RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Greg Lindsay

Question of the day....

Recommended Posts

What is the rationale behind registereing stable staff - or in fact anybody that looks after a horse on raceday ?

Is it so that the Rules of Racing therefoer incorporate those persons and that they can be held accountable for their actions ?

Is it therfore not pertinent that the rules be changed and also an annual fee be charged on the employment of the administrators ? All members of the board - the various GM's within NZTR their staff, the Handicappers and the Racecourse Inspectors - so that they too can be held accountable for their actions, untruths, errors, inability to complete their tasks in a timely and adequate timeframe...

Eg - A late return to the Stud book is subject to an extra fee - But the Stud Book dept can take as long as it bloody well likes to process those returns....

The GM for Communications can appear on Television and pass untruths - yet when a licensed trainer does it, he is found to be bringing the game undone.

The Handicapper incorrectly weight or include a horse for an event - but when a trainer does it at the trials - he is hauled before the JCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Greg

Its a ridiculous ruling. It costs us an extra $80 a year and we only train half a dozen horses. I am disabled and dont lead the horses any more but Ido groom them, cover them and hold them when they are being saddled so I have to be registered as a Stablehand (non-riding). Our son helps sometimes and drives the horse float so he also has to be registered. My sister-in-law and her husband give us a hand on occasion when we take youngsters to the track for jumpouts so they also have to be registered. Its a bloody rip off, just a way of making us provide the money for some of the big chiefs huge salaries. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a one off payment but annually is too much.

If you have an owner that wants to lead their horse in at the races they have to be registered :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when an owner leads their horse in when it wins - do they have to registered? No! So why does the rule apply sometimes & not others?

Exactly, if an owner wishes to strap his horse at the races he/she is not able to if not 'registered' .... but watch an elderly lady owner teetering on her high heels trying to stay afloat and lead her horse back to scale...

I can live with stablehands being registered, but an owner should have an automatic right to handle his/her horse if wished.

Many have bred and handled their horses from day one.

Ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are a small industry compared with the Australian model they are trying to emulate in terms of transparency. Lots of small time owner/trainers here who get their family or someone to help out with the one or two horses at the races and don't necessarily need to pay an $80 fee for one off work.

Yet again the owners are the ones forking out and missing out. Maybe the revenue from these fee's will pay 1% of Mr Brown's pay packet, we wouldn't want him going without while we pay in the hundreds for stud book returns, horse registrations, colours registrations etc etc, no wonder there are less and less horses going around and people are no longer investing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the rationale behind registereing stable staff - or in fact anybody that looks after a horse on raceday ?

Is it so that the Rules of Racing therefoer incorporate those persons and that they can be held accountable for their actions ?

Is it therfore not pertinent that the rules be changed and also an annual fee be charged on the employment of the administrators ? All members of the board - the various GM's within NZTR their staff, the Handicappers and the Racecourse Inspectors - so that they too can be held accountable for their actions, untruths, errors, inability to complete their tasks in a timely and adequate timeframe...

Eg - A late return to the Stud book is subject to an extra fee - But the Stud Book dept can take as long as it bloody well likes to process those returns....

The GM for Communications can appear on Television and pass untruths - yet when a licensed trainer does it, he is found to be bringing the game undone.

The Handicapper incorrectly weight or include a horse for an event - but when a trainer does it at the trials - he is hauled before the JCA.

You could have any Jo Blow walking around the race day stalls and that is a serious security threat. If you work with the horses then you need to be accountable for your actions and if you are not registered then all accountability would be left to the trainer and that could get expensive.

Not being registered would be like being able to walk into the white house without a pass or security check, it can't happen in this day and age.

Wake up, stop complaining and pay the fee, it is there to make the industry better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have any Jo Blow walking around the race day stalls and that is a serious security threat. If you work with the horses then you need to be accountable for your actions and if you are not registered then all accountability would be left to the trainer and that could get expensive.

Not being registered would be like being able to walk into the white house without a pass or security check, it can't happen in this day and age.

Wake up, stop complaining and pay the fee, it is there to make the industry better.

Any Jo Blow can and does walk aound the stabling and saddlery area at many tracks.

If accountability is suddenly so important, then how about the racing clubs coming to the party and doing their bit to keep the public away from the horses.

It would not be just the country and the once-a-year clubs affected, either, many of the most difficult to police would be some of the metropolitan tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange rule imho.I help dad(owner/trainer)when needed,help saddle up,maybe take horse into birdcage,afterwards I have to hose,dry and walk horse.Basically all dad does is get saddle prior to race and colours after,as well as being able to speak to jockey.Mind you he has been round horses since he was born,has bred his horses.I haven't registered as stable hand as have helped out only once or twice this year.And since this rule has been in never been asked what are you doing etc.

Seems to me with large stables having an employees registered is a good idea,especially if the trainer has horses at 2 meetings and obviously can't be at both venues,therefor having staff identified for stewards etc helps,also they(stablehands)are accountable for the boss so to speak.But most smaller guys are at the meeting as they can't afford to not do so with costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK and Ireland you have to be registered.

You have to check in at the office before taking your horse/s to its box and nobody is allowed into the stabling area without a pass - they are checked at the gate. If you change stables, I'm pretty sure the racing authoritys have to be notified so that your pass can be changed over to the appropriate trainer. I'm not sure what the fees are.

However, with this comes the security of knowing that if your employer ****s on you that the stable staff association will back you up and fight for you if need be.

Personally I think if they are going to go to the trouble of making staff be registered then maybe they should be putting the fees towards having some sort of union or 'back up' for stable staff....though I know this opens up a whole lot of other issues! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions are for the weak who need protection because they do not have the ability to work hard.

But read the following - Who is going to be charged for this oversight - when a trainer does not declare a jockey in time / or gear change in time he is charged and fined - who the heck is going to be bought to account for the following omission ????

Rules for some and not others is incredibly diificult for me to come to terms with....

48-Hour Policy - Kurow, Waikouaiti, Central Otago Meetings 30 December - 3 January

In relation to the 48-hour policy, the following section of the policy does not apply to the following Gallop South meetings:

Kurow JC Wednesday 30 December

Waikouaiti RC Friday 1 January

Central Otago RC Sunday 3 January

Where a horse is accepted for more than one race at the same meeting scheduled within two days of each other, it shall be balloted or eliminated out of one of the races at one of the race meetings, irrespective of its weight, performance or qualification status.

This exemption was inadvertently omitted from the December edition of the Thoroughbred Racing Monthly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when an owner leads their horse in when it wins - do they have to registered? No! So why does the rule apply sometimes & not others?

an owner can do what ever they like because of owners we have racing, they are the most needed people in racing, and no im not a owner, keeping a punter happy is always said but I would say it would cost an owner with 2 horse's more a month than jo blog puner would spend at the tab. why should they pay any extra to lead there horse back to the winners circle,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read the new rules of Racing.

Rule 307 (B) clearly states that ownners are not to lead their horses in after winning a race - unless they are licensed to do so.

Bloody disgrace. The Clubs that allowed this rule to be instigated as it is should be disbanded.

Also very interesting to note that Stipendary Stewards, Investigators and other raceday officials are not subject to Prohibited Substance testing - only licensed persons - the ones that also work on racedays.

Why on earth arent the same clubs that are refusing to let owners lead their horses back to scale voting to have their own raceday employees randomly tested on racedays to see if they too are fit to complete their employment !!!

Pity the poor trainers that take a horse from my uncle - They will need to license him or face braking Rule 307 (B) - the penalty of which is a fine of up to $20k !!

Looking forward to seeing if these one sided rules (out to get the licensed people even harder !) are to be applied evenly - or continue sporadically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg . The rules here are strange, inconsistent and, with regard to security, laughable. They are no way as harsh or comprehensive as in the UK. I worked in National Hunt Stables in the UK over 30 years ago. Even then ALL stable staff were registered. We all had "passports" which were held by our trainer (employer). They were given to us on race day if we were looking after horses at the track and returned to the trainer that night. This admitted us to the stable area. Only the stable hands with passes and the trainers were allowed into the stabling area. Even owners were not permitted into the stabling area. Also, we were never allowed to leave a horse unattended at any time until after it had raced (trainers' rules). If one of the guys wanted to go get a coffee or something, he, or she, had to make sure another "lad" was with the horse so it was watched constantly before the race. There were big ugly guards on the gates to make sure that no one other than trainers and "pass" holders got in. I could not believe , when I first got to NZ that anyone can walk around the the stables on a racecourse. This is still the case. I was looking for my horse at Invercargill last week and just walked in. No one was interested. I could have fed any horse on the place anything I wanted and no-one would have been any the wiser. Trainers have to have "lock-up" feed sheds etc on their properties but, looking at security on the race course, this is laughable. If you don't believe me re security etc. I am for real. I used to work for Len Cotrill @ Cullumpton, Devon. Nat Hunt. We had some good horses i.e Twelfth Night - Squabble - Brecon Woods - Greek Melody. Stable jockey was Lenny Lungo. Security was REALLY that tight then. Anyone that does not believe me can check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read the new rules of Racing.

Rule 307 (B) clearly states that ownners are not to lead their horses in after winning a race - unless they are licensed to do so.

Bloody disgrace. The Clubs that allowed this rule to be instigated as it is should be disbanded.

Also very interesting to note that Stipendary Stewards, Investigators and other raceday officials are not subject to Prohibited Substance testing - only licensed persons - the ones that also work on racedays.

Why on earth arent the same clubs that are refusing to let owners lead their horses back to scale voting to have their own raceday employees randomly tested on racedays to see if they too are fit to complete their employment !!!

Pity the poor trainers that take a horse from my uncle - They will need to license him or face braking Rule 307 (B) - the penalty of which is a fine of up to $20k !!

Looking forward to seeing if these one sided rules (out to get the licensed people even harder !) are to be applied evenly - or continue sporadically.

rule 307 (B) SUCKS. Unless NZRacing is going to go all out on "Security Stuff", they should not be telling owners they can't lead their horses in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the rationale behind registereing stable staff - or in fact anybody that looks after a horse on raceday ?

Is it so that the Rules of Racing therefoer incorporate those persons and that they can be held accountable for their actions ?

Is it therfore not pertinent that the rules be changed and also an annual fee be charged on the employment of the administrators ? All members of the board - the various GM's within NZTR their staff, the Handicappers and the Racecourse Inspectors - so that they too can be held accountable for their actions, untruths, errors, inability to complete their tasks in a timely and adequate timeframe...

Eg - A late return to the Stud book is subject to an extra fee - But the Stud Book dept can take as long as it bloody well likes to process those returns....

The GM for Communications can appear on Television and pass untruths - yet when a licensed trainer does it, he is found to be bringing the game undone.

The Handicapper incorrectly weight or include a horse for an event - but when a trainer does it at the trials - he is hauled before the JCA.

Why register stable staff....I can see the rationale behind the concept. I don't agree that any charges should apply if there are any though.

I believe there certainly needs to be restricted entry to 'anywhere' that horses are, to reduce the risk of compromised integrity and to better enable any investigation into any breach of integrity for one. I also believe it enables for any theft of possessions to be easier to investigate in such an instance. It 'may' enable better control of those whose flaunt the rules/regulations and respective integrity.

It may also force some sort of respect of those in care of...to care for and be responsible for, their charges. I may sound pridush but I am tierd of seeing and on occassion being subjected to and by irresponsible management of charges and total lack of respect for others and their charges at race meetings.

Charges with no one in their vicinity who is actually meant to be responsible for the charge AND being Paid to tend them. Someone.....pays good money to have their 'generally' expensive animal, trained and looked after and not put at the risk of compromised integrity.There is such alot of lack of pride in an industry where pride and integrity is paramount.

But yes........integrity and accountability should be demanded in ALL quarters. Have to start somewhere. Ultimately the desireable is that people LEAD by example and one would think that starting at the tp would be a good place to start....maybe though, it's about quantity and they are trying to start amid the thick of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are dead right - security and integrity do require addressing.

My concern regarding licensing of staff is that it is ONLY so that they can be dealt with under the rules - rather than actually providing more or less security or integrity.

For an annual fee anybody can be in control of a horse on raceday regardless of ability or competency.... But for security purposes it must have an approved bit in its mouth....

Murray Baker was fined because Stuey Hale was leading one of his own horses around at the trials - wonder if he gets charged when Phil Bayley leads in his next G1 winner...

Getting too many leaves and can no longer see the trees me thinks....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are dead right - security and integrity do require addressing.

My concern regarding licensing of staff is that it is ONLY so that they can be dealt with under the rules - rather than actually providing more or less security or integrity.

For an annual fee anybody can be in control of a horse on raceday regardless of ability or competency.... But for security purposes it must have an approved bit in its mouth....

Murray Baker was fined because Stuey Hale was leading one of his own horses around at the trials - wonder if he gets charged when Phil Bayley leads in his next G1 winner...

Getting too many leaves and can no longer see the trees me thinks....

If someone gets fined as in your description here, then regardless of G1 or Trial, if unregistered, the trainer should be fined if this is rule. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

On the other hand, I hear totally what you are saying about the 'anyone' side of the coin. That is concerning! Maybe they are hoping to weed out that element by way of applying a fee for registering people on the basis that 'maybe' trainers will be reluctant to part with money if the person is not of a suitable calibre ????? Has there been any justification of the rule, offered ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to both Isolt and Irish Al, I do agree with the principle of security passes, but it angers me that trainers/stable staff are made accountable in this country, without any similar obligation falling upon racetrack stabling and tie-up areas.

The problem is not only raceday however, with the increasing number of trainers using leasehold stabling on racing club properties.

I have had owners walk into my stables despite locked gates, take rugs off and leave leg-straps undone.

I have witnessed an owner of a neighbouring trainer arrive from the races [ drunk] and go from box to box to find his horse.

Eventually enough was enough and I told him to go, although it possibly was not my place to do so.

Who among us in this industry can afford full-time security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to both Isolt and Irish Al, I do agree with the principle of security passes, but it angers me that trainers/stable staff are made accountable in this country, without any similar obligation falling upon racetrack stabling and tie-up areas.

......Race track stabling and tie up areas should be managed by trainers in a professional manner, ie, by appt. It should be the trainers responsibility to meet the owner or visitor at entry to such areas and those visitors should not be left unattended at all in my opinion.

The problem is not only raceday however, with the increasing number of trainers using leasehold stabling on racing club properties.

I have had owners walk into my stables despite locked gates, take rugs off and leave leg-straps undone.

..... This is totally unacceptable behaviour!!! Absolutely.

I have witnessed an owner of a neighbouring trainer arrive from the races [ drunk] and go from box to box to find his horse.

Eventually enough was enough and I told him to go, although it possibly was not my place to do so.

......You did the right thing and if the respective trainer doesn't appreciate your concern for not only your position but for their's also, then they'd be fools. Hopefully they have since taken a renewed approach to the liberty's their owners have seemingly thought they were able to take.

Who among us in this industry can afford full-time security?

.....Very few! And why should we have to. It would be nice if we all supported each other and watched each others backs. I'd do it for someone else and would hope others would also do the same for me. Strength is often in numbers and on too many occassion people stand alone and vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why the heck does it appears that the rules are written as if the administration is out to "GET" the license holders.

If the rules were being interpreted and policed without prejudice it would most certainly be more comfortable to conform - but the fact that it appears that the rules do not apply to the administration creates a bigger them vs us concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why the heck does it appears that the rules are written as if the administration is out to "GET" the license holders.

If the rules were being interpreted and policed without prejudice it would most certainly be more comfortable to conform - but the fact that it appears that the rules do not apply to the administration creates a bigger them vs us concept.

Is it because we tend toward the victim mentality.....Finding it hard to see the good in the bad....

I have a saying I try to live by and that is, something to the effect of... do the best you can with what you have, when and where you have it.

'Someone' has to make the rules, from there, those of integrity uphold those rules and strength is in numbers. In other words, give people enough rope and they hang themselves. And if that doesn't make sense (probably not cause I'm feeling a bit abstract) :-) , the more people who behave appropriately, lessen the chances of those who don't, getting away with it. No one is above reprieve, and eventually those who act and think that they are, get brought down of tyheir own doing because more people stand against their behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.