Basil

He's retired. But prior to that he was one of the best racing journalists ever seen in NZ, one who actually managed some elegant and original phrasing and didn't just trot out the same old tired cliches.

Well yes, but all that really tells us is how soft the old record was, and how rarely open-class horses race over the 2200m stand at Alexandra Park. For some perspective, CB's mile rate last night (1.57.7) was 0.6 secs slower than Lazarus went over 2 miles in the 2016 Cup. And the last mile (which is a fair chunk of a 2200m race) last night consisted of two halves of 63 and 54 — surely that's a 'sprint home' in anybody's book? Don't get me wrong, it was a great performance by CB, one that confirmed what I've previously said about him being one of the 2-3 leading hopes for the Cup this year on class alone. But that doesn't change the fact (well, the fact according to moi ?) that Z Butcher made it a lot easier for him than he could have.

A very good point about the drive. By contrast, I was scratching my head about Z Butcher's effort. So come on you driving experts, help me out on this one — why, when your main (only?) rival has galloped away and is at least 50 metres behind you, would you then proceed to walk round and turn the race into a sprint home? Wouldn't the best strategy be to put the hammer down and make it physically impossible for the laggard to ever catch you? As I say, I know bugger-all about driving horses, but a golden rule of cross-country running was "never give a sucker an even break". So if somebody faster than you fell at a fence or slipped in some mud, you took off in an attempt to take full advantage of it. What you certainly didn't do (well, some gentlemen may have, but I was never one of those) was slow down and allow the fallen rival to catch up! Yet that's precisely what Z Butcher did. Maybe it's different at the horses, but I don't see how.

What are you talking about? Virtually all of it is just quoting the JCA decision. And it's perfectly clear.

The two times Mcwicked's beaten Lazarus have been when either Laz (i) was sick or (ii) had a much harder run. So this should be Laz's race to lose. The counter-view is that he's been sick again... Filibuster Hanover could be the giant-killer.

Still a race record though, I believe, and seconds faster than either of Lazarus's wins. I agree the 'Aussies' must fancy their chances, but I wonder whether either of them are really 2-milers. TT hasn't quite seen it out in the past (albeit against Lazarus), and while Chicago Bull is clearly a very good horse he's untried as far as a fast 2 miles against decent opposition is concerned. Still, if Ultimate Machete doesn't begin cleanly, it may not matter this year. Not to mention the fact that I've been wrong before...

A classic example of "a farmer with a horse". Except that in his case the horse happened to be a champion. His driving was, though, eccentric. I remember Scotch Tar winning a big race at Forbury after racing 4 and 3 wide the whole way. At the presentation, Slim apologised for "driving like a cowboy", which gave everybody a good laugh. So did, in the days of Telethon, his acceptance speech after ST's second Dominion consisting of "Thank you very much for your kind donation".

Here: https://infohorse.hrnz.co.nz/dochr/marketing/HRNZSub.pdf Seems mainly sensible, at least as far as I can tell from a quick reading. Possibly pulls its punches a bit. A couple of things I noticed in passing: • the proposal to expropriate club land is certainly not "commendable" — it is deplorable, counter-productive in the long run, and just plain wrong. • the proposal to base code distributions on "contribution to the economy" is barking — such a metric is at best subjective, at worst unmeasurable.

Yes, something like this could work, although it'd probably need to be on a hill (or at least have an unimpeded view) and there might need to be a couple of them. As it happens, Methven did have a smaller version of this on the course, but it (i) was in a bad place — past the winning post and (ii) was decidedly flimsy — so much so that when a 20-stoner climbed on, I promptly got off!

I agree with this at courses like Waikouaiti where there's a natural grass embankment, or even Kaikoura where you can get up on the hill. But on flat courses (which is most of them), it's nice to have the bit of elevation provided by a stand'.

Yes, this is what I was referring to. Given that the typical winning score (or so we were told) was in the $2000-$3000 range, I'd have thought that the optimal strategy for anybody getting to $3600 by halfway would be to have $50 place bets for the rest of the card (preferably on a scratching!) and let the odds work in your favour. Instead, they seemed to go ballistic. Very generous of them to let the rest of us back into it.? Of course, I see that one team (not sure if it was the early leader) had six live quaddie chances going into the last race, including Johnnie White. If he'd stuck his nose out a little more, it'd have been all over red rover!

Well, I'm pleased to report that my group split into two teams and one of them won! Admittedly not the one I was in (as I predicted, we lost the lot, despite utilising Counter Punch's excellent tip!) But reflected glory and all that...? My 'other team' were 8th going into the last race, but put a $300 place bet on Leading The Way @ 7s and somehow jumped all the way to 1st. The strategies employed by some of the leading teams seemed a little peculiar... BTW, where has the public grandstand gone?

Will be interesting — Mt Hutt apparently had its biggest snow dump (45cm) of the season last night. Down in Methven, my freshly-groomed car is covered in the white stuff (?), although it's melting now as the sun is out and there isn't a cloud to be seen. But it's cold, and there was a lot of hail and rain yesterday, so a dead/soft track seems inevitable.

Cough. Following a fair bit of success at Methven over the past few years, a few of my mates are sufficiently confident to throw their hat into this ring, and drag me along with them. You know what they say about pride cometh before a fall... Under public pressure, we'll probably crumble completely and lose the lot!? Anyway, I am very much the weak sister of this team. So in order to make some kind of contribution (which will probably be ignored anyway), I would appreciate BOAY posters passing on any good bully you may possess. For the (my) greater good, don't keep it to yourselves! Thanks in anticipation, Basil

Yes, tend to agree. My concern with Rachmaninov is not so much how he's driven, but the number of times he's racing. Since his first race 20 months ago, he's had 40 starts, which means, given that he's also had two spells totalling over 7 months, that he's racing pretty much every week. That seems unlikely to be a long-term benefit for any horse, regardless of how he's driven.

You're in New York?! And Happy has told us Lazarus is racing at Yonkers next week! We want, and expect, a full Brodster report.

Ouch.? Having made the supreme sacrifice to get up at 0400, only to discover our timing was awry and we still had to sit through the national anthems and haka, the 20yo and I were determined to see it through to the eventually-not-so-bitter end! The sleeping members of the household were not so happy when Savea scored the match-winner... I assume you've found Laz's replay by now, but if not it's on here: http://www.harnesslink.com/International/McWicked-paces-1-46.2-beats-Lazarus-at-Red-Mile Incidentally, the thesis that mile racing is inherently boring didn't get much support from this race. There were, what, 3 (?) changes of lead, horses were on and off the pegs, the leaders ended up amongst the also-rans, the winner came from 4th and the runner-up form 6th/7th, and it was all over in a tick over 1:46. Hard to beat that for entertainment!

Yes, Lazarus was wide or parked the whole way, while Macwicked got to sit 3 back and hook off on the turn. Tremendous effort to get so close. Not 100% sure, but I suspect the time may have actually been 1.46.4 — the Americans tend to express times in 1/5ths rather than 1/10ths of a second.

I see. So it's a case of "I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but..." Rather like those who claim "I believe in free speech, but..." You're not the Massey vice-chancellor, are you?? I'm afraid that the so-called "big picture" is actually a tiny (almost embryonic) canvas. The "public's perception of the integrity of Harness racing" is very small beer indeed compared to the public's perception of the fairness and rule-of-law basis of the justice system. The latter is the "big picture"; the former is not. If you want to protect the reputation and future of harness racing, come up with ways of actively identifying future and not-yet-caught transgressors. Shutting the stable door on horses that have already bolted achieves precisely nothing. QED.

Sorry, but I can't quite work out whether or not you agree with yourself here. You say the presumption of innocence is 'fair enough', but then spend several paragraphs arguing against it in this case. So for the avoidance of all doubt, do you or do you not agree with the principle of innocent until proven guilty? If you do, why do you then oppose it in this case? If I understand you correctly, you're of the view that HRNZ has to do something in order to prevent harness racing's reputation being 'forever tarnished'. Fair enough (although I'm doubtful that any more than a tiny percentage of the population either knows or cares about Operation Inca). But as I've pointed out, banning the alleged offenders from race courses does nothing to deter the continuation of the offenses with which they're charged (and may in fact encourage more) — so how exactly does the banning protect the reputation of harness racing? It seems more like a classic case of tilting at windmills. I also don't follow the relevance of your question about whether racing has 'stopped or diminished' in the last few weeks. Are you suggesting it would have suffered these consequences if the charged parties had not been banned from race courses? If so, based on what evidence? It seems purely speculative to me. One thing I do agree with is that HRNZ are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Whichever way they jump they'll be subject to considerable criticism. In other industries, such circumstances are often dealt with by 'suspension on full pay'. Obviously that's not possible here, but I then worry that they'll be on the hook for large compensation claims if any of the charged are subsequently found not guilty.

The biggest picture of all is the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It's the bedrock of a rule-of-law, as opposed to totalitarian, system. Without it, we just become...well, you get the picture. In any event, race fixing and drug consumption are hardly hindered by not being able to attend race meetings, so the penalty seems to have little to do with the (alleged) offense. If anything, making it impossible to earn a legitimate income is likely to encourage grander attempts to obtain an illegitimate one. That truly would be an own goal.

To be fair though, that's largely because they go so fast — you're not going to see many lead changes, or swoopers from the back, when they're running successive 54 second halves off the front. The breed has evolved to the extent that, at least over a mile, they can burn early and still keep going — so the only way you'll get NZ-style changes of position is if drivers start playing cat-and-mouse (which would then be subject to its own criticism). Is it boring? As a contest, perhaps yes. But if you enjoy seeing athletic ability pushed to its potential bounds, then surely not. I don't think many would say Kipchoge's recording-breaking run in last week's Berlin marathon was boring, despite it being a complete procession.

It's not "bordering" on a rant — it very definitely is one! At times, he makes some reasonable points (e.g., we should be concerned about an 18 month operation to catch a few recreational drug users), but they're mixed in with plenty of fatuous ones as well (e.g., fixing of a 'few minor races' is no big deal) — there's just no quality control in his thought processes. Plus his liberal use of exclamation marks reminds me of the old Phantom comics (Ghost who walks!!! Man who never dies!!!)

Tend to agree, although I wouldn't write off Dream About Me if they can keep her sound and healthy.

Yeah, nah.? I can think of a couple of reasons why trainers might do this. One is a genuine, if misplaced, fear of being caught up in Operation Inca if their tips go awry. Like the way men abandoned early childhood education after the Peter Ellis fiasco — probably excessive, but understandable. The other is simple petulance — because the media and the police have been so horrible to us, we'll take our bat and ball and go home. Like the tennis umpires threatening a boycott after the Serena Williams tantrum. Not exactly admirable, but, again, understandable. So I don't think describing their actions as 'moronic' quite fits.