Basil

If you're going to quote me Brodie, at least do so accurately. What I've previously said is that the TAB has every right, indeed the obligation, to reject business on which it expects to lose money. No sane person could believe otherwise. I've expressed no opinion on the BGP situation — which involves the TAB accepting business rather than rejecting it. I have some sympathy for the Chief's view, although would point out it's not dissimilar to new securities issues that don't have a public pool and hence are only accessible by clients of certain specified brokers. So I'm doubtful that a fair trading complaint would succeed. But it'd have more chance than your long-standing complaint to the Human Rights Commission...

Yeah, I agree. Nothing much to see here from a 'dodgy driving' perspective, although as an owner I wouldn't be too happy to see my 2yos subjected to these kinds of runs at their first starts.

Can't disagree, although I suppose non-Ockers might have a different view about whether 2 is actually a bad thing.😄 In possibly worse news, Beyond Words and Ashley Locaz have been sold to the US. The repercussions from the All Stars' demise may be starting to show through already...

What does it cost then? Given that Kiwi Rail charge like wounded bulls, "thousands" doesn't sound too unlikely.

31 — a very good innings. And yes, a top horse in a strong era — Chokin, Master Musician, Blossom Lady, Desperate Comment to name a few. Provided Jim Curtin with his first cup winner, while the 2nd in the Miracle Mile was particularly unlucky. Sadly, he had little success at stud.

Here's my 2c worth Karrots. I was a foundation subscriber back in 2015. I found them to be generally very good and so was still with them in 2017 when they sold out to another (galloping-focused) publication, which subsequently folded. I can't remember the exact details now, but it was something along the lines of having 9 months left on my HE sub and getting in exchange 3 months of the galloping publication, on the grounds that the latter had a lot more material in it than HE (conveniently ignoring that I didn't actually want any of the extra material). So having been skinned once, I've been reluctant to try again — "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me", and all that... Embarrassingly, HE wasn't actually the first time. Back in the 90s I subscribed to a similar (if less impressive) harness publication that went belly-up. A refund of outstanding subs was promised, but never materialised, even after several reminders. So I'd partly agree with JL. Well worth subscribing to — for as long as it actually stays afloat.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/123915522/rangiora-punter-shocked-at-betting-agency-tabs-reluctance-to-investigate-counterfeit-notes Seems rather ironic that the TAB that's hellbent on making punters jump through all sorts of hoops because of supposed concerns about money laundering is also totally blase about handing out dodgy notes itself on course!

This is exquisite, even by Brodie standards: BRODIE: SAFE isn't concerned about the use of the whip in harness racing. SAFE: SAFE is opposed to the use of the whip in harness racing. BRODIE: SAFE isn't concerned about the use of the whip in harness racing. It's like talking to the pie warmer... Anyway, since sensible discussion on this thread seems to have largely dried up, it seems like a good place to stop until such time as new numbers are available. Tune back in for the next edition of Basil_Facts, hopefully early in March.

Gammalite obviously didn't read this... https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/a-whip-free-day-of-racing-in-norway/ Call me pedantic, but I always prefer evidence to predictions. Anyway, you, Brodie and others are getting emotional and straying away from the fundamental point here. The facts are these: 1. On 1 October 2020, HRNZ introduced a new whip rule (which even horse bashers like Brodie approved of), citing a commitment to horse welfare. 2. In the subsequent 3 months, a minority of leading drivers have proven unable to get to grips with this rule. 3. The stewards have been remarkably lenient in enforcing this rule. Now it seems to me there's a big danger here. If you claim to be doing something for ethical reasons, and then don't follow through on the 'something', you risk ending up with major egg on your face. In this case, the much-maligned (on here) Martin Van Beynen has already written an article on the 'something': https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/123318974/harness-racing-drivers-protest-new-rule-depowering-the-whip It doesn't take much imagination to imagine the fun he could have with possession of the above 3 facts. Is that what anybody wants?

Following an earlier series of Brodie porkies on this matter, I wrote to SAFE a couple of years ago and posted their response on this forum. For the benefit of those who, like Brodie, have memory difficulties, here's the relevant bit of it again: 'Hi SAFE A quick (hopefully) question. A couple of claims have recently been made on a racing forum about SAFE’s attitude towards the use of the whip in harness racing: “S.A.F.E. We’re not even damn interested in the harness whip, they said have said that!” “A lady from SAFE stated that the harness whip was not on S.A.F.Es agenda!” Could you please confirm or deny the truth of these statements. Thanks and cheers, Basil to which they replied Hi Basil Thank you for getting in touch with your query about racing. SAFE is opposed to the use of whips in horse racing, including harness racing...It’s unacceptable to allow the use of this painful practice for the purposes of ‘entertainment’. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Kind regards, Paris Waterworth Supporter Engagement Assistant Wellington Volunteer Coordinator PO Box 28110 Kelburn Wellington 6150 04 472 9311 | safe.org.nz' In a prescient observation, I noted that Brodie would undoubtedly "continue to deny" SAFE's position — which he has!

And yet where they've tried it on a longer-term basis, there's apparently no problem: https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/a-whip-free-day-of-racing-in-norway/ They did indeed, which I think is fair enough. The worrying thing is that for many drivers on the above list, the transgression rate (and non-penalties) has increased in Nov/Dec. For example, 7 of K Newman's 9 violations occurred during that time, as did 5 of K Butt's 6, 5 of S Ottley's 7, 7 of R Holmes' 10, and so on. Perhaps the New Year will see the stewards grow a pair and start enforcing the rules. In any event, I'll do as you suggest and report back in a couple of months. Just as interesting is the names that aren't on the list — no B Orange, no T Williams, no M Purdon and no N Rasmussen (although, ironically, she was one of the three to cop a suspension on Show Day). The cream rising to the top again...

A very good question, which I've spent a couple of hours trying to answer. Here are the facts. For Canterbury meetings (and only Canterbury) held between 1 October and 31 December, I count a total of 261 breaches of the new whip rules committed by 90 drivers. Only six of these resulted in any kind of sanction (fine or suspension), i.e., just a 2.3% penalty rate, or to answer the original question — about 45 warnings for every penalty! Of course, half of the offenses are committed by drivers with just 1-2 breaches, which is what you'd expect from a group with ingrained habits trying to adapt to new rules. However, the other half is due to a much smaller group of serial offenders who, like B Mangos in the North, appear to have learning difficulties, but (unlike B Mangos) have largely escaped unscathed. This Hall of Shame is: J Curtin (12 breaches, 1 penalty) R Holmes (10, 1) C De Filippi (9, 1) K Newman (9, 0 — from a maximum of just 81 drives!) R May (8, 0) T Chmiel (7, 0) R Close (7, 0) S Ottley (7, 0) G Smith (7, 0) K Butt (6, 0) J Dunn (6, 0) B Butt (6, 1) B Hope (6, 0) K Barron (5, 0) S McNally (5, 0) A Fitzgerald (5, 0) S Tomlinson (5, 0) P Davis (5, 0) K Cameron (5, 0) All up, a total of 130 offenses and just four sanctions — a penalty rate of only 3.2% for a group of 19 persistent offenders. Even more strikingly, with the exception of the suspension handed out to B Butt on Show Day, the penalties have all been $200 fines, which are unlikely to be much of a deterrent. An intriguing comment, insofar as it's totally at odds with the SAFE response that I posted some time ago, following earlier Brodie denials. 'The Brodster's' capacity to ignore facts he doesn't like is unparalleled anywhere outside the Green Party.

Apologies if somebody else has already mentioned this, but I was reminded of it after seeing Gammalite's thread on Wolfie and decided it's just too unbelievable not to have a thread of its own. In R1 on Auckland Cup night, B Mangos was "spoken to advisedly for using his whip free of the rein". Ignoring that warning, he proceeded to do exactly the same thing in R2 and was given 3 days holiday. And if that weren't enough, he then got a further 6 days (until 12 Feb) for "using whip with more than a wrist flicking motion" in R7. Breaking the same rule (866-3) three times in one meeting must surely be some kind of record! Is it possible he had a pre-booked holiday to Fiji and needed a convenient excuse for the extra 2 weeks in quarantine? Otherwise, it's (very) concerning to have a Premier meeting driver who's apparently incapable of learning.

The usual classless comment from someone whose own mother wouldn't miss him. FWIW (and I realise that's not much), I will miss the All Stars a lot, as will anyone who likes to see horses reach their full potential. The consequences will be enormous — forget NZ pacers winning regularly in Oz, and be prepared for the return of 4 minute-plus Cups. Sure, some mediocre talents will get their chance to pick up a few undeserved scraps, and Brodie will see more 'value' in big races, but that's a poor return on what will be lost.

Coming from someone who's elevated tedium to an art form, this comment must be hot favourite to take out the 2020 BOAY Irony Award. And starting a whole new thread just to whimper about getting a 'bad post' ranking is paying $1.01 to walk away with the 2020 BOAY Self-Obsession Cup.

Ye gods man! What are you saying and in what language are you saying it? Compared to most others on this topic, Gammalite is a shining beacon of sanity.

Hardly. Apart from animal welfare concerns having been around a lot longer than the woke movement (particularly its current manifestation), that movement has precisely nothing to say about animal welfare. They're completely separate positions. As for the difference in treatment of crayfish according to whether they're in a restaurant or a fishing boat, surely the solution is to fix the latter rather than decry the former. Or are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right and that policy should be guided by the lowest common denominator?

This thread is a microcosm of the situation harness currently finds itself in. In response to any suggestion of dodgy dealings by an industry participant (unless of course it's the All Stars), the vast majority adopt a head-in-the-sand, victim-blaming, shoot-the-messenger position, while Happy and one or two others who point out that harness has only itself to blame for all the negative publicity are like voices crying in the wilderness. Let's be brutally honest here and accept the cold, hard truth: after a century of harness treating the public with contempt, the chickens are now coming home to roost. Times have changed, and harness hasn't been able to change with them. I retain the hope that it'll yet do so, but the prospects aren't looking good.

If MPI is responsible, you’ve nothing to worry about. In the last month alone, they’ve been caught with their pants down twice. In one case they declined to prosecute a serious animal welfare breach and in another recommended that provisions of the 2018 Animal Welfare Act be ignored. Both cases were subsequently taken up by private complainants who prevailed in court. MPI won’t even know these regulations exist, let alone enforce them. At very best, they’ll be used, as Happy suggests, as padding in more serious cases. The far greater concern, as always, is that those more serious cases will simply be brushed under the carpet.

Why are you bothering Harewood? Remember the old adage about mud-wresting with a pig — you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it. Leave HTP to wallow in his swill. As you point out, pretty soon he'll be alone in the trough. A classic illustration of Gresham's Law.

HTP's primary school English teacher, I presume?

The unspeakable supporting the insufferable?

This sounds good, but I wonder how long such 'collaboration' will last. I also wonder why harness should have to pay for its own new all-weather track when the thoroughbreds are getting several courtesy of the taxpayer. https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/racing/three-codes-urged-work-collaboratively

But it's a perfectly reasonable point. Comparing UDRs from 12-month seasons with a 6-week UDR from an upside-down season is comparing apples with oranges. Try again in 6 months and if it's still the same we'll admit you're onto something. But at the moment all you've really got is noise.

That's not correct. The rules of harness racing give HRNZ considerable latitude in the granting of licences. For example: 315 (3) (c): (The Board shall) in its discretion without assigning any reason therefore refuse to grant (a licence)... https://infohorse.hrnz.co.nz/dochr/hrnz/MASTER-RULE-CHANGES-20-12-19.pdf So they'll have had their reasons, and are entitled to act on those reasons, even if some don't agree with them.