February.  Rutherford said the contractor did a "very shoddy job", being supposed to spread 4-6 mm depth of sand across the course, but actually putting on up to 2 inches (i.e. 50mm) in places in a central strip of the track.   50mm is 8 to 12 times the depth of sand supposed to have been laid, so it was indeed a shoddy job.   Clearly the club was incompetent in not noticing and intervening whilst the contractor's shoddy work was in progress.

    Follow-up questions Coppins might have asked are whether Te Rapa paid the contractor, is seeking compensation, and has warned other clubs off using the shoddy outfit.


  6. 1 hour ago, Fartoomuch said:

    Queensland Racing have today issued a statement regarding the two months suspension of apprentice Corey Bayliss on betting charges.

    The steatement read; Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) Stewards have today inquired into the circumstances surrounding apprentice jockey Corey Bayliss betting on thoroughbred racing.

    The Brisbane based metropolitan apprentice was today suspended from all riding engagements for two months.

    QRIC Commissioner Ross Barnett said on 29 June, Commission staff observed Mr Bayliss wagering at the Breakfast Creek Hotel on two races that day at Geelong in Victoria and Moruya in New South Wales. “Mr Bayliss pleaded guilty to breaching AR 83(c) which specifies jockeys or apprentices may be penalised if they bet, have an interest in a bet or facilitate a bet on any race,” he said.

    “While this is a serious breach of Mr Bayliss’s licensing arrangements it is important that all jockeys understand that the perception of betting on thoroughbred races is an integrity issue outlawed under the Australian Rules of Racing.”

     

    Wonder what J Mac makes of that sentence and who was the arsehole who potted him

    I reckon you'll find out how he was potted if you read the article you've quoted.  Read it carefully, top to bottom and left to right, and you might surprise yourself as to how clever you are


  7. 4 hours ago, Peter Harrop said:

    I can't see how 2 or 3 all weather tracks spread through the country will help lower the number of abandonments in real life. Clubs will still want to race on their own tracks. And most meetings are abandoned either on the morning or after the program has started. By then it is too late to shift the meeting to another venue. 

    Another consideration is that if an abandonment is made in good time for a shift to another venue on the same raceday, the club needing to shift might not want to move to the closest all weather track. 

    For example, if the New Plymouth track was unusable, there are 4 tracks on which galloping meetings are held closer than Awapuni/Woodville (Hawera, Waverley, Wanganui and Stratford).  The Taranaki JC and its sponsors, members, etc, and connections of acceptors, might prefer to race at one or any of them, rather than be dragooned off to Awapun/Woodville 

    Think also of Wairoa being unable to race.  They would logically prefer to move to Hastings or Gisborne, or maybe Waipukurau. 

    At least in those instance all of the tracks mentioned race the same way round, left-handed.  In the north, unless the all weather track is able to be used in either direction (with moveable finishing post, judge's box, etc?) there will be owners and trainers unwilling to race horses the opposite way round to the cancelled meeting.

    All and Saundry might have answers to such considerations, of course.  One might be that by the time anything worthwhile gets done things will be so dire that most  clubs will have folded.

     

     


  8. 2 hours ago, Leggy said:

    I'm still perplexed as to where this idea of synthetic tracks has emerged from. The article referred to in the opening post cites Saundry as saying "The minister has been supportive of synthetic tracks in the New Zealand First racing policy."    However, there is no mention of AWTs, let alone synthetic tracks, in the NZF election policy. Saundry also seems to be talking about them more as necessary for training, trials and jumpouts than for racing. I don't really get it. I wouldn't want to race on one at least for a year or two until I'd had a chance to assess it's performance and I probably wouldn't want to trial or jump out a horse on one either when we generally have good turf facilities available for that. Something doesn't add up.

    There might be no mention of AWT/synthetic tracks in the NZF racing policy, but what matters more is what was signed up to post-election by the 3 coalition partners. And what has been wrangled since.

    At Karaka in January Peters said ..." Abandoned races result in millions of dollars lost to the racing industry each year.  A further priority for this government is investment in an all-weather race track. This will be subject to this year’s government budget process.  The objective is clear. Such a track would be an important step in helping certainty and consistency of racing."

    Although Peters referred to "an" and "a" (i.e.one) all-weather track, within days John Allen was referring to synthetic tracks and calling for 2 synthetic tracks, each costing $6-10 million, to be located at Cambridge and in Canterbury.

    Whether or not things add up depends on what items are being summed, and by whom?  The way Peters operates I guess he is delighted that people are thrashing around in confusion, and I doubt that either of the other coalition partners cares at all (any more than the last government did).


  9. I'm not sure what to make of the prize money being headlined as "of $100,000" when it is actually of $98,000.  I've nothing against the Equine Welfare Fund and the Jockey Welfare Fund sharing the other $2,000, but that money is not stakes money, it is a compulsory donation from connections. 

    The $10,000,000 prize pool in the 2017 The Everest included a prize of $100,000 for the Equine Welfare Fund but nothing for the Jockey Welfare Fund. Maybe it is the Jockey Welfare Fund's turn in 2018; if so they will do better, given the total prize pool is $13,000,000 this year


  10. The Hawkes Bay Racing website tells us:

    Quote

    Hastings races Thursday

       The last Hastings race meeting of the season is set down for next Thursday, July 19, and a friends and family day is planned with free admission on course and free entry to the Members’ Stand.

       There will be packages available of food and beverages for groups of any size and patrons will also be allowed BYO beverages on the public lawn area and public grandstand. This will be limited to six bottles of beer or one bottle of wine per person.

       The gates will open at 11am with the first race timed for 12.27pm and the last at 3.57pm, although these times may change if additional races are programmed.

    Presumably blind eyes will be turned if a flask or two of brandy or rum are brought along.  Or a keg of whisky if the Minister of Racing turns up with his friends and family in tow.


  11. A couple of days ago I read that Jonathan Parkes is to ride Hiflyer when it races soon in Sydney, rather than a local jockey.

    This got me wondering in general terms who coughs up for the expenses of NZ jockeys engaged for long distance meetings.

    Apart from the mandatory riding fee, and the stakes percentage (if any), is it the case that deals are negotiated ride by ride by jockeys' agents?  Is there a general pattern?

    I suppose any NZ jockey would happily meet their own costs to ride the rank outsider in the Melbourne Cup.  I doubt any sought after northern jockey would pay their way for a ride at Waterlea or Washdyke.

     

     

     


  12. 2 hours ago, Red Rum said:

    Re NSW and Victoria returning the tax to the industry it must only be a percentage of the tax taken  returned otherwise why tax, therefore it's the amount of tax returned that's at issue. If the whole lot is returned is it only then to the benefit of the bean counters not the people of NSW /VIC or the industry participants. The person on the street who's struggling to pay ever above inflation increasing rates, regional petrol taxes, etc etc must find it bit odd when they only hear of millions splashed out at Karaka each year or horses going to HK for seven figure sums , then the industry asks for tax breaks . Not sure how the industry makes the worker who is doing the hard yards digging a road on a hot day realise it is in fact struggling when all they see is the caviar and champagne on TV news come Feb sales time, and needs some of his tax dollars. It's hard to explain to them some poor buggers on minimum wage mucking out crap at some early hour in mid winter and they don't have caviar on toast from breakfast.

    It might help if the distinctions between the different components of the racing industry were clearer to the road worker.  So too the differences between the financial returns to the top players in each component compared to those of the average and the strugglers. 

    NZTR might be expected to promote understanding of the state of the NZ industry on behalf of those battling to continue participating in it. It is galling when NZTR's Racing Desk runs an article about Rachel Frost relocating to Victoria with a string of horses but doesn't report why she gave up on NZ (Racecafers know, but the average newspaper reader probably wonders given that Winston is supposedly throwing money at the industry).


  13. Reading the article I was struck that there could be substance in some aspects of it, but also that De Lore is off beam, indeed comprehensively ignorant, on some matters he covers.  An example is that he says ... Tabcorp must be favoured over the corporate bookmakers, as the organisation has a vested interest in racing as opposed to the corporates who exist primarily to return a profit to their shareholders ... when anyone with half a brain knows that Tabcorp is as corporate as it gets, being listed on the Australian Stock Exchange!