Sign in to follow this  
modest mouse

track condition at Auckland

30 posts in this topic

The track condition at Auckland left something to be desired. The surface was far too loose, and therefore made it very hard for the dogs to get a hold of it.

The times tell the tale, as the 527m Maiden was run in 31.97. None of these dogs would have qualified on that time. I don't know how to better the condition, but am of the opinion, that since the re-surfacing the track has taken a turn for the worse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, modest mouse said:

The track condition at Auckland left something to be desired. The surface was far too loose, and therefore made it very hard for the dogs to get a hold of it.

The times tell the tale, as the 527m Maiden was run in 31.97. None of these dogs would have qualified on that time. I don't know how to better the condition, but am of the opinion, that since the re-surfacing the track has taken a turn for the worse.

 

Probably doesn't help if they turn the track two or three days before the races

I agree, the new surface has made the track a lot worse. You only have to look at the dangerous dip on the track surface next to the 318m boxes to see that. And the amount of muscle injuries there has been ridiculous. If you actually say that to a board member or make a complaint, most of them laugh at you, argue the opposite or ignore you completely. They actually think they have improved the track. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2017 at 6:26 PM, alltheway!!! said:

Probably doesn't help if they turn the track two or three days before the races

I agree, the new surface has made the track a lot worse. You only have to look at the dangerous dip on the track surface next to the 318m boxes to see that. And the amount of muscle injuries there has been ridiculous. If you actually say that to a board member or make a complaint, most of them laugh at you, argue the opposite or ignore you completely. They actually think they have improved the track. 

I generally wouldnt respond to a post that isnt directed to me directly. In particular a criticism by someone that is quite happy to call people out by their position,but cant  sign their name to their post. Personally i think its a reflection of someones character that isnt able to stand up for what the believe in. So alltheway!!!, id like to know who the board members are that you have made a complaint to, i know i'm not one of them, and i know at least one other director you havent spoken to, so that leaves 3 others are you sure you have spoken to all three, ie most of the directors, i would suggest that you havent... however if it strengthens your statement feel free to post mis-truths.

ph the club and they can give you my mobile number, I am more than happy to discuss the track and where I think it is at. My opinion of the track may surprise you.

Im waiting for your call....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i'm not a fan of fast tracks. I notice the times lately at Auckland are much slower. To my mind that is a good thing. A deeper track at Auckland would encourage me to race my dogs there. Down here in the Sth we have 2 slow deep tracks. Otago and Southland both fit that description. Both these tracks are recognised as being safe surfaces. I do not no what if or any other issues are causing problems at Auckland, but the fact that it is now running slower and deeper is to my mind a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem John is not so much fast or slow but consistency. Yesterday was a nightmare for punters overall with a lot of dogs not going an inch in the going that were quite happy the previous week. I heard Peter Early say a few times that a race was all over the place.

    Henny is correct a race that does not meet the qualifying conditions must almost meet the criteria for a no race. I do not know if the track is actually better or worse but yesterday it was out of ordrer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ownagreyhound.co.nz said:

I generally wouldnt respond to a post that isnt directed to me directly. In particular a criticism by someone that is quite happy to call people out by their position,but cant  sign their name to their post. Personally i think its a reflection of someones character that isnt able to stand up for what the believe in. So alltheway!!!, id like to know who the board members are that you have made a complaint to, i know i'm not one of them, and i know at least one other director you havent spoken to, so that leaves 3 others are you sure you have spoken to all three, ie most of the directors, i would suggest that you havent... however if it strengthens your statement feel free to post mis-truths.

ph the club and they can give you my mobile number, I am more than happy to discuss the track and where I think it is at. My opinion of the track may surprise you.

Im waiting for your call....

I spoke to a board member about a month and a half ago and they said the track was alot safer. I disagreed of course. I got the impression that the board agreed the track was better. I was wrong obviously. Good to see that is not the case from your statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Personally i'm not a fan of fast tracks. I notice the times lately at Auckland are much slower. To my mind that is a good thing. A deeper track at Auckland would encourage me to race my dogs there. Down here in the Sth we have 2 slow deep tracks. Otago and Southland both fit that description. Both these tracks are recognised as being safe surfaces. I do not no what if or any other issues are causing problems at Auckland, but the fact that it is now running slower and deeper is to my mind a good thing.

A deeper track also means more muscle injuries. A slow track is fine but I do think there is a limit to how slow a track should be. I have heard that Palmy have dealt with similar issues recently aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, alltheway!!! said:

A deeper track also means more muscle injuries. A slow track is fine but I do think there is a limit to how slow a track should be. I have heard that Palmy have dealt with similar issues recently aswell.

Yes, and a faster track means more bone fractures. Old story, faster you go bigger the mess. We need to take a leaf out of how American tracks are prepared, deep and slow. As i said, i do not no what other issues are effecting Auckland, ie inconsistant surface, type of mix etc, but the principle of slowing the tracks down is good for mine.

Alltheway, it doe's not matter what type of surface you race on, there will always be injuries. Give me muscle injuries anyday, as against bone fractures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, alltheway!!! said:

I spoke to a board member about a month and a half ago and they said the track was alot safer. I disagreed of course. I got the impression that the board agreed the track was better. I was wrong obviously. Good to see that is not the case from your statement. 

So just to clarify, youve spoken to one board member 6 weeks ago...... so your statement on this public forum of   "most of them laugh at you, argue the opposite or ignore you completely. They actually think they have improved the track. " is completely untrue.

If you dont feel the tracks up to standard fair cop, by all means make your thoughts known, i would encourage anyone to do that, but dont lie on a public forum to try and strengthen your opinion, you will simply get yourself into more trouble than your pseudonym can protect you from.

Like i said previously ring the club, get my number im more than happy to discuss with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aquaman said:

Personally i'm not a fan of fast tracks. I notice the times lately at Auckland are much slower. To my mind that is a good thing. A deeper track at Auckland would encourage me to race my dogs there. Down here in the Sth we have 2 slow deep tracks. Otago and Southland both fit that description. Both these tracks are recognised as being safe surfaces. I do not no what if or any other issues are causing problems at Auckland, but the fact that it is now running slower and deeper is to my mind a good thing.

A deep track is fine if it has the right consistency. Yesterday it was like running on a soufflé. It would seem the surface hadn't compacted enough after being harrowed on Wednesday,  I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the inconsistency that's the problem. Not so much the time. The maiden however stood out. It's the not knowing from week to week what the surface is going to be like. The board members must have our best interest at heart, so lets not attack them. It's more important to find a solution for this problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Auckland track yesterday was totally unprepared in many ways and in my opinion was unsafe and should not have been raced on. No there were not many major injuries but there were many dogs that came off in an exhausted and stressed state. If we had got "any" of the predicted rain for the weekend, even a decent 30 minute shower, the racing would have been abandoned.

I handled a dog in race 8 and caught a dog in race 11, had a good look several times, and spoke to other trainers. The top 40mm of track was very soft and shifty and below that quite firm. When dressing the track between races, in the home straight there were many foot holes 40mm deep that were not being refilled by the mat. If you watch the replays of the 527 races as the field comes round into the straight you will see the dogs throwing up a trail of sand similar to that of horses running on a heavy 12 track.

You only need to look at the times being run for the 527m races. C0 won in 31.97, C1s 31.75 & 31.40, and the C2 31.42. Only the winners of the C2 and 1/C1, only 2 dogs out of 4 races, beat the required qualifying time for unraced unqualified dogs of 31.50 sec. All the rest would have failed to qualify. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The times do not mean tiddly squat, and to say they are running slower than the qualy times is a misnomer. What does matter is how the surface is prepared. If its inconsistent then that is bad. If as Gordon says it was shifty soft on a hard pan, then that is bad. But if it is soft and deep consistently the whole way, then that is good. Obviously the qualy times were set on a hard track. As for dogs coming off in an exhausted and stressed state, i think this says a lot about the state of fitness and ability of the dogs in the Nth to run any further than 300 mtrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, aquaman said:

The times do not mean tiddly squat, and to say they are running slower than the qualy times is a misnomer. What does matter is how the surface is prepared. If its inconsistent then that is bad. If as Gordon says it was shifty soft on a hard pan, then that is bad. But if it is soft and deep consistently the whole way, then that is good. Obviously the qualy times were set on a hard track. As for dogs coming off in an exhausted and stressed state, i think this says a lot about the state of fitness and ability of the dogs in the Nth to run any further than 300 mtrs.

John, one of the dogs I refer to recently ran 3rd in the Auckland Cup Final and is as fit as a buck rat. We also saw  a dog like Multicam Ranger turning for home a good 6 lengths in front and only hanging on to win by a half head in 31.75. This being 15 lengths slower than he normally runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough Gordon, but a slow testing track is going to be the undoing of some dogs that are used to running on top of the ground, where as the dogs that lack high speed are going to be suited. Swings and roundabouts as it were. If the track didn't have the other problems that you allude to, my 3 dogs would be well suited there. In fact have been toying with the idea of coming up. Now if they put on a 779 for maidens, i would be there in a flash. I have 3 that i would like to test, so how about it Auckland Club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Craig, that won't be a problem. Generally the track is acceptable and this was a one of as a result of holding Polyfest at the venue. Having said that I believe the club does not follow the advice given last year by the track manager from Sandown. That was the track never be left to dry out, must be watered continuously, and when turned must be done down to 100 mm deep. Then properly compacted and the correct water levels maintained down to 100 mm. Our track dried out over the festival and then turned  down probably 50 mm or so and they tried to compact the dry sand before adding some water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, legs&lashes said:

If the track is in poor condition,Lets hope they get it sorted Gordon ,as the Silver Collar is not too far away and the 779m distance which is already too far will make it way worse for the dogs if they have to plough through slop.

AC

Why is the 779 distance to far Craig.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/03/2017 at 6:17 PM, legs&lashes said:

If the track is in poor condition,Lets hope they get it sorted Gordon ,as the Silver Collar is not too far away and the 779m distance which is already too far will make it way worse for the dogs if they have to plough through slop.

AC

I hope you South islanders are going to bring a big team up for the collar otherwise it will be a one trainer race this year or wont happen at all. The two clubs in the north have carded 5 distance races in the last 8 months (of all grades!!), aucklands 603 boxes have been out of commision for 6 weeks and the 779 race they advertised for cup day didnt go ahead....if your dogs arent c1 distance already then there is no hope of getting them there for collar time. I wont ever be investing in a distance dog again nor will I be breeding with intentions of getting one, complete waste of time and money having a distance dog in the north....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Slim Shady said:

I hope you South islanders are going to bring a big team up for the collar otherwise it will be a one trainer race this year or wont happen at all. The two clubs in the north have carded 5 distance races in the last 8 months (of all grades!!), aucklands 603 boxes have been out of commision for 6 weeks and the 779 race they advertised for cup day didnt go ahead....if your dogs arent c1 distance already then there is no hope of getting them there for collar time. I wont ever be investing in a distance dog again nor will I be breeding with intentions of getting one, complete waste of time and money having a distance dog in the north....

I thought you had chucked in the towel. And who says C0 distance dogs cannot contest the collar. I would disagree with your statement that its a complete waste of time and money having a distance dog in the Nth. Try telling that to Arch and Gary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, aquaman said:

I thought you had chucked in the towel. And who says C0 distance dogs cannot contest the collar. I would disagree with your statement that its a complete waste of time and money having a distance dog in the Nth. Try telling that to Arch and Gary.

They have money and can afford to sit on a distance dogs for 10 races a year. Most trainers could not afford to do that up North and I do not think most trainers are willing to travel to addington and the CD for 10k distance races unless they know they have a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, alltheway!!! said:

They have money and can afford to sit on a distance dogs for 10 races a year. Most trainers could not afford to do that up North and I do not think most trainers are willing to travel to addington and the CD for 10k distance races unless they know they have a chance.

Exactly right.....as an OWNER only its not feasible for me to pay to have a distance dog trained so why would I want to own one, besides the fact i rarely get to see it race! its not a problem for arch because when hes ready for a distance race he will card one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aquaman said:

I thought you had chucked in the towel. And who says C0 distance dogs cannot contest the collar. I would disagree with your statement that its a complete waste of time and money having a distance dog in the Nth. Try telling that to Arch and Gary.

John, although both of those trainers have had good stayers regularly ask them about the frustration of not getting races for them when they were at peak. I remember when Brat was at his best the oportunities for him very thin not just in the North either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Slim Shady said:

Exactly right.....as an OWNER only its not feasible for me to pay to have a distance dog trained so why would I want to own one, besides the fact i rarely get to see it race! its not a problem for arch because when hes ready for a distance race he will card one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this