Andrew Forsman

[BUCKY]

Does anyone here have any connection to this stable?

I understand the RIB in their wisdom have forbidden any of his horses to either trial or race...due to strangles.

This is in spite of the main equine clinic in Cambridge supplying a statement saying the stable does not have strangles.

Andrew sent an email out within the last couple days to all his owners, with a copy of the vets. certificate. He has no horses accepted anywhere tomorrow.

Can anyone expand on this? If you don't know, his barn at Cambridge is alongside Roger James' and also in close proximity to Stephen Marsh..

[scooby3051]

So if this is genuinely the situation, Bucky, then why is this stable being punished if they have done everything correctly, honestly and within the rules?That’s the part I struggle to understand. We’ve seen some very big stables producing what appear to be extremely disappointing results, yet they’ve seemingly been able to work around the situation by moving horses and continue operating. So why is Forsman being singled out and penalised while others appear to have been allowed to carry on? Surely the same rules and the same standards should apply to everybody, regardless of the size or profile of the stable. If Forsman has complied with everything required of him, then somebody needs to explain exactly why he is being treated differently, but I would not hold my breath its not what you know but who it seems.

[BUCKY]

5 minutes ago, scooby3051 said:

So if this is genuinely the situation, Bucky, then why is this stable being punished if they have done everything correctly, honestly and within the rules?That’s the part I struggle to understand. We’ve seen some very big stables producing what appear to be extremely disappointing results, yet they’ve seemingly been able to work around the situation by moving horses and continue operating. So why is Forsman being singled out and penalised while others appear to have been allowed to carry on? Surely the same rules and the same standards should apply to everybody, regardless of the size or profile of the stable. If Forsman has complied with everything required of him, then somebody needs to explain exactly why he is being treated differently, but I would not hold my breath its not what you know but who it seems.

Yes, why should anyone be surprised. 

I've been careful about how I phrased my initial post. I havent seen any documentation but I was told yesterday about this scenario by one of his clients. There may well be more to this than meets the eye, but given the non performance by one or two 'other ' high profile stables..is there something we're not being told?

[racesraces]

Is there an inference to be made here? That there other stables that should have been shut down before Andrew's? 

[rdytdy]

Two nominated for Cambridge on Wednesday. 

[PKR]

7 hours ago, BUCKY said:

Yes, why should anyone be surprised. 

I've been careful about how I phrased my initial post. I havent seen any documentation but I was told yesterday about this scenario by one of his clients. There may well be more to this than meets the eye, but given the non performance by one or two 'other ' high profile stables..is there something we're not being told?

Something we're not being told? Crickey, I hope not. Non gamblers outside the industry already think racing is stacked but guessing which stables have 'an issue' adds a whole new spin on it. Joe punter would be the last to know. All hail TAB/Entain revenue.

[Dissident]

I know of a new case this week but no idea where it is. It does seem odd to single him out given the proximity there, especially if there's a vet statement saying they don't have it.

[Leggy]

On 9/4/2026 at 1:01 PM, rdytdy said:

Two nominated for Cambridge on Wednesday. 

Neither paid up I see.

[Leggy]

Nothing at Rotorua trials nor nomed for Taupo.

[elo]

36 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Nothing at Rotorua trials nor nomed for Taupo.

Nor Hastings or Te Rapa

[Leggy]

For the avoidance of further speculation on this, I can confirm that there has been a positive strangles case at the Forsman stables. All the required protocols have and are being followed. Subject to current testing, horses should be racing and trialling again next week.

[PKR]

You would think that this information would be on the NZTR website. Afterall, strangles affects horses' performance. Is not performance the key factor in wagering? Where is the transparency? The responsibility? Social license? Puts a whole new spin on caveat emptor.   

[Sobeit]

On 9/4/2026 at 8:03 AM, BUCKY said:

Does anyone here have any connection to this stable?

I understand the RIB in their wisdom have forbidden any of his horses to either trial or race...due to strangles.

This is in spite of the main equine clinic in Cambridge supplying a statement saying the stable does not have strangles.

Andrew sent an email out within the last couple days to all his owners, with a copy of the vets. certificate. He has no horses accepted anywhere tomorrow.

Can anyone expand on this? If you don't know, his barn at Cambridge is alongside Roger James' and also in close proximity to Stephen Marsh..

So, if there is a confirmed case in the stable, was it confirmed before or after the veterinary report clearing all of the horses in the stable? I'm confused about the timeline for all of this.

For the record, I have no issue with this particular stable. I just want robust policies adhered to and enforced, as well as real transparency for the sake of all industry parties and naturally, for the horse population as a whole, particularly those based in the Waikato.

[Leggy]

2 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

 the veterinary report clearing all of the horses in the stable

Was there one? I understood that is what they are in the process of obtaining this week.

[Sobeit]

1 minute ago, Leggy said:

Was there one? I understood that is what they are in the process of obtaining this week.

Possibly not. If you're right (and you quite possibly are) then I await the contents of it with bated breath should it be released to the public. However, I'm not going wager a bet that we'll ever see it.

Btw, I was referring to the  text in Bucky's post and I do understand that this was hearsay.

Posted Friday at 08:03 AM

This is in spite of the main equine clinic in Cambridge supplying a statement saying the stable does not have strangles.

Andrew sent an email out within the last couple days to all his owners, with a copy of the vets. certificate.

[The Lone Stranger]

3 hours ago, PKR said:

You would think that this information would be on the NZTR website. Afterall, strangles affects horses' performance. Is not performance the key factor in wagering? Where is the transparency? The responsibility? Social license? Puts a whole new spin on caveat emptor.   

Oh yeah the caviar temptor - aint that what Entain serve at their flash cocktail do’s bro!

[Sobeit]

 

Page 1 of 2
NZTR DIRECTIVE FOR STRANGLES DISEASE MANAGEMENT
Effective Date: 10 September 2026
This Directive relates to all Thoroughbred breeding, training, trialling and racing activities.
This Directive replaces all directives relating to Strangles Disease Management issued by
NZTR previously. This Directive replaces the Directive initially released on 8 July 2026.
Purpose
New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) has issued this Directive to reduce the risk of
Strangles spreading within the Thoroughbred racing industry.
Enforceability
This Directive is binding on all Trainers, Breeders, licensed persons, owners, and all other
persons (including agistment operators, pre-trainers and other service providers) to whom
the equine welfare provisions of the Rules of Racing apply. The possible consequences of a
failure to adhere to this Directive are detailed in Section 3 of this Directive.
1. Definitions
1.1 For the purpose of this Directive:
Horse means any horse including a horse used as a travelling companion horse or a
Clerk of Course horse.
Strangles means the equine disease caused by Streptococcus equi subsp. equi.
1.2 Any other term used in this Directive shall have the meaning given to it in the Rules of
Racing unless the context requires otherwise.
2. Obligations
2.1 Disease control when Strangles is confirmed
Notification of Strangles cases must be made by email to the RIB Veterinary Services
Manager via: vet@rib.org.nz. If Strangles is confirmed by veterinary diagnosis or
laboratory testing in any horse in the care of a Trainer, Breeder, Licensed Person, pretrainer,
agistment operator or other service provider or any other person to whom the
Rules apply, the person must advise the RIB Veterinary Services Manager (email:
vet@rib.org.nz) immediately upon confirmed diagnosis.

Page 2 of 2
All further training and stable movements must be halted immediately and the stable
premise placed in biosecurity restrictions whilst further testing is conducted and the
attending veterinarian and the RIB Veterinary Services Manager (or their delegate)
jointly assess and confirm biosecurity measures that are necessary to minimise the risk
of further transmission of Strangles. Subsequent movement of horses must be
coordinated under the direction of the RIB Veterinary Services Manager.
The person must comply with all instructions or directions issued by NZTR or the Racing
Integrity Board (RIB) concerning testing, isolation, movement restrictions or other
disease control measures.
Biosecurity restrictions may be lifted or eased by the RIB Veterinary Services Manager if
satisfied that the affected horse has (or horses have) been isolated and managed with
evidenced effective stable biosecurity measures under veterinary guidance and RIB
approved clearance testing protocols have been undertaken. If permission is granted
for biosecurity restrictions to be lifted or eased, this may allow resumption of training,
racing, breeding or other usual activities.
A full clearance may be issued by the RIB Veterinary Services Manager following
consideration of written advice from the attending veterinarian and negative test
results obtained in accordance with the RIB-approved clearance testing protocol. Once
full clearance is issued, the stable may be permitted to resume training and racing
activities, subject to the requirements of this Directive and any additional conditions or
biosecurity measures imposed by the RIB Veterinary Services Manager.
2.2 Health monitoring
The Trainer must monitor all horses under their control for signs of illness. A horse must
not race, train or trial if it appears to be unwell, with symptoms including but not
limited to:
• fever;
• nasal discharge;
• coughing; or
• enlarged lymph nodes.
3. Compliance
Failure to adhere to this Directive (and the requirements set out above) constitutes a
breach of the Rules of Racing (Rule 801 - Serious Racing Offences).
Providing false or misleading information in any declaration or record required under this
Directive may constitute a Serious Racing Offence.
--- End ---

[racesraces]

Why wasn't this done earlier? And why now?

[Leggy]

At a glance, it appears that they have reduced the strictness of the previous July 8 version, possibly to assist the way forward for the current case by providing more flexibility.

Still no word that there even has been an active case, a month later, and even more worrying where it was sourced and hearsay suggests that was from well outside the known affected area/s.

[Sobeit]

So, what happens in this scenario? 

A horse in Cambridge R1 pulled up coughing. That is noted in the Stipes Report and the trainer advised the horse will be sent for a spell

My question is: Given that coughing is one of the symptoms of Strangles listed in the 10 Sept directive will this horse be required to be tested for this condition as a precaution?

If not, why not when containment is crucially important and many horses from the Waikato race both north and south of their home district. Certainly, the stable with today's coughing horse has a good number in the stable & frequently travels.

I understand that numerous things could have caused the coughing, but today we raced in an area where there was/is a recent case (we think) 

Btw, just to be clear, I am not casting aspersions on this trainer or intimating that his horse has the dreaded 'S'. I just want to feel that suitable action is being taken by stipes on-course, if there is even a slight chance a horse might be infected, even if it is just to eliminate the possiblity of a live case continuing to move around.

[Leggy]

Fair question. You'd think it would be required. Probably is under the existing protocols anyway.

[Sobeit]

3 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Fair question. You'd think it would be required. Probably is under the existing protocols any way.

if it is required under the protocols would it not be transparent to mention it in the stipes report of the day? Surely that wouldn't be too onerous for the stipes.

[Leggy]

8 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

if it is required under the protocols would it not be transparent to mention it in the stipes report of the day? Surely that wouldn't be too onerous for the stipes.

Yes. You'd think so. The protocols above say

A horse must not race, train or trial if it appears to be unwell, with symptoms including but not
limited to:
• fever;
• nasal discharge;
• coughing; or
• enlarged lymph nodes.

Of course the coughing may have only been brought on by the race, but that then triggers the protocols related to what trainers should do in the event of a horse with clinical symptoms and that would certainly mean isolation and testing at least in the first instance.

I think the responsibility is with the trainer though, not the RIB.

[Leggy]

By way of update (all horses scratched today) following 2 positives last week, the stable has been closed for a further 2 weeks and another round of PCR testing before resuming normal activity.

[racesraces]

Surely they are not the only stable with positives. Why are they the only stable to be closed? Why was this not an option when the current outbreak was at its worst?