Leggy

I'm not seeing much evidence of that so far Gubes!

You might want to read that again P4P.

Read the article again. Rainwater is naturally well oxygenated: The typical origins of water used on crops is rainwater - high in O2 (unless stored for too long in a tank), ground water – oxygen deprived, (reverse) Osmosis water – oxygen deprived, and town water which is purposefully oxygen poor to prevent oxidation of the water delivery system. In some cases river/canal/lake water is used and those waters are generally well oxygenated unless affected by eutrophication.

Rainwater also contains dissolved oxygen.

I'm referring to the dissolved oxygen. https://www.hortidaily.com/article/25147/The-importance-of-dissolved-oxygen-in-irrigation-water/

I would argue that it is not the irrigation per se that is the problem. It is a) the way it is applied; b) the amounts that it is applied in; and c) that as Blue noted de-oxygenated water is used. All these have a negative effect on soil and root structure. Other jurisdictions manage to use irrigation to good effect on racecourses without the latter results.

Maybe they are trying to get everyone to bet offshore so they can just sit around and eat the donuts while they collect the PoC tax on that?

Sombre stuff.

Hi Greg: Sorry you have got that impression. You are entitled to your opinion that I am negative but I think I am negative only about persisting with what is already well demonstrated to not be working. If you search the café archives you will see that I have extensively argued for positive ways forward over the last decade or so and even though you are responding to a post from P4P which I am challenging, I think he and I agree for the most part on what those are. I think he would also verify that I have not only done that in social media but with the powers that be including some quite extensive pro bono analysis at their request, all of which went ignored. I don't have the time or energy to write an essay here reiterating those recommendations. However, in a paragraph, they fall under two banners. One is a more competitive and better priced wagering product and the other, a more competitive, wagering attractive, racing product. It's possibly too late to save the ship, but the latter would include things like fixing the handicapping system, the programming and the stakes structure and expenditure so that funding is not all wasted on stakes. The former would be probably off loading the expensive FOB system and concentrating on making the tote business globally competitive, particularly in terms of pricing, but now also on the service front given the dog of a website they are currently offering. Hope that helps. Brent p.s. not 100% who you are and not going to post my number on here but you probably can find it, so feel free to give me a call if you want to talk this through further. Or pm me.

No longer a priority of mine either. Enjoy the travels and the racing and best of luck with the runners in Oz.

I might add to that, if they are asking the right questions, are they getting answers to them from the right people? Most of racing's revenue comes from wagering so you'd expect that they'd be asking people with expertise in that area. Who have they asked about that?

If they are asking the right questions of the right sources and you are mates or know them well. then you'd be able to answer my question which I repeat, "A single recommendation in their February report which is soundly based on evidence and likely to provide better outcomes for industry participants whether that be clubs, owners, licence-holders or punters?"

Huh? Perhaps you would enlighten us? I'm struggling to find a single recommendation in their February report which is soundly based on evidence and likely to provide better outcomes for industry participants whether that be clubs, owners, licence-holders or punters. Please when you revert, exclude anything that involves stealing from communities or taxpayers. Thanks.

You might be right, but as you know, I'm inclined to make a fuss about these kind of things, especially if it turns out they are unlawful, even though I'm no longer a licence-holder. And to hell with the donuts and cream buns. Sorry about the reference to "bottoms". You didn't really need to pick up on that. It appears from the application form for NZTA membership that the $180 annual fee must be paid to NZTR. The above decision appears to say that under the Racing Act, NZTR can not collect fees on behalf of such associations, certainly not mandatorily (sorry, that might not be a word but you get what I mean).

Dead right! What has changed? Registration fee does not appeal. Dominion Post, Dec 20, 2004 Edition: 2, Section: RACING, pg. D6 A $30 registration fee on harness owners and breeders introduced by Harness Racing New Zealand has been shot down by the Court of Appeal. The New Zealand Standardbred Breeders Association Canterbury branch and horse breeder Kypros Kotzikas had appealed to the High Court that Harness Racing did not have the right to introduce the fee which was to fund the financially troubled New Zealand Trotting Owners Association and New Zealand Standardbred Breeders national association. High Court judge, Justice Panckhurst, said securing membership and funding for the two bodies was outside Harness Racing's control deemed by the Racing Act. The Court of Appeal has agreed and dismissed the appeal brought by Harness Racing.