NZTR'S Arrogance knows no bounds

[Integrity101 68]

Since coming back to NZ I've noticed the sometimes extreme arrogance in how the governing body deals with some matters, in particular when compared to very professional organisations such as Racing NSW/Victoria.

Take Racing.Com and how they bend over backwards to provide every possible source of information for stake holders.

Meanwhile blind Freddy/Fredrica, who wasn't blind before they ventured to the NZTR's Loveracing.arrogance 'site' ,had the audacity to at least expect accurate stats.

Plainly inaccurate gear for trial racing for a start.  Important when gear changes have been supposedly trialed before race day.

Horses returning from Australia with different gear then proceeding to inaccurately tell us "Blinkers on" back here when they were wearing such last start.  Too lazy to look it up themselves, they wilfully give punters wrong information and just hope every punter is as ignorant and arrogant as themselves.

Easy stuff like rail placement.  Click on a horse at Racing.Com and they give you the last 5 rail placements of a horse's last 5 starts  Here?  What paddy shot at!  

You'd think they'd bend over backwards to provide a 'last rail' placement for the meeting when providing a basic stat for an upcoming meeting??

They say, "bugger off" go and find the last meeting there and "look it up yourself you lazy bast ard"

And then the really big stuff like the current unworkable whip rules where the holder of the title 'Racing integrity and upholding confidence in the industry for the general public' AKA RIB said

"we disagree with your latest April '23 whip iteration because not only is it unworkable it's anti integrity when you allow blatant whip cheating, especially in black type racing'

Just look at a recent apprentice whip violation in the South, 17 whip strikes before the 100M and the horse gets to keep it's placing and stake money for owners who don't give a rats about a jockey's suspension when holding their hand out for the "lolly'.

Awful arrogance like these examples are the death knell of 'professional' organisations in the end.. 

Treat customers like dogs and they'll give you fleas.

 

[Pete Lane 832]

I really like the LoveRacing app but I wish they had some consistency and accuracy with horses that have changed stable.

It's hit and miss at the moment. Something so basic shouldn't be beyond them.

[Integrity101 68]

Exactly!  And they have a cast of 1000's working for them to get basic stuff, wrong??

When they announced their new 'improved" track condition ratings, to match Australia's,  they didn't realise just how different NZ tracks behave.

Guerin got talking with Butch Castles on Senz a while back.

"God I hate the Soft 5 rating"  To which Butch wholeheartedly agreed.  Its the old Easy/Dead and is certainly NOT soft!

And why would you introduce a whole level of an extra Heavy when the previous had just 10/11??  Now H 8/9/10 where many punters look at heavy and simply  refuse to bet.

Racing Victoria give punters penetrometer, shear and moisture.  NZTR only moisture, which doesn't align with the official reading of numbers, that being the penetrometer.

The highest level of 10 can have a difference of 80 plus lengths but in NZTR's arrogant thinking, it's exactly the same!  They told a punting mate "look at the rain from last week, put 2 and 2 together and work it out yourself.  Any punter who can't is a pretty poor punter"!!! What the actual f***!!!!

Back in the golden olden days we had a rating of HOLDING, which is highly relevant.  Not a week goes by in winter where trainers/ jockeys/track managers tell Stipes their horses hate holding/sticky ground when failing.

NZTR in their arrogance said "it's too complicated to supply that information, we thought about it but yea/na, work it out yourself"

And Entain wonder why NZ punters won't punt in winter.

[Shad 1,602]

One certainly needs every bit of information available in pursuit of backing a winner, and with the technology these days, there should no excuses for that not to be supplied, 

[Integrity101 68]

10 hours ago, Shad said:

One certainly needs every bit of information available in pursuit of backing a winner, and with the technology these days, there should no excuses for that not to be supplied, 

Of course you're right, so when they decide to provide such I'm sure every single stake holder takes it as read that the 'stats' provided are not a bunch of lies.

Take yesterday's Riccarton meeting.  OUR KIWI GIRL is shown as WINKERS 1st time in her first start back then next start BLINKERS 1st time

Both Winkers and Blinkers were tried in her Australian starts.   If I can find the actual correct stats, surely they can as well?

MOON ROCKET trialed without Blinkers before resuming without them yet NZTR would have us believe that wasn't the case at all.  "Trialled blinkers"

It's lazy amateurish stuff from a chest pounding self promoting 'professional' organisation,.  In their dreams.

Russ Warwick should get in there  first day and crack his whip thing, because he prides himself on his professionalism.

[Integrity101 68]

Seemingly not a week goes by where NZTR doesn't have egg on their face after ignoring the Integrity Boards advice to change their unworkable whip rule.

On Saturday MISS BELLE's jockey Dan Subramanium blatantly cheats the rule while winning by a neck, with 12 strikes before the 100M where 5 is allowed.  A number of countries now have the DQ option ( not on punting) which especially secures the integrity of black type where jockeys are obviously far more likely to cheat.

We certainly need it here.  Keep in mind research shows faster times in whip v non whip racing in the UK.

The integrity of race results are being constantly called into question then with NZTR's extreme arrogance in ignoring the very organisation designed to protect all stake holders interests.

[racingoutsider 58]

3 hours ago, Integrity101 said:

  Keep in mind research shows faster times in whip v non whip racing in the UK.

Totally agree with your main point 101. The NZTR lack of action on this flies in the face of their other recent animal welfare initiatives and emphasis.

I haven't seen the research you mention above. Would you please point us to it?

What I've seen shows the opposite. I.e., that whip use does NOT make them run faster.

https://theconversation.com/research-shows-whipping-horses-doesnt-make-them-run-faster-straighter-or-safer-lets-cut-it-out-144405

"Our results indicated no significant differences between horse movement on the course, interference on the course, the frequency of incidents related to jockey behaviour, or average race finishing times.

Put simply, whip use had no impact on steering, safety or speed. Contrary to longstanding beliefs, whipping racehorses just doesn’t work"

[Pam Robson 1,707]

A good start might be to have apprentice races whipping-free.    To get the idea into people's minds, perhaps start by 3-4kg claimers not allowed to use the whip, and see how that is accepted.

[racingoutsider 58]

18 minutes ago, Pam Robson said:

A good start might be to have apprentice races whipping-free.    To get the idea into people's minds, perhaps start by 3-4kg claimers not allowed to use the whip, and see how that is accepted.

Good idea but as in the UK hands and heels series, I think you'd have to make the whole race whip free (carried but not used) to avoid any reluctance from connections to put the 3-4 claimers on.

[Pam Robson 1,707]

 

True,  a series restricted to apprentices would be good, but nowadays we don't have apprentice only races at all, do we?

[rdytdy 5,384]

33 minutes ago, Pam Robson said:

 

True,  a series restricted to apprentices would be good, but nowadays we don't have apprentice only races at all, do we?

Taranaki have an apprentice only meeting. Was run on June 6th this year.  

[Integrity101 68]

4 hours ago, racingoutsider said:

Totally agree with your main point 101. The NZTR lack of action on this flies in the face of their other recent animal welfare initiatives and emphasis.

I haven't seen the research you mention above. Would you please point us to it?

What I've seen shows the opposite. I.e., that whip use does NOT make them run faster.

https://theconversation.com/research-shows-whipping-horses-doesnt-make-them-run-faster-straighter-or-safer-lets-cut-it-out-144405

"Our results indicated no significant differences between horse movement on the course, interference on the course, the frequency of incidents related to jockey behaviour, or average race finishing times.

Put simply, whip use had no impact on steering, safety or speed. Contrary to longstanding beliefs, whipping racehorses just doesn’t work"

Curiously, that's the research but it was 'analysed' by groups such as SPCA/Kick up for Racing who had an agenda. 

Very fine margins were ignored ( 0.125 sec = @3/4 L ) and we all know 'fine' margins become winning margins.  

Besides being counterintuitive jockeys know it works or they simply wouldn't use it to go the same speed??

Then the guru of 'art and science of race horse performance analysis' Aussie Dan O'Sullivan got hold of the 'analysis' and said "what a load of old cobblers"

When Bobby Vance smashed TE AKAU NICK 27 times or was it 29, up the Flemington straight ask him if he thought it didn't make one iota of difference to his speed.

 

[Integrity101 68]

4 hours ago, Pam Robson said:

A good start might be to have apprentice races whipping-free.    To get the idea into people's minds, perhaps start by 3-4kg claimers not allowed to use the whip, and see how that is accepted.

How good is the Amateur riders series without whip strikes behind the saddle?

Then compare a Group 1 Galop France race, who restrict use to 4 strikes throughout the race, to an appalling South Australian bashathon and it's stark.

About this time, Bruce Sherwin, who was/is on the 3 member NZTR Integrity Committee will come in and explain why they ignored RIB's advice, which would have gone some way to secure very important Black type catalogue integrity.

But he might just say it was 'too tricky"??

[racingoutsider 58]

25 minutes ago, Integrity101 said:

Curiously, that's the research but it was 'analysed' by groups such as SPCA/Kick up for Racing who had an agenda.

Sorry, that's wrong. Have you read the study? The SPCA and Kick Up had nothing to do with it.

Conflicts of Interest

Kirrilly Thompson is the National Participation Manager of Pony Club Australia, which has a collaborative relationship with Thoroughbred Industry Careers. Paul McGreevy and Phil McManus have received funding from the Australian Research Council for their project, “Caring for Thoroughbreds”. Paul McGreevy occasional conducts research funded by RSPCA Australia. Dene Stansall has been the Horse Racing Consultant to Animal Aid (registered in the UK as Animal Abuse Injustice and Defence Society. Company number 1787309) for over twenty years. He advises on policy in relation to campaigning for improvements to horse welfare. Animal Aid is an organisation that does not support the use of animals for sport, entertainment or gambling. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

[Integrity101 68]

3 minutes ago, racingoutsider said:

Sorry, that's wrong. Have you read the study? The SPCA and Kick Up had nothing to do with it.

Conflicts of Interest

Kirrilly Thompson is the National Participation Manager of Pony Club Australia, which has a collaborative relationship with Thoroughbred Industry Careers. Paul McGreevy and Phil McManus have received funding from the Australian Research Council for their project, “Caring for Thoroughbreds”. Paul McGreevy occasional conducts research funded by RSPCA Australia. Dene Stansall has been the Horse Racing Consultant to Animal Aid (registered in the UK as Animal Abuse Injustice and Defence Society. Company number 1787309) for over twenty years. He advises on policy in relation to campaigning for improvements to horse welfare. Animal Aid is an organisation that does not support the use of animals for sport, entertainment or gambling. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Know McGreevy well, but curiously I'm not going to get into a 'who's got the biggest kahuna's' debate with you

KUFR often quotes this 'analysis' to support  their contention to get rid of the whip.  I didn't say it they had anything to do with it, merely that they 'analysed' it.

Although it's interesting in the above that McGreevy is often funded by RSPCA.

Did you know RSPCA/SPCA is one and the same?

Whatever silly curve balls you throw the 'analysis' has been properly analysed by a form expert who knows wtf 0.125 sec translates to in winning margins.

That's all you should be devoting your time to.

[racingoutsider 58]

42 minutes ago, Integrity101 said:

Very fine margins were ignored ( 0.125 sec = @3/4 L ) and we all know 'fine' margins become winning margins. 

No they were not. In fact the study found that non-whip races were half a second slower on average than whip use races but the difference was not statistically significant.

As much as I respect Dan O'Sullivans analysis, I prefer the conclusion of the Australian Veterinary Association on the matter and that study.

Recommendations

1. Currently, racing codes mandate their definition of correct whip use and associated penalties for misuse, based on the activities of the horse and likely proximity to other horses and people. Racing codes must work towards a framework where whip use for encouragement is not condoned (International Society for Equitation Science. 2018).

I wonder if the welfare team at NZTR have sought a similar updated opinion from the NZEVA?  It seems to me that NZTR are well behind international opinion and standards both on penalty and regulations at this point and not doing anything about it.

[Integrity101 68]

38 minutes ago, racingoutsider said:

No they were not. In fact the study found that non-whip races were half a second slower on average than whip use races but the difference was not statistically significant.

As much as I respect Dan O'Sullivans analysis, I prefer the conclusion of the Australian Veterinary Association on the matter and that study.

Recommendations

1. Currently, racing codes mandate their definition of correct whip use and associated penalties for misuse, based on the activities of the horse and likely proximity to other horses and people. Racing codes must work towards a framework where whip use for encouragement is not condoned (International Society for Equitation Science. 2018).

I wonder if the welfare team at NZTR have sought a similar updated opinion from the NZEVA?  It seems to me that NZTR are well behind international opinion and standards both on penalty and regulations at this point and not doing anything about it.

Uh??  "half a second...not statistically significant"??

That's THE very reason O'Sullivan nearly fell of his high chair and set to putting the the wrong...right!

The Aussie vets should have to put their money where their mouth is and back their misjudgment agin Dan's then.

However well meaning their recommendations are though it has nothing to do with O'Sullivan's expert analysis that whips are faster!

Agree that NZTR are bereft of facts and frozen with fear that changing to International trends will make them look woke alongside our neighbours blatant disregard for whip abuse.

[racingoutsider 58]

44 minutes ago, Integrity101 said:

Uh??  "half a second...not statistically significant"??

That's THE very reason O'Sullivan nearly fell of his high chair and set to putting the the wrong...right!

The Aussie vets should have to put their money where their mouth is and back their misjudgment agin Dan's then.

However well meaning their recommendations are though it has nothing to do with O'Sullivan's expert analysis that whips are faster!

Agree that NZTR are bereft of facts and frozen with fear that changing to International trends will make them look woke alongside our neighbours blatant disregard for whip abuse.

I pretty much agree with you I think. It's not significant because the sample size is so small.

We compared reports from 67 “Hands and Heels” races, where whips are held but not used (whipping-free, WF), with 59 reports from case-matched races where whipping was permitted (whipping permitted, WP).

Too small in my view to draw any conclusion either way. It beggars belief that no further study of that has been done, given that there is considerably more data available in the UK  where other variables such as tracks, class of race etc could be controlled for. A more balanced summary of the situation is in this article which pretty much concludes we don't know yet. The AVA may have jumped the gun on limited evidence, but as far as I can see the BHA Whip Steering Committee have taken a reasonable approach which NZTR might consider following in the interim.

Horse racing and the growth of hashtag activism

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02614367.2023.2271182#d1e186

 

[Integrity101 68]

22 hours ago, racingoutsider said:

I pretty much agree with you I think. It's not significant because the sample size is so small.

We compared reports from 67 “Hands and Heels” races, where whips are held but not used (whipping-free, WF), with 59 reports from case-matched races where whipping was permitted (whipping permitted, WP).

Too small in my view to draw any conclusion either way. It beggars belief that no further study of that has been done, given that there is considerably more data available in the UK  where other variables such as tracks, class of race etc could be controlled for. A more balanced summary of the situation is in this article which pretty much concludes we don't know yet. The AVA may have jumped the gun on limited evidence, but as far as I can see the BHA Whip Steering Committee have taken a reasonable approach which NZTR might consider following in the interim.

Horse racing and the growth of hashtag activism

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02614367.2023.2271182#d1e186

 

Yes, pretty much but methinks jurisdictions are frozen with fear to act, scared witless of their sector groups.

Anecdotally the likes of Opie Bosson has publicly stated "I need the whip" 

Ask him if they go faster and he'd probably laugh in your face

Last March he won a Group 1 with 3 consecutive strikes in the last 3 strides where 2 consecutive is against the rules.

The breeders were over the moon, others not so much

[racingoutsider 58]

19 hours ago, Integrity101 said:

Yes, pretty much but methinks jurisdictions are frozen with fear to act, scared witless of their sector groups.

Anecdotally the likes of Opie Bosson has publicly stated "I need the whip" 

Ask him if they go faster and he'd probably laugh in your face

Last March he won a Group 1 with 3 consecutive strikes in the last 3 strides where 2 consecutive is against the rules.

The breeders were over the moon, others not so much

Yes, and in relation to that example, the BHA rule is that a rider must allow 3 strides between each use of the whip. This is logical in order to allow the horse time to respond. On penalty, 4 uses which amount to a breach lead to disqualification of the horse. That seems  reasonable to me based on current evidence.

[Nerula 1,453]

Just get rid of the damned whip.

The horses that want to race will win.

Jockeys will have to ride longer leathers to ride hands and heels. More safety to rider and horses due to balance. Less cancellations..

Less activists outside the gate.

You know it makes sense

[Integrity101 68]

7 hours ago, racingoutsider said:

Yes, and in relation to that example, the BHA rule is that a rider must allow 3 strides between each use of the whip. This is logical in order to allow the horse time to respond. On penalty, 4 uses which amount to a breach lead to disqualification of the horse. That seems  reasonable to me based on current evidence.

That's very fair and would be accepted by stake holders here inmho.

Galop France have 4 with 9 strikes DQ'd

But what about this from BHA

A rider must only use the whip on the hind quarters of the horse in either the forehand or backhand position or down the shoulder with the whip in the backhand position

What jurisdiction would allow a horse to be struck on the highly sensitive flank i.e. without muscle protection, with the polymer section of the whip i.e no cushion?

NZTR, that's who.

I'm an old fart but now I know what  Virtue Signalling means.

It's when NZTR signed up to article 32 (a) of International Federation of Horse Racing cica 2020 knees up.

They received all the plaudits/back slapping for 'horse welfare' initiatives by the other delegates, got back home, and FAILED to implement such

After 4 years in May of this year, they decided to contact IFHA and told them "we withdraw from article 32"

And 'wish to continue striking the flank of our beloved thoroughbreds because that's how we roll'

What an absolute disgrace

 

[Griffin 60]

What jurisdiction would allow a horse to be struck on the highly sensitive flank i.e. without muscle protection, with the polymer section of the whip i.e no cushion?

Totally agree, the number of riders we have here that hit that area is bloody terrible. 

[racingoutsider 58]

1 hour ago, Integrity101 said:

That's very fair and would be accepted by stake holders here inmho.

Galop France have 4 with 9 strikes DQ'd

But what about this from BHA

A rider must only use the whip on the hind quarters of the horse in either the forehand or backhand position or down the shoulder with the whip in the backhand position

What jurisdiction would allow a horse to be struck on the highly sensitive flank i.e. without muscle protection, with the polymer section of the whip i.e no cushion?

NZTR, that's who.

I'm an old fart but now I know what  Virtue Signalling means.

It's when NZTR signed up to article 32 (a) of International Federation of Horse Racing cica 2020 knees up.

They received all the plaudits/back slapping for 'horse welfare' initiatives by the other delegates, got back home, and FAILED to implement such

After 4 years in May of this year, they decided to contact IFHA and told them "we withdraw from article 32"

And 'wish to continue striking the flank of our beloved thoroughbreds because that's how we roll'

What an absolute disgrace

 

Yes, interesting to note that the original recommendation of the BHA whip review committee was for backhand whip use only but because of some research showing that to be more forceful than overhand use and that it was thought to be more likely to inadvertently strike the flank, they decided to include overhand use and also allow flat riders the option of using jumper whips which have a longer flap to mitigate that risk.

The US has similar rules now. 6 strikes per race and a 2 stride delay required. Also a 4 strikes over and you're out rule - purse money withdrawn.

HISA data shows ""the average winning times of races over all distances was broadly in line with those recorded last year, suggesting the reduced use of the whip was not making the sport less competitive".

Further, Hall of Fame jockey, John Velazquez presented the jockey input to the rule change on behalf of US jockeys.

[Nerula 1,453]

"Stick" said to me a few years ago, " I've had quite a few horses that could have been a Sunline. But they didnt want to."

So the whip didn't help them win!

I had a filly with FA that refused to gallop at all. I suppose she got the bat.