Basil

Well, that certainly makes it 1-0 to the pot over the kettle at half-time... Leaving aside the complete irrelevance of this hysterical (and incomprehensible) nonsense to the matter being discussed, I guess I'd better point something out before you humiliate yourself completely: Basil is, and has long been, vegan.

You've certainly missed it alright, and by several goal-widths at that. Perhaps try reading again what I said...

So claiming (repeatedly) that SAFE hold a position that is in fact the complete opposite of their actual stated position is not a porky? Has the English language recently changed? As to the wider point, I've said this before and now I'll say it again (despite the strain it puts on the supply of voodoo dolls in Basil's image) — anybody who moans about the 10-hit rule but doesn't support removing the confusion by changing 10 to zero is either (i) in cloud-cuckoo land or (ii) just likes hitting horses. Which of (i) and (ii) are you?

I was going to take Brodie's advice and not bother, since he's beyond all reason on this topic (and most others as well). But this particular claim is a blatant porky, as a simple look at the SAFE website would have revealed: https://safe.org.nz/whipping Worse still, it's been shown to be a porky multiple times on this forum, including as recently as December! https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/108544739/horse-racing-the-sport-of-kings-or-dead-cert-gamblingdriven-animal-cruelty If you must bore for NZ Brodie, at least stick to the truth.

I've given up bothering, for the simple reason that, like somebody else we all hear far too much of, Brodie is impervious to facts. His list of enemies, and his views on them, are fixed in advance: • The NZRB is evil • The TAB is doubly evil • HRNZ is evil • All stipes are evil • The 10 strikes law is the epitome of evil • The All Stars are, if not actually evil, then certainly very dangerous • Anybody who disagrees with him is probably evil and certainly clueless (especially if they respond with facts) Have I missed anybody??

Surprised nobody's seen fit to mention this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/109643761/mp-chris-bishop-to-introduce-bill-for-byo-alcohol-at-the-races Nothing short of a brain transplant would ever induce me to vote for NZ First, but all power to their elbow on this one I say. Now if they'd only remember that it's also a kiwi tradition to take a full chilli bin to cricket matches as well...?

That's precisely my point. And restrictions (either by bet or by bettor) are pretty much the only risk management tool open to them (there aren't futures contracts they can buy to hedge their risk). If they follow the Brodie prescription and eschew such restrictions, then the risk premium they charge would have to go up considerably, i.e., the odds would be significantly shorter on all horses. Or, to put it in Econ 101 terms, there is no free lunch. Everything comes at a cost.

This is actually a good question Brodie. But why don't you ask the TAB? Their response would be interesting (and if they didn't respond that would be even more interesting...)

With good reason! Without any restrictions in place, they apparently dropped $100K on the last race on Show Day alone (in the Kiwi Punter's Comp). In such an asymmetric information environment, any business that consistently took the kinds of risks some on here seem to think the TAB should take quickly becomes an ex-business. Repeatedly moaning about it just ignores the most basic laws of economics (and is boring to boot).

Crikey! According to your various accusations Brodie, I'm an employee of the TAB, a member of the NZRB, an HRNZ insider, connected to the All Stars, and now, apparently, tied in with "officialdom" (so presumably a stipe). I'm obviously one busy boy — god knows how I find time to do my day job...? Anyway, separating the substantive claims from the ad hominen insults, it turns out the former are in fact all wrong. By running off the track and back on, Mr Yips more than completed the distance (unless you've somehow managed to repeal the laws of physics). Although there was a general tightening of the field as Mr Yips came back onto the course proper, there were no serious checks in the usual sense of the word. And the horses closest to the action arguably ended up in better positions (1-1 rather than 3 back inner, and 4 back outer rather than 4 back inner). Sure, at first glance it didn't look great. But a sober examination of the facts suggests the stipes' decision was at least defensible. We can argue until the cows come home about whether or not it was correct, but describing it as pathetic, shameful, irrational etc is a significant over-reaction.

Nope. She would have been 3 back if Mr Yips had stayed on an even keel, but ended up in the 1-1. Similarly, the horse that would have been 4 back on the inner (Comic Book Hero) ended up 4 back on the outer. Sure, the latter, and some others, had to be briefly restrained, but their position in the field wasn't adversely affected.

Yes, on balance, I too am inclined to this obviously unpopular dissenting opinion (but please, don’t send me back to RC — I’m already banned from there for disagreeing with the conventional view?). Not knowing exactly what the law says, I’ve no idea if the stipes got it legally correct. But if they do indeed have discretion over what happens when a horse goes inside the pylons, it seems to me that there’s a reasonable argument that they exercised it sensibly in this case. After all, by the time the dust had settled, pretty much every horse was in the position it was going to be in if Mr Yips hadn’t pulled off a side-step Rieko Ioane would be proud of. Yes, there was a little bit of jostling and some minor checks, and one horse got briefly pushed 3-wide (but he quickly ended up exactly where he would have been anyway). Arguably (and I stress arguably!) the horse most adversely affected was Mr Yips himself. I’m also not sure what else Tony H could have reasonably been expected to do — just pull his horse up and say “Ah well, there’s always next week”? That would certainly have caused a ruckus! Anyway, I’m just not convinced that it’s as clear-cut as most on here seem to believe. Interference is part and parcel of racing and, while spectacular, this was a relatively mild example. IMHO (puts on hard helmet and ducks for cover…)

Yes, we hear you already! But what's your solution? It's not much use 'wanking on' about how the All Stars being too good for everybody else is killing NZ harness racing if you don't have a sensible, feasible and legal plan for doing something about it. So come on Brodie, let's hear some brainwaves to go along with the bitching!?

Go Spankem!! I promise not to kill his chances by putting any of my money on him.?

Agree with the general sentiment, but if by 'they' you mean SAFE, that's not quite right — they're explicitly opposed to both 1080 and racehorse 'redundancy'.

He's also been an extremely good sire. Christian Cullen apart, easily the best (off the top of my head) of the home-bred sires to have stood over the last 30-odd years, and possibly longer. His offspring didn't usually have the sheer speed of the Cullen progeny, but were frequently tougher, e.g., Smolda.

Surprised nobody's mentioned this. Anger over greyhound racing as 353 dogs euthanised this year | Stuff.co.nz.html

By and large I agree, although Cigar and Pocket Me (who admittedly didn't race much as a 3yo) were pretty handy horses.

Do you really think that a horse's competitiveness is affected by whether its faster rivals are based in one stable or spread across many stables? If not (and I assume this is the case!), then there's nothing to disagree with... If your point (now) is that a horse is less likely to be 'uncompetitive' when trained by the All Stars, then that very logic suggests you should actually want all horses to be trained by that stable! Since fewer will then be 'uncompetitive' and hence fewer will need to be sold. I'm all for subjecting the All Stars to the same scrutiny as everybody else (in fact, given their success, more scrutiny), but please, let's keep it sensible. Blaming them for phenomena they can have nothing to do with starts to look like paranoia.

Would 'they' really feel any different though? Not unless the ownership of the top horses was also different, I'd suggest. Anyway, the point I was making was just that Galah's argument defies basic logic — the temptation to sell a horse that's 'uncompetitive' is the same regardless of whether the horses it can't compete against are all in one stable or spread across a dozen. Blaming the All Stars for horses being sold makes as much sense as blaming me for the tide coming in.

Let's consider the counter-factual. Suppose Dream About Me, Cruz Bromac, Thefixer, Spankem et al were all distributed across different stables. Would that make Rakapuka Ruler and Hail Christian any more competitive with them? The competitiveness of any particular horse depends only on how fast it is relative to horses it's required to race against. Where its competitors are stabled makes exactly no difference — the horse in question neither knows nor cares.

Interesting. Here's another one. Was going great here for Ken Barron before being sent to TB. Apparently he's now been sacked and the horse sent to the Trittons.

? That's certainly the public spin, but the reality is that each would sell the others down the river by lunchtime if they thought it would improve their own competitive position. Which is as it should be. The cozy oligopoly that existed for so long was one of the chief contributors to racing's current malaise. So rather than harness worrying about unilateral whip-banning leaving the thoroughbreds exposed, I suspect they'd see that as an added bonus. It's more likely to be internal resistance that's stopping them doing it.

I did say at the time we had a lot of luck...?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/108544739/horse-racing-the-sport-of-kings-or-dead-cert-gamblingdriven-animal-cruelty Although mainly focused on thoroughbreds, it certainly gives the lie to the claim (made by some on here) that SAFE et al do not care about the use of whips. It's hard to know whether eliminating the whip would placate animal welfare groups, but it's such a simple and low-cost step to take that not giving it a try seems like gross folly.