Chief Stipe

You didn't look at the sectionals. Or take into account the D4 shyte track. Nor the ease of the win. Some Ozzie form in the Thorndon and La Crique would have won that by two lengths. The Chosen One was beaten a Nose, Long Neck in the Feehan last year over 1600m beaten by Superstorm and Elephant.

Interesting race that.

Even Lisa Allpress has copped a few suspensions.

If you don't have suspensions you are not trying!

According to Peter Profit and his NZ Owner source it was the day after John attended a mates wedding and drunk too much at the after match. I mean who hasn't been there in our working life!!!! Although I never missed a day for that excuse but then we were never drug tested as a requirement for work. If it was a Friday just had to hang in there until the work drinks started mid afternoon!!!!

Champion harness racing trainer Roy Purdon dies Stuff sports reporters15:58, Feb 03 2022 SUPPLIED Champion harness trainer Roy Purdon, who has died, aged 94. Roy Purdon, one of harness racing’s champion trainers, has died in Auckland, aged 94. Purdon was New Zealand’s premiership-winning trainer on 21 occasions, both on his own account and in partnership with son Barry, between the early 1970s and 1995. During his stellar career he won the New Zealand Cup four times as a trainer in partnership with Barry. They were Sole Command (1977), Luxury Liner (1988), Christopher Vance (1991) and Chokin (1993). Roy had 556 wins in his own right and 1463 with Barry for a total of 2019 wins, including 54 Group 1s, Harness Racing NZ said. He was an awarded an MBE for his services to harness racing in 1988. SUPPLIED Roy Purdon, during his training days. Purdon was the patriarch of harness racing’s most successful family, with sons Barry and Mark champion trainers in their own right. The country's most successful driver Tony Herlihy is also a son-in-law, married to Roy's daughter Suzanne. Among those paying tribute to Purdon was Joshua Dickie, a Cambridge harness driver who is now living in Victoria. “Harness Racing has lost a legend, one that will never be forgotten. Roy was the perfect gentleman and the most talented horseman I’d ever seen. I grew up idolising the great man. RIP Roy Purdon,” Dickie posted on Twitter. Harness Racing NZ passed on its condolences to the Purdon family, saying his death would be felt by everyone in the sport. “He was deeply loved and respected,” it said. “Roy Purdon was an icon in the sport.”

Maybe but 2400m at Ellerslie seems to suit a good 2000m horse. The Oaks can often turn into a real stayers test. The Derby is worth $1m, the Oaks $400k. If she got a good draw in the Derby and survived that mad rush to the first bend she'd be hard to beat in the Derby. Then you have another two weeks up your sleeve to re-evaluate where you go to. Don't forget La Crique is still in her first prep. There is the option of one more race freshen up and then Queensland.

Finally got round to looking at yesterday's racing. Convinced the track was off. The surface is getting as shifty as Randwick.

So what do you do? Target the Derby or the Oaks? It is more likely that the colts or geldings will beat her than the fillies. Unless Wellington coughs up a wet track and that Roc de Cambes maiden pitches up. Speaking of Princess's now that Cindy is loosening the restrictions on Ozzie travel would La Crique target some Ozzie Group races or even Queensland in the winter? That's probably where I'd take Princess Lowry - sneak a maiden win somewhere then freshen up for Queensland where you might get a softer track.

I thought @Robalan and @the galah you would both have those "facts" at your fingertips?

Findings from the UK’s world-leading human challenge study provide new insights into mild infections with SARS-CoV-2 in healthy young adults. The collaborative study is the first in the world to perform detailed monitoring over the full course of COVID-19, from the moment a person first encounters SARS-CoV-2, throughout the infection to the point at which the virus is apparently eliminated. The Human Challenge Programme is a partnership between Imperial College London, the Vaccine Taskforce and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), hVIVO (part of Open Orphan plc.), and the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust. Among several key clinical insights, researchers found that symptoms start to develop very fast, on average about two days after contact with the virus. The infection first appears in the throat; infectious virus peaks about five days into infection and, at that stage, is significantly more abundant in the nose than the throat. They also found that lateral flow tests (LFTs) are a reassuringly reliable indicator of whether infectious virus is present (i.e., whether they are a likely to be able to transmit virus to other people). The findings, published on a pre-print server and which have not yet been peer-reviewed, detail the outcomes in 36 healthy, young participants with no immunity to the virus. This landmark study, which took place at a specialist unit at the Royal Free Hospital in London, shows that experimental infection of volunteers is reproducible and resulted in no severe symptoms in healthy young adult participants, laying the groundwork for future studies to test new vaccines and medicines against COVID-19. Professor Christopher Chiu, from the Department of Infectious Disease and the Institute of Infection at Imperial College London and Chief Investigator on the trial, said: “First and foremost, there were no severe symptoms or clinical concerns in our challenge infection model of healthy young adult participants. "People in this age group are believed to be major drivers of the pandemic and these studies, which are representative of mild infection, allow detailed investigation of the factors responsible for infection and pandemic spread. “Our study reveals some very interesting clinical insights, particularly around the short incubation period of the virus, extremely high viral shedding from the nose, as well as the utility of lateral flow tests, with potential implications for public health.” Clinical insights In the trial, 36 healthy male and female volunteers aged 18-30 years, unvaccinated against COVID-19 and with no prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 were given a low dose of the virus – introduced via drops up the nose – and then carefully monitored by clinical staff in a controlled environment over a two-week period. The study used virus from very early in the pandemic obtained from a hospitalized patient in the ISARIC4C study, prior to the emergence of the Alpha variant. Eighteen of the volunteers became infected, 16 of whom went on to develop mild-to-moderate cold-like symptoms, including a stuffy or runny nose, sneezing, and a sore throat. Some experienced headaches, muscle/joint aches, tiredness and fever. None developed serious symptoms. Two participants were excluded from the final analysis after developing antibodies between initial screening and inoculation. Thirteen infected volunteers reported temporarily losing their sense of smell (anosmia), but this returned to normal within 90 days in all but three participants – the remainder continue to show improvement after three months. There were no changes seen in their lungs, or any serious adverse events in any participant. All participants will be followed up for 12 months after leaving the clinical facility to monitor for any potential long-term effects. Participants were exposed to the lowest possible dose of virus found to cause infection, roughly equivalent to the amount found in a single droplet of nasal fluid when participants were at their most infectious. Accurate timeline of infection The study has also revealed some unique insights into the timeline of COVID-19, particularly during the very early period after virus exposure that cannot be looked at in other types of study, where patients are not identified until symptoms are noticed. Among the 18 infected participants, the average time from first exposure to the virus to viral detection and early symptoms (incubation period) was 42 hours, significantly shorter than existing estimates, which put the average incubation period at 5-6 days. Professor Christopher Chiu, Chief Investigator on the trial, said there were no clinical concerns with the challenge model for young adults, and the study has "revealed some very interesting clinical insights" Following this period there was a steep rise in the amount of virus (viral load) found in swabs taken from participants’ nose or throat. These levels peaked at around five days into infection on average, but high levels of viable (infectious) virus were still picked up in lab tests up to nine days after inoculation on average, and up to a maximum of 12 days for some, supporting the isolation periods advocated in most guidelines. There were also differences in where the most virus was found. While the virus was detected first in the throat, significantly earlier than in the nose (40 hours in the throat compared to 58 hours in the nose), levels were lower and peaked sooner in the throat. Peak levels of virus were significantly higher in the nose than in the throat, indicating a potentially greater risk of virus being shed from the nose than the mouth. This highlights the importance of proper facemask use to cover both the mouth and nose. Lateral flow tests Importantly, lateral flow tests (LFTs) were shown to be a good indicator of whether someone was harbouring viable virus. Positive LFTs correlated well with lab-confirmed detection of virus from swabs throughout the course of infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. However, the tests were less effective in picking up lower levels of virus at the very start and end of infection. This is the first study that has been able to provide detailed data on the early phase of infection, before and during the appearance of symptoms. While there is a possibility of missing infectious virus early in the course of infection, particularly if only the nose is tested, the researchers say these findings overall support continued use of LFTs to identify people likely to be infectious. Among several key findings were Lateral flow tests are reliable to identify people likely to be infectious, and that twice-weekly rapid tests would allow diagnosis before 70-80% of viable virus was generated during the course of infection. (Image: Shutterstock) The study provides supportive evidence that LFTs can reliably predict when someone is unlikely to infect others and can come out of isolation, and that twice-weekly rapid tests would allow diagnosis before 70-80% of viable virus was generated during the course of infection. “We found that overall, lateral flow tests correlate very well with the presence of infectious virus,” said Professor Chiu. “Even though in the first day or two they may be less sensitive, if you use them correctly and repeatedly, and act on them if they read positive, this will have a major impact on interrupting viral spread.” Next steps The authors highlight that while the model is a safe and effective approximation of real-world infection in young adults, the small sample size, reduced diversity of infected volunteers and limited follow up period may restrict the findings. However, they add that despite these limitations, the study has important implications for public health, including around proper mask-wearing, isolation periods for infectious individuals, the use of LFTs, and establishing the human challenge platform to investigate further aspects of COVID-19. Professor Peter Openshaw, co-investigator, said the study has revealed extraordinary discoveries about the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Future work will see the team determine why some people became infected and others did not and develop a challenge virus using the Delta variant, which is already underway by Imperial in partnership with hVIVO and funded by the Wellcome Trust, and which could be used in follow-on trials. According to the team, with these data supporting the safety of the infection challenge model and a Delta variant available, this could theoretically provide a ‘plug and play’ platform for testing new variants and therapies, including vaccines. Professor Chiu added: “While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protection against it. "From the point of view of virus transmission related to the very high viral loads, we are likely if anything to be underestimating infectivity because we were using an older strain of the virus. With a newer strain, there might be differences in terms of size of response, but ultimately we expect our study to be fundamentally representative of this kind of infection.” Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, said: “Human challenge studies have been performed using other pathogens for decades, including flu and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). They need full independent ethical review and very careful planning – as has been the case this time. Every precaution is taken to minimise risk. “Scientifically these studies offer real advantage because the timing of exposure to the virus is always known exactly, therefore things like the interval between exposure and the profile of virus shedding can be accurately described. “This important study has provided further key data on COVID-19 and how it spreads, which is invaluable in learning more about this novel virus, so we can fine-tune our response. Challenge studies could still prove to be important in the future to speed the development of ‘next-generation’ Covid-19 vaccines and antiviral drugs. “These data underline just how useful a tool lateral flow tests can be to pick up people when infectious and the importance of wearing a face covering in crowded, enclosed spaces.” According to the researchers, the data underline the importance of wearing a face covering over the mouth and nose, in crowded, enclosed spaces. (Image: Shutterstock) Professor Peter Openshaw, co-investigator on the study and Professor of Experimental Medicine at Imperial College London, said: “The UK is able to provide a very good legal and ethical environment for human challenge studies and has invested substantially in studies of this sort for many years. "I am especially pleased that this study has been made possible by the MRC investment in the Human Infection Challenge consortium (HIC-Vac) that we established in 2017. The information that we have been able to discover about the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study is extraordinary.” Dr Andrew Catchpole, Chief Scientific Officer at hVIVO, part of Open Orphan plc., said: “The SARS-CoV-2 characterisation study has provided invaluable insights into the progression of COVID-19 infection in healthy young adults. Importantly, the study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies are safe and well tolerated by the volunteers with no serious symptoms and no Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). "The study’s results have provided useful insights which could be used to inform public health decisions on COVID-19 symptoms and virus detection going forward, including isolation periods for infectious individuals, the use of LFTs, and establishing the human challenge platform to investigate further aspects of COVID-19. “While the characterisation study was focused on the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and there are differences in transmissibility between it and the other variants, the same factors will be responsible for protection against it, meaning the findings remain valuable for variants such as Delta or Omicron. These data provide a clear platform to now utilise the human challenge model to expedite product efficacy testing for new vaccines or antivirals”” Dr Sir Michael Jacobs, consultant in infectious diseases at the Royal Free London, said: “We have vast experience of safely managing highly transmissible infections at the Royal Free Hospital and we are really pleased to have been able to play our part in this landmark study. “The trial has already provided some fascinating new insights into SARS-CoV2 infection, but perhaps its greatest contribution is to open up a new way to study the infection and the immune responses to it in great detail and help test new vaccines and treatments.” - ‘Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge’ by Killingley, B. et al. is available on the Research Square pre-print server and has been submitted for peer-review. Article text (excluding photos or graphics) © Imperial College London. Photos and graphics subject to third party copyright used with permission or © Imperial College London WHICH STRAIN OF THE VIRUS WAS USED? The virus used in this study was a ‘pre-Alpha’ strain of SARS-CoV-2. It was obtained very early in the pandemic from a swab of a hospitalized patient in the ISARIC4C study. The challenge virus is from the 'B1 lineage' of SARS CoV-2, which includes the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants (first detected in England (Kent), South Africa and India, respectively). It contained the D614G mutation in the spike protein, which is believed to have increased transmissibility compared to the originally described strain. During the COVID-19 human challenge study, swabs were taken from participants noses and throats twice a day. Viral replication was detected using PCR analysis and lab cultures, enabling researchers to analyse how much virus (viral load) is being shed by participants over time. Add Files Other Media

Unvaxed. COVID-19 human challenge study reveals detailed insights into infection by Ryan O'Hare02 February 2022 view large Findings from the UK’s world-leading human challenge study provide new insights into mild infections with SARS-CoV-2 in healthy young adults. The collaborative study is the first in the world to perform detailed monitoring over the full course of COVID-19, from the moment a person first encounters SARS-CoV-2, throughout the infection to the point at which the virus is apparently eliminated. The Human Challenge Programme is a partnership between Imperial College London, the Vaccine Taskforce and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), hVIVO (part of Open Orphan plc.), and the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust. Among several key clinical insights, researchers found that symptoms start to develop very fast, on average about two days after contact with the virus. The infection first appears in the throat; infectious virus peaks about five days into infection and, at that stage, is significantly more abundant in the nose than the throat. They also found that lateral flow tests (LFTs) are a reassuringly reliable indicator of whether infectious virus is present (i.e., whether they are a likely to be able to transmit virus to other people). The findings, published on a pre-print server and which have not yet been peer-reviewed, detail the outcomes in 36 healthy, young participants with no immunity to the virus. This landmark study, which took place at a specialist unit at the Royal Free Hospital in London, shows that experimental infection of volunteers is reproducible and resulted in no severe symptoms in healthy young adult participants, laying the groundwork for future studies to test new vaccines and medicines against COVID-19. Professor Christopher Chiu, from the Department of Infectious Disease and the Institute of Infection at Imperial College London and Chief Investigator on the trial, said: “First and foremost, there were no severe symptoms or clinical concerns in our challenge infection model of healthy young adult participants. "People in this age group are believed to be major drivers of the pandemic and these studies, which are representative of mild infection, allow detailed investigation of the factors responsible for infection and pandemic spread. “Our study reveals some very interesting clinical insights, particularly around the short incubation period of the virus, extremely high viral shedding from the nose, as well as the utility of lateral flow tests, with potential implications for public health.” Clinical insights In the trial, 36 healthy male and female volunteers aged 18-30 years, unvaccinated against COVID-19 and with no prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 were given a low dose of the virus – introduced via drops up the nose – and then carefully monitored by clinical staff in a controlled environment over a two-week period. The study used virus from very early in the pandemic obtained from a hospitalized patient in the ISARIC4C study, prior to the emergence of the Alpha variant. Eighteen of the volunteers became infected, 16 of whom went on to develop mild-to-moderate cold-like symptoms, including a stuffy or runny nose, sneezing, and a sore throat. Some experienced headaches, muscle/joint aches, tiredness and fever. None developed serious symptoms. Two participants were excluded from the final analysis after developing antibodies between initial screening and inoculation. Thirteen infected volunteers reported temporarily losing their sense of smell (anosmia), but this returned to normal within 90 days in all but three participants – the remainder continue to show improvement after three months. There were no changes seen in their lungs, or any serious adverse events in any participant. All participants will be followed up for 12 months after leaving the clinical facility to monitor for any potential long-term effects. Participants were exposed to the lowest possible dose of virus found to cause infection, roughly equivalent to the amount found in a single droplet of nasal fluid when participants were at their most infectious. Accurate timeline of infection The study has also revealed some unique insights into the timeline of COVID-19, particularly during the very early period after virus exposure that cannot be looked at in other types of study, where patients are not identified until symptoms are noticed. Among the 18 infected participants, the average time from first exposure to the virus to viral detection and early symptoms (incubation period) was 42 hours, significantly shorter than existing estimates, which put the average incubation period at 5-6 days. Professor Christopher Chiu, Chief Investigator on the trial, said there were no clinical concerns with the challenge model for young adults, and the study has "revealed some very interesting clinical insights" Following this period there was a steep rise in the amount of virus (viral load) found in swabs taken from participants’ nose or throat. These levels peaked at around five days into infection on average, but high levels of viable (infectious) virus were still picked up in lab tests up to nine days after inoculation on average, and up to a maximum of 12 days for some, supporting the isolation periods advocated in most guidelines. There were also differences in where the most virus was found. While the virus was detected first in the throat, significantly earlier than in the nose (40 hours in the throat compared to 58 hours in the nose), levels were lower and peaked sooner in the throat. Peak levels of virus were significantly higher in the nose than in the throat, indicating a potentially greater risk of virus being shed from the nose than the mouth. This highlights the importance of proper facemask use to cover both the mouth and nose. Lateral flow tests Importantly, lateral flow tests (LFTs) were shown to be a good indicator of whether someone was harbouring viable virus. Positive LFTs correlated well with lab-confirmed detection of virus from swabs throughout the course of infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. However, the tests were less effective in picking up lower levels of virus at the very start and end of infection. This is the first study that has been able to provide detailed data on the early phase of infection, before and during the appearance of symptoms. While there is a possibility of missing infectious virus early in the course of infection, particularly if only the nose is tested, the researchers say these findings overall support continued use of LFTs to identify people likely to be infectious. Among several key findings were Lateral flow tests are reliable to identify people likely to be infectious, and that twice-weekly rapid tests would allow diagnosis before 70-80% of viable virus was generated during the course of infection. (Image: Shutterstock) The study provides supportive evidence that LFTs can reliably predict when someone is unlikely to infect others and can come out of isolation, and that twice-weekly rapid tests would allow diagnosis before 70-80% of viable virus was generated during the course of infection. “We found that overall, lateral flow tests correlate very well with the presence of infectious virus,” said Professor Chiu. “Even though in the first day or two they may be less sensitive, if you use them correctly and repeatedly, and act on them if they read positive, this will have a major impact on interrupting viral spread.” Next steps The authors highlight that while the model is a safe and effective approximation of real-world infection in young adults, the small sample size, reduced diversity of infected volunteers and limited follow up period may restrict the findings. However, they add that despite these limitations, the study has important implications for public health, including around proper mask-wearing, isolation periods for infectious individuals, the use of LFTs, and establishing the human challenge platform to investigate further aspects of COVID-19. Professor Peter Openshaw, co-investigator, said the study has revealed extraordinary discoveries about the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Future work will see the team determine why some people became infected and others did not and develop a challenge virus using the Delta variant, which is already underway by Imperial in partnership with hVIVO and funded by the Wellcome Trust, and which could be used in follow-on trials. According to the team, with these data supporting the safety of the infection challenge model and a Delta variant available, this could theoretically provide a ‘plug and play’ platform for testing new variants and therapies, including vaccines. Professor Chiu added: “While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protection against it. "From the point of view of virus transmission related to the very high viral loads, we are likely if anything to be underestimating infectivity because we were using an older strain of the virus. With a newer strain, there might be differences in terms of size of response, but ultimately we expect our study to be fundamentally representative of this kind of infection.” Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, said: “Human challenge studies have been performed using other pathogens for decades, including flu and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). They need full independent ethical review and very careful planning – as has been the case this time. Every precaution is taken to minimise risk. “Scientifically these studies offer real advantage because the timing of exposure to the virus is always known exactly, therefore things like the interval between exposure and the profile of virus shedding can be accurately described. “This important study has provided further key data on COVID-19 and how it spreads, which is invaluable in learning more about this novel virus, so we can fine-tune our response. Challenge studies could still prove to be important in the future to speed the development of ‘next-generation’ Covid-19 vaccines and antiviral drugs. “These data underline just how useful a tool lateral flow tests can be to pick up people when infectious and the importance of wearing a face covering in crowded, enclosed spaces.” According to the researchers, the data underline the importance of wearing a face covering over the mouth and nose, in crowded, enclosed spaces. (Image: Shutterstock) Professor Peter Openshaw, co-investigator on the study and Professor of Experimental Medicine at Imperial College London, said: “The UK is able to provide a very good legal and ethical environment for human challenge studies and has invested substantially in studies of this sort for many years. "I am especially pleased that this study has been made possible by the MRC investment in the Human Infection Challenge consortium (HIC-Vac) that we established in 2017. The information that we have been able to discover about the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study is extraordinary.” Dr Andrew Catchpole, Chief Scientific Officer at hVIVO, part of Open Orphan plc., said: “The SARS-CoV-2 characterisation study has provided invaluable insights into the progression of COVID-19 infection in healthy young adults. Importantly, the study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies are safe and well tolerated by the volunteers with no serious symptoms and no Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). "The study’s results have provided useful insights which could be used to inform public health decisions on COVID-19 symptoms and virus detection going forward, including isolation periods for infectious individuals, the use of LFTs, and establishing the human challenge platform to investigate further aspects of COVID-19. “While the characterisation study was focused on the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and there are differences in transmissibility between it and the other variants, the same factors will be responsible for protection against it, meaning the findings remain valuable for variants such as Delta or Omicron. These data provide a clear platform to now utilise the human challenge model to expedite product efficacy testing for new vaccines or antivirals”” Dr Sir Michael Jacobs, consultant in infectious diseases at the Royal Free London, said: “We have vast experience of safely managing highly transmissible infections at the Royal Free Hospital and we are really pleased to have been able to play our part in this landmark study. “The trial has already provided some fascinating new insights into SARS-CoV2 infection, but perhaps its greatest contribution is to open up a new way to study the infection and the immune responses to it in great detail and help test new vaccines and treatments.” - ‘Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge’ by Killingley, B. et al. is available on the Research Square pre-print server and has been submitted for peer-review. Article text (excluding photos or graphics) © Imperial College London. Photos and graphics subject to third party copyright used with permission or © Imperial College London WHICH STRAIN OF THE VIRUS WAS USED? The virus used in this study was a ‘pre-Alpha’ strain of SARS-CoV-2. It was obtained very early in the pandemic from a swab of a hospitalized patient in the ISARIC4C study. The challenge virus is from the 'B1 lineage' of SARS CoV-2, which includes the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants (first detected in England (Kent), South Africa and India, respectively). It contained the D614G mutation in the spike protein, which is believed to have increased transmissibility compared to the originally described strain. During the COVID-19 human challenge study, swabs were taken from participants noses and throats twice a day. Viral replication was detected using PCR analysis and lab cultures, enabling researchers to analyse how much virus (viral load) is being shed by participants over time.

I guess those calling the Dunn's cheats are calling the following owners cheats: Mark Dunnett B(Bruce) R Negus, Mrs C P Negus, G R J Anderson

For example in the last 10 years?

Roy Purdon has passed away aged 94. His Harness Racing CV is legendary as will be his Obituaries. Condolences to the Purdon Family.

I'm not making claims that leading Trainers are cheating by doping. Why should I provide facts that they aren't when there are no facts (evidence) that they are? By doing simple things very well based on decades of experience and institutional knowledge. The fact is the majority of Trainers are very average. That's always been the case. From time to time they will shine when they happen upon a horse of extreme natural ability. Again doing the simple things well. Take the recent example of Stella's Delight which has caused some more unfounded finger pointing. The mare was for most of its care in the hands of a part-time trainer Ms R Low. A Trainer that has never ever set the world on fire with her training exploits. The owners had probably given up and retirement was on the cards. I would say it probably still is. Now some facts: 1. The mare is by Bettors Delight - there have been numerous cases of his horses coming right late in age. Probably not a big factor but no doubt some smart Trainers keep a look out for them. 2. The horse had shown flashes of ability - nothing startling but had placed and paced the odd good sectional in 23 starts. 3. It was evident in races prior to the stable change that it wasn't 100% in its racing. It was hanging and pacing a tad rough indicating an underlying niggle. From experience it doesn't take much for a horse to be sore and not put in. 4. Gavin Burgess took over the training of the mare around the middle of last year. I'm not sure exactly when but for arguments sake let's say 6 months prior to it first win in his care. Her first race start in his care was 198 days after its last in Low's care. John Dunn drove it in that race. 5. The horse is NOT trained by the Dunn's. It is still in Gavin Burgess care. However it is "domiciled" at Dunn's stable at Woodend Beach. All that means for the non-conspirators is that instead of Burgess floating the horse to Woodend Beach to work it he just bowls up to the stable. 6. If a horse has a niggle working them in a straight line on a forgiving surface can work the Oracle. The beach is great for that as is walking them in the sea afterwards. Attitude wise horses love it. They get bored shitless going round and round and round a dirt circle. Many top trainers use the beach regularly - e.g. in Melbourne they regularly take their horses to Mornington for a swim for post race recovery. 7. Stella's Delight opened I think at $9 on Fixed Odds. The TAB bookies are known for their caution. Smart punters saw the price at big unders and also climbed on. The price quickly dropped to $3.50 and hovered there. Yep someone got some. It wouldn't have been much as the TAB are risk averse and the pools here are very small. I hope the patient owners the Prendergasts got some. 8. The race setup. The big grass Methven track. Forgiving surface and no camber. Perfect draw 1 on the second row. Speed map put it no further back than 3 back on the rail. Soft run throughout and didn't use any gas at any stage. Some comments have been made about John Dunn looking around a lot with a lap to go. That's what makes him a good driver - spatial awareness and knowing who and where the threats are. Methven has been racing recently where unless you were on the pace you couldn't make much ground from behind. Very hard to do on uncambered big grass tracks at the best of times. The average bunch of maidens didn't run that fast but steady. Stella's Delight won but hardly a stunning victory. It was also noticeable that it paced better and didn't hang. So good training, great thinking, great setup, great driving, happy horse and owners. Cheating? Yeah na!

Perception is not Reality. Perception is only a mental impression often driven by confirmation bias. Reality is based on facts - things that actually exist. When perception becomes your reality then it is no more than fantasy. So the reality is that some harness trainers and drivers are doing much better than others. They are that is the reality - facts such as premiership tables and win rates prove that. It has always been like that. Some perceive that the reason they are doing better is because they must be cheating. Yet there are no facts to support that therefore it cannot be reality. Unfortunately we are seeing perception now bordering on delusional. The aggrieved or those that struggle to compete gravitate towards the perception rather than the reality. The reality being that they aren't yet as good as those competing at the top. In an age where information is readily accessible it is very easy to find unrelated facts to support one's perception hypothesis. For example "Lance Armstrong used EPO and his performance improved therefore it must follow that horse trainers are using EPO to improve their horse's performance." But where is the evidence that that is happening? Other than some trainers are doing better than others which has always happened. "Oh but Lance Armstrong didn't return a positive and was tested all the time." Well the reality is as it turns out he wasn't tested when he was using EPO. "Oh they must be using EPO that is untraceable".....and so on and so on. Then we have a large doping case in the USA - "there told you so - it must be happening in NZ that explains how some trainers are better than others". Of course no facts to support that just perception. No consideration of the differences between racing jurisdictions nor a comparison of the money involved in the USA (NZ is nickel and dimes by comparison) nor the fact that the charges didn't relate to actual doping but the mislabelling and adulteration of known drugs. Meanwhile the proponents of perception is reality are doing the very thing that they claim they are trying to stop and that is bring racing into disrepute and turn people off the sport of harness racing. Watch this space - Peter Profit and his NZ owner source plus the Black Horse Newsletter exposed.....

I don't think you missed many stereotypes in that post.

Imperial College in the UK did a challenge trial with the original Covid-19 virus I.e. the worst variant. 29 people aged between 18 and 29 who hadn't been infected before were exposed to the virus in quarantine conditions. Half of them didn't get infected. The majority of the rest experienced no more than a cold. Only a couple experienced more severe flu like symptoms. All recovered without any long term effects. Why get boosted?

I suspect the track was off and not consistent. A G3 and 66mm of irrigation in the last seven days.

But whose job is it? The Club, the Canterbury Programming Committee, NZTR or all of them working together?