the galah

Is there somewhere on here where you read who people have selected

I just watched the bits you have referred to karrots after becoming interested after reading what you posted yesterday. Guerin saying "you can't just keep going to the well" defence of the John Dunn drive on Need you now was pathetic. Well mr guerin,we aren't that stupid. Dunn make a poor tactical decision to go to the inside,instead of taking the obvious clear outside path on the $1.20 favorite. Even the best drivers make mistakes sometimes.Why can't Guerin just say that. And Greg o'connor is simply too diplomatic. Last of the mohicans wasn't unlucky.R May made a deliberate calculated decision to remain 3 back the fence when it looked obvious that in all probability that decision would backfire on him . Thats not luck,thats just an example of a poor tactical decision. May would know that. And i'm not talking through my pocket on either drive. If they can't be up front about simple things like that,why should we think we will get much insight or unbiased opinions out of the show.

Noodlum,your yet again saying something i have not. I will say again i believe harness racing at this moment in time is as clean as it has been for some time. Do i believe that no one is currently trying to get an edge by the use of performance enhancers. Of course not. But you seem conflate that statement to mean there is widespread use. Also if i,or others express an opinion relating to a historical period of time,you seem to think that has to mean i think nothing changes,and i think the same now. I believe the riu currently appear to be more actively pursuing those that look to get an edge,and i believe that is a good thing. And i really don't think your naive enough to believe drug testing picks up the most modern of performance enhancers. The reason you say that is your argument is weakened if you admit the obvious. Again i suggest you go read the articles,or indictments relating to the multiple New York cases. Maybe you might learn that some performance enhancers,despite the worlds leading technology,are not be picked up in testing. People can't be selective when it comes to this subject . You can't be anti the riu or police if they take action against someone high profile you like,then in the next breath say nothing when they take action against the likes of alford.

Had a quick look at how they described the need you now and last of the mohicans drives.Guerin making excuses for the need you now drive,and then greg o'connor saying last of the mohicans was unlucky. Then guerin suggesting the articles on alford were premature. They are always making excuses when they should just tell it as it is. Its so predictable what they will say about everything.So no need to watch that show to find out.

Sure to make you happy

More time to get her hair done or go to the gym?

Dalgety also had a caffeine positive about 12 years ago. Said a bottle of itz magic was knocked over and contaminated feed. Still at least dalgety seems to take such incidents on the chin and moves on with bouncing back. You like that natalie rasmussen don't you.

i saw an interesting documentary on bonnie and clyde about 5 years ago. Clyde once had 2 toes in his left foot chopped off so he could get away from the mistreatment he suffered in prison when he was younger. His balance was effected thereafter and he often drove the car in socks because of it. And bonnie hopped as much as she walked in the last year as a result of an accident due to clydes bad driving. Life on the run was often a cold and hard existence.

I think this is a subject industry leadership need to address,so as to create a more positive and realistic spin than is currently being portrayed. The media is not the enemy. It should not be that hard. As i have said before,enforcement of the rules relating to honesty and integrity are the reason for much of this negative publicity. But instead of coming across as being a good thing that the harness industry sets a high bar,its coming across that there is more wrongdoing than there actually is. Control the message and you seriously influence how people think. Instead of being frustrated with the media,industry leaders and others who comment need to work with them to get the right message out there. Mr Woodham who is the head man in charge seems genuine when it comes to what he wants to see in the future,but he must deal with the present. A united strategic message must be developed should there be future issues that arise that will get coverage. Maybe we need to develop a media profile of a personality or two from within the industry who deal with integrity issues. In australia they were good at giving titles which immediately people relate to in a positive way. E.g. the sheriff(john schreck)

Tco2 testing was introduced because of the obvious advantage it was giving those that used it properly. It was also used as a masking agent was it not. I read a lot of studies ,one in australia from memory said tests showed its use was rife in harness racing at the time,and levels being returned were ridiculously high and it appeared some were working on the theory that the more they gave there horse,the faster it may run,but that wasn't true. But that was then. While it was not tested for those who used it here weren't legally doing anything wrong. Maybe the best current reference to how effective testing is would be to refer to the new york indictments against several well known trainers and vets,who it seemed manufactured performance enhancers that would not return positives. That will be an interesting case to follow,as it was said to be distributed to many countries,including australia. Who knows where else.

Walkinshaw for sure. His read like it was not his fault.

Maybe you should actually read some of the Australia decisions relating to that.One in particular was investigated thoroughly. You see authorities produced evidence of a particular "tonic' being distributed to some trainers,knew that tonic had arsenic as an ingredient,had intelligence the trainer with the arsenic positive was an associate of the alleged distributor,but at the end of the day did not prove the more serious charge because those making the decision accepted there was arsenic in fence posts and what they had been painted with,and while it was unlikely that they would eat a product that was supposed to repulse them,they could not rule that the more serious charge was proved.

Do a hunter and have a guess.

Actually i did. And actually i have read virtually all of the cases you have referred to. You see its a subject i'm interested in,so i like to broaden my knowledge so i at least think i know what i'm talking about. I even used to read many of the aussie ones. the one i had sympathy for was allan beck as he was honest with the riu and admitted giving his horse a product which was the cause of the positive.He had done so not thinking it would return a positive,more negligent than intent. Because of his admission he was charged with the far more serious offence. And since then anyone who's horse returns a positive knows not to admit anything. How many times have you read the decisions of the jca where it has said the charge before them is the lesser charge and they do not have to rule on intent.

So that would be a no. By the way. Have you heard they do workplace testing for drugs now. They even have tests to see if you drive cars under the influence of drugs. What next will they come up with?

Noodlum i do think the way you and a vocal minority of others, argue this topic is a strategy that has worked in the past. That is make all this noise that those involved are being unfairly persecuted, that those doing the enforcing are all arseholes, and that authorities had better not keep going down this track otherwise there will be a revoult within the ranks. Nice work.

Noodlum,tell me did you believe Lance Justice when he said he had not given dmso to his horse in the timeframe alleged,despite scientific evidence saying his version of events was not plausable. And besides dmso makes a horse smell for a few days,but obviously justice had no sense of smell.

Noodlum,tell me did you believe nicky chilcott when she said she imported epo just to use in training,not at the races?

Tell me,do you think someone who may take,or supply people with drugs,would think twice about doing so to horses. Yes or no?

That observation just confirms you take what you want from anything related to this subject,and ignore whats right there in front of you.

I don't have an issue with your topic,just the reference to me stating i have said something i have not. In fact i have said the complete opposite. I have posted just that this week. In my opinion you do so because the merit in your argument is weak as relates to this topic. So you make things about personalities instead.

It does get tedious from my perspective as well. You say "then you turn a blind eye to the unscrupulous activity of the RIU". Well the likes of newmarket and i have a different starting perspective of what we view as acceptable or unacceptable,hence we have formed opposing opinions. You view the actions taken to uncover illegal activity as being more worthy of scrutiny than the actual illegal activity. As to alford. Not sure what you saying there.

You have hit the nail on the head there newmarket. Whenever there is mention of anyone getting a positive,you have this rush of support from the from a small but vocal group within the industry. The very same people seem to pick and choose who they defend.Those who criticised the riu over the mcgrath case,don't seem to care when it comes to J alford. They are hypocrites.

I didn't intrepret newmarkets earlier post to say any of those you have mentioned were not good people,were not honest ... I think what he was saying was history shows at times they have been shown to have horses race which have had illegal substances in their system,therefore because of that it is up to each of us to form our own opinion as to where the trainers mentioned currently stand in relation to the use of performance enhancers. I think that is a reasonable statement to make. As to mr mcgrath.Yes you can call him a cheat. But in his case i think that label does not really paint an accurate picture of who he really is in totality. I think if you knew him you would form the view that he was a very good person,and for some reason he compartmentalized what he did with his horses in a different box of standards to everything else he does in life. He quite rightly has paid a price for that,but i would say out of proportion to others who have behaved similarly in the past.

You work on the assumption that i believe those who have had past positives in their horses have all been deliberate, and also that past behavior means present behavior. I have not said that. I do believe that the best way to predict future behavior is to look to past behavior,but of course you have to factor in people learn from their mistakes. Its my opinion,so in my mind what i say makes sense to me. You call it conspiracy theory,because you do not agree with it. I would say you ignore the evidence supporting my views,and choose to interpret the evidence in a way that suits your entrenched opinion. My opinion has been formed over a period of time. The more i see,the more i believe what i say.