Chief Stipe

As for Lilac Flash moving four wide to let King Of The Stars out. That's nonsense. Just had another three looks at the race. King of the Stars was on Colt 31's back. Dixon skittles Lilac Flash to get out (Dixon got fined) and all King of the Stars did was stay on the back of Colt 31 who got to one out leaving King of the Stars parked three wide. Now you could argue that was a dumb move but it certainly wasn't facilitated by Lilac Flash.

I should have said "consider" laying the horse. I haven't looked at Colt 31's previous races but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a pattern of being beaten for early speed. Bit like Amazing Dream in that regard. If there was a pattern then why wouldn't you lay the horse? As it was Dixon had to get creative when he swung on the horse to get off the marker so quick. Otherwise he would have been shuffled as the race progressed. We are all entitled to our views. Just as you are entitled to promote your conspiracy theory about Aussie Harness.

What's the point of continuing the discussion? You are convinced that the race was corrupt and dodgy. Nothing that I, or anyone else posts will change your mind. If you read the entire Stewards report for the meeting there were a number of drives where horses were not driven to their normal racing pattern. I'd put that down to race circumstance - you'd put it down to a conspiracy. With regard to the McMullen drive - he went forward seeking to get the lead or to sit outside the leader. He failed to achieve that - didn't have the horse flesh to do it. Yep should have stayed where he was. But did it make a material difference to the race? No. Ok they ran a quarter in 28 followed by one in 31 - not unheard of. The only horses chances that were affected was the one McMullen was driving.

It's not "fishy" when there is a clear cut hot favourite who has drawn 1 in a harness race - the smart money would lay the horse. Quoting Dixon from Gammalite's post if "he'd drawn 2 then it would have been a different story."

Obviously enough of an idea to give you a run for your money. But Mikie you are the expert on Betfair, harness driving and harness fullstop. I'm just a mere enthusiast that has worked in the industry and had some skin in it. So I defer to your immense knowledge and superior intellect. There is obviously considerable corruption in Harness racing. Just so happens I agree with Gammalite. Merry Christmas Mikie.

Geez Thomaas keep up. Do you forget the All Black prop?

Not when it seems he has already negotiated restitution with some of the owners.

Yep that's how I saw it. Agreed and I think he should have got asked a couple of questions regarding the first 2-300m. That didn't look all that tidy to me. Certainly the Ozzie's drive with a lot more aggression than their Kiwi counterparts - always have as your non-de-plume "Gammalite" always reminds me!

Gammalite - don't worry about it - I'm not upset by any stretch. The only thing that annoys me at the moment is the state of the industry. Also it bugs me when people are quick to play "cut the tall poppy" which we see often with the All Stars. The reality is that the All Stars in NZ run a top class operation under extreme scrutiny and have put in many a hard yard. In my opinion those chasing are simply not up to speed. That has been to the detriment of the industry but you can't blame those who have been successful. I would rather point the finger at the 9 to 5 administrators and slack officials. For example it defies belief that Lamb can continue to have two conflicting roles in the industry and be useless at both of them!

No you went looking for data to prove something - that's called predetermined bias. Is 25% more layed against a hot favourite on the night that far out of whack? Fine I have no idea - neither does Harewood or Gammalite. You are the expert Mikie. But the drive by Grant Dixon wasn't that good either was it? But you don't mention any of that. Why wasn't Dixon questioned about his movement of the markers when not clear soon after the start? Why didn't Dixon try harder to keep the lead? I think he made a split decision to bail out - heavily restrained his horse - checked those behind him on the markers and then pulled off to be one out to take advantage of the gap forcefully created. The following from the Stewards report is when Dixon moved out in front of Lilac Flash to go get parked. Grant Dixon (Colt Thirty One) pleaded guilty to a charge under AHR rule 163 (1)(b)(ii) for moving Colt Thirty One from its one wide line at the 1800 metres which hindered the forward progress of Lilac Flash NZ. A fine of $200 was imposed.

Bullshit Mikie. The fact is I wasn't bothered about the post. A bit like Harewood it seems. Then Gammalite mentioned he wasn't getting any support for his view so I analysed the race - watched it about five times and came to a similar conclusion to him. Although his initial post was about congratulating the Kiwi's on winning the race! So now I'm supporting Gammalite, Brodie and Harewood? Just because I disagreed with your assessment of the race?

Well Mikie I realise you are the expert in race driving so it is reassuring to see you agreeing with me.

Rule Number(s): Rule 857(7)(a)&(b)Following the running of Race 3, Mr Muirhead submitted an Information alleging that Mr F Schumacher, driver of NELSON'S BOY 'delayed the start when failing to obey the starter's instructions to maintain his position on the mobile impeding MARY ROBYN which resulted in a false start being declared'. Mr ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): Rule 869(3)(b)An Information was submitted by Mr Muirhead following the running of Race 1. He alleged that Amateur Driver Mr J Brownlee, drivng NATURAL JUSTICE' drove carelessly near the 1500m by allowing his gelding to contact the sulky of MARIA KIRILENKO, resulting in NATURAL JUSTICE breaking. Rule 869(3)(b) states ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 4 (The Tank Guys 2100), an Information was lodged by Mr Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) in that Taiki Yanagida (SATRIANI) allowed his mount to shift out near the 300m when not clear of BEAU GESTE (Sam O’Malley) which was checked. Mr Oatham had Mr Goodwin explain ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Geez and you have a go at Brodie for being arrogant! Yes I know how Betfair works. So multiple people laid Colt 31. As I said maybe they thought the price was good value and the number 1 draw was tricky. Again you are matching data after the fact to support your view that the race was fun dodgy. As for you persisting with the 28 second quarter - why didn't the driver of Colt 31 hand up? I agree with Harewood you see a lot of that type of driving from OZ drivers. You only have to compare Natalie with Mark. Kiwi drivers tend to sit and wait and wait and wait and wait.....oops it's over. Colt 31 was never going to sit in the one:one for long. It would have had to have tried for the lead at some stage or sit parked. Either way it lost its advantage at the start and why the driver was so aggressive at restraining it from the ace draw I have no idea.

As I said - what material difference did it make?

Was it one bet? To win how much? Perhaps the price was value and the punter thought the ace draw was a disadvantage.

What material impact did that have on the race? Zip, zilch, nada.

Mikie you are working from the premise that the race was dodgie and someone cleaned up on Betfair. I'm viewing the race based on the circumstances as they evolved in the race i.e. no preconceived view or bias. In my opinion Colt 31 could have tried harder to keep the lead from the draw. What then followed was reacting to evolving circumstances.

Colt 31 wasn't going to stay in the one:one behind a slow horse for long. Someone was going to have a crack 3 wide at some stage.

No I think you are wrong. Have another look at the start Colt 31 could have tried harder to keep the lead. The driver takes a big hold - watch how he slows those behind and then nips off the markers to get one out. Now he was in the one:one but behind a horse that was never going to figure in the finish. So it didn't matter what horse came up on the three wide train Colt 31 was going to come out first and go sit parked. As for throwing in a 28 the leader wanted to keep the lead. The next quarter was 31. Why didn't Colt 31 push for the lead?

So you are saying the leader should have handed up to Colt 31?

I don’t believe it was "beaten for speed" however if it was then that's where it lost the race. Dumb move yes and that's why he got pinged. But did it materially change the outcome? The leader dictated the fast sectional - no way was it handing up to the two outside it. Are you suggesting that Colt 31 was softened up by a horse it easily held out or the leader?

He wasn't travelling well AFTER he couldn't get past Colt 31. Colt 31 held him out easily and it was the leader at the time that put in the quick quarter. Why couldn't/didn't Colt 31 hold the lead from the ace draw? Are you saying Colt 31 was driven deliberately to get beaten?