the galah

Because i ask why they hadn't released the findings of the nsw commission and the queensland report,you say i'm anti greyhound racing.I think thats over defensive thinking on your part there. And you seem to ignore that critics of the greyhound industry gain traction ,when they continually say,well if you've got nothing to hide,just release the report. You've again suggested the reason the report hasn't been released is because greyhound nsw is too busy with other priorities and that it doesn't have anything to do with what i suggested seemed the likely reason. i.e.the government giving them extra time to try to get their house in order to mitigate the negative aspects of the report,before it was released.. so you believe greyhound nsw. Well i don't myself. And hang on,your thinking appears based on the presumption that greyhound nsw have control of releasing the report.. i think its a bit odd ,that anyone would think greyhound nsw are the ones who decide whether the report be released or not.The nsw government,not the greyhound industry asked and paid for the reports. The nsw one must have cost hundreds of thousands if not a million or two to hear and prepare. The hearing of evidence alone was hard over several months.So given the taxpayers paid for it,why do you think nsw greyhounds should decide what and when the public get to see it. its the nsw government who are running interference for the greyhound industry and i thought its always been obvious that the destiny of the greyhound industry everywhere is its about the influence politics on its future and of course vice versa,how public opinion of the industry effects political decisions. In other words the current nsw government has invested heavily in the greyhound industry and believe its in their political interests to mitigate any fall out as they are tied to the decision to keep the industry going and they have invested so heavily in it. anyways,i read quite a lot of the evidence heard by the commission. I have to say i got bored with it about half way through,but i think i had an understanding of some of the things that would be in the report. How much of the evidence did you read.Of course theres always 2 sides of the story and that was presented in evidence and you would assume that would be reflected in the report.

well add 1 more to that. But ithe numbers have been widely reported in severeral media articles and the coalition for the protection of greyhounds lists each one death,the injury and the date they were put down. About half were put down on the day of the races .The other half were stood down due to significant injury sustained in the race,then officially listed as dead with a week or so of the race. The information comes from the official gryhound records so theres no arguing that they aren't accurate.they had about 430 other injuries in about the last 6 months as well during the races..

Everyone has got so used to the ATC thing by now, that no one expects much from the atc or hrnz anymore,other than to let auckland continue,irrespective of the self harm and harm they do the industry as a whole. just groundhog day. Its great that westpacs not panicking though...Actually why would anyone think they would panic. Thats a bit of a mystery as they won't ever lose any money,but hey,they're not ,so thats good so we are told.

i just had a look at the unhinged interview and it seems the owner trainer had been in hospital for about 4 weeks and munro had the horse in that time.Munro mentioned dover terrace had worked well ,at, sounds like dalgetys recently and was expected to race well.I thought it great to see that trainer get a win.I wish there was more people like him still in the game,but unfortunately there aren't anymore. Anyway,from memory i think it was a horse that at times could look a little hairy and sweaty pre race but last night it looked spot on and a lot of work would have gone into getting it like that,with munro just topping it off with a different environment. and company work. We've all got our own theories and one of the ones i have isthe likes of beach work will improve almost any horse,as long as it settles in,but that only last for a couple of weeks and then there is no improvement and if they are worked on the beach a bit hard they actually go off pretty quick. We've had about 3 horses trained like that and the same pattern emerged for each one.i'm not saying that applied in this case. I also have a theory that horses worked around the grass verges of the roads and jogged 45 minutes will end up much ,much fitter than one jogged around a track for 30-40 minutes.i'm absolutely sure of that from trying that but the only thing is a farmer with a tractor trailer full of big hay bales flapping,tailgating you for no apparent reason ,can cause your horse an injury. I've often wondered whether that was part of p nairns winning formula when he was going good,although i have no idea how he works them. That was just a guess. anyway the point is there can be quite a difference in performance within 2-4 weeks sometimes. personally i think that racing in nz is pretty good as far as everything currently being above board.the riu did a good good in recent years,not so sure about the last year or so,they need to do more out of competition testing but i'm guessing maybe a couple of administrators probably wouldn't want that .Theres only a couple of stables that i would guess the vet helps significantly enough to notice. I think the cullen stable is by far the best current example of that,but i'm only guessing.Not saying its anything that other couldn't get if they used the same vet,although i have noticed over the years that tyhe odd,now retired vet certainkly had his favorites when it came to things like that. Anyway ,i had better not go down that rabbit hole or chief will get all fired up.

personally i think the michael house horses are relatively consistent,but some can have their good days and bad,just like other trainers. Don't see anything unusual ever happens with that stable. like yesterday,santanna mach had been running below par for its last few starts,but he was well paced in not a very strong field yesterday and seemed to improve enough on recent runs to win again.I didn't pick him to win,based on the recent racing but wasn't over surprsed he won based on what hes capable of.Beudiene quick step from the same stable is another that can be like that. Actually yesterdayn i had thought w house first 2 drives would win,delightful dreams and ask me lazarus,but both ran well below their last start runs.Still they will probably bounce back again quickly.I think w house choses what he thinks is the best drive each time,just sometimes it doesn't quite turn out that way. b munro doesn't drive too many,but him driving never puts me off. He doesn't drive much and that win yesteday took his udr back up to .2278 for this year. last year it was .3232 and the year before he only had 1 drive and it ran 2nd. I have no idea of who he works for but always got the impression he had something to do with that b mcintyres horses down south and hes had some nice handy horses. he of course got a bit of publicity one time for being a bit insensitive with his language on the rugby field. That was a strange story that seemed to be blown out of proportion . At the time it seemed a sign of the times and i found it sort of funny when you looked at the context of him having been a canterbury rugby maori representative. But hey,maybe thats just my sense of humour. anyway,i has a small bet on it ,just based on how healthy and relaxed it was pre race,knowing it had shown the odd glimpse of speed in the past and that i had never noted it looking so good in the past.Of course its always easy to say that after the race,but thats what it appeared like pre race..I saw nothing of concern about the way it won. It wasn't a win based on endless stamina,it simply just had too much speed for the horses it ran against last night.

i think the form kingman has shown,he looks the obvious one to me,but i don't know whether he goes away from a stand and then we don't even know if hes coming or not. But theres only 3 weeks to go and hes the form horse. Republican party is the form horse in nz, but i think he would need the idela run to win. I.e.if he got the front early without working much,which of course may happen. While he has been too good for the other nz horses recently,i think the gap between him and the others isn't as much as the recent results indicate. He has been very well driven recently by c dalgety and really his driver has used the horses capabilities and just outsmarted the other drivers a bit as well. i think 2/3 of the likely field could run in the top 3 if they got a cosy run on the markers and then got a gap at the right time. but to me it looks like kingman to win if he comes. leap to fame still has to be a chance,but hes not racing as well as kingman has in recent starts and im don't know why he would come if hes not at his best.. whats your thoughts.

can't say i knew that you invest on the nz cup futures market. I'm truly surprised anyone does given the odds of the horses are so significantly shorter than you would get for 100% of them on the day of the races. And your betting into that market with no idea what your selection is drawn and in several instances little idea whether the horse will even start or what the opposition is.. then throw in you have been betting under the assumption a horse, who may well start favorite if it comes,(kingman),was not a possible starter and now knowing it had not even been in the market until this week. with so many factors working against anyone considering having a bet in the nz cup futures market,i assumed,obviously wrongly,that only a moron would have such a bet. Obviously your not a moron. So i will reword my comment based on what you've said. I have to be honest ,so now say,smart people obviously do bet into that market,but i think the bet,not the person,is stupid.

i think its very likely he doesn't want to race the horse when he thinks theres something not 100% with him.Makes sense. But he hasn't pulled out yet so who knows what may happen.

So the premise of your whole argument is that winning a race while the race is classified as for 2 year olds, is of greater importance than winning the very same race ,while the race is classified as being for 3 year olds. and so on.. thats why i said,well if that is the factor of so much importance and you can do it by moving the dob like they did,then its just as logical to say why not make the d.o.b. as the 1 st of april instead of the 1st of january. Because that way it will lead to even more winners who are classified as 2 year olds,the thing you deem of so much importance. i not saying they should do that,i'm just pointing out how artificial that logic is. If the field sizes and turnovers for all these 2 year old races were anywhere near the average for races elsewhere,then you wouldn't get the level of criticism you get directed towards the 2 year old racing stakes and bonuses. But they aren't are they.and as much as you and others place no significance to them,the reasons are obvious. Racing administrators need to acknowledge the realities of today for all races,including age group races ,and run the quantity and quality of races everywhere, based on the demand horse numbers wise for them. Its just a common sense business model which maximes profit and minimisess loss. That way they won't run out of money in years to come and everyone who is still in the sport won't need to suffer. well,it wasn't that long ago that racing clubs would not run races if they only had 6 guaranteed starters. only about 20 years ago. and why did they do that. Becuase they deemed them unviable financially. so,whats changed. The thinking of those in charge has changed. And they currently have money from the entain deal and are happy to spend it until it runs out because they have enough of that money left to last another 3 or 4 years and by then those making the decisions to spend now will have moved on.Then the cuts will start. Its inevitable. And running 4 horse races with next to nothing in turnover will only make the day of reckoning come quicker.On that cherry note i will end this post.

well,i have to point out this topic is another in a long list of topics about the same subject. i.e. the very small field size in so many 2 year old races,often with the higher stake races. i've never disagreed with you when you say people will be aiming to have their horses in these races when they train them early in their careers. So we agree on that. and i agree there has to be good financial incentive and reward for the connections of those who do end up with a top young horse But when trainers and owners come to realisation their horses at best could well get gut busting runs ,just to run a midfield place at best,they think, whats the point in that,their horses have greater earning potential in graded races or at other tracks and therefore are placed accordingly. Thats just what happens and makes perfect sense anyway. the only time you will get larger numbers in the age group feature races is when the abilities of the horses is more even.Or when you have runners with connections who are willing to sacrifice their lesser horses because they like to be there for the big occassions.99% of trainers don't want to sacrifice their better horses to run midfield in a big race.They don't have the numbers waiting in the wings to do that to them. then you get the very rare trainer,like say brad mowbray who is happy to go around with an inexperienced green horse, to earn an extra couple of thousand for running at the back. Hey good luck to brad mowbray,but very few new zealand trainers do that. hrnz realise that,which is why they have to pay out around $3000-$5000 to the horses that run last in some of those high stake age group races.And why they think its a great idea to pay out bonuses from next year to some horses who run last in any 2 year old race. You often talk about the need for high stakes to go to the top end,yet the races you talk about reward the horses who can't keep up and run in the last few with tens of thousands in these bigger races. as to the change of season. Thats just a red herring in my opinion.A horse is born on the same date and has lived the same number of days ,whether they changed the official date of birth for all horses to the 1st of january or left it as the 1st of august.No one can argue thats not correct. Like i have always said,its just smoke and mirrors to say they are getting more 2 year olds to race now we have changed the d.o.b. to 31 december. They would have run anyway in december, whether they were shown as a 2 or 3 year olds based on the official.d.o.b. It would have made just as much sense to just changed the wording on the race programming. i think theres always been a lack of logic for anyone to say a horse is more likely to race as a late 2 year old,than as as an early 3 year old,simply because they went and changed the date.Using that logic,i could say lets put the d.o.b. back another 3 months to 1st april and that way we will get even more 2 year olds lining up. And then i could claim how clever that is. At the end of the day,it all comes back to the cost to the industry of runningraces with small filelds that generate next to no turnover. there has to be a balance found where the owners of the best young horses are rewarded enough by way of stakemoney,but very importantly that has to be balanced with the flow on impact on stakes for the races that generate the turnover that provide the money to pay all stakes. In other words if you over subsidize the product that is draining your finances and underfund the product that is replenishing your finances,then that will mean you have to cut back on the funding for all the industry,including the part of the industry generating the profit,which will lead to less partuicpation at that lower lever,which will lead to less money being generated,which will inevitably lead to less funding for the high end races. so in effect, maintained the level of stakes in the high end races,irrespective of whether they have only 4 runners, will lead to significant reduction in stakes for the very people you want to get it. a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. one of the ojnly positives for nz is the likes of victoria was silly enough to keep paying the big stakes to the top end horses,so they ran out of money,had to cut stakes significantly or they folded,and now that don't import as many nz horses,which is a plus for the nz industry as far as oless horses being exported. always a silver lining somewhere if you look hard enough.

if what you said actually played out ,then yes that would make sense. But it doesn't and has never done so. Your making an argument that simply ignores reality. trainers/owners know that pushing their young horses to enable them to be a likely also ran in a high stake race is rather pointless and often counterproductive. its been like that for decades.How long a pattern do people have to have befiore they see something. Administrators can ignore the obvious,but its obvious to everyone else.. administrators woke up a little with their 2 year old bonuses this year and announced and in effect announced,hey these 2 year old bonuses we have been paying,well,duh,they failed to get any more starters so what we will try next is ,lets pay them $4000 to run last at their first 2 year old start if a horse meets the sale conditions..In other words they admitted they had failed but doubled down on failure and went again with another hair brained scheme that benefitted only a very small % of the industry.

can anyone tell me what the point is of the tab having a futures market on the nz cup. And why do the harness media continually talk about the market ,then in the next breath state the obvious,that only an absolute moron would bet on the futures market anyway. here we are about 3 weeeks out from the nz cup and the tab prices are pathetically small for all the runners and now,given the latest news story on the hrnz website,it seems a horse who has never been ever considered a possible starter,(kingman) may well be allowed to throw in a late nomination and would most likely start favorite if he does. i mean,its humourous in a way,but ridiculous to the extreme. isn't it about time the tab stopped ripping off the dumb and the nz racing media stopped talking about odds that their audience know are just a load of rubbish.

your above reply to my comment brushes over the point i made. and i suppose you've done that on purpose. I guess your just trying to mitigate negative comment some outsiders may make about this site, because you allow greater freedom of speech and allow some posts that others may not. i don't know,why not just do as you say in the last sentence of your above reply. In this case,say to mr fitzgerald ,look you got some bad publicity from peter profit, who for reasons your unaware of doesn't like you,but hey forbury's post repeating that comment has given you a chance to clarify the facts and now people can see whats what.. So instead of people coming on here and suggesting this site is full of complainers talking shit(which fitzgerald did),tell him or anyone else to step back and get some perspective and deal with life,but also,tell them they are free to use this site to get across to people the message they may want to sell,but of course realise they may get the occassional response from someone saying,hey,i don't agree with you or you've overreacted.. So personally chief i think you shouldn't be empathising with people who don't have perspective,,because those very same people sometimnes have an ulterior motive,which is sometimes to paint the very small % of posters as a reflection of the overall posts that appear on here. anyways ,thats what i would do,but isay that realising i'ts not my site and your the fella clever enough to run a site like this which everyonne appreciates.

i've watched leap to fames last 3 runs and they all have been below his best.I've always been a fan of his, but i'd be very surprised he turns up and if he does he won't win on his current form. Then you have swayzee and all the hard racing and what they would have pumped into him may finally be catching up with him. i've been amazed that he kept going as long as he did.he's had a wonderful career but they aren't machines. But you would think he won't come either.So all the talk from the clever people about the need to attract the aussies with the million dollar stake,well that looks like it will fall very flat.Still the nz cup will be a great race whoever is in it.

well you quoted me . So your saying forbury has a history of posting,to use your words."absolute rubbish".And at the same time, your saying you fully undertsand why someone would get upset about forbury's posts. Those comments combined like you have, seem to illustrate a lack of perspective by you and the person getting upset at forbury's comments. so you run a racing social media site and are thankful new particpants have nothing to do with racing social media. so i guess that means you think most who contribute on your site are full of constant negativity. interesting. Then shouldn't we be blaming you to a degree because your enabling the negativity. Also,its nice you that you have observed the succesful people having an enjoyable time, are managing to avoid the constant negative people on course. Let me guess,a sign of the ones having a successful enjoyable time will be they won't be on social media.