Australian Racecourses National Track Standards

Monitoring, assessment and design

by Australian Racecourse Managers Association Inc.

October 2007

RIRDC Publication No 07/159 RIRDC Project No AUR-1A

ii

© 2007 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 174151 5548 ISSN 1440-6845 Australian Racecourses National Track Standards: Monitoring, assessment and design Publication No. 07/159 Project No. AUR-1A The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors..

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.

Researcher Contact Details Arthur Stubbs PO Box 661, Greensborough, Vic, 3088 Phone: 03 9844 1135 Fax: 03 9844 4554 Email: akstubbs@optusnet.com.au

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6272 4199 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in October 2007 Printed by Canprint

iii

Foreword

Development of national standards for monitoring, assessment and design of Australian race and training tracks has been a focus of Australian Racecourse Managers’ conferences for some years. This led to several studies aimed at objective investigation of relationships between track design, surfaces and profiles with track performance and user safety. Establishment of a national, uniform monitoring and assessment system of the key factors affecting track surfaces, such as basic design, maintenance procedures, profile performance, weather and rail movements, is the essential first step in attempting to connect these variables with records of user performance and injury on a broad scale. Ongoing analysis of this data on an industry wide basis, linked to race and veterinary records already accumulated in the National Racing Database will yield a wealth of knowledge for the design, preparation and presentation of tracks conducive to best and safest horse and jockey performance. The racing industry will then be on a par with the situation already attained in most other “sportsturf” industries. These outcomes will translate to greater certainty and confidence by all stakeholders, an increased financial contribution to the general economy, improved community perception of the Thoroughbred racing industry, and environmental gain, for example, more effective water usage and reduced pollution. The data will also pinpoint priority areas for further research on tracks and, with a co-ordinated national approach, will facilitate the direction of more industry funding to these key areas in the viability of the national racing industry. This project was funded from industry revenue which is matched by funds provided by the Australian Government. This report, an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1600 research publications, forms part of our Horses R&D program, which aims to assist in developing the Australian horse industry and enhancing its export potential. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop Peter O’Brien Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iv

Acknowledgments The project has enjoyed the support of racing industry participants and stakeholders from throughout Australia. This has involved the conducting of the two workshops, the time given by those attending, and the interest shown thereafter. This was particularly crucial to the positive outcome from the final workshop and is underlined by agreement to continue the collaborative work that has commenced and to meet and monitor results regularly. Particular thanks are due to the members of the Working Groups, as named in the body of the report, which were charged with investigating matters that arose from the first workshop and reporting their findings. This work was done in addition to their normal professional duties. Special mention is needed of the interest shown in the project from the outset by David Hawke and Charlie Stebbing of RVL, who were valuable contributors to project planning and workshop participation, apart from the additional time spent as key members of Working Groups. The generous provision of venues for the workshops by the Australian Jockey Club and the Moonee Valley Racing Club is gratefully acknowledged.

Abbreviations ARB Australian Racing Board ARMA Australian Racecourse Managers Association HAL Horticulture Australia Limited PIERD Primary Industries and Energy Development RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation RNSW Racing New South Wales RVL Racing Victoria Limited RWWA Racing and Wagering Western Australia TAB Totalisator Agency Board

v

Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................ iv Records and Maintenance .................................................................................................................. vii Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives............................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 3

Report of First Workshop – July 25 2006 ........................................................................................... 3 Opening 3 Project Introduction and Workshop Purpose 3 Current Knowledge and Investigations 5 User Safety and Stakeholder Considerations 8 Options for Standards 10 Priorities for Standards 10 Data Analysis and Research Required 11 Working Groups 11

Report of Final Workshop – May 8 2007.......................................................................................... 12 Project Review 12 Working Group Reports and Recommendations 13 Records and Maintenance 13 Introduction 13 Ratings 16 Infrastructure 18 Drought Proofing Tracks 19 Future Funding Options for Track Research 19 Future Forum for National Standards 20

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 21 ARMA Infrastructure Workshop Report ......................................................................................... 21 Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 43

Workshop Participants – July 25 2006.............................................................................................. 43 Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 44

Workshop Participants – May 8 2007 ............................................................................................... 44

vi

Executive Summary Introduction This project aims to facilitate an industry wide, collaborative approach to identification and implementation of the key factors in design and preparation of safe, reliable and consistent racing and training tracks. Definition of such national standards and benchmarks will encourage a co-ordinated approach throughout the industry which can lead to less wasteful capital expenditure on track construction, more reliable racing and training schedules, attraction of more participants, and increased revenues from betting and patronage. It is also anticipated that industry acceptance of the need for a system of national standards and benchmarks for monitoring, assessment and design will be accompanied by greater commitment by the controlling bodies to funding such developments and future research into issues that will emerge. Background A Racecourse R&D Workshop in March 2001, convened by RIRDC, found that there was a range of opinions and definitions of the requirements for optimum track design and maintenance but no systematic collection and analysis of such data relative to safe and consistent track, horse and rider performance. Since then, there has been some related research work done but little progress has been made towards a national approach for defining track standards, let alone monitoring and recording methods. Some industry bodies have taken their own actions along these lines and without some co-ordination of objectives, the risk of duplication of effort and further disparity between States is likely to continue. Over the last decade hundreds of thousands of dollars have been misspent on ill-informed track renovations that have not lived up to the promised expectations. Establishment of a national, uniform monitoring and assessment system of the key factors affecting track surfaces is the essential first step in attempting to connect these variables with records of user performance and injury on a broad scale, consistent with knowledge gained in most “sportsturf” industries. This will translate to greater certainty and confidence by all stakeholders, an increased financial contribution to the general economy, improved community perception of the Thoroughbred racing industry, and gains to the environment, for example, from more effective water usage and less pollution. The data will also pinpoint the priority areas for research into tracks and, with a co-ordinated national approach, will facilitate the direction of more industry funding to these key factors in the viability of the national racing industry. Objectives

1. Development of national standards for monitoring and assessment of Australian race and training tracks to enable objective investigation of relationships of track infrastructure, for example, design, profiles and management, with track performance and user safety.

2. Development of national standards for design of race and training tracks conducive to optimum performance and user safety.

Methodology The initial step in the project was an industry workshop, held to review relevant current research findings, work in progress, identification of measurements and information required for optimum track management and assessment, and consideration of priorities for standards, data analysis and research. Workshop participants included representatives of national and State racing industry bodies, major Race Clubs, stewards, veterinarians, relevant researchers and representatives of ARMA. This initial workshop was held in July 2006, at Randwick Racecourse, Sydney, New South Wales.

vii

This first workshop identified priorities for track standards and formed Working Groups to investigate means of application of standards throughout the industry and initiate trials at selected metropolitan and provincial racecourses in the latter part of 2006 and early in 2007. Participants from the first workshop reviewed progress and results of the Working Groups’ activities in May, 2007, at a second industry workshop held at Moonee Valley Racecourse, Melbourne, Victoria. Recommendations were made for adoption of certain standards, identification of further research and data analysis priorities, and investigation of mechanisms for ongoing racing industry funding for such work. The ultimate objective was to develop a National Master Plan for Track Infrastructure. Results First Workshop The 2006 Workshop covered the following matters: • current knowledge and investigations such as the development of track maintenance programs and

specialist infrastructure, track measurement trials and capital management systems • user safety and stakeholder considerations, for example, the need for record keeping and analysis to

relate track factors with horse performance and injury • options and priorities for standards which were defined, in order of practical importance as records,

ratings, maintenance criteria, surfaces/profiles, infrastructure and design/dimensions • Working Groups were formed to make further investigations and report on the following areas:

Records and Maintenance; Ratings; and Infrastructure. Final Workshop At the second and final workshop in May 2007, reports were received and discussed from the three Working Groups: Records and Maintenance Current maintenance standards were compared between States and it was evident that considerable knowledge was already available but this needed to be pooled for ready access. Standardised and more sophisticated measurement regimens were required to facilitate record keeping and analysis of data for increased accuracy of track maintenance. Ratings Rating scales, measurement tools and procedures, use and publicity of ratings and influence of varying surfaces and profiles were reviewed and it was apparent that more trial work is required to obtain satisfactory objective measuring procedures. Infrastructure Standards for design and construction of various items of racecourse infrastructure were compiled and guidelines developed for industry use. It is clear that racing bodies need to pool their knowledge to develop national standards for these important components of racecourses and training venues. Other issues considered at this workshop included: • options and funding for drought proofing tracks • future work required for development of national standards • options for implementation • future funding options • future forum for national standards.

viii

Recommendations Records/Maintenance Working Group • Trials of the Crop Trak© and Intellitrol© data collection and reporting systems be continued and

expanded to other venues and States. • The concept of extensive track data collection and analysis be an integral component of National

Track Standards development. • Review further trial results and the ensuing extra data at a future forum. Ratings Working Group • All States to adopt the same Ratings system, ideally the 1-10 system, and States yet to adopt this

system should trial it with a view to its adoption as soon as practicable to achieve a consistent and relevant track rating system throughout Australia. The descriptive text associated with this system to be phased out gradually. This recommendation be referred to the National Chairman of Stewards Advisory Group with the proposal that RISA adopt the 1-10 system

• The status quo remain regarding optional tools used for ratings measurements pending conclusion of trials with the Going Stick over the next 12 months and that controlled trials be conducted comparing the Going Stick with the Penetrometer, Clegg hammer, moisture sensors, etc.

• Standard measurement procedures for the recommended tool(s) be defined after these trials. • The status quo remain regarding the timing and extent of release of ratings. • Continue general stakeholder and public education about the 1-10 ratings system under a standard

presentation and that media outlets such as Trackwatch be used for this purpose. • The most suitable track surfaces and profiles be used according to factors such as climate, budget,

etc. Infrastructure Working Group National standards and guidelines are needed for all infrastructure items based on such factors as:

- practical design - safety for horses and humans - weather protection - operational ease - economy of construction and maintenance - economy of operation (labour, consumables) - horse health factors - security - environmental impact.

A database is needed for industry storage of and access to recommended standards. Future Funding Options Determine priorities and amount of funding required for specific trial work as recommended plus other activities needed for development of national standards and then approach such organisations as RIRDC, ARB, TAB’s, etc, for funding assistance for a defined research and development program. Future Forum An annual Workshop be held of representatives involved in this project to consider reports from the established Working Groups and that the Workshop make recommendations to the National Chairman of Stewards Advisory Group from time to time. Sub-committees of the Workshop and the Stewards may consider priorities for presentation to the National Chairman of Stewards Advisory Group.

1

Introduction Following discussions at annual Racecourse Managers’ Conferences, a Racecourse R&D Workshop was convened by RIRDC in March, 2001, to investigate what track standards existed. The workshop found that there was a range of opinions and definitions of the requirements for optimum track design and maintenance but no systematic collection and analysis of such data relative to safe and consistent track, horse and rider performance. This resulted in RIRDC Project PTP-20A which, in 2004, found that only a minority of racecourses had reasonably thorough monitoring systems for racetracks. There was no evidence of record collection for training tracks, and there had been little analysis of data to relate track factors to user welfare and performance. The project recommended that this situation be addressed by institution of standardised track monitoring procedures and that research be undertaken into the effect of various turf profiles, turf species, training track surfaces, and track design on horses, preferably by direct measurement techniques. Since then there has been some related research work done: first, on developing a web based race day injury reporting system (RIRDC Project AUV-2A); second, further investigation of risk factors for injuries during training (RIRDC Project US-129A); and third, a project funded by Racing Victoria Limited investigating the relationship between racing and training surfaces and shin soreness, and development of an improved track surface and profile measuring device to indicate safer tracks. In parallel, a new Track Rating system devised in NSW, with ratings of 1-10 instead of the traditional one-five, has been implemented in that State followed by Victoria, but not in all other States. However, the link between the ratings and objective measurements is quite variable. Clearly, little progress has been made towards a national approach for definition of track standards let alone monitoring and recording methods. Some industry bodies have taken their own actions along these lines. However, without co-ordination of objectives the risk of duplication of effort and further disparity between States is likely to continue. Over the last decade many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been misspent on ill-informed track renovations that have not lived up to the promised expectations. This project aimed to facilitate an industry wide, collaborative approach to identification and implementation of the key factors in design and preparation of safe, reliable and consistent tracks. Definition of such national standards and benchmarks for race and training tracks will encourage a co-ordinated approach throughout the industry. This should lead to less wasteful capital expenditure on track construction, more reliable racing and training schedules, attraction of more participants, and increased revenues from betting and patronage. It is also anticipated that industry acceptance of the need for a system of national standards and benchmarks for monitoring, assessment and design will be accompanied by greater commitment by the controlling bodies to funding such developments and future research into issues that will emerge.

2

Objectives

1. Development of national standards for monitoring and assessment of Australian race and training tracks to enable objective investigation of relationships of track infrastructure, for example, design, profiles and management, with track performance and user safety.

2. Development of national standards for design of race and training tracks conducive to

optimum performance and user safety.

Methodology The initial step in the project was an industry workshop, held to review relevant research findings to that date, current work in progress, identification of measurements and information required for optimum track management and assessment, and consideration of priorities for standards, data analysis and research. Workshop participants included representatives of national and State racing industry bodies, major Race Clubs, stewards, veterinarians, relevant researchers and representatives of ARMA. This initial workshop was held in July 2006, at Randwick Racecourse, Sydney, New South Wales. This first workshop identified priorities for track standards and formed Working Groups to investigate means of application of standards throughout the industry and initiate trials at selected metropolitan and provincial racecourses in the latter part of 2006 and early 2007. Participants from the first workshop reviewed progress and results of the Working Groups’ activities in May 2007, at a second industry workshop held at Moonee Valley Racecourse, Melbourne, Victoria. Recommendations were made for adoption of certain standards, identification of further research and data analysis priorities, and investigation of mechanisms for ongoing racing industry funding for such work. The ultimate objective was to develop a National Master Plan for Track Infrastructure.

3

Results and Discussion Report of First Workshop – July 25 2006

Opening Andrew Harding, Chief Executive, Australian Racing Board, opened the Workshop by noting the broad representation from major racing bodies across Australia. He suggested that the Workshop was timely as tracks were the single most important factor in racing. Issues such as horse injury, occupational health and safety and track consistency were vital matters for the industry and all related track condition. Project Introduction and Workshop Purpose Warren Williams, ARMA Chairman, introduced the project and Workshop purpose by making the following points: • RIRDC agreed to fund this ARMA project: “National Standards for Track Monitoring,

Assessment and Design” • this is consistent with a key R&D issue of the RIRDC Horse Program: “Racetrack design and

development and the scientific measurement of racetrack variables on race day” • comments on project from the RIRDC Horse Program R&D Committee included: “National

Standards should be the over-riding objective of the project” and “current National Standards to take into account regional and climatic differences are difficult categories to be identified”

• project objectives were: 1. Development of National Standards for monitoring, assessment and measurement of

Australian race and training tracks to enable objective investigation of relationships of track infrastructure, for example design, profiles and management, with track performance and user safety.

2. Development of National Standards for design of race and training tracks conducive to optimum performance and user safety. As a result of this the overriding general objectives were to ensure standards, benchmarks and best practice were delivered.

• the purpose of the Workshop is to: o identify needs and priorities for standards o determine process for establishment of standards o define action required pending a ‘review’ workshop in May 2007

• Australian Racing Industry statistics are: - 391 Clubs, 364 Racetracks - 5 Training centres plus an estimated 600 Training tracks - > 1,000 tracks used for 31,000 horses in training for racing - $12 billion betting turnover, ~ $2 billion revenue, $362 million prize money - $ 0.3 million to RIRDC for R&D = 0.00015 % of betting revenue ($0.55 million in

2007-08) - $ ~ 0.6 million for industry R&D ($1.1 million from 2007-08) - these numbers compare poorly to MLA that oversees $14 billion meat sales, yet has a

$100 million R&D budget = 0.007 % – thus, funding for R&D from the racing industry is relatively small

• ultimate goal of the projects is to develop a “National Master Plan for Track Infrastructure under the auspices of ARB.”

4

Background and Past Knowledge Arthur Stubbs, ARMA Secretary, reviewed the project’s background and knowledge that had been identified relevant to the objective: • 1996 R&D Workshop at Rosehill considered Construction, Ratings and Communication were the

three main priorities for attention • 2000 R&D Forum at the ARMA Conference in Melbourne found that:

- too many failures and poor results occurred when track reconstructions or renovations were undertaken

- standards were needed for track design and construction, load capacities of tracks and track ratings

• 2001 Racecourse R&D Workshop in Sydney convened by RIRDC to examine current knowledge found: - a range of opinions and definitions from various consultants for optimum track design and

maintenance - no systematic collection and analysis of data relative to safe and consistent track, horse and

rider performance • this led to the 2004 RIRDC Project “Database of Current Knowledge on Racetrack Design &

Performance” which found: - only a minority of racecourses had reasonably thorough monitoring systems involving track

measurements, maintenance records, usage results, etc - there was no evidence of record collection for training tracks - there had been little analysis of data relating track factors to user welfare and performance, for

example track geometry, surface and hardness • the project recommended that this situation be addressed by:

- institution of standardised track monitoring procedures including ratings, surface measurements, horse performance and user comments

- research be undertaken into the effect of various turf profiles, turf species, training track surfaces, and track design on horses

• ideally such assessments would be made using direct measurement techniques such as strain gauges

• 2005 ARMA conference resolutions included: - NSW track rating system supported in principle and should be trialled in all States - device needed to support subjective rating descriptions and R&D required to compare current

instruments - objective data and specifications needed for any track renovation work and options considered

to suit different situations and budgets • other RIRDC funded R&D work relevant to tracks includes:

- assessment of turf composition and maintenance of grass racetracks (1997) - review of devices for assessing racetrack conditions (1998) - manual of racetrack management (2002) - “shin soreness” in thoroughbred horses (2004) - risk factors for injuries in thoroughbred horses (2005) - risk factor analysis of racetrack fatalities (2005) - web based racing injury reporting system (2005).

5

Current Knowledge and Investigations David Hawke, General Manager, Planning and Infrastructure, Racing Victoria, commented on important issues that required attention: • capital adequacy (inadequacy!) – asset replacement cycle is estimated to be 4X the actual life of

most assets, i.e. a training track that has a 15 year life may not get replaced for 60 years • history shows we build to a budget rather than a desired performance specification • lack of design standards – keep making the same mistakes • under resourcing maintenance – instead of extending the life of assets we shorten them • do not capture and share learnings/best practice. Managing infrastructure for a better outcome. What does this mean – How do we measure it?

- reduced horse wastage - higher average number of starts per horse - increased number of horses racing as a % of foal crop - larger race fields - higher wagering turnover - increased number of race meetings per track - improved return on Investment - improved total infrastructure cost per horse - improved safety record / reduced number of accidents.

What Standards Do We Need? • design standards • maintenance standards • one standard or many standards?

- Metro Vs Country - Racing Vs Training - Low utilisation Vs high utilisation.

• measurement and data management standards • development of personnel – education and training. Minimum Standards suggested were: • Track Design Standards

- turn radius and camber matrix - profile construction, drainage and irrigation - running rails and other infrastructure

• maintenance standards and planning tools • policy development for track preparation, management and supervision • track measurement and rating systems • capital management practices

- “knowledge bank” of standard facility specifications • information sharing and data management. Work conducted by RVL includes: • trial of plastic rails • maintenance programmes • automated track measurement equipment • automatic weather station installation of soil moisture monitors • sensor location • track monitoring graphs.

6

Charlie Stebbing, Regional Tracks and Facilities Manager, Racing Victoria Ltd, described the track measurement studies RVL has been doing in recent years: i) Turf track measurement tools have been compared for evaluating surface hardness, soil moisture

and turf stability. ii) Devices being studied include the Penetrometer, Clegg Hammer, Shear Vane, Clegg Shear

Tester and Moisture Sensors. iii) Data measured is to be compared to Track Ratings to establish correlations. iv) All devices have advantages and limitations. Some are expensive, cumbersome to use and

require collation of data. In general, the relationship between measurements and what a galloping horse exerts/experiences are not understood.

v) A penetrometer measures penetration into turf surfaces by a probe and is used as a basis for track ratings on most courses. Reliability varies with operator method, calculations and surface irregularities and is not repeatable across venues due to profile variation.

vi) Clegg Hammer measures surface hardness by deceleration of a 2.25kg weight and is used widely on various surfaces and sports grounds, with good repeatability between sites.

vii) Shear Vane was developed as a measure of soil strength in agricultural research. Clegg Shear Tester was developed to measure turf surface strength by replicating the action of a galloping horse’s hoof entering and leaving the surface. Some variation exists between cool and warm season turf surfaces for both devices.

viii) Hydrosense and Aqua flex moisture sensors measure volumetric water content, have been used in horticulture for some time but not widely used on racecourses. Aqua flex sensors are permanent fixtures in the soil and several sites on a track are needed to give reliable information.

ix) Several devices are being trialled at three racetracks to evaluate them for measuring track uniformity, around and across the tracks, and relationships to horse speed. Relatively close correlations exist between the Penetrometer and Clegg Hammer and with horse speed.

x) Sand and synthetic training tracks are also being evaluated, similarly to turf tracks, for hardness, shear strength and moisture. Sand appears to perform poorest in terms of hardness and shear strength.

xi) Tools are available for quantifying surface hardness, soil moisture and turf stability, the three ingredients for rating tracks, and there are patterns of track performance that are measurable. Other factors such as wind speed, direction and rider bias should be considered in track ratings. Better tools are needed for information management.

xii) The industry needs to ensure that measurement tools, measurement regimens and means of processing information are sufficient to provide essential information for track managers to make informed decisions to produce even tracks, for trainers to select tracks that suit horses and for ‘punters’ to assess chances of horses.

Andrew Small, Projects Manager, Racing NSW Country, outlined work conducted through the Country Racecourse Development Fund (CRDF) relevant to development of standards: Design/development of Specialist Racing Infrastructure: • a significant number of minor community and picnic venues exist, many of which have races on

only one day per year. Commercially it is unsound to contemplate construction of fixed assets at these sites. Nonetheless, all venues must satisfy relevant statutory codes including OHS regulations

• CRDF examines provision of transportable infrastructure for shared use at such venues wherever feasible

• examples include relocatable tote caravans (used in Victoria) plus transportable surveillance towers for use by stewards/video operators.

7

Transportable Surveillance Towers: • developed to deliver a structure complying with requirements of AS 1657-1992 (Fixed platforms,

walkaways, stairways and ladders) • designed to be easily towed to and from races by stewards (Falcon / Commodore), erected for the

day’s racing and then removed • a number have been purchased for each Racing Association. Standardised Swab/Vet Facilities: • project arose from a previous audit of existing amenities by Stewards plus input from RNSW

Veterinarians on recommended dimensions. • given the scope of the project, development of a standardised swab/vet facility was considered as a

desirable procurement strategy due to: - economies of scale - placement of large (singular) order for pre-fabricated structures; - consistency of infrastructure

• “top-down” approach – regional clubs addressed first, thence major and minor venues • scaled down structure envisaged for more minor clubs. Fixed Surveillance Towers: • towers procured on “design and construct” basis • audit process revealed substantial number of existing structures could not be feasibility upgraded

to comply with AS 1657-1992 • scope of project dictated that an “off the shelf” solution was not feasible • the operational requirements of stewards and video operators were included in the design

development process • six (6) metre platform height determined as most effective due to Code requirements (>6m

resulted in more complex access arrangements). Asset Management: • CRDF developed two documents to assist clubs in ensuring tracks and facilities were

managed/maintained in accordance with Industry best practice and relevant statutory codes • “Asset Management Guidelines” plus “Racecourse Facilities Guide and Essential Services

Checklist” distributed to country clubs, also available for download from the Racing NSW website.

Regional Racecourse Managers Seminars: • identified inconsistent knowledge base in relation to topsoil chemistry outside the regional race

clubs • many track managers at non-key venues did not possess turf management qualifications and/or

had not received formal training (this was not a criticism of smaller clubs, rather a reflection of the semi-skilled/voluntary labour which sustains a large number of such clubs)

• a niche existed to deliver a seminars which: - provide basic instruction on rudimentary topsoil chemistry - captured data for all 45 TAB tracks (some never performed soil test) - provided the established benchmarks to be achieved in relation to key elements - organised preparation of a management program identifying times for fertilizer applications

and needs for mechanical improvements • basic topsoil test undertaken annually which measures topsoil pH, essential cations (Ca, Mg, K,

Na and P) • testing undertaken by Sydney Environmental and Soil Laboratory - an independent entity • program underway since 2002 and has delivered laboratory verifiable state-wide improvement in

surfaces • this has proven to be cost-effective in terms of regional delivery.

8

User Safety and Stakeholder Considerations Paul O’Callaghan, Veterinary Services, Racing Victoria Ltd, reported on developments in terms of collection of data on horse injuries and a new system being introduced nationally: • current philosophy for reducing race-day horse injuries:

- ensure that horses are presented in a suitable condition to race - close scrutiny of race day activities - prepare tracks so that they are “safe” to race on - record and analyse racing injuries and incidents

• ensuring horses are suitable to race relies on: - trainer’s judgment and experience - rider’s opinion - veterinary inspections - farrier’s inspections - stewards and application of the Australian Rules of Racing

• ‘Suitable to race’ means: - adequate level of fitness - no lameness or other significant musculoskeletal problems - free from prohibited substances - properly shod - presented with the correct riding equipment - free from specific conditions, for example, multiple ‘bleeders’, chronic/permanent cardiac

problems • track preparation:

- fast tracks increase incidence of lameness - RVL policy is that all Victorian race tracks will be prepared to be no firmer than good (Rating

categories were heavy, slow, dead, good and fast. RVL now using 1 to 10 rating system.) - tracks in metropolitan areas have different features including type of surface (for example,

Strathayr® at Moonee Valley), degree of cambering, tightness of turns, frequency of racing and large variation in annual rainfall levels even though they are all in the same city

- penetrometer readings vary significantly between tracks • record keeping and analysis:

- data recording needs to be simple and relevant - RVL system relies on Official Examination Report Form which is returned to RVL Veterinary

Services and entered in i-RIS®. Storage within i-RIS allows: - easy referencing of histories for day to day management - production of reports/spreadsheets that include assessment of many fields of potential risk

factors - simple analysis is performed by RVL, however, expert epidemiological analysis is necessary

to maximise the value of the data and suggest effective interventions, for example, a recently completed study of racetrack fatalities

- a national recording system, based on combining the current system in i-RIS with a national system (ARID) that was developed through a RIRDC funded project, is in process of being implemented

• results from three seasons of metropolitan racing in Melbourne between 1/8/2001 – 31/7/2004: - 31,849 starters - 1054 examinations = 3.31% of total starters - 506 had no significant finding or no abnormality detected

= 1.6% of total starts or 48% of examined horses (=1.6% and 48%) - 179 lame/sore (= 0.6% and 17.0%); 139 Lacerations; 48 Cardiovascular (12 had atrial

fibrillation with the remainder having increased heart rate or ‘thumps’); 47 EIPH; 33 respiratory conditions; 24 other;17 distressed; 7 minor trauma; 5 multiple problems; 5 gastrointestinal; 4 sudden death; 3 abnormal noise; 3 slow recovery; 2 bruising; 2 neurological

9

• general comments on these results:

- low numbers of horses lame after racing ~ 1 per 200 - significant percentage of horses examined were lame (17%)

>> Should more horses be examined to increase detection of lame horses? - very few horses withdrawn on the day of the race because of a pre-existing condition

>> Is this one measure of success of the system as horses are not presented for racing! - the emphasis in the rules on ‘presenting horses in a fit state for racing’ promotes a culture of

compliance - compliance has been enhanced by: - increasing frequency of examination of horses performing below expectations - veterinary clearance prior to next race compulsory when lameness (other than as a result of

external trauma in flat races) is detected in a post-race examination - there are differences in incidence of lameness between venues and a possible association with

penetrometer readings >> Indicates that it may be possible to make interventions. Further analysis required to rule out other associations for example, effect of distance of race etc.

• future directions for injury monitoring: - implementation of the ARID system will improve race day injury monitoring - to gain maximum value from these systems expert analysis is required. - qualified epidemiologists need to work closely with the industry to assess the information

collected - will allow objective assessment of the impact of various racing surfaces on horse injuries - injuries/fatalities at training centres are much more prevalent than race day incidents so should

be a focus of future studies - an increased emphasis on occupational health and safety within the horse industry has created

a good environment for expanding racetrack incident and injury monitoring methods - use of Business Intelligence Systems to allow regular and rapid production of reports

comparing venues, track conditions, race types, training surfaces etc. - incorporation of GPS monitoring and heart rate into analysis of racing to identify horses for

examination and location of injuries on the track - output from injury monitoring must allow the development of recommendations that reduce

the frequency and impact of equine injuries. Other comments included: • every horse is examined after races in Victoria and records of these findings should be fed back to

track managers • poor performances are followed up in NSW but not all injuries are able to be monitored as only

some trainers report cases of lameness that develop after races • track data should be fed into injury/performance reporting • some tracks have a higher prevalence/incidence of injury and the reasons for these should be

detected • systems in Asia are worthy of scrutiny as all matters related to abnormal horse performance or

condition and tracks are followed up • jockeys and track riders need to be incorporated in reporting systems • an Australia wide reporting system is needed incorporating race day lameness, injury and poor

performance, examination and follow up by stewards and veterinarians, and sharing this information with track managers.

10

Options for Standards The meeting discussed various options for standards that could be considered: • camber – this can be restricted by track confines, radius and chutes • crossings – race and training tracks to be included, optimum position and material bearing in mind

that some are permanent fixtures • verges, batters and drains – optimum dimensions • track infrastructure – proximity of solid structures or objects to course • rails/no rails – use of pylons to mark inside for training/racing • ratings (NSW system) – limited “heavy” categories for Victoria, perhaps 0.5 ratings

- publicity for ratings, for example, TAB, results; formalise testing procedure/device for ratings

• profile designs – say three options based on basic soil variables, for example, water conductivity, and cost/budget considerations

• development of standards – who is consulted? Aim to achieve the best surface for performance and best ratings - basic design methodology needed – consider climate, track usage, cross-falls, etc

• maintenance criteria – high maintenance with sand profiles, water usage more critical • relationship between profiles and horse ‘breakdowns’ • training tracks possibly more important than racetracks re: standards for safe use • horse welfare considerations re: training regimens and track conditions. Priorities for Standards Workshop participants made the following ranking of nominal standards categories by ranking their perceived importance and taking into consideration the feasibility of developing national standards: 1st – 2nd – 3rd Ranking

1. Records 17 - 6 - 1 2. Ratings 13 - 10 - 1 3. Maintenance Criteria 6 - 15 - 3 4. Surfaces/Profiles 6 - 7 - 11 5. Infrastructure 0 - 15 - 9 6. Design/Dimensions 0 - 7 - 17

It was observed that priorities may change as records are kept and accumulated.

11

Data Analysis and Research Required Discussion ensued about data analysis and research required for the top priority standards: 1. Records - need test cases/pilot studies on at least 5 tracks - consider stakeholder requirements - what/when/how is data collected - metropolitan vs country vs training tracks - tools required - ‘Going stick’ info from UK - new literature review required. 2. Ratings - these need to be meaningful and not confusing - the scale should allow for national application - objective measurements should be the basis for ratings - % moisture in profile - review of overseas practices required - numbers not words should constitute the rating system - education as to the application of the standard is required. 3. Maintenance of surfaces - check survey data from 2004 and apply as appropriate - publicise past findings yet include current state of knowledge (in a manual?) - ensure there is compliance with industry recommendations - adoptions strategies need to be organised - suitable records/programs/databases are required. Working Groups Working groups were formed to ensure there was progress made in terms of the decisions made, implement any required investigations, and report back to a follow up industry workshop in May 2007. Records and Maintenance Chair – David Hawke Paul O’Callaghan, Van Ransley, Martin Synan Ratings Chair – Jeff Haynes (later replaced by Lindsay Murphy) Jason Kerr, Bill Shuck, Geoff Murphy Infrastructure Chair – Charlie Stebbing Andrew Small, David Hensler Groups to confer generally via teleconference Liaison via ARMA Secretary, Arthur Stubbs Progress Reports due by November, 2006 Final report due by March, 2007 for consideration at May 2007, Workshop

12

Report of Final Workshop – May 8 2007 Project Review Warren Williams, ARMA Chairman, opened the workshop with a review of the project to date and made the following comments: • project background was based on ARMA concern about the lack of track design, construction,

maintenance and measurement standards based on objective data - this had led to a number of ‘failures’ of race and training tracks over time

• Andrew Harding, ARB Chief Executive, said that tracks were the single most important factor in racing – issues such as horse injury, occupational health and safety and track consistency were vital matters for the industry

• project objectives were: 1. Development of national standards for monitoring, assessment and measurement of

Australian race and training tracks to enable objective investigation of relationships of track infrastructure, for example, design, profiles and management, with track performance and user safety.

2. Development of national standards for design of race and training tracks conducive to optimum performance and user safety.

Standards, benchmarks and best practice needed definition. • the 2006 Workshop covered the following matters:

- current knowledge and investigations such as the development of track maintenance programs and specialist infrastructure, track measurement trials and capital management systems

- user safety and stakeholder considerations, for example, the need for record keeping and analysis to relate track factors with horse performance and injury

- options and priorities for standards which were defined, in order of practical importance based on records, ratings, maintenance criteria, surfaces/profiles, infrastructure and design/dimensions

- Working Groups were formed to make further investigations and report • workshop purpose included:

- consideration of reports and recommendations - future work required and options for implementation - funding options - future forum for National Track Standards

• ultimate goal was the development of a “National Master Plan for Track Infrastructure.”

13

Working Group Reports and Recommendations Records and Maintenance David Hawke, General Manager, Planning and Infrastructure, and Charlie Stebbing, Regional Tracks and Facilities Manager, Racing Victoria, presented this report on behalf of the Group. Introduction The presentation explained methods that RVL identifies as important to incorporate into a national approach to maintenance standards while also utilising modern methods for record keeping and reporting. The focus is on some of the available technology for recording and reporting the areas of maintenance considered important for track managers. This will also offer an option for veterinarians to utilise the data capture as well. Combining maintenance standards across the racing jurisdictions was another issue discussed. Project Goals i) To provide a central database for gathering and storage of race club track and horse facility

related data collected by Track Managers and or Veterinarians [For example, the manager can measure then record anything regarding management of their site or for injury data veterinarians could record data on race day or at the training venue].

ii) To provide industry stakeholders with up to date information on track conditions [For example, a dash board style display on a web page showing current conditions. The data recorded could link directly to going maps for tracks (moisture and hardness displays), BOM weather forecast, on-site weather conditions, etc. Track Data –

- rating of 1 to 10/ highest and lowest ratings and their locations on the track - track uniformity % for hardness and moisture].

iii) To streamline and standardise the reporting methods. This could make the track manager’s job easier by he/she having a pocket PDA and recording items while in the field, then producing reports for any variable that is measured.

iv) To improve decision making and lift the standards of overall track management. The availability of a recording tool while in the field will give the manager greater availability of relevant knowledge. As one very prominent ex-patriot track manager said “if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it”.

Relationship to Other Projects This project will have flow on effects for: • National Standards for Track Maintenance – the current knowledge of track maintenance and the

standards required should be pooled and utilised • track measurement R&D project – standardised regimens for measurements should be determined

to ensure any track measurement is statistically sound regardless of the tool utilized • gathering and storage of track related conditions from the RVL GPS Tracking project – the

electronic recording and storage of the data collected will make it easier to manage and analyse • Veterinary Injury Data Base – this will have benefits over the current ‘paper based’ recording

systems, particularly in terms of data storage and retrieval • there appear to be synergies with the ARMA workshop for records and record keeping

methodologies.

14

Project Ingredients 1. Combine Maintenance Standards

- combination of maintenance standards from around the country is considered important - share current knowledge, for example, RVL and RNSW have two documents that are freely

available to all stakeholders that explain standards required in each of those states - standardising track measurement regimens so congruence for measures across all venues can be

determined. 2. CropTrak Reporting CropTrak® is a database system in which any variable that is measured can be stored and retrieved. The CropTrak system has some apparent benefits in terms of recording, storage and visually reporting the track variables that may be requested. The CropTrack system also provides the options to generate reports graphically or in table format which has benefits when reporting back to stakeholders such as clubs, club committees, trainers or alternatively clubs reporting back to governance bodies such as RVL or RNSW. 3. Intellitrol Reporting Intellitrol® is a remote moisture monitoring system with logging and graphing capabilities. This system also has continuous weather monitoring capabilities when a weather station is installed on site. The system gives the track manager the capability to constantly monitor soil moisture, soil temperature as well as weather variables. It allows the manager to better use water resources during the irrigation season. One of the attractive options available with the Intellitrol system is the capability to connect it to a Wide Area Network so others can view the up to date ‘on site’ information. Integrated Recording and Reporting System If these three ingredients can be combined appropriately this should allow development of an integrated recording and reporting system. Central to the system will be the maintenance standards and records. This will have the Intellitrol and the CropTrak systems feeding off the maintenance standards. Track related data that is not automated and is specified by the ARMA Track Measure Regimen would then be input to the CropTrak system. Such inputs would include:

- penetrometer, shear, going stick, Clegg hammer, moisture probe, track rating etc - also veterinary related data - this could be done at the races or at the training track.

Automated data from the Intellitrol system would record soil moisture and temperature 24/7, weather data on site 24/7 and both systems would then feed into a common report via WAN for Intellitrol and the WWW for the CropTrak. Information could be displayed via the web interface. As an example www.Interface.com.au could have the following information: • links to "going maps" (ScanControl) for:

- Track hardness (Clegg Hammer or Penetrometer) - Moisture content (Intellitrol)

• there could be a Dashboard display which could have summary info for: - Weather forecast (linked to bureau of meteorology) - fine, overcast, showers, rain, etc. forecast temperature

• on-site weather station data (Intellitrol) - Current temperature (live feed) - Wind speed and direction (live feed) - Historical data - rain/irrigation last 7 days/last 24 hours

15

• track data (ScanControl) - Overall track rating (1 - 10) - Highest track rating and location - Lowest track rating and location

• average track hardness - % uniformity - Highest hardness and location on track - Lowest hardness and location on track

• average track moisture - % uniformity - Highest moisture and location on track - Lowest moisture and location on track.

Technology: • technologies being used include:

- GPS/GIS and Database Technology in combination with 24/7 remote moisture measurement technology

- benefits with these systems are that they can be configured to record almost any management variable.

• standards being adopted include: - standardised measurement of tracks. - greater benefits from IP generated from recorded track information - benefits of consistency of reporting across venues.

[GPS = Global Positioning System; GIS = Geographic Information System] Procedures: • procedural differences from regular track measures

- frequency and types of measures need to be specified across tracks within the trial • what will the key measures be?

- Clegg Hammer / Moisture / Shear / Penetrometer / Weather etc; Objective or Subjective - what else??

• how often will measurements made and recorded? - there is a need to use statistically sound methods

• participation of an interstate Metropolitan race club is needed • a Melbourne Metropolitan Club should be involved also. Discussion: • agreed that a higher quality and breadth of measurements is needed. • accumulation of data over time is a valuable resource for track monitoring and investigation of

causes of track variability • data is more essential for track maintenance purposes rather than for betting information • CropTrak costs about $2,000 to set up for each venue plus $1,000 per year for database

maintenance • Intellitrol is recommended as an adjunct to CropTrak for ongoing monitoring of moisture levels,

etc. Costs are in the region of $15-20,000 per venue. Recommendations: • trials of the CropTrak and Intellitrol data collection and reporting systems be continued and

expanded to other venues and States. • the concept of extensive track data collection and analysis should be an integral component of

National Track Standards development. • review further trial results and the accumulated new data at a future forum.

16

Ratings Jason Kerr, General Manager Racecourses, Melbourne Racing Club, and Bill Shuck, Racecourse Manager, Queensland Turf Club, presented the report on behalf of the Group. Rating Scale Track ratings in Australia at present are opinions formed by a person responsible for preparing a racing surface assisted by various measurement tools and consideration of other factors such as weather, irrigation, experience, etc. The following table compares the traditional descriptive rating scale, used for over 30 years and still in use by some States, with an industry accepted variation and the new 1-10 scale based primarily on numbers but with descriptive text. The traditional scale is considered by many to be too narrow.

Traditional Scale Industry Variation 1-10 Scale Fast Hard 1 Fast Good 2 Good Good Perfect 3 Good Better side of Dead 4 Dead Dead Dead 5 Dead Better side of Slow 6 Slow Slow Slow 7 Slow Worse side of Slow 8 Heavy Heavy Heavy 9 Heavy Bottomless 10 Heavy

An Australia wide system is considered necessary. The 1-10 scale has been successful in New South Wales and Victoria after some teething problems encountered in the in the first year. Experience indicates that as stakeholders become familiar with this scale a lot of these problems are ironed out. Alternatives have been considered, some with benefits, but the 1-10 scale appears to be the best option. The descriptive text accompanying each number has caused some confusion. However, these problems have been dealt with as the descriptive text is gradually phased out as stakeholders become familiar with the number scale. Measurement Tools Optional tools for objective measurements include the Penetrometer, Clegg Hammer, Shear Vane, Going Stick and Moisture Sensors. All are valuable devices for racecourse managers to assess tracks. Currently the Penetrometer is the most commonly used and readings for this instrument are published. The Clegg Hammer, Shear Vane and Moisture Sensors are used on an individual basis but readings are not regularly made public. The Going Stick is currently being trialled and appears to significant potential for application in Australia. Going Stick® Trials Currently Eagle Farm and Doomben in Queensland are trialling the Going Stick in Queensland and the Sydney Turf Club is also investigating its use compared to other tools. At this stage it is too early to arrive at an informed opinion as insufficient data has been gathered to form a Going Index. The only scale or index utilised to date is that used for English tracks which uses a scale of 13-1, opposite to the Australian 1-10 range. Early indications are that the scale to be adopted will be different to the English scale. Data ownership issues will also have to be resolved. Time frame for the trials is about 12 months. Another device is needed to measure dirt, sand and all-weather tracks as the Going Stick appears inappropriate for these surfaces.

17

Measurement Procedures Prescribed measurement procedures, for example, minimum number, track position, timing and frequency, will differ according to the tools used. Currently these variables also differ between racecourses. As a result standardised procedures will be defined during trials of the Going Stick compared to other tools within a time frame of about 12 months. Release of Ratings The current general practice of releasing ratings prior to, especially on the morning of a meeting, with allowance for adjustment during meetings subject to weather, appears sufficient. Some variations may occur for different regions. Publicity and Education The 1-10 scale takes up to a year to be understood by stakeholders and punters. Continuing publicity and education is needed via form guides, tote agencies and media outlets such as Trackwatch, radio and websites to assist understanding and acceptance. A standard presentation is required. Surfaces and Profiles Tracks differ between States and regions due to climate, soil type, etc, and according to the budgetary constraints imposed by the race club. The resulting different profiles and grass types can affect consistency of relationships between ratings and measurement readings relative to some of the tools used. As such, there does not appear to be one correct or ‘ideal’ profile/surface for all circumstances. Thus, although most of the acceptable profile/surface types work quite effectively, minimum standards could be defined for reconstructions, for example, required performance characteristics for various profile grades and minimum dimensions for new tracks. Recommendations: • all States to adopt the same ratings system, ideally the 1-10 system, and States yet to adopt this

system should trial it with a view to its adoption as soon as practicable to achieve a consistent and relevant track rating system throughout Australia – the descriptive text associated with this system will be phased out gradually

• this recommendation to be referred to the National Chairman of Stewards Advisory Group with the proposal that RISA adopt the 1-10 system

• the status quo remain regarding optional tools used for ratings measurements pending conclusion of trials with the Going Stick over the next 12 months and that controlled trials be conducted comparing the Going Stick with the Penetrometer, Clegg hammer, moisture sensors, etc.

• standard measurement procedures for the recommended tool(s) to be defined based on results of these trials

• the status quo should remain regarding the timing and extent of release of ratings • continue general stakeholder and public education about the 1-10 ratings system under a standard

presentation with media outlets such as Trackwatch be used for this purpose • the most suitable track surfaces and profiles to be used according to factors such as climate, budget,

etc.

18

Infrastructure Charlie Stebbing, Regional Tracks and Facilities Manager, Racing Victoria Ltd, presented this report on behalf of the Group. Summary This report gives a brief summary of major racecourse infrastructure. This is not a comprehensive list of all items required to operate a racing or training venue but a list of what the ARMA Infrastructure working party agreed was appropriate to include covering the major items found at any venue. There are numerous items where no firm recommendations have been made within this report. However, guidelines and examples of what and how various infrastructure projects have been conducted by the relevant racing authority or funding body are included. The report centres on how and what approaches the members of the working group have been exposed to in their areas of infrastructure delivery to various stakeholders across the industry. It is clear that the different racing bodies need to pool their knowledge to develop clear and defined guidelines for racecourse infrastructure, the standards that need to be achieved and the delivery methods for providing such infrastructure. There are a number of differences and levels of standards currently in existence across Australia. The full report (see Appendix 1) provides guidelines regarding recommended procedures for the following items of racecourse infrastructure: • track geometry • swabbing and stalling stalls • stripping and saddling stalls • mounting and exercise yard • horse wash facilities • running rails • steward patrol and camera towers • lighting for lacecourses • starting gates • horse float parking areas • sand rolls • track work supervisor’s facilities • equine pools • perimeter fencing. Recommendations: • national standards and guidelines are needed for all infrastructure items based on such factors as:

- practical design - safety for horses and humans - weather protection - operational ease - economy of construction and maintenance - economy of operation (labour, consumables) - horse health factors - security - environmental impact

• a database is needed within the industry for storage relevant data and access to recommended standards.

19

Drought Proofing Tracks Brian Masters, Operations Manager, Moonee Valley Racing Club, led a forum discussion on options and funding for this essential future consideration. There was general agreement that continued reliance on potable water for track and racecourse maintenance activities was not sustainable and that drastic reduction in the use of this traditional source of water was economically and environmentally sound policy. Most, if not all, Clubs had investigated various options for alternative water sources or coping with reduced availability. These included: • storm water collection from on course structures, land and surrounding suburbs • storage of excess water in above or below ground tanks, expanded and new dams, wetlands and

aquifers • collection and re-use of drainage water from tracks • bore or ground water use although these sources were becoming depleted in some situations • recycled effluent water from local water authorities which can be available in varying degrees of

impurity and needing on site treatment for some uses • sewer mining and treatment of such water before use • desalination of excessively saline water from bores • use of synthetic tracks to reduce the water need for maintenance of turf tracks. Funding assistance from governments for these options was usually not readily available or accessible. Support from State governments was reported in some instances, for example, Smart Water Fund in Victoria and similar assistance in the Sydney area. Occasional funding had been received through Community grants from the Federal government in rural New South Wales. No local government support was reported. Future Funding Options for Track Research Arthur Stubbs, Secretary, ARMA, introduced discussion on how future work on development of track standards could be funded. Options included: • clubs and/or Principal Racing Authorities

- tends to be ad hoc funding, disjointed, and can lead to research overlaps • RIRDC

- only has an R & D budget of ~ $1.1 million per annum to cover research for racing, equestrian, pony clubs, stock horses, etc

• Horticulture Australia Ltd. - the turf research levy, started in 2006, will raise $1.8 million per annum - based on 1.5 cents for each square metre of turf sold - total industry input is $900,000 - Federal Government contributes $ for $ as HAL controls the fund - an Industry Advisory Committee of turf industry stakeholders decides how funds are spent - funds are available primarily for turf research and have to cover needs of the golf, sports turf

and racing industries • Track Standards Research Levy, based on the Turf Research Levy model

- this could cover all areas of track infrastructure - revenue streams could be $10 for each horse started, equivalent to $2 million per year - or 0.05% of betting turnover, equivalent to $6 million per year - Federal Government would contribute $ for $ if RIRDC administers the fund under the

PIER&D Act giving available funds of $4-12 million depending on the revenue stream - an Industry Advisory Committee of racing industry stakeholders would decide how funds are

spent.

20

Recommendation Determine priorities and amount of funding required for specific trial work as recommended, plus other activities needed for development of national standards, and then approach such organisations as RIRDC, ARB, TAB’s, etc, for funding assistance for a defined research and development program. Future Forum for National Standards Arthur Stubbs, Secretary, ARMA, introduced the final discussion on how future work on development of track standards can be monitored and progressed by the industry. Options considered were: • annual workshop or conference convened by ARMA • Track Standards Advisory Committee under auspices of ARB • Track Standards Sub-Committee reporting to Stewards/Veterinarians. Recommendation An annual Workshop should be held including representatives involved in this project to consider reports from the established Working Groups and that from the Workshop recommendations be made to the National Chairman of Stewards Advisory Group as appropriate. Sub-committees formed at the workshop and the Stewards may consider priorities for presentation to the National Chairman of Stewards Advisory Group.

21

Appendix 1

ARMA Infrastructure Workshop Report

PREPARED BY MR. ANDREW SMALL (RNSW)

MR. DAVID HENSLAR (RAWWA) MR.CHARLIE STEBBING (RVL)

08/05/2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SWABBING & STALING STALLS 23 STRIPPING & SADDLING STALLS 28 RVL GUIDE: PROJECT BRIEF/SCOPE STRIPPING STALLS 29 GENERAL DESIGN OUTLINE: GEELONG & MORNINGTON PRE FABRICATED STALLS

30 GUIDE: STALLS PROJECT COST 31 MOUNTING / EXCERSISE YARD 31 HORSE WASH FACILITIES 32 RUNNING RAIL 33 STEWARD PATROL & CAMERA TOWERS 34 RNSW PATROL & MOBILE TOWERS 35 EXTRACT FROM RVL STEWARD TOWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT BREIF 35 RNSW TRANSPORTABLE TOWERS 36 LIGHTING FOR RACECOURSES 37 STARTING GATES 37 HORSE FLOAT PARKING AREAS 38 SAND ROLLS 38 TRACK WORK SUPERVISORS FACILITIES 38 EXTRACT FROM RVL PROJECT BRIEF 38 EQUINE POOL 39 PERIMETER FENCING 39

23

SWABBING & STALING STALLS Currently swabbing facilities across all racing jurisdictions in Australia vary in type and standard, Racing NSW Country has commenced addressing this issue with the development of its pre fabricated swabbing & staling facilities. Input was obtained from Dr Craig Suann (Chief Vet, RNSW) as to what he would require, with similar input from the Stewards department; as a consequence, a basic floor plan was finalised which provides discrete areas for horses and the vet/observer. Clear separation was a fundamental design objective. Design development was undertaken with Stablecraft arising from a project which they successfully completed for RNSW at Port Macquarie in 2005 which involved erection of new race day stalls plus a swab box/vet room. RNSW envisages a “top-down” construction rollout program, whereby their largest (regional) clubs will be addressed first, thence majors and finally minor clubs (in this regard, there are approximately 112 country racecourses in NSW.

Figure 1 RNSW Swab Stall Racing Victoria Ltd has taken the approach to issue the clubs within their jurisdiction clear guidelines on minimum standard required for these facilities and there standard operating procedures.

24

SAMPLING FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS

To allow the Racing Victoria Limited drug control program to be implemented efficiently and effectively race courses must have suitable facilities for the collection and packaging of samples taken from horses. The following requirements are a guide for club managers to ensure that available facilities are adequate. While these are a suggested minimum it is recognised that some clubs, especially those holding a small number of meetings, will not be able to meet all these requirements. If any aspect of these requirements is not clear or when significant changes to existing facilities or the building of new sampling facilities is contemplated, RVL Veterinary Services should be consulted before proceeding. The sampling facility, often referred to as the “Veterinary Block” or “Swab Box”, should consist of a box or stable, where urine and blood samples are collected, and an adjoining room where samples are packaged and stored during a race meeting. Desirably, and particularly on courses holding higher numbers of race meetings, two sample collection boxes should be available. The availability of two boxes will facilitate the efficient collection of pre-race blood samples and at the same time allow for collection of pre and post-race urine samples. In addition to sample collection boxes in the sampling facility, a “horse urinal” or “staling box” should be available for use by horses prior to and after racing. This should not be adjacent to the sampling area. Due to high frequency of use all straw in the “horse urinal” should be removed after every race meeting and replaced with fresh clean straw prior to the next meeting. When designing and maintaining sampling facilities consideration should be given to achieving the following outcomes:

1. Maintenance of the health and safety of people and horses using the facility. 2. The efficient and effective collection of samples. 3. Separation of the facility from members of the public. 4. Security for the storage of samples when the facility is unattended during a race

meeting. As a guide to achieving these outcomes the following minimum requirements should be adhered to. The sampling area should:

1. Where possible located in a quiet readily accessible area of the race course and in close proximity to the horse stalls.

2. Fenced off from the public and other horse areas. 3. Conveniently located to a tap and hose with a good supply of cold running water. 4. Free from hazards such as sharp projections etc.

25

The sampling box should be: 1. At least 3.7m x 3.7m (12’ x 12'); with a minimum height of 3.7m (11’) For the purpose of

air circulation greater heights are desirable. 2. Free from sharp edges or projections. 3. Fitted with a standard stable door at least 2.74m (9’) high, that can be locked from either

the inside or outside. Door jambs should be smooth and/or well padded. 4. Well ventilated with either louvres or wooden slats set high in the walls on at least two

sides and preferably all sides. 5. Located and constructed in a manner that minimises the likelihood of horses becoming

overly hot during hot weather. This may be achieved by a combination of the following: a. constructing the building from brick b. use of an air-conditioner(s) c. improving ventilation by installing fans or increasing size of ventilation openings d. locating the building in a shaded area e. cooling the building during use by applying water to the walls and roof using a

hand held hose or a fixed sprinkler or soaker hose on the roof f. painting the building in a reflective colour (ideally white).

6. Lined internally to a height of at least 1.83m (6’) with either vertical or horizontal planking or other smooth material strong enough to withstand kicking by horses. In brick or concrete sheet constructions, the walls should be smooth.

7. Possessed of an even non-slip floor well covered with fresh clean straw. Note: Simply placing new straw over old straw is not satisfactory as dust will accumulate under the straw and create a health hazard to both horses and people.

8. Well-lit either with natural or artificial light and able to be darkened if required. 9. Fitted with a door to an adjoining Veterinary Room in addition to the horse entry-exit

door. This door should allow persons to move directly from the horse stall to the sample packaging and storage area. It should also allow escape from the box in case of an emergency.

10. Fitted with a viewing opening in the door or wall to enable witnesses to view the collection of samples from horses from the Veterinary Room or other appropriate location.

The Veterinary Room should be:

1. Adjoining the sampling box. 2. Large enough to accommodate 3 or 4 people in comfort. (3.7m (12’) x 2.43m (8’) is the

desired minimum.) 3. Equipped with a table or preferably a shelf along the length of one wall. 4. Fitted with a sink and draining bench. Hot and cold water is desirable, but at least cold

water is required. 5. Supplied with paper towels for drying hands and a rubbish bin. 6. Well-lit either with natural or artificial light. 7. All doors should be lockable. 8. Equipped with a 240 volt power socket. 9. Ideally fitted with a television monitor to view races, a refrigerator and an air conditioner.

Thoroughly cleaned prior to the commencement of race meetings. Dr. John McCaffrey, RVL Director of Veterinary Services said swabbing and staling facilities design will be dependant on the level of sampling being undertaken by the relevant racing authority, in Victoria the level of sampling undertaken at the metropolitan venues is far greater than the country venues and this needs to be taken into account when designing floor plans for swabbing facilities. Ventilation is a critical consideration for swabbing stalls, as with a lot of our

26

current facilities horses are becoming overheated when enclosed in these boxes in the warmer weather. The experience found in Western Australia is somewhat similar to that in Victoria and other states; they issue their clubs clear guidelines on what is expected as the minimum standard for swabbing stall facilities. Racecourse Equine Sample Collection Facility and Staffing Minimum Standards 1. Metropolitan ASCOT BELMONT

Facilities: • designated double (2) swab box – lockable • one (1) outside box/stall • collection area (laboratory) for sealing/packaging • running water • lockable fridge in swab box • lighting • power point • staffing

o two (2) Veterinary Officers o three (3) Sample Collection Officers.

2. Major Provincial BUNBURY PINJARRA PARK NORTHAM

Facilities: • designated double (2) swab box – lockable • collection area (laboratory) for sealing/packaging • running water • lockable fridge in swab box • lighting • staffing

o one (1) Veterinary Officer o one (1) Sample Collection Officer.

27

3. Provincial ALBANY GERALDTON MT.BARKER NARROGIN YORK-BEVERLEY KALGOORLIE Facilities:

• designated double (2) swab box – lockable • collection area (laboratory) for sealing/packaging • running water • lockable fridge in Stewards room • lighting • staffing

o one (1) Veterinary Officer o one (1) Sample Collection Officer.

4. Country TAB Capabilities BROOME CARNARVON ESPERANCE PORT HEDLAND Facilities:

• designated single (1) swab box – lockable • collection area (laboratory) for sealing/packaging • running water • lockable fridge in Stewards room • staffing

o one (1) veterinary officer. 5. Country Non TAB MEEKATHARA DERBY DONGARA MT.MAGNET ONSLOW KUNUNURRA ROEBOURNE LEINSTER LEONORA WYNDHAM NEWMAN Facilities:

• designated single (1) swab box – lockable • bench for sealing/packaging • running water • lockable fridge in Stewards room • staffing

o one (1) Veterinary Officer.

28

6. Annual/Picnic Race-days only JUNCTION KOJONUP LANDOR LAVERTON MARBLE BAR MINGENEW MOORA NORSEMAN PINGRUP TOODYAY YALGOO Facilities:

• designated single (1) swab box – lockable • bench for sealing/packaging • running water • lockable fridge in Stewards room • staffing

o one (1) Veterinary Officer. NOTE Race clubs are to be advised that the outlined facilities and staffing standards are the absolute minimum standards. They, as a Club, may wish to expand in both areas particularly in regards to the building of Sample Collection Facilities. STRIPPING & SADDLING STALLS • RNSW has Stablecraft race day stalls at Port Macquarie which have proven very successful

during the two years of service since their completion in 2005; • the advantage of this product is the modular nature of fabrication/construction, which

delivers significant economies; • the stall dimensions at Port Macquarie are 1.8m (wide) x 3.6m (deep) x a height which

varies from 2.75m (min, at the rear) to 3.4m at the front, due to the pitched roof; • this depth and height is slightly larger than the dimensions which RNSW had notionally

adopted for previous (scratch built) race day stalls; however the slightly larger dimensions have attracted no criticism (however, slightly undersize would probably have been a different story);

• At this point in time, RNSW does not have any plans for a large-scale rollout of race day stalls. RNSW would certainly look at adopting this system for any future projects of this nature.

29

RVL GUIDE: PROJECT BRIEF/SCOPE STRIPPING STALLS The scope of the project is as follows and as detailed on the attached Basis of Design drawings: • Construct new shedding directly adjacent to the south of the existing shed and

comprising an enclosed area of 54.5m long, 3.7m deep and clear eave height of 2.8m. Another identical sized shed will be constructed with a 6m clear space between the two sheds. The exact location of these two sheds is to be confirmed after consideration of Master Planning issues and the RVL Horse Movement Policy. Sheds to be of steel frame with Colourbond cladding and to include guttering and spouting.

• Sheds and space between to be reinforced concrete and with cross fall suitable for effective drainage. Rubber matting is to be set flush and secured into the paved area to provide for a non-slip access surface for horses into the stalls area. Mats are to be a minimum of 2m wide and are to run the length of the stalls area.

• Stall fit-out shall include tubular hitching rail, rubber matting set flush into concrete base, rubber wall guard and tethers.

• Two wash bays to match existing dimensions and fitted out with 2000mm high rubber surrounds. Water supply to allow for future connection of hot water system (dual plumbing).

• Lighting to stalls and wash bays to be from single fluorescent tubes at each bay, switched by timers. Lighting to central apron area to be from floodlights mounted to stall structure. Appropriate light levels to be determined.

• Reposition existing car park floodlights to suit relocated float park.

• Four hose points mounted to front of stalls

• Stormwater drainage including connection of roof drainage to connect to existing stormwater collection system or provision for new above ground stormwater harvesting tanks to be investigated.

• Ground level drains including interceptor pits and trash screens.

• Signage, numbers and slots for name plates

Project briefs are developed in conjunction with the clubs and RVL, trying to capture all of the required elements of the project prior to going to the design stage, also reasonably accurate cost estimates can be worked up from the project brief to assist with funding allocations. Each brief is site specific detailing the requirements for new and existing services, taking into account any further expansions that might occur at the facility.

30

GENERAL DESIGN OUTLINE: GEELONG & MORNINGTON PRE FABRICATED STALLS

Figure 2 RVL Stripping Stall Items that also need to be considered in the project brief for stalls are;

• safety o for people/staff o for horses o lighting, are people expected to work in this area?

• building codes • orientation of proposed building • dimensions

o is there enough room to turn a horse around? o are we building these to industry best practice?

• construction materials.

Deleted tie up post from all stalls projects

31

GUIDE: STALLS PROJECT COST

MOUNTING / EXCERSISE YARD Mounting yards and exercise yards are also site specific to each venue; the mounting yard is generally outlined by the location of the track in relation to the grandstands or jockey/ steward facilities and the horse stall facility. We are not going to make any recommendation regarding mounting yard construction or design other than points that we think need to be considered when a mounting yard project is considered. Points that need to be worked through in a project brief or scope are:

• safety: o access- minimum pedestrian access points as practicable o barrier / guarding- separation of people and horses needs to achieved o risk assessment documentation. o signage- sponsor’s signs should withstand weather/wind

• dimensions / area: o will be dependant on location & number of runners per race o consideration should be given for presentation / TVN broadcast area

• communications infrastructure requirements • fencing materials:

o minimum heights – 1.2m

PROJECT CONTROL BUDGET

Approved budget: $ 205,000

No SUPPLIERS DESCRIPTIONS PROJECT COSTPLAN

ID Supplier Description Approved

Cost Plan for funding

Transfer Adjusted Cost Plan

$ $ $ $ $ A B C D E F 1 Trusteel Fabrications Sheds and concrete floors 95,000 4,310 99,310 2 L&A Collins Plumbing 14,675 14,675 3 IJ Leslie Electrical Contractors Electrical 6,690 7,750 14,440 4 Plastic Plumbing Supplies Stormwater harvesting 6,500 -613 5,887 5 Ken Weir & Associates Permits 1,750 -176 1,574 6 T.James & Sons Float park 17,904 596 18,500 7 T.James & Sons Asphalt stalls pavement 20,000 -1,879 18,121 8 Cranbourne fencing Gates at either end of stalls 2,000 200 2,200 9 Rob Curr Irrigation Design &

Supply Supply rubber matting rear and floors 8,500 8,500

10 Rob Curr Irrigation Design & Supply

Install rubber matting 20,000 -15,220 4,780

11 PB & PM Welch Lining wash bays 4,136 4,136 12 Martin King Lining stalls 12,371 12,371 13 Pertzel Fabrications Installing rubber 5,298 5,298 14 APTC Adhesives & Sealants Rubber sealant 1,115 1,115 Construction contingency 20,481 -26,388 -5,907 TOTALS 205,000 205,000

32

o chain mesh construction – pool type fencing has failed at a number of venues • pathways:

o widths o surface materials- scoria, hot mix, rubberised materials

• orientation: o to track o to saddling stalls & other horse facilities.

• Race Day Weigh in stalls: o orientation to track & mounting yard o folding or static design o dimensions – chest bar etc o materials – steel, heavy duty plastic, padding.

This is not an exhaustive list and other considerations are sure to be specific to each site. HORSE WASH FACILITIES Horse wash facilities are common to tracks either for use at race meetings or for training facilities, all have similar requirements.

• RNSW has recently constructed some new horse wash bays at Lismore; • they comprise reinforced concrete block walls, with roofing constructed from galvanised

steel purlins & colorbond trimdek sheets; • provision of an overhead roofing structure is essential to prevent cross-contamination of

trade waste (which ultimately flows into the sewerage system) with stormwater; • the floor is constructed from broom-finished reinforced concrete (to provide non-slip

properties); • clear internal dimensions are 3.8m wide by 2.8m deep (front to back), with minimum

internal height approximately 2.75m (similar to our race day stalls as noted above). Items to consider when considering national standards are;

• safety: o standard operating procedures o access for staff and horses

• design: o dimensions o building codes o construction materials o floor gradients o non slip flooring o plumbing requirements o lighting requirements o horse orientation.

33

RUNNING RAIL Running has become one of the major topics in regards to jockey safety across all racing jurisdiction, OH&S policy makers and regulators are pressuring the racing industry to improve its performance in regards to using running rails in its business. • As you would aware, this issue is currently being examined by a Sub-Committee as part of

the National Jockeys Safety Review process; • A (confidential) report prepared last year by DV Experts raised concerns with

“crashworthiness” of not only existing mild steel posts, but also the plastic posts associated with the pvc-type running rail;

• This was seemingly a set-back, as it appeared that the industry was prepared to contemplate adoption of the pvc-type rail due to its other apparent desirable performance characteristics (improved elasticity, confinement, lack of a sharp backing plate, etc);

• In light of this information, the Sub-Committee agreed to trial the installation of flexible marker pylons, a system similar to that in use by the harness code;

• However in the context of a thoroughbred application, it was agreed that the posts would need to be far closer (say 3m apart), higher, easily moveable and more visible;

• It was also agreed that such a system should be trialled for jump-outs/barrier trials, prior to contemplating its adoption;

• Under this solution, it appears that existing running rail would be shifted inwards as far as possible (with due regard to sprinklers and other fixed obstructions), whereupon the pylons would be positioned some 3m off the rail, which would then become the “true” position;

• In this regard, the existing rail would be retained to provide some degree of confinement in the event a horse “got away”; however its distance from the pylons would seemingly substantially reduce its potential to become implicated in a fall, and thereby theoretically vastly reduce the potential for injury;

• During December, Mr Mark Van Gestel (RNSW Steward) visited SafeRoads, a company which produces such guideposts and flexible signage for roadsides. Two different ground-fixing details were examined and it is understood that the preferred product will shortly be trialled at Warwick Farm as noted above;

• These posts comprise a flexible rubber hinge which allows the post to rebound back if hit (similar to a slalom gate on a snow ski run, for example);

• The details of this inspection, along with images and company details were emailed to your Mr David Hawke on 22 December 2006.

• In terms of incumbent running rail, manufacturers shop drawings in our possession indicate that the following rail heights (from ground level to top of rail) should be adopted:

o Steriline: 1080mm; o Simtrack: 1150mm.

Currently running rails are required to conduct professional race meetings. Items for consideration when replacing rails are:

• safety: o rider and horse o materials – steel or plastic o rail anchorage – pins, driven posts or concreted o rail height – minimum in Victoria 1100mm to 1200mm

• cost • type of rail:

o moveable o fixed o plastic marker style (similar to harness)

34

• manufacturers: o Steriline o Simtrack o Fornell’s o Barriers International

Racing Victoria has invested considerable amount of capitol in upgrading existing and non existent railing on training tracks throughout Victoria over the past 3 years. Running Rail Upgrade Project - final position

\\172.16.0.150\Departments\Planning\Capital Works\Projects\1-Multiple\Rail upgrade\[Rail upgrade schedule.xls]Final

# Location Track Rail New rail length

Install length

Type New posts at 3m spacing

Note Unit

0304-103 Yarra Glen Sand Outer 1400 1400 Fixed 467 plus 200m as part of harness track upgrade m0304-105 Mornington0304-109 Bendigo Velvet track Outer 1700 1700 Fixed 567 m

Inside grass Outer 900 900 Fixed 300 mHurdle training Outside 1350 1350 Fixed 450 m

0304-110 Kilmore Sand Outside 1600 1600 Fixed 534 mCourse proper Inside 2000 Moveable 667 Includes for 200m to do 1600m chute m

Kyneton Sand Outside 1550 1550 Fixed 517 mCourse proper Inside 1800 Moveable 600 Includes for 200m to do 1600m chute m

0304-111 Ballarat Training grass Inner 1650 1650 Fixed 550 Funded from Sand Track Upgrade project m0304-116 Geelong Training grass Inner 1850 1850 Fixed 617 Proceed now or defer in face of AWT ? m0304-117 Geelong Training grass Outer 1400 1400 Fixed 467 Proceed now or defer in face of AWT ? m0304-118 Geelong Sand Outer 1840 1840 Fixed 614 m0304-121 Wangaratta Middle Sand Outer 1670 1670 Fixed 557 m

Wangaratta Training grass Inner 800 Moveable 267 mWangaratta Training grass Outer 800 800 Fixed 267 m

0304-124 Seymour Fixed Inside 600 600 Fixed 200 m0304-125 Stawell Sand Inner 1600 1600 Fixed 534 m

Swan Hill Sand Inner 300 Fixed 100 300m new rail mArarat Sand Inner 1550 1550 Fixed 517 mArarat Sand Outer 800 800 Fixed 267 mKerang Sand Inner 1500 1500 Fixed 500 mKerang Sand Outer 1550 1550 Fixed 517 mMurtoa Sand Inner 1700 1700 Fixed 567 mWarracknabeal Sand Inner 800 800 Fixed 267 m

0304-127 Camperdown Sand Outer 1975 1975 Fixed 659 mBairnsdale Sand Outer 900 900 Fixed 300 m

35,585 30,685 11,869 Total projectContingency

STEWARD PATROL & CAMERA TOWERS There are varying standards across Australia for steward and patrol camera towers, RVL has adopted a standard design for all towers that will be constructed in the future, this design complies with all building and safety regulations in Victoria and RNSW is trialling mobile camera towers at its country venues.

35

RNSW PATROL & MOBILE TOWERS Fixed/permanent towers • During the past several years, an audit of surveillance towers was undertaken throughout

country NSW. This process identified all towers which did not comply with AS1657-1992 (Australian Standard for fixed platforms, walkways, stairways & ladders);

• those towers which could feasibly be upgraded to comply with the standard were retained; • however those towers which were unsafe or uneconomical to repair were replaced with new

structures; • given the number of towers requiring replacement and the high costs associated with

adoption of a proprietary product (such as the Steriline towers), a series of “design & construct” contracts were awarded on an Association-by-Association basis. This afforded tenderers some flexibility in the final design whilst requiring them to satisfy designated user requirements (platform area and height) plus relevant statutory standards;

• tower platform heights were essentially limited to six (6) metres as above this height, more complex access requirements are necessary (including mid-height landings, etc). This was seen as adding significantly to costs;

• as such, the towers do not possess some of the “desirable” characteristics of the Steriline-type towers (such as cantilevered roof, scissor stairways and split-level floors); however they were procured at approximately one third the price and our Stewards/Camera Operators are quite happy with them.

EXTRACT FROM RVL STEWARD TOWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT BREIF PROJECT BACKGROUND Requests to project manage the second round of Steward’s Tower replacements has been received from Brendan Kneebone, dated 26 March 2004. The first round of tower replacements has been completed and provided for 10 new towers to a standard design at Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat, Colac, Kyneton and Warrnambool. These locations were chosen on the basis that they had towers that did not meet current standards (AS657-1992; Fixed Platforms, Walkways, Stairways and Ladders) and held the greatest number of meetings.

36

PROJECT OBJECTIVES To replace the next group of steward’s towers using the following parameters: 1. Current RVL standard design. 2. CRV nominated budget of $250,000 plus GST. 3. Locations where there are inadequate towers in use and have the most number of races

each year. 4. Consideration to be given to grouping these to avoid excessive project delivery costs

through dispersed locations. PROJECT SCOPE A list of 14 towers has been identified based on above Project Objectives. Although it is expected that the current funding allocation will only allow 10 towers to be replaced, tendering activity will include for 14 towers to allow both for competitive pricing opportunity to fully expend the budget and for the possibility that Pakenham is re-prioritised should resumption of racing be delayed there. The scope of the project at each location will be as follows:

• procure new tower structure fabricated, delivered and erected on site • construct footing • construct and test lightning protection (modified design) • removal and disposal of old tower • reinstallation of Triax cabling (where existing) • make good area.

The design of the towers will be in accordance with the RVL standard Stewards Tower design used previously. The height of the tower, location and orientation will be subject to on-site inspection and discussion with Stewards. PROJECT DELIVERY Consultation:

• Location, height and orientation of towers to be agreed with Stewards prior to tendering. • Location, height and orientation to be agreed with Sportscolour and any Triax cabling

works to be identified. • Club involvement to be agreed with Club prior to tendering.

Any specific project management services required: • TGM will be engaged for tendering and project management including inspection of

footings and certification prior to occupancy. • Documentation will be using RVL standard tender, preliminaries and contract (AS4000). • Tercel will be engaged to verify lightning protection design suitability at each site and

certify completed protection works as being in accordance with standards. RNSW TRANSPORTABLE TOWERS

• The above program essentially addressed the situation at all regional and major country clubs;

• however, there also exist a significant number of smaller once-per-year and picnic (amateur) venues requiring attention;

• obviously, it was not feasible to contemplate erection of the above structures at venues where conceivably they would only be used one day per year;

• as such and in consultation with Stewards, a prototype transportable tower was designed/developed which could easily be towed to any racecourse for the days racing and then removed;

• again, the basic design parameters focussed on limiting towing height and weight, as they needed to be easily towed by Stewards’ race day vehicles (Holden Commodores or similar);

37

• following successful trials of the prototype, a number have been acquired and placed in each Racing Association for deployment by Stewards as considered necessary;

• further acquisitions will be contemplated on an “as required” basis.

LIGHTING FOR RACECOURSES

• RNSW perspective is an Electrical Engineer (probably one who has undertaken lighting design for harness tracks) would need to provide minimum levels of horizontal and vertical illumination (in lux);

• Note that these would conceivably be lower for the safe conduct of track work, increasing for on-course (closed circuit TV) coverage, rising again for off-course broadcast;

• Philosophical concerns exist with the thoroughbred industry’s practice of erecting lights in a haphazard manner on top of grandstands, surveillance towers, in trees, etc as such a non-engineered solution will almost certainly deliver uneven levels of lighting, shadowing and illumination levels which probably do not conform to relevant Australian Standards.

STARTING GATES Shop drawings from Steriline and Simtrack (the main two producers of starting barriers) reveal the following characteristics: Steriline:

• platform height: 900mm; • overall height (15 – 20 stall gates): 3855mm; • internal width between partitions: 808mm; • internal length: 1700mm;

Simtrack: • platform height: 900mm; • overall height: 3840mm; • internal width between partitions: 850mm; • internal length: 1800mm

38

HORSE FLOAT PARKING AREAS • Such facilities must be in close proximity to stripping stalls and segregated from public

areas by separation fencing. • Desirably such separation fencing should be constructed to standards which are similar

to mounting enclosure fencing (i.e. mild steel posts and rails with chain-wire mesh in-fills, minimum 1.2m high).

• Desirably, hardstand material (such as crusher dust) should be laid in an attempt to suppress dust.

SAND ROLLS RNSW have only constructed a couple of sand rolls in country NSW during recent years. These have been awarded to Williams River Steel (“WRS”) on a “design and construct” basis. WRS possesses a similar manufacturing methodology to Stablecraft, i.e. they produce pre-fabricated/pre-cast structures and then erect them on-site. Accordingly, we have notionally adopted the dimensions of the WRS product. I do not possess a shop drawing; however their most recent quotation contained the following nominal information:

• roof structure: • dimensions: 8m x 8m x 3.6m; • material: galvanised steel with colorbond roof, gutters and downpipes;

• base slab: • dimensions: 100mm (to engineers specifications); • material: concrete

• sand roll: • dimensions: 2.4m high (hexagonal shape); • material: pre-cast concrete walls; • sand: 300mm deep.

TRACK WORK SUPERVISORS FACILITIES EXTRACT FROM RVL PROJECT BRIEF This report details the Cost Plan for the construction of a new Track Work Supervisor’s Box at Ballarat Turf Club and outlines the major contract elements necessary to undertake the works. BACKGROUND The objective of the project is to:

• deliver an efficient and effective solution to accommodate the Track Work Supervisor at Ballarat Turf Club

• improve the amenity and location of the Track Work Supervisor’s Box and to therefore reduce the risk of track safety and horse movement issues.

• reduce the cost and limit staff intervention required to successfully control track access and horse training movement.

EXISTING CONDITIONS & PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORKS Currently the Track Work Supervisor’s Box at Ballarat Turf Club is non-compliant. The box is accessed via an external step/stair that poses a risk to staff and does not comply with applicable Australian Standards. Recent OH&S audits identified a number of similar shortcomings in Supervisor’s Boxes throughout the State. In order to best ensure a consistent, safe and standardised facility for Supervisors at all training venues, VKA Pty Ltd have been engaged to design and document a new Track Work Supervisor’s Box. Concept designs from VKA were provided to the Club and RVL for review and comment prior to formally being issued for tender. Two distinct options have been

39

designed—one at 1500mm above ground level, the other at 3000mm above ground level. The new facilities provide for:

• bench space for two people plus filing and cupboard space • fully sliding windows • internal and external lighting • remote gate control and catching/holding pen adjacent • data/communications capability.

A prototype is to be built at Ballarat Turf Club and subsequently employed at various other venues. The new Track Work Supervisor’s Box at Ballarat is to be 1500mm above ground level and located near the existing track crossing. The Box will include a warning system which will enable the Supervisor to remotely activate warning lights and sirens on track and in the stripping stalls should a track safety issue arise during training. The final location of the Box, near the existing track crossing at the course proper, has been agreed to by the Club in conjunction with RVL Planning and Infrastructure and Stewards. EQUINE POOL RVL some years ago developed a pool design to suit its regional tier one training centres; this design was based on the pool facility that had been constructed at Lindsay Park in SA by Colin Hayes. Although not identical in dimension the principals behind the Lindsay Park pool were utilised in RVL’s plans. Filtration plant was developed to suit high use at the large training centres and operating procedures were developed to meet the venues liability for safe operation.

PERIMETER FENCING

• Property boundary fencing would normally be a minimum 6 feet (1.8m) high chain-wire fence with steel pipe posts plus top & bottom rail.

40

• This additional height (when compared with on-site fencing) is necessary to prevent unauthorised intrusion.

SPONSOR: CRV PROJECT: Horse float car park safety program LOCATION: Various PROJECT NUMBER: 0506-CRV-05 REPORT PREPARED BY: NICK HEFFERNAN, PROJECT MANAGER, RVL DATE OF REPORT: 17 March, 2006 Attachments The following documents are attached and form part of this report:

• Project cost plan • Budget for the works • CAPEX form.

SCOPE OF REPORT This report recommends a capital project approval of $351,250 for the supply and installation of various fencing and access control elements to Horse Float Car Parks at 15 venues throughout the State. EXISTING CONDITIONS The RVL, CRV and individual Clubs have undertaken comprehensive investigations and detailed risk assessments into the potential for loose or improperly secured horses to affect and impact on roadways adjacent to racecourses and to endanger patrons, staff and contractors. Horses escaping from unfenced or inappropriately controlled Horse Float areas present a high risk for the racing industry with the potential for serious injury and death as untethered horses enter the path of vehicles or otherwise endanger patrons and pedestrians. To the extent that the installation of fencing and manual and mechanised gates can ameliorate these issues, appropriate technical, engineering and/or fencing solutions have been identified. In addition to these physical control measures, and in order to fully realise the benefits of the installation of fencing and gates related to this project, individual Clubs should review and revise their car park and pedestrian management and operating plans. The following 16 Clubs which have been assessed and identified as high priority schemes; Avoca Racing Club Bairnsdale Racing Club Benalla Racing Club Casterton Racing Club Cranbourne Racing Club Echuca Racing Club Edenhope Racing Club Mortlake Racing Club Pakenham Racing Club Penshurst Racing Club Sale Turf Club Seymour Racing Club Stony Creek Racing Club Traralgon Racing Club Wangaratta Racing Club

41

PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORKS AND PROCUREMENT METHODOLOGY The proposed works will reduce associated race day risks for both the CRV and affected Club as well as improve the RVL’s current risk exposure on training days at applicable venues. The proposed designs for the installation of perimeter fencing and gates typically allow for one or more of the following elements;

• 1.8m chain mesh fence—galvanised, no top rail • 1.8 Colourbond fence—solid, corrugated steel panels • Post and Rail fence—3-rail, agricultural timber fence • Manual Gate—galvanised, open mesh farm gate • Mechanised Gate—automated sliding or swinging gate.

The attached Budget details the indicative quantity of each element proposed at each venue. All elements and quantities are as per CRV’s Application for Capital Funding—Occupational Health & Safety—Horse Float Car Park Safety Program, document dated 1 April, 2005. The assessment of some venues listed above has not been completed and the scope of work required has not been detailed. Final designs, confirming the exact extent and alignment of fences at all venues will be confirmed by the RVL in conjunction with relevant Track Managers prior to tendering the works. The specialist nature and scope of the works, plus working time restrictions and the wide geographical distribution of the racecourse venues limit the number of contractors capable of undertaking the entirety of the work. The RVL propose to consolidate a number of geographically linked venues into tender packages for larger fencing contractors to price, as appropriate. Wherever necessary, consideration may also be given to augmenting this procurement method by engaging a local contractor to install an individual venue’s fencing. COST PLAN A Cost Plan for the Horse Float Car Park Safety project is attached, totalling $351,250, and including provision for necessary construction contingencies. All rates included in the Plan have been confirmed with fencing contractors and suppliers. Where an assessment of a venue has not been completed and the scope of work has not been detailed, an estimate of project costs is included. A 7% construction contingency amount has been allowed in the Budget to allow for unseen events. Mechanised gates require power and control cabling plus a substantial concrete footing and in some instances an asphalt apron to allow efficient operation. Local conditions will require a comprehensive site survey in order to identify the location of underground services and the availability of power supply will need to be confirmed at each venue requiring a mechanised gate. PROGRAM A program will be established for the works following funding approval and contract(s) award but an initial project program allows for the following milestone dates;

• Confirm individual venue requirements April 21, 2006 • Tender Documentation April 28, 2006 • Tenders Close May 19, 2006 • Contractor(s) Appointed May 23, 2006 • Works Commence June 1, 2006 • Works Complete Sept. 30, 2006

42

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION RVL recommends that: 1. Total funding of $351,250 plus GST for the supply and installation of perimeter fencing and

gates at various racecourse venues be approved. 2. A budget allocation of $328,250 plus GST for fencing and gates at various racecourse

venues be approved. 3. Project contingencies of approximately $23,000 be allocated and approved to cover

unforeseen events. 4. The main contractor(s) for the supply and installation of perimeter fencing and gates be

procured through a combination of local contractors and larger fencing contractors.

43

Appendix 2 Workshop Participants – July 25 2006 Australian Racing Board - Andrew Harding, Chief Executive Racing NSW - Ray Murrihy, General Manager Integrity - Andrew Small, Projects Manager Racing Victoria Ltd - David Hawke, General Manager, Planning and Infrastructure

- Charlie Stebbing, Regional Tracks and Facilities Manager - Terry Sharp, Integrity Services - Dr John McCaffrey, Director, Veterinary Services - Dr Paul O’Callaghan, Veterinary Services

Queensland Racing - John Hackett, Deputy Chief Steward Racing and Wagering WA - David Hensler, Deputy Chief Steward - Brian Hoddy, Manager, Lark Hill Training Complex Canberra Racing Club - John Davidson, Chief Steward - James Cataldo, Racecourse Manager Australian Jockey Club - Jeff Haynes, General Manager Racecourses Sydney Turf Club - Lindsay Murphy, General Manager Racecourses Victoria Racing Club - Michael Goodie, Tracks Manager Melbourne Racing Club - Jason Kerr, General Manager – Racecourses - Tim Bailey, Racecourse Manager, Sandown Moonee Valley Racing Club - Brian Masters, Operations Manager

- Martin Synan, Asst. Racecourse Manager Queensland Turf Club - Bill Shuck, Racecourse Manager Brisbane Turf Club - Warren Williams, General Manager-Venues South Australian Jockey Club - Brenton Wilkinson, Operations Manager

- John Tonani, Racecourse Manager Western Australian Turf Club - Carl Johnson, Racecourse Event Manager - Geoff Murphy, Tracks and Operations Manager TOTE Tasmania - Van Ransley, General Manager Racing Operations - Richard Emanuel, Major Projects Manager Australian Racecourse Managers Association - Arthur Stubbs, Secretary

44

Appendix 3 Workshop Participants – May 8 2007 Brisbane Turf Club - Warren Williams, General Manager Venues Queensland Turf Club - Bill Shuck, Racecourse Manager Queensland Racing - John Hackett, Deputy Chief Steward Racing NSW - Andrew Small, Projects Manager Sydney Turf Club - Lindsay Murphy, General Manager Racecourses Racing Victoria Ltd - David Hawke, General Manager, Planning and Infrastructure

- Charlie Stebbing, Regional Tracks and Facilities Manager - Des Gleeson, Director, Integrity Services - Terry Sharp, Integrity Services - Dr John McCaffrey, Director, Veterinary Services

Melbourne Racing Club - Jason Kerr, General Manager – Racecourses - Tim Bailey, Racecourse Manager, Sandown Moonee Valley Racing Club - Brian Masters, Operations Manager

- Martin Synan, Asst. Racecourse Manager Victoria Racing Club - Michael Goodie, Tracks Manager Racing and Wagering WA - David Hensler, Deputy Chief Steward Western Australian Turf Club - Gordon Menzies, Asst. Tracks and Operations Manager Canberra Racing Club - James Cataldo, Racecourse Manager South Australian Jockey Club - John Tonani, Racecourse Manager TOTE Tasmania - Van Ransley, General Manager Racing Operations - Richard Emanuel, Major Projects Manager Australian Racecourse Managers Association - Arthur Stubbs, Secretary