Month: December 2019

by Brian de Lore
Published 27 December 2019

Someone phoned Newstalk ZB talkback radio earlier this month and said, “Don’t be fooled into believing the elected government is running this country; it’s the bureaucrats, the bosses of the 45,000-odd public servants in about 35 government departments – they are the people really in control.”

Numerous lunatics call talkback, but that remark resonated and is probably truer today than it’s ever been. Think about the control exerted by Treasury, the State Services Commission and Internal Affairs (DIA), and especially the DIA in racing’s case – evident with this latest legislation that will take us straight out of the frying pan and into the proverbial fire.

… this legislation does not reflect the gravity of the circumstances racing finds itself in today.

The very first thing to say about this legislation is that it does not reflect the gravity of the circumstances racing finds itself in today. It’s political rather than a fix-it document.

Then, the structure is nothing like the vision Messara had in his Review. On page six he said: “…the current structure and regulatory hierarchy do not lend themselves to the necessary level of code accountability or to sound decision-making and this can lend itself to unnecessary government involvement in the industry.”

The legislation currently provides far less devolution of power to the codes than the Messara Review recommended and far more government control, not less, that the Racing Act of 2003. Why would the authors want to give the Intellectual Property Rights to TAB NZ and not the codes – it’s the rightful property of the codes and morally belongs to the codes. To have the IP controlled by a government-appointed board will have serious long-term consequences for racing.

The excuse given to The Optimist for such a move was that overseas betting operators wanted to deal with only one body, not three. That’s a lame-duck excuse if ever one was made, and is unacceptable on all levels. Racing Victoria, for example, has successfully negotiated 47 separate contracts on their IP.

Worse still, the legislation is suggesting the Minister has sole discretion to make the TAB board appointments as opposed to the Messara Review which recommended a Minister appointed panel of three to appoint four of the seven appointees, with the remaining three board members coming from the Chairs of each of the codes or their delegates.

Are we not trying to get away from the system that gave us Nathan Guy, Glenda Hughes and John Allen, Minister?

Are we not trying to get away from the system that gave us Nathan Guy, Glenda Hughes and John Allen, Minister? The National Party threw racing under the bus with those three, and then Winston promised us reform and self-governance and racing voted for it – read the NZ First Racing Policy. But now the Minister is dishing out the same stuff disguised as new legislation – hypocrisy!.

The anti-racing codes theme in this legislation is even more blatant with its failure to finalise the formula for the distribution of funds – section 16 in the Racing Act of 2003. That very same Minister-appointed TAB board will decide after the regulation is written (not legislation but changeable regulation) on how the distribution is done, which gives no guarantee to any of the codes, or even if any the codes have board representatives.

The bottom line is that control of racing will rest more with the TAB than the codes. The door is now ajar for sport to get a second foot in it, and gain greater representation and put both hands out for a bigger share of the pie. The possibility of more sport board members than racing ones is very real and would be a decision in the hands of any future unknown Minister – that’s a bad joke when you consider sport has contributed nothing to the set-up or running costs of the TAB but is now infiltrating with the assistance of the DIA.

The Section-16 of the Act mentioned above has treated thoroughbred racing unfairly since 2003 when separate pools should have been established to give thoroughbreds it’s fair share of funding. Racing anticipated the Minister would correct that imbalance but instead, he’s opening the door for diminishing returns on percentage and control of our code by more non-racing people of the kind that have shafted the thoroughbred game over the past decade.

Completely ignored from the Review was Messara’s concept of a Racing NZ, a body of code representatives that would not be established as a separate administrative body but would act as a consultive forum for the codes to garner a cooperative understanding on all matters common to all three codes, and liaise with Wagering NZ on those matters.

Two-and-a-half years ago, Winston was saying he wanted racing to have self-determination

Two-and-a-half years ago, Winston was saying he wanted racing to have self-determination with legislation that would distance it from government and be safe from a disinterested racing minister’s claws in 30 years. He engaged Messara to write the Review, and the blueprint to achieve that goal was delivered in that review 18 months ago. Then he appointed MAC, which became RITA, firstly to advise and then to enact the Messara Review and transition it into legislation.

Littered through the last 25 years of racing are disinterested Ministers – another one is certain to be knocking on the door anytime soon. Racing should at all costs resist this legislation which on important issues gives the Minister carte blanche control. Rugby has become a mammoth betting medium but doesn’t have a Minister – why does racing even need one?   

The plan may have worked if Minister Peters had, firstly, stayed interested and not handed over the management of racing to his political scientist Chief-of-Staff, and secondly, had kept John Messara involved in an overseeing role to ensure his Review was faithfully represented in the contents of all the legislation and enacted in the parts that required no legislation.

In retrospect, the failure of the Minister to follow up with Messara was a negative statement in itself. His approaching Messara and then accepting his offer to do it free-of-charge, receiving the Review in record time, and then cutting the umbilical cord without even a phone call of gratitude must be way outside the accepted protocols of a Minister of Foreign Affairs. Something else was going down.  

Someone or some people have been in Minister Peter’s ear, it seems, and advised him poorly. Why else would Peters not ever have picked up the phone and spoken to Messara since, and even before the time Messara delivered his Review on July 31^st, 2018. Not one word has verbally passed between them since; yes, a couple of emails only, but that’s all despite the Review having been completed on a pro bono basis in record time by the foremost experienced and successful racing administrator Australian racing has known.

If you sight an official press release saying they are following the Messara Review, it will be nothing more than the lip service racing has been getting for years. The claim may say 90 percent adoption of the Review but in reality, it’s only about 30 percent in its present form, and that 30 percent, which is described in the Bill’s explanatory note as ‘resolving historic property issues,’ is saying the closure of the designated clubs will have their assets transferred to the codes.

The TAB will still have far too much control and will be made up of Racing Minister appointees

Even if the clubs earmarked for the sword had previously been in support of the Messara Review for the overall good of the industry, which is doubtful in most cases, they would be furious now after reading the structural part of the legislation which is full of government control, ministerial intervention and is a step backwards from the Racing Act of 2003. The TAB will still have far too much control, will be made up of Racing Minister appointees, and in essence, that means nothing more than a continuation of the NZRB structure which has been a substantial cause of the decline that necessitated the Messara Review in the first place – Catch 22.

The Messara Review clearly outlined a goal to double prizemoney, and to go about achieving that aim it listed 17 key recommendations. Messara alluded to previous reviews that had been completed and shelved, going back to the Reid Committee in 1965. He said on Page 45, “…McCarthy Commission recommendations are as relevant today in 2018 as they were in 1970.”

The Minister himself blatted-on for a time about the owner being the most important person in racing, saying current prizemoney levels were unacceptable. The concept of doubling prizemoney may have appealed then, but the Minister has since gone missing on racing – how many race meetings did he attend in 2019, and passing on the racing portfolio to his office and no longer being available for comment has been to the detriment of this entire reform process.

No one seems to be talking about the goal anymore. It’s about the process only, which to date has only been a bit of tweaking here and there to sustain current prizemoney levels. No talk about partnering the TAB despite that non-legislation required process offering the single biggest financial windfall of all the Messara Review recommendations.

Could we have expected bureaucrats with no particular interest in racing to come up with legislation that was fit for purpose? The answer is a simple ‘NO’!

Could we have expected bureaucrats with no particular interest in racing to come up with legislation that was fit for purpose? The answer is a simple ‘NO’! It was never going to happen, and we may all have guessed that outcome? From a good source, one particular bureaucrat involved in the process has voiced his contempt for the Messara Review and also described partnering/outsourcing the TAB as a ridiculous idea – that someone has zero knowledge of the industry and its problems but carries more weight in this process than anyone involved with racing knowledge. That’s the irony and the downfall of the whole, damn tragic business.

Isn’t that the issue causing all this discontent? The total disconnect between the authors of the legislation and the racing industry itself – people with no conception of what it will take to fix racing’s problems empowered with writing the rules for it? A reliable source says RITA read the legislation for the first time only six days before we got it and immediately identified 50 plus issues in the narrative. What does that tell you?

Rumours abound the Minister will make a racing reappearance at Trentham on Wellington Cup Day. If you see him, then voice your concerns. This shoddy document isn’t legislation until it passes through Select Committee and goes on to a third reading and is again supported. Everyone in thoroughbred racing and the other two codes has a small window of opportunity to help stop it or get it changed – make it count and get your submissions in by February 11^th.

Finally, be aware this is racing’s final chance for a positive correction. Racing is under siege from animal activists, anti-gambling lobbyists, left-wingers of every description, greedy sports organisations, the greenies, vegans, government departments and especially the DIA, a group called the Coalition for the protection of Racehorses, and a plethora of other internet-driven groups equally endowed in ignorance.

The protestants are gathering their troops and the Empire needs to strike back. In the immortal words of Obi Wan Kenobi, “May the force be with you, always.”

Shown below, some of the poor racing-code serving DIA written legislation:

61 Regulations for amounts of distribution to codes

(1)

The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations prescribing the method to be used for determining the amounts that may be distributed by TAB NZ to the racing codes from any surpluses referred to in section 69(2) or 74(2) or any other source, whether capital or income.

(2)

For the purposes of subsection (1), the amount must not be less than the total of the surpluses referred to in section 69(2) or 74(2) for that racing year less the total amount credited to reserves for that year from those surpluses.

Compare: 2003 No 3 s 16

62 Distribution to codes

TAB NZ may, during or as soon as practicable after the end of a racing year, pay to the racing codes the amount determined in accordance with regulations made under section 61 to be distributed among the codes for that year.

 (3) Unless a majority of the racing codes otherwise agrees in writing, the amount referred to in subsection (1) must be distributed among the racing codes in the same proportions that the Board considers are the proportions to which the codes contributed to the New Zealand turnover of the Board for that racing year.

(4) In subsection (3), New Zealand turnover of the Board means the total gross amount received by the Board from racing betting placed in New Zealand on races run in New Zealand.

81 Protection of intellectual property rights

(1)

TAB NZ has exclusive rights within New Zealand and Australia to all intellectual property associated with all racing betting information, racing betting system (or systems), and any audio or visual content derived from a New Zealand race.

(2)

In subsection (1), intellectual property means all patents, designs, copyright, know-how, trade secrets, trademarks, service marks, and other intellectual or industrial property rights of any kind, and any rights in relation to them whether enforceable by Act or rule of law.

Winston Peters playing rugby for the Parliamentary team in 1988 aged 43

by Brian de Lore
Published 20 December 2019

From all accounts, our Racing Minister Winston Peters was a pretty good rugby player in his day. He played alongside All Black number ten Mac Herewini when the captain of Auckland Maori and regularly turned out for the University Club in the early 1970s before he graduated as a lawyer later that same decade.

In those days, he could obviously catch the ball and one could imagine he had a snappy sidestep. However useful he was at rugby, he has been a better politician – longevity is the proof of that claim. Forty years in Parliament and although never an elected Prime Minister, he has been ‘Acting’ and ‘Deputy’ PM in the current government and a significant player in previous terms of power.

When the 2017 General Election came around, Winston got the racing vote which was critical in the final result whereby NZ First assumed the position of powerbroker to form the Coalition Government. The analysts said the racing vote made the difference and the anecdotal evidence supports that view.

By mid-2017, NZ First distinctly had the best racing manifesto, and after nine years of National Party neglect it was, for many racing people, Hobson’s choice. Winston Peters had been a previous Minster of Racing in 2005-08 and during those three years achieved a substantial tax rebate for the industry of $33 million in the first year which has continued annually and is today worth no less than $65 million each year – without that money, the industry would have gone broke – an alternative view is that without those funds the NZRB would not have mushroomed into the rudderless, money-wasting, nepotistic organisation it became.

And on the subject of NZRB, today is CEO John Allen’s last day in the job, and nothing comes to mind more than good riddance along with the thought that racing should fess-up and be accountable for three CEO disasters in succession. Accountability has been an ever-increasing shortcoming of this industry, and administrative mediocrity has been the norm – legislate against that!

Winston Peters: a good rugby player, an outstanding politician and the best previous Minister of Racing

But I digress, back to Winston – a good rugby player, an outstanding politician and the best previous Minister of Racing, although he had nothing much to beat. In this term as Minister, however, he has seemingly dropped the ball close to the try-line, and so far, the referee hasn’t blown the whistle.

In several conversations with Winston during the pre and post-2017 election period, our now Minister clearly outlined the legacy he wanted to leave on the racing industry. He envisaged a revitalisation of racing with self-determination at arms-length from government interference with the legislation set in stone so that whoever the Minister was in 30 years hence, racing would be protected and independent.

The second part of the legislation released on December 5^th is the antithesis of Winston’s preconception outlined above. The document appears to be blatantly lacking input from industry-savvy people because it’s overflowing with government control measures and is riddled with ministerial interference, and in its current state would send racing back to the dark ages.

“How could this be happening?” is the echo bellowing loud and clear from industry pundits. How could we get so close to seeing the Winston Peters vision for racing as outlined in 2017 come within reach only to falter at the eleventh hour? Even a top rugby player who practices only two hours a week will sooner or later drop the ball and ‘knock-on’ with an open try-line beckoning.

Winston’s concentration on the racing industry has been interrupted to the extent that he may not have seen the pass coming, hence the knock-on. The result is the writing of racing’s future has come from the NZ First management team but mostly the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) who have penned this appallingly worded document.

…another bureaucratic load of confusion explicitly designed to cure insomnia rather than enlighten.

The document is murky on meaning and detail, ambiguous and looks like a rush job with loads of cross-referencing. In other words, it’s another bureaucratic load of confusion explicitly designed to cure insomnia rather than enlighten.

Here’s an example: “Ministerial powers in relation to racing codes (1) The Minister may, on joint written request of the racing codes, appoint a body by notice in the Gazette to perform any or all of the collective functions of the codes under section 8(1) in place of the codes for a specified period or indefinitely. (2) The Minister may, by written notice, set the appointment process for the directors of a racing code if the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so.”

Sources close to RITA say that Agency’s first look at the legislation came only six days before it became public on Thursday, December 5^th. Under the Terms of Reference for MAC which then became RITA on July 1^st, all the business of the Agency happens only following the approval of the Minister which, more likely than not on most occasions, would mean Winston’s Chief of Staff and political scientist, Jon Johansson.

No doubt RITA will be looking into these issues to have them remedied, and industry submissions on the legislation are to be accepted by the Infrastructure and Transport Select Committee up until February 11^th which is the same day parliament sits for the first time in 2020. A RITA roadshow with Executive Chair Dean McKenzie is also in the planning.

It’s poignant to reemphasise the gravity of racing’s current state of destitution. Many are in denial, but go and talk to a cross-section of owners, trainers and breeders to gain a true understanding of the state of this industry. Racing has to insist that the legislation is fit for purpose because this is the last opportunity we get as an industry to stem the bleeding.

“The single most effective lever available to reinvigorate the New Zealand thoroughbred industry is prizemoney.” – John Messara

Let’s not lose sight of what John Messara said in his review: “The single most effective lever available to reinvigorate the New Zealand thoroughbred industry is prizemoney; it rewards and supports owners, trainers, jockeys, stable hands, and the entire supply chain including breeders, vets, farriers, feed merchants etc.”

In the Terms of Reference for MAC/RITA the brief was to enact the Messara Report but this legislation is more about bureaucratic control and ministerial intervention than about Messara’s Review. A chasm of disparity between the racing industry and these bumbling bureaucrats is the fundamental problem which is a total disconnection – how do we get rid of these dopes? Only God and Winston knows the answer to that one.

If you read through the legislation you may also fail to see a connection to this part of the Messara Review: “A solution which I favour is for the commercial activities of the TAB to be outsourced on advantageous terms to a suitable major wagering operator enabling the TAB to improve its product offerings, upgrade technology, improve customer service etc. This process should drive cost savings and incremental revenue, and offer New Zealand customers a compelling global product.

“This outcome will assist in the provision of significantly increased prizemoney. In May 2017 Deloitte conducted an ‘Options Analysis’ for New Zealand Thoroughbred (NZTR) which indicated that an outsourcing agreement would generate significant potential benefits. In my view, these benefits may be sufficient, if added to the positive financial outcomes generated by the other recommendations in the Review, to enable New Zealand stake money levels to be doubled.

“I calculate that the cumulative impact of the reforms recommended in this Review can enable a near doubling of prizemoney in the thoroughbred sector from $59.4 million in 2017/18 to $100 million. The overall approach to prizemoney has to be aimed at supporting investment and participation in the sport through equitable funding for the lower tiers of racing, while ensuring that aspirations are fuelled by lifting the rewards of the Group and Listed program.

“…this Review is only the beginning of the reform process and it is critical that the implementation of the recommendations be pursued urgently and in their entirety,” – John Messara

“Finally, this Review is only the beginning of the reform process and it is critical that the implementation of the recommendations be pursued urgently and in their entirety, as this is the step at which previous reform efforts appear to have faltered.”

When John Messara wrote those lines 18 months ago, he was showing empathy for the plight of the people in racing in NZ, had fixed similar problems previously in NSW and knew the way forward. But read the legislation on offer now and you realise the author possesses none of this knowledge – yet is attempting to have the final say – how come Winston with all his cunning hasn’t woken up to that?

Finally, here are some Winston Peters pre-election quotes from 2017:

• If you are losing the war, you don’t go out and start firing the platoon commanders; you fire the generals.
• The problem is going to be solved at a higher level. A new government and a minister changing the structure from top to bottom and changing the financial structure as well, so this industry comes back to being a paying proposition for an owner. We are going to have to change the whole legislative structure and with the greatest of speed possible.
• There’s been a lack of leadership from the top; those things don’t happen when a campaign is organised properly.
• John Allen has only been symptomatic of the problem; my question is, ‘who appointed him.?’ Start with the Minister, start with the government; you have got to get rid of them.
• The industry better start with a bit of damn humility and realise their specialty is horses and not politics. My message to the industry is, ‘had enough, then vote NZ First.’
• Anybody helping me in this campaign is going to get it back ten-fold. It’s now or never. I used to go to the races and look at these politicians and think, these politicians have got no frecking idea what they’re looking at.
• It’s now or never; you can’t go another three years of this stuff.
• Ten days out from the election Winston said, this is seriously appalling – they have squandered it all the reserves and they’ve got no answers.
• I want to say to the industry you have got to make up your minds whether they want a change and start shouting from the rooftops.
• We need a flush-out with the greatest of speed and the moment the election is over we need to know who’s in the administration and what’s to be done.
• This business is getting like going to a Casino and offering all your money and then being okay with getting only a bit of it back.
• There is a salvation, and the salvation is in some cost-efficient changes, and the second one is you need more of your tax money back. The industry will not survive unless it happens.

The Last Word from the Messara Report:

“I acknowledge the challenge that this Review and the associated recommendations present to you, your Government and the overall industry. However, I am confident that with strong leadership, and the support and commitment of all sectors, organisations and participants, the industry can be turned around and achieve sustainability with consequential favourable impacts on the New Zealand economy.”

by Brian de Lore
Published 13 December 2019

Douglas Black is widely acknowledged as one of the best racehorse veterinarians in New Zealand.

He is a specialist in performance issues in young racehorses and has done exceptional work for a number of leading stables, and has been for many years has been the ‘go-to‘ vet for Te Akau Stables at Matamata.

This week I asked Doug a few questions, and this is what he had to say:

You graduated from Glasgow University Veterinary School in 1983 What is the background story that brought you to NZ, and when did you come?
After graduating, I worked in North Yorkshire for two years, then did locum work around London for six months to save some cash for travelling.  After 12-months working in various practices, and travelling the east coast of Australia, an Irish friend and I were sitting in a bar in Sydney – he told me about two jobs that were advertised in New Zealand (our Australian visas were running out the following week).  He suggested a coin toss – he lost and went to Whanganui, I arrived in Hamilton on the 5th of October 1986.  I’ve been in the same practice ever since.

How does the veterinary profession differ in NZ from the UK and were there any obstacles for you becoming a partner in NZ?
In the UK, as with the other professions, things are a little more collar and tie.  It’s definitely more relaxed in New Zealand.  Veterinarians graduating from New Zealand have an excellent reputation overseas.  There were no real partnership obstacles – like everywhere else it’s about doing your time the right way, and convincing the other partners you were worth holding onto.

“The Waikato would be one of the best places to practice as an equine vet, anywhere.”

You have been in NZ for a long time now. What was it that determined your decision to settle here permanently?
I have been in New Zealand for 33 years.  It really wasn’t a difficult decision to settle. The Waikato would be one of the best places to practice as an equine vet, anywhere.  I love the country and the people and have three grown-up kiwi kids – game, set, match (that’s not their names!).

What was the single most memorable professional achievement through all your years as a veterinarian?
Would have to be developing a state of the art equine facility, the Waikato Equine Veterinary Centre, with my three other directors (Alec Jorgensen, Noel Power and Greg Quinn).  It opened in November 2016 and I pinch myself every time I drive in.  It’s fantastic.

What attracted you to specialise in performance and lameness in racehorses over other areas of veterinary practice.
Really the difference you can make to these amazing athletes at every level.  Veterinary practice now offers so much in the way of diagnostics, medicine and surgery.

You do the work for one of NZ’s biggest racing stables in Te Akau Stables. How does that work for you, and does it present any added pressure?
It does bring its own pressure, but David Ellis and I have been good mates for over 30 years.  We have a good professional understanding and like the other clients in the practice, I love to see them do well at the highest level.  A large amount of assistance comes from other vets in the practice too, especially Ronan Costello and Alec Jorgensen – they’re absolutely top class.

You do a lot of pre yearling sales examinations for Te Akau and other buyers. What in your experience are the main criteria for a tick or fail on yearlings and does that criteria differ from buyer to buyer?
There are some significant x-ray issues (especially knees, stifles and some fetlock conditions) that concern us.  Personally I like to see yearlings that are correct, but just as importantly are athletic, walk well and seem to have a good temperament.  I leave pedigrees to agents and owners.|

“So much of the guess work and hocus pocus has been removed.” – DB on nutrition

What’s your view on the advancement of nutrition over the years and where do you most identify the benefits of that science in young racehorses?
Nutrition has advanced hugely in the last 10-15 years, primarily with individual property complete feeds.  So much of the guesswork and hocus pocus stuff has been removed.  The results show this, especially with young under three-year-old horses where the incidence of developmental orthopaedic disease has reduced significantly.

Some conditions in young horses such as osteochondrosis (OCD) seem less prevalent today in young horses that in days gone by? Do you agree and what would you put it down to, and are there other conditions less common than they used to be?
Guess the previous question answered that, but there is no doubt we see far less knee fractures (‘chips’ primarily) than we used to.  That’s multi-factorial but nutrition is part of it.  I think young horses feet are getting better too.

“The single thing would be better and more consistent track surfaces.” – DB on soundness

As a racehorse vet, what in your view is the thing or things the racing industry could be doing differently to keep horses in training sounder and achieve a better result?
The single thing would be better and more consistent track surfaces – for training and racing. That would be priority number one.

Degenerative joint disease (DJD) is a potential issue for all horses in training. How much of it do you see in the course of your working week and how much is management and how much is genetic?
I see enough of it but less than say 15 years ago.  Trainers working closely with vets identify issues much earlier with eg. gait analysis and radiographs, so a lot of the more serious conditions are avoided.  Some is definitely genetic but that is often conformation related.

Stem cell research is rapidly advancing in the horse industry globally and is being used to treat lameness of horses in training with the advantage of keeping them in training rather than spelling. Where are we at in NZ with this advancement?
In New Zealand, we are very fortunate to have the involvement at research level of Dr. Wayne McIlwraith.  He’s a global leader in this field and his orthopedic research facility in Colorado has been working closely with Massey University in Palmerston North and private practice here.  Stem cell therapy will have an increasing role in the future treatment of some lameness conditions.

How do you view the x-ray and scoping of horses at yearling sales today compared to the old days when most buyers took their chances?
It’s all down to buyer beware and risk management but both these things have helped eliminate some issues for buyers.  There’s no doubt some horses are unnecessarily criticised on x-rays particularly, but everyone has their opinion and acceptance level.  It has without a doubt made it tougher on the vendors though.

What’s the biggest single advancement for veterinary science in recent years?
Probably portable (and now cordless) digital radiography.

“… horses trained at two years had a lower incidence of significant injury than at three and four years.”

What’s your view on spring two-year-old racing given that the epiphyses in young horses do not close up until 24 to 27 months of age. Are some horses pushed too hard too early, more so in Australia than NZ, which places enormous pressure on relatively immature joints?
Well that’s a fair question, but there have been several extensive studies done, including Australia, which have shown that horses trained (some of which race) at two years had a lower incidence of significant injury than at three and four years.  Trainers are by and large pretty smart today and the tell-tale signs when any horse, especially two-year-olds, have had enough – anything from shin soreness to inappetence or subtle changes in coat appearance.  They know these horses individually. Training methods have improved too, with the use of treadmills and water walkers.

How big an issue is stress fractures in our racing? Are they difficult to diagnose and do you think some go undetected with the horse’s loss of form the only symptom?
Stress fractures are an issue in racehorses, just as they are in human athletes.  They can be difficult to diagnose – for example, in the pelvis, but the use of bone scanners (scintigraphy) is enormously helpful.

“… parochialism.  It’s holding back so much progress.”

Taking off your veterinary hat, what would you do to change NZ racing for the better?
Try my utmost to rid the industry of parochialism.  It’s holding back so much progress.

Why do New Zealand horses punch above their weight so well overseas? Pasture, climate, horsemanship, patience.

Do you have a view on the management of the racehorse’s mind? We know some horses go sour on racing, and others always try hard. Is this more genetic or management and how do you stop a racehorse from switching off?
That was a tough one.  Some thoroughbreds just don’t want to be flat racehorses no matter what.  Some might be genetic? Not sure about that.  Management – yes, keeping the horse interested, eating well, pain-free and in the hands of good track riders all probably helps.

What’s your view on the use of the whip? How much pain in your opinion does a horse feel with a strong whip rider hitting behind the saddle, and would you ban the whip or keep it?
Very topical subject.  I think it’ll go sooner than later purely due to public perception.  Hopefully, it’s permitted as a ‘steering’ device.  Bottom line – it’ll change and probably go in the next five years, I’d say.

Dr. Douglas Black with more thoughts on life and horses…

Personal at a glance	Professional at a glance
My superstition is… Number 13	The biggest lesson I have learned… Never say never in this game. Horses don’t read textbooks and love to make a fool of veterinarians
Four dinner party guests… Charlize Theron, Rowan Atkinson, Robert de Niro, Mick Jagger – now would that be a fun dinner party?	Racing and breeding has taught me… It’s a very tough sport. As a good friend of mine said to me when his best filly came back after a sensational gallop with blood at both nostrils – “it’s no game for sissies.”
I am annoyed by… Parochialism Favourite holiday destination… Italy is sensational – all of it	Best bet I’ve had… A $3k trifecta one day at Randwick at the autumn carnival
Best book read… The Vietnam War by Ken Burns. He’s the only Western Historian the Vietnamese recognise. It’s a great understanding of disasterous politics in South East Asia	Best horse I’ve had… Easy – Scrutinize – never saw the best of him My racing hero… The racing industry – it’s full of characters
Favourite movie… The Hunt for Red October – Sean Connery and Sam Neill at their best I like to relax by… Having a glass (or three) of beer or champagne with good friends on a warm summer evening	Person with the biggest influence… My first boss in Yorkshire. He taught me plenty including a lot of good basic vet medicine
My sport is… Golf. The handicap system makes it a level playing field, the competitors are brilliant and it was created you know where. I had my first hole-in-one last week	Favourite racecourse… Ahh, that’s a tough one. Probably Ellerslie but I love York in England – flat as a billiard table with a straight 1400 metres, great facilities, and the Ebor Meeting in August is one of the best
Favourite Food… Seafood – in NZ we are totally spoilt by the best in the world. Washed down with a nice white burgundy	Alternative career… Probably politics. Everyone says I have an opinion on everything; usually I’m convinced it’s the right one

by Brian de Lore
Published 6^th December 2019

Saturday at Ellerslie saw one of the worst decisions seen on a New Zealand racecourse for some years when stipendiary stewards reversed the first and second placings in race two, the Executive Travel Maiden Two-year-Old over 1100 metres.

To add insult to injury, the Judicial Control Authority (JCA) ratified the mistake by rubber-stamping the decision – bringing into question both the competence of the JCA officials on the day and the entire Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) structure which has in the past been the subject of criticism from key stakeholders.

Protests, upheld or dismissed, race interference, jockey penalties, etc., isn’t a domain to where The Optimist would typically venture. Too many grey areas exist, and too often, decisions are made on narrow margins of a controversial and debatable nature which often polarises racegoers. It’s better to stay away from the debate in those cases, and this blog has always attempted to deal with facts and make a neutrally fair evaluation.

It wouldn’t be an easy job being a stipendiary steward. Race day responsibilities are wide-ranging, and the requirements would generate a reasonable degree of pressure, often thought to be the reason why stipes are rarely seen to smile. Rule 204 of the Rules of Racing says:

“The functions of Stipendiary Stewards and Investigators are to: (a) maintain the integrity of Races and racing; (b) regulate and oversee all Race day matters and all matters related to Races and racing; (c) investigate potential breaches of the Rules; (d) assist in relation to licensing matters; (e) generally, to do all things necessary so that Races and racing are conducted efficiently and with integrity and in accordance with these Rules.”

But Saturday’s episode was blatant. It was a clear-cut error of judgment; should a protest even have been lodged? Grandstand critics are never wrong, and from the safety of a green leather lazy-boy chair in front of the big flat screen, I watched the race live. When the siren went, my thinking was that it would take only around 60 seconds to reach a ‘protest dismissed’ verdict.

How wrong can you be! Incomprehensibly the stewards and JCA went with it and turfed-out first-past-the-post horse Taroni and promoted Bordeaux Le Rouge into first place. Since the live viewing, I have revisited the video replay on the Love Racing website no fewer than a dozen times.

On every occasion, the same conclusion was reached. The two horses briefly came together right on the winning post, but Bordeaux Le Rouge was never ever going to run past Taroni and win the race. Had Taroni kept a straight line it would have won by more than a length.

So why did the stipes change the result and the JCA ratify it? Firstly, Rule 642 of racing says that to change the result: “the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred.”

In my view, that criteria had not been met – nowhere close to it. Could I be so wrong, after all, I had been studying races for over 50 years since the days of such greats as Palisade, Eiffel Tower, Kumei, Weenell, Daryl’s Joy, Jazz, Star Belle, Laramie, Royal Bid, Piko, Game Call, Spray Doone, Koral, Lindred, Teak, Pep and Brazil to name a few – what a fabulous era of great horses. Perhaps the years have dimmed my vision and fogged my judgment?

“If the punters out there don’t have any confidence in our judicial system they are not going to bet.” – Nigel Tiley

The only way to determine this was to consult others. As a top-class ex-jockey and now a highly experienced trainer, Nigel Tiley was my first call. Nigel also sits on the committee of the Trainers’ Association Committee and is the trainers’ representative on the NZTR Members’Council, and few horsemen would be better credentialled to review the incident.

Nigel said: “On Saturday’s decision, the fact that I had two phone calls from Australia questioning what the rules were in New Zealand. These were two experienced race watchers who could not get their heads around the reversing of the placings. They were both adamant that under their judicial system the protest would not have been upheld.

“But under our rules, it also should have been dismissed. We have discussed it in a conference call of the Trainers’ Association Executive, so I can’t speak on behalf of the Association, but I have spoken to a lot of racing people, and it’s 100 percent unanimous that the stipes made the wrong decision. I was appalled.

“If the punters out there don’t have any confidence in our judicial system they are not going to bet,” concluded Nigel Tiley.

Next, I phoned Racehorse Trainers’ Association President Tony Pike who was also willing to express his concern at the outcome of the race.  

“I had no problem with the siren going off,” commented Tony, “but it should have been dismissed. There’s a lot of backlash out there and it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is.

“I was on-course in Perth watching on TV and didn’t see the head-on film until later but I was disappointed with the process in the room. The stipes shouldn’t be asking or assuming the connections are going to lodge the protest and when the connections didn’t lodge it, and they had to lodge it themselves and have gone down that path, they probably felt the need to uphold it.”

The process of which Tony Pike referred to went like this: In the hearing room, the Chairman John Oatham stated mistakenly that the connections of the second horse had lodged the protest. It was soon established that was not the case and that a protest would not be forthcoming from them, so the Stewards lodged it themselves. The siren sounding before the horses had returned to scale was also initiated by a steward, but Oatham was apparently not aware of that which raises a serious procedural question.

Other questions arising are: Was that initial mistake in the room a mitigating factor in making the final decision? Was the fact that Bordeaux Le Rouge was the hot favourite at $1.30 for the win a sub-conscious pressure on the stewards, and would that pressure not have been present had it been a $20 shot? No one is suggesting that this was anything but an honest mistake, but it should be noted the loser here has no grounds for appeal.

“My experience with the JCA is that they lack racing experience and an ability to read races.” – Tony Pike

Further second-hand anecdotal information received is suggesting that not all four stewards officiating agreed with the decision, but that cannot be confirmed. The same source also said that Bordeaux Le Rouge’s jockey Sam Collett was not questioned at all.     

Tony Pike further commented: “My experience with the JCA is that they lack racing experience and an ability to read races, and they have gone and upheld it. They are obviously intelligent people, but on the subject of reading races, they’re not really qualified.

“Mistakes are made and this may be a one-off case, but we have to make sure the process and the rules are adhered to – the decision by the JCA was blatantly wrong. It was a lower-level race, and the ramifications were not great, but racing is lacking confidence in getting good decisions, especially from the JCA, and there will come a time and place when this will happen in a significantly bigger race with far greater ramifications.”

The Stewards Report Said:

“Following the race a protest was lodged by the Stipendiary Stewards alleging interference by the 1st placed horse TARONI (D Johnson) to the 2nd placed horse BORDEAUX LE ROUGE (S Collett) inside the final 100 metres. After viewing films and hearing submissions the Judicial Committee upheld the protest relegating TARONI to 2nd placing. The final placings now read – 1 BORDEAUX LE ROUGE 1st, 8 TARONI 2nd, 6 DRAGON QUEEN 3rd, 5 TARGHEE 4th. BORDEAUX LE ROUGE (S Collett replaced T Harris) – Promoted to 1 st placing after suffering interference inside the final 100 metres. TARONI (D Johnson) – Relegated from 1st placing after causing interference inside the final 100 metres.”

Interestingly, if Danielle Johnston had failed to keep her mount straight enough to stop the second horse from winning and the interference was severe enough to warrant a change of placings, one might have thought that Johnson would at the very least received a warning if not a fine or suspension. But not a mention.

Further to that, the Stewards Report above is very sheepish in its wording. It states a reversal of placings takes place but doesn’t go as far as saying that, “in the opinion of the stewards the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first-mentioned horse.”

Everyone with an interest in the judicial system of racing should review the race themselves and make a judgment, Depending on your opinion, you may have a future on the JCA panel because they are clearly having problems with people who boast a series of letters behind their names.

Footnote:

On Thursday 5^th December, Racing Bill No 2 was released which is due to have it’s first reading before Parliament adjourns for the year. Here is the link to read it:

http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0198/latest/d11427752e2.html