Kevin Shea is not happy

Pirates, should you not ask Anton, Anthony or Kevin that question as you respect their opinions more than mine. I mean I have only dealt with horses before and after races for 35yrs but I have never ridden in a race and that is obviously the only place you learn anything!

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

The Operators expect us (owners, trainers, jocks and punters) to bring our A-game to the course so that they can 'put on the show', offer betting and make the big bucks that keeps the whole show on the road.

Is it therefore unreasonable for us (owners, trainers, jocks and punters) to expect the Operators to bring THEIR A-game to every meeting and provide safe, adequate facilities?

While I agree with Craig that some horses prefer some conditions over others and it's perfectly possible that most of the horses coped just fine. But if racing is hazardous enough under perfect conditions, may I ask why it is necessary to have to take a gamble on less than perfect conditions? Greyville didn't start being problemmatic yesterday, it's been coming for a long time now. And while there are plenty of folk saying the track is 'OK', there are just as many saying it isn't. Surely there should be some sort of minimum standard, not 'hey, no-one got hurt, so that's OK'

I'm sorry to be a stick in the mud, but those are lives at stake out there. Horses and humans. You don't take chances.

Z04, no one is saying that Greyville is perfect or even near it but I am sure you will agree that horses have broken down in the best of going. We must eliminate it as much as we can but as you can see from the thread that some are saying Greyville was better than Clairwood and some the other way around. Scottsville under Enos has really and it is now the best course in Natal.

Craig - I TOTALLY agree with you. Horses do break down even under perfect conditions. And while you know I'm a bleeding heart for horses, we're talking human lives here too. Those horses carry human cargo. If a horse goes down, at least one jockey goes down too. Worst case scenarios can take out several horses and jockeys.

Hence my point. If accidents happen under perfect conditions, why do we gamble with less than perfect ones? We're stacking the odds against ourselves, surely?

zsuzsanna04 Wrote:

---

> Craig - I TOTALLY agree with you. Horses do break
> down even under perfect conditions. And while you
> know I'm a bleeding heart for horses, we're
> talking human lives here too. Those horses carry
> human cargo. If a horse goes down, at least one
> jockey goes down too. Worst case scenarios can
> take out several horses and jockeys.
>
> Hence my point. If accidents happen under perfect
> conditions, why do we gamble with less than
> perfect ones? We're stacking the odds against
> ourselves, surely?


I would rather take the word of the driver(Jockey) of a car than that of the passengers(trainer/owner/operator/punter) - I really think that if the Jocks feel the going is dangerous then their concerns should take precedence. The owner/trainer/punter/operator have only money to loose while the Jock/horse might loose their lives.

robyn makes perfect sense, craig still defends, nothing new


maybe ask the question a different way.

"could the course have been in a better conniption?"

if the answer is yes then racing should have stopped. If anything had happened it would have been a "i told you so" situation.

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> Pirates, should you not ask Anton, Anthony or
> Kevin that question as you respect their opinions
> more than mine. I mean I have only dealt with
> horses before and after races for 35yrs but I have
> never ridden in a race and that is obviously the
> only place you learn anything!


iv known punters who been racing for 50 years and they still know the same today as when they first started ..

word from frank robinson is that dr livingstone jumping patches the whole race on friday greyville and has done his tendon maybe craig can confirm

Even one of natal big supporters have a lot to say

I saw somewhere that the Greyville track was being castigated by certain quarters. This is not really news as Greyville has long been a dump of a grass track and should have been ploughed up long ago. I noticed the CEO, Graeme Hawkins, saying that this is exactly what they were going to do. Well, it has been 10 years too long in the waiting. I do not know who protested or thought it was sub-standard but they are 100% right. Every year I sit down with my fellow Natalians and that includes racing officials and well-know and successful trainers. I am not going to name-drop (and I know you are going to say that I am not name-dropping because they don’t exist). Sadly, they do and they know who they are and they know what they have said to me about the state of Greyville and they are 100% right. It is a disgrace and has been a disgrace for a very long time. I have never known a track where you send out 5 runners and 3 come back with black, weepy eyes and require veterinary attention. This has gone on for way too long and it would appear stones are the least of their issues. Drainage has been a problem for a while and grass covering (or lack of it ) has also been a lively topic. That place cannot be ploughed up quickly enough. I feel for everyone concerned. It does leave them in a bit of a hole though as Clairwood has been neglected and the only real racecourse they have is Scottsville. Now I know my boss, Derek Brugman, was extremely rude about it a few months ago and with hindsight, he might have been out of order as it is their best track. However, I think what he was referring to was their Gold Rush big day 18 months before where it was an absolute disgrace. They do get frost and they cannot help that but they had covered it and decided to water it. The top 6 inches was like jelly and a moving surface and was,in my opinion, an extremely unsafe surface. It did not stop the Jooste horses from winning and mine from running extremely well but it was not a good surface and should never have come to that, particularly for their Gold Rush big day of the year. Anyway, good luck with the Greyville surface; they certainly do need it. I think the annoying thing about Greyville is that they have had numerous opportunities to put it right. I know they have had their long term plan to put a polytrack in but the Greyville track should have been sorted a long time ago.

Wow - there are a lot of short memories out there - remember the state of the track for the July?

zsuzsanna04 Wrote:

---

> I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
>
> The Operators expect us (owners, trainers, jocks
> and punters) to bring our A-game to the course so
> that they can 'put on the show', offer betting and
> make the big bucks that keeps the whole show on
> the road.
>
> Is it therefore unreasonable for us (owners,
> trainers, jocks and punters) to expect the
> Operators to bring THEIR A-game to every meeting
> and provide safe, adequate facilities?
>
> While I agree with Craig that some horses prefer
> some conditions over others and it's perfectly
> possible that most of the horses coped just fine.
> But if racing is hazardous enough under perfect
> conditions, may I ask why it is necessary to have
> to take a gamble on less than perfect conditions?
> Greyville didn't start being problemmatic
> yesterday, it's been coming for a long time now.
> And while there are plenty of folk saying the
> track is 'OK', there are just as many saying it
> isn't. Surely there should be some sort of minimum
> standard, not 'hey, no-one got hurt, so that's OK'
>
>
> I'm sorry to be a stick in the mud, but those are
> lives at stake out there. Horses and humans. You
> don't take chances.

Very well said (tu)

Just wondering ,

What insurance does the average race horse have ,and what is covered ?