the galah

What about that race. Brother Rob runs 2nd after being about 6 lengths behind the others at start,then sat parked all way and may have won but for going rough early in the home straight. If you watched that horses last 3 trial/workout runs in the last month,it had dropped out by 200m each time,couldn't leep warm.A bit of an improvement shown today.

personally i prefer b orange,but dalgety and dunn always give you a run for your money. S thornley,s ottley are like that. Lots of good canterbury drivers. Thats why the racing in canterbury is a better product,because the races are more competitive and they to win.

actually i just posted the same gamma without seeing your post about the next n williamson drive in race 3. i get what your saying about putting $5000 on a non win trotter.That person will never get their money back as they will make it a $1.80 favorite next time and it may not win. But having watched the race today,the punter did actually get it right.It really only had to be let run and it would have won,but that happens sometimes and its just part of gambling on the trots. No ill intent,just the drivers and trainers sometimes are thinking of their horses long term earning potential and getting their confidence up.Of course if it was the anyone connected with the horse who put the $5000 on then they would be feeling a bit sick after the race.

I've always thought the canterbury drivers who drive a lot of grass tracks seem better than the average southern driving on grass tracks,simply because they like to get handy. race 3 another examlpe of that.N williamson,who is normally a very good driver,again waited 200m into the straight before pulling out when 6 lengths off the leaders. A canterbury driver would have been getting their momentum up well before that.You wouldn't expect them to go all out when they make a move,but you would think they would be trying to position there horses in a position to give them a chance.They should know its hard to make up 6 lengths in the last 200m of any race.no matter what the track.

yeah,i had a look at the replay and of the 3 gallopers,one was galloping 50m before hand,another the horse was in front but not concentrating well before the crossing and galloped a couple of strides before the crossing and then the 3rd galloper seemed to resent being restrained when having to change ground so galloped. the horse in front on the inside kept trotting but wanted to run out bad before and after the crossing so it wasn't th crossing. what about the person who put $5000 on my bonnie lass to win on the ff. It was the horse that galloped early but really settled close enough,but n williamson simply sat far too long before he asked it to go over the last 300m,just coming up short. Really it lookied like it was being given more an educational type run,so imagine having $5000on and watching that race.They would have been cursing to themselevs a tad.

i quoted their exact wording earlier,which implies more than what you say. but i agree with you they lack transparency. If things were as good as they make out,then all they would have to do is release the fugures and show that and that would silence the naysayers.

tomnights tote betting pools are rather pitiful . The last 3 races at auckland haven't even made over $3000 in the win pool. Most of the others under $4000. hrnz spokes people keep saying the turnovers are good,well it can't be betting on the tote. Addington had a couple of races ok ,which obviously got a couple of minutes more coverage around tea time in australia,but the rest of the pools very small.Manawatu type tote turnovers some of the racesit seems some drivers simply aren't trying very hard. or just waiting for next week.The last 2 races, $1.90 favorite ameretto franco simply never given a chance to win by sitting last on a sprint home even though the trainer indicated before ,in a pre race interview,he thought it would be drivin positively, then one of the 2 win movers at auckland in a 6 horse race,bettor raction at $4,definetly driven to just follow them around. oh well.

i gave them the benefit of the doubt on the basis that as a handicapping,rating and programming committee ,they had commented on turnovers, when it was not their area they were tasked with,thus they may not have had all the data. my main point was they had commented on turnovers to create a positive spin ,but they deliberately used language that could be taken 2 ways to cover their arses from future criticism should information become public which showed they were wrong in how they spun it. to be honest,i'm a bit confused as to what your saying in your post as i think it could be taken 2 ways. 1) that you believe what they are saying, as you are saying they have access to all the data to back that up so wouldn't say it unless they knew it was true.. or 2)you don't believe what they say,because of the vagueness of the language they use in their report.

huh.i explained why .No point picking out bits Again,that ain't neccassarily so,even probably so. i explained why if you read my whole post. but for you again. if you run x amount of races and those amount of races are not generating enough income from wagering to cover the stakes paid.And then you increase the amount of races from x to y,and you generate the same turnover per race on the y races as you had on the x races,then what you have done is maintained turnover but increased the deficit between turnover and stakes paid,because you have run more of them. you just miss the points i made,i can't help that.

on the hrnz website theres a story that refers to a sub committee of a ratings ,handicapping and programming commttee. This group comprised of rob lawson,mike johnson and brett gray. in section 6 of their report thay noted "turnovers appear very strong.Note tis hard to compare year on year as the number of race meetings and number of races has increased and we have also had cambridge changed from tuesday to thursday.The good news overwhelmingly is that turnovers certainly have NOT(their use of caps) dropped" very generalised , vague,in many ways,but trying to be upbeat. they say Its hard to compare year on year figures because of the major changes,but they did anyway because they believe the turnovers haven't dropped. no mention of how geoblocking has effected nz wagering,how it has impacted income from overseas bookmakers who take betting on the nz harness product,the lower starter numbers,really no mention of lots of relevant stuff,because,lets face it,they probably don't have the data or were tasked with giving an in depth analysis of turnover and its impacts. but they want to put out there the message of don't panic,everythings going fine, as far the income harness racing will receive from wagering. Anyway,the lack of context that i refer to can be drilled down to the most obvious important thing. is the income from wagering going to generate enough income to maintain stake levels. i mean,whats the point in saying,wagering has certainly NOT dropped,when if the wagering level of the previous year they were comparing it with was not generating enough incme to maintain stake levels. In other words,its entirely possible,even probable,that if wagering has actuallly gone up in the last year,it still won't be generating enoough income to maintain the level of stakes. so really this committee of 3 comments about wagering,really don't mean much at all. they're simply trying to give a positive impression. Theres a lot of that in almost every press release on the hrnz website these days. never an admission of any worrying data,never an admission of anything negative really. It was like the press release from m peden about the bonus scheme.Like you could read that and think,if they aren't going to ever admit that some things are trending negatively or that some highly promioted scheme was a failure,then why should anyone believe they ever will tell it as it is.

at least aaron whites consistent. the first race tonight he labelled as his whisper of the night the serial galloper levi. its broken its last 6 starts, so whats he say,this thing wins if it trots all the way. so it galloped for 1900m of the 2200 after looking very nervous pre start. now even the out the gate fellas are having a chuckle about that,but they did follow his advice and backed it.

i always thought there was an irony in how the out the gate crews betting evolved.. The show was on a thursday,a traditional nz harness night. and we recognise,the out the gate crew was trying encourage greater interest from the casual observer of harness racing,those who may not have normally watched,with the intent of showing them they didn't need to spend much to have a bit of fun and entertainment and to spark some future interest in harness racing.. atl east that was what i think they have been trying to do. I think have been reasonably successful in achieving that as relates to the greyhounds. But ,through no fault of theirs,the out the gater crew had to deal with a cambridge harness product that even the avid harness fans,realised was the worst example of a nz harness betting product in nz then you add to that they used aaron whites selections. Now,as i said earlier,a white can tip ok at auckland,but at cambridge he kept tipping serial gallopers and horses driven that gave the impression either they werennt trying or that they just went back and followed them around like they would wait for a 6 horse field the following week where they may get a better draw. so,as i have pointed out in an earlier post,the out the gate team,soon realised this harness product is not what they should be betting on,as after all,it may not have been their money,but they wanted to make money for the people who had invested in their pools ,so they realised they needed to focus on the dogs and the dogs you could tell were trying each time and their selector,a mccook,seems to be a knowledgable tipster. so the irony was,the out the gate team tried to support the harness racing product more,i'm sure wanted to,but the cambridge harness product simply is not a great product to promote harness racing wagering and the out the gate team exposed that,which was not their fault.

the latest bit in the news segment on the hrnz has a story headlined "2 year old bonus (the $12,000 ones)delivered on increasing opportunities" you've have to give m peden credit for that headline. yes the bonuses failed to get breeders to breed more horsesor or get any more horses starting,continually had small field sizes,but hey...guess what...they did deliver on increasing opportunities for people to race their 2 year olds for a bonus. i'm not sure i would want to buy a used car off him,but points for finding a positive to spin that anyway. then it says,having achieved its objectives(lets not let the truth get in the way with that bit),the scheme is coming to a close this year. what does that mean. does it mean the 2 years the bonuses that existed to encourage people to breed their mares,will never reward anyone who bred on the understanding they would have an opportunity to race for the $12,000 bonus. In other words it rewarded those who had bred before the bonuses were introduced, who would not have been aware of the bonus when they bred,but didn't reward those who bred thinking they may get one. It sounds a bit like all those rather naive breeders who bred to a nz based sire, thinking they would get to race for bonuses,only to see them cancelled before they had a chance as well. oh well,at least todays story indicates hrnz have made a decision that made sense,even if they took a long time to work it out .

the low grade average country sunday harness meetings up until 12-18 months ago, used to normally have higher tote pools than the average friday night races at addington and way more than an auckland friday meeting.It had been like that for many years. but,looking at the tote pools recently,sunday turnovers have dropped and seem to have been significantly impacted by the decision to run nz galloping meetings on sundays.Now sunday turnover seem to be about the same as an addington friday night meeting and the early sunday races have poor turnovers. In november 2023 there was only 2 sunday galloping meetings in nz,this year there was 8. i don't know whether HRNZ had any imput in that decision making,but from a harness perspective,that seems to have been a real negative.I assume the same applies to the ff. so really,even the sundays,which still seem to be the profit making meetings,aren't going as good as they used to. the sunday turnovers always used to prove what most of us had always said,the average punters don't bet on the quality of the horses,they bet on the quality of the betting product. And sundays had and actually still do provide a superior betting product. of course,friday nights have no nz gallops meetings to compete against.

what a silly reply. Misinformation.Having an opinion is misinformation to you and enough for you to say i'm anti greyhound racing.Just a silly reply. You clearly haven't bothered to read what former chief vet for grnsw,alex brittan,said about the greyhound industry during his time in their employment. he alledged many things,including greyhound nsw welfare and integrity commission(gwic) was deliberately obfuscating and under reporting the facts. Have you even read the very detailed 54 page submisiion he made to the the drake commion hearing,a hearing which in effect was investigating itself.I have. you gave figures in an earlier post. brittan explained many things,including how figures were being manipulated. i suggest you go read his 54 page letter or have a read of the evidence related to that from the months long public hearing. You may have no interest in how the commisioners report addresses his concerns,but those who aren't blinkered,would like to know whats in that report. your blinkered approach has contributed to the demise of your industry. And still you practice it and you wonder why your being shut down.It needn't have been that way,but in your mind you can blame the anti greyhound racing people or winston peters. It wasn't them that gave them the ammunition to fire. Also you must be aware some of the issues which he says are major contibutors to greyhound injuries are still applicable in nz greyhound racing.