Quote Originally Posted by alphastud View Post
Hi Wayne,

Thanks for providing more information and raising some good points.

If we just need to satisfy the Punter, and the Punter is happy with the current process, then we probably don’t need to review anything. So, only read on if you aren’t happy with the current process or you think that the Punter isn’t happy with it.
-----------
If we do put value on the process and the result that it produces then I think that the we are wasting time (literally) and money for not much benefit.

Think about more reasons as to why a horse could (unexpectedly) perform poorly (“poor performance”). I don’t want to open the worm can however, a bacterial infection is 1 of many. So, my thinking is to check all factors (as much as you can) or don’t bother.

Then we have the question as to whether the horse did (actually) perform poorly when taking all factors into account. E.g. I didn’t think that Ultimate Machete NZ performed poorly given that he death seated in record time [18th Feb 2017] however Purdon and the Authorities did.
Then Ultimate Machete NZ raced the following week with a slightly easier run and records nearly an identical time [25th Feb 2017].

I’m not sure if the track was faster, slower or about the same on the 25th Feb.
What I don’t understand is why the Ultimate’s run on the 25th wasn’t queried and considered “poor performance” if the first run was?

Critiquing Process:
Post Race Review current process.
(i) Trainer collects blood and sends it to Vet or Pathology.
(ii) Vet receives results and forwards to the Trainer (and maybe the authority)
(iii) Trainer or Owner pays the Vet fee.

Problems.
1. Lack of controls.
E.g. The trainer could intentionally or accidently forward another horses blood sample for analysis. There isn’t a DNA check.
2. Waste in unnecessary processing.
Step out the process and it's easy to see the unnecessary steps that create more risk.

Solutions.
Without reviewing in great detail, some improved processes could be:
1. Pathology emails trainers Vet and Authority at the same time.
This adds another layer of control and potentially removes the need for the trainer to communicate to the Authority. This also gets the info to Authorities quicker and reduces processing time. – in addition, we won’t have to worry about Vet emergency’s.
2. Authority takes blood sample @ races after the poor performance.
The Authority can easily request their Pathology to email them and the Trainer the results. The Authority could invoice the Trainer or Owner or wear the cost. This saves the trainer or trainers Vet the time to take blood and transport it to the Pathology etc.

Re your questions:
1. “would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated?”
I can’t answer for all trainers. However, your suggestion that:
“No doubt about it but not everyone's on the up and up unfortunately”
might be the perception of some participants.
2. Does there appear to be an inconsistency from what has transpired?
I don’t know. As mentioned above, I think that the current process and result (i.e. post race review report) is nonsense and so the media report of same means nothing to me. In regards to the run of Divine State. I think that Divine State had a higher probability of getting sick or going off given:
1. That he’s just a 2yr.
2. The fast times that he’s running.
3. The way that he’s raced.
4. He’s not a machine.
I could expand on all however you get the idea.

Other questions that you could ask?
Did Divine’s blood test indicators show whether the infection was present in the horse at the time of the race or where they a result of the stress from the race, trip home etc. ?

Summary.
It seems that we do "post race review" for the perceived benefit of Punters and because it could be the right to do. It’s difficult to know for sure as to what’s actually going on. Do we know if this really does give the Punter more confidence to invest or is it something that we’re doing just because we’ve always done it?

I really do hope that Divine State returns bigger and better. Would be great for our new local stallion Tintin also. Shane and Chris etc. did a great job to get him as far as they did and so close to the Crown. Especially when you consider how hard it is to just get a 2yo to the races.
I like your protocols regardless of the following comments.

Ultimate Machete final run was a lot better - 25.5 last qtr so they went slower early, so there was a ceiling for him to go quicker whereas heat he reached the ceiling and paddled.

I think the ones like Divine State are just a write off and forget from a punting perspective even if no explanation is given, however confirmation is nice.