Lowering the standard

[Nelli 435]

What do Race cafers think about the HRNZ Board proposal to alter (lower) qualifying standards and to try to encourage more horses to race from the pool that currently qualify but don't race? IMO unless they do some major changes to the rating system and race conditions, it will further accentuate the flow of our better horses to Aussie. There is only so much money to go round.  I would rather see qualifiers starting at a much lower rating (which may address that qualifier pool), smaller fields (easier to program for similar horses with our reducing horse numbers, and would allow more mobile trots) and more use of conditions (e.g. money won in last 5 starts). 

[john legend 744]

agreeNelli  thought it not a bright idea.. Most reasonable horses can get the qualifying times then need to improve to be racing propositions. The mr50 can be ok but if a good maiden wins they then face racing horses that may have won 6 or 7 races straight away.. I can see the logic in getting more race horses but  maybe 2 wins in mr50  permitted before increase in class. .You  c ould have say a r30 t0 32 range for a lower stake but it depends if punters and trainers would be keen. the idea of better innovation in use of conditions should suffice.

[2Piper 408]

I hear the decision is made to scrap the time qualifying standard

[Nelli 435]

It still comes down to having enough owners. The costs are the same to feed and train a good or poor horse but the latter will earn less. If other owner/breeders are like us, we focus our resources on the ones who can pay their way (and for the education of our young ones) and find new homes for those who are a big drain on our resources. Will low grade races change  the numbers of horses we can afford to race? If it means funds shifted away from the higher grade races and our good horses will earn less, then the proposal may actually have a negative effect on how many horses we can afford to own.

[2Piper 408]

9 minutes ago, Nelli said:

It still comes down to having enough owners. The costs are the same to feed and train a good or poor horse but the latter will earn less. If other owner/breeders are like us, we focus our resources on the ones who can pay their way (and for the education of our young ones) and find new homes for those who are a big drain on our resources. Will low grade races change  the numbers of horses we can afford to race? If it means funds shifted away from the higher grade races and our good horses will earn less, then the proposal may actually have a negative effect on how many horses we can afford to own.

Has any breeding bonuses been attached to any horses you have bred?

I was looking through NZ bred horses placed yesterday and I saw Baltimore Jill  (Auckland Reactor )have none  but has been placed several times since August .  Paige (One Over The Moon) has $2500+ in  NZ bred bonuses and $2000 in fillies and mare bonuses.  Something is not right with Baltimore Jill's  info or eligibility?

[Nelli 435]

We've not qualified for any bonuses yet. Having different "breeding entities" eliminated us from the old scheme (we get partners in to race and that detail came into play too late for us to change ownerships) and we race trotters which effectively eliminates us from the new scheme in the North Island. The NZ bred bonus only goes to winners (I cannot see what at all use it is to give a sizable bonus to a breeder for a decision they made 3-8 years ago).

[CeeMeNow 196]

I also think that the NZ bred bonus is stupid, the hope of a strong home bred industry went out the back door decades ago. What is the percentage of Colonial bred horses racing?  5% maybe?, in which case this policy discriminates against 95% of Breeders

[Nelli 435]

6 hours ago, 2Piper said:

Has an

I was looking through NZ bred horses placed yesterday and I saw Baltimore Jill  (Auckland Reactor )have none  but has been placed several times since August .  Paige (One Over The Moon) has $2500+ in  NZ bred bonuses and $2000 in fillies and mare bonuses.  Something is not right with Baltimore Jill's  info or eligibility?

Baltimore Jill has not placed in a f&m race (f&m) bonus nor won a race this season (NZ stallion bonus).

[Taku Umanga 194]

18 hours ago, 2Piper said:

Has any breeding bonuses been attached to any horses you have bred?

I was looking through NZ bred horses placed yesterday and I saw Baltimore Jill  (Auckland Reactor )have none  but has been placed several times since August .  Paige (One Over The Moon) has $2500+ in  NZ bred bonuses and $2000 in fillies and mare bonuses.  Something is not right with Baltimore Jill's  info or eligibility?

Probably because the breeder no longer exists so nobody to pay the bonus to

[2Piper 408]

16 hours ago, Nelli said:

Baltimore Jill has not placed in a f&m race (f&m) bonus nor won a race this season (NZ stallion bonus).

The scheme is 10% on stakes ( not just wins)  from all races in NZ.

Auckland Reactor is on the list of NZ bred Stallions. 

As for the breeding entity of Baltimore Jill does have a change to it. She was bred with partners but the first person named of that is still the owner of the dam who is still breeding.  So do you think it is fair that a part of the previous entity may now no longer be breeding but the principle person misses out ? (Even on a owner/ breeder percentage) . That person is still breeding.  This is more a disincentive to breed and have less people involved. The complete opposite of what we want to achieve. More owners breeding.

We don't  know the particular circumstances of the breeder but going by the Stallions used to the Dam,  it has been to mainly the lower ranked  Stallions. BIS would not likely have been used as mare missed and no return the previous 2 years.

Baltimore Jill is raced by one  ( with others) of the breeders entities Breeders ( not the principle ).

[Nelli 435]

5 hours ago, 2Piper said:

The scheme is 10% on stakes ( not just wins)  from all races in NZ.

Auckland Reactor is on the list of NZ bred Stallions. 

As for the breeding entity of Baltimore Jill does have a change to it. She was bred with partners but the first person named of that is still the owner of the dam who is still breeding.  So do you think it is fair that a part of the previous entity may now no longer be breeding but the principle person misses out ? (Even on a owner/ breeder percentage) . That person is still breeding.  This is more a disincentive to breed and have less people involved. The complete opposite of what we want to achieve. More owners breeding.

We don't  know the particular circumstances of the breeder but going by the Stallions used to the Dam,  it has been to mainly the lower ranked  Stallions. BIS would not likely have been used as mare missed and no return the previous 2 years.

Baltimore Jill is raced by one  ( with others) of the breeders entities Breeders ( not the principle ).

Aha - in the small print in v3 of the conditions is the reason the principle breeder misses out. As the mare is a 5yo, it is likely that the breeding entity (the group of people listed) for Baltimore Jill hasn't bred anything within the last 5 years. Yes it does seem unfair that the very people that go to the effort to get additional people into owning and breeding Standardbreds are excluded from both schemes.

[Nelli 435]

3 hours ago, Nelli said:

Aha - in the small print in v3 of the conditions is the reason the principle breeder misses out. As the mare is a 5yo, it is likely that the breeding entity (the group of people listed) for Baltimore Jill hasn't bred anything within the last 5 years. Yes it does seem unfair that the very people that go to the effort to get additional people into owning and breeding Standardbreds are excluded from both schemes.

One of the side effects of these conditions is that commercial breeder companies  (including those sending mares to their own stallions) don't face the same problems.  Eg Ultimate Racy Girl has earned over $7K for Alabar.