the galah

That makes sense. But the reality seems to be, because they got the track wrong at a meeting last month, they over compensated with water by irrigating this time to make sure they did not have the same problem again. I know whoever in control of these things are trying to get it right,but are they succeeding?

Track bias/worn track... Maybe i have missed it in some of these earlier posts,but i don't think anyone has given an explanation as to how the irrigating that took place on the thursday night helped the state of the track. No one is complaining about the rain,just asking for an explanation as to how the track was improved because of the irrigation? Unless someone can answer that then you would have to assume the irrigation(whether it be a lot or not) was unnecessary.

I once worked with her for a short time some time ago.. I thought she was very down to earth and just a nice lady. Didn't seem pretentious at all. I sometimes read these comments and think they are a bit unkind. I guess if they didn't win as many they would not be on the tv so much.

Oh well. It seems many are happy with tracks with fast lanes 8 to 10 horses off the rails like they got today. And most apparently happy to see tracks irrigated when they are already rated as slow. Personally, just recently i had been trying to increase my spend to get better rebates, but i have come to the view this week i am being mislead to some extent,as there are so many variables when it comes to track conditions. You shouldn't have to watch a few races to work out the patterns. That track in early october i thought was the best from a punters perspective as you knew what to expect. It also seems anyone who owns/trains a horse who runs best on good tracks may as well put them back in the paddock. I don't recall in previous decades them having to have tracks about a dead 6 at the start of the day. Also,if irrigation is so important nowdays,should tracks without irrigation be allowed to run meetings?

On 5 october the maidens ran 1.21.76 for 1400m and two 1200m races were run in 1.07.90 and 1.07.15. They were running about 1 and a half seconds slower today than they did on 5 october. So surely any trainer who had a dry track horse would question why they were disadvantaged by unnecessary irrigation.

Where was the stipes consistency. Why did they not question the starter or his assistant as to why it happened.

I thought it might have been because the track manager would have have known mr pitman would be tucked away in his bed.

I always like hearing what he has to say as he isn't afraid to say what he thinks. It must be frustrating when you have a dry tracker and you see them turning on the sprinklers after they ran on a slow track the day before. That may be why the Track manager said he irrigated at midnight on thursday night.

Is it. I still work in inches and feet and stone and pounds. Youv'e educated me on my conversions.

They were that spread out in that race by the time they had run 600m that no one was ever going to come down the very outside,but the winner started its run down that dark strip about 8 to 10 horses off the rail. 1.08.7 is still a good second to a second of a half off what they would have run on a firm track in my opinion. 8 mils is half an inch. thats a lot of water to me. As i've said i prefer to bet on tracks that you don't have to guess how much it may dry out and how the patterns may change during the day.I pulled the pin after the 2nd race. I remember as a young kid being on holiday with the family and watching Blue Blood winning at trentham in under 1.06 point something on a firm track.. Here we are 40 years later and horses still can't get close to that.

Todays track has shown a big advantage to the outside runners. There is a clear fast lane in the middle of the track,and a slow lane on the inside. It is not a fair track to me. The jockeys have already worked that out judging by that last race. It is summer is it not,and there has been hot days and no rain in the last 3 days.

I agree with Mr pitmans comments. He said he can't believe how wet it is given the weather,and actually just tipped the last winner because he felt it would be suited to the wetter track. Winning jockey said its perfect,but what winning jockey doesn't? i know they ran 1.09.6,but there's a big difference in a horse who likes a track that they run 1.08 on to a horse that likes a track that they run 1.09.6 on. The one thing that puts me off betting on the gallops is tracks that are heavily watered. Days like today will always get big punter turnover,but you need the regular punter on the smaller days and tracks that have been watered after a lot of rain is just a turn off for myself. The form becomes inconsistent.

Well if you look at a website that has a video lead in to the race start,unlike hrnz,it appears a starters assistant who was holding the 10m tape, was caught by surprise when the starter let the other tapes go. It happens. But where is the criticism that would have come if it had been lamb doing that start?

I always like to start off with a winner in the first race. I'm going to box royal pride($9),i dream of jeannie($6) and show me the grey($71) in a quinella. Then in race 2 i like playa vista($41),but its drawn terrible and always gets a bad run so probably can only place. Then in race 3 i thought deus ex($11) was the likely winner but it too has a terrible draw.. In that race i see watch me now is the hot favorite. Recent southern racing has shown the barclay/ellis team has gone up a level again, so they must be hard.

I have been talking about raceday duties. As to the checking of brands on raceday. I know from personal experience he has checked the brands on horses when at the races. I don't think my memory is that poor to confuse him with someone else. You state Lamb has a role as an investigating officer with the riu. And there in a nutshell is the reason for some who have an anti Lamb sentiment. I put you in that actegory long owner. I also put Ray green in that category.

I have always thought it has never been made clear by officialdom as to what Lambs duties as a steward are. I have always assumed it was to do the likes of checking brands,numbers when they come into the birdcage pre race and around at the start. I had assumed his duties as a stipendary steward were unrelated to,and completely separate from that of the stipes who officiate over the running of a race. The failure of HRNZ or the RIU to clarify his duties and confirm there is complete separation i have thought is for one of two reasons. Either it is beacuse they are happy to see him undermined,(which would not surprise me),or that my assumption of his duties are not correct. I'm guessing it is the former,although may be wrong.

Why has no one asked this question. If Lamb had not pulled the tapes when the horses on the outside had so much momentum then what?......Another aborted start? I'm not making excuses for what clearly was a poor start. However why weren't the drivers of the outside horses reprimanded for anticipating the start.Well the answer to that i assume is because the stipes had no issue with them. I'm not saying i'm a fan of lamb's,just saying that Lambs termination from addington will be seen as payback by some who had alterior motives. And no i'm not talking about punters. And yes i am talking about some licence holders.

Watch Copy That as he went to line up both times and it was obvious he was not focused on going away fast. I backed him myself,but you could tell from the horses body language he was more interested in what was happening elsewhere than he was on going away. Ray greens opinion that lamb should no longer work for the riu is ridiculous. Green could not have cared less when punters did their money cold when his horse was pulled out of a race earlier in the season when a stinking hot favourite when it was striking the footrests. To me this is a very bad case of sour grapes from green.

I agree it was an unfair start. Its obvious the horses on the outside had significant forward momentum when the tapes were released. Of note was the same thing happened in the first aborted start. The position of the starter i think is of some significance. I personally don't know where the correct positioning should be,but what i do know is its easier to see on trackside when the horses are in a proper line at the 2000m/3200m start than it is at the 2600m start. That is because the trackside cameras are side on at the 2000m and front on at the 2600m. Conversely the opposite applies for trackside viewers to tell if horses are too close together,because its easier to tell head on at the 2600m start if this is happening. The only real solution i have would to be to have a 2nd starters assistant/ observer positioned so as to notify the starter of any potential issues,but i think that really would be overthinking a solution when it was just a poor starters decision. I do think the calls for his removal because this was a nz cup are putting too much emphasis on just the one race. Then again you have had criticism of him for some time from some quarters. Its like many are just waiting for a start like they got yesterday to highlight their point of view,and for others to push their agenda. I think it is unlikely you would get better starts if he was not the starter. Personally i think there other variables which can sometimes lead to unfair starts,no matter who the starter is. My gripe around the addington starts is the 1980 mobiles. I know this was brought up by someone else a wee while ago,but why is it the horses on the outside 2 positions have to work overtime in the last 100m to keep up with the mobile. They seem to lose a length about 100m before the start. I had used to think it was driver error ,but it happens so much i'm wondering if the banking of the track at that point is the reason for the obvious disadvantage.

The topic is headed leaks to the press. I have read the article and can't work out where the "leak to the press" bit comes from. It seems every media article around something contentious is viewed in a negative way by some.

Serious about what? I made a comment about co2 emmissions,then drew the inference that criticism of his administrations approach could be argued as being unfair. The reference i made to fake news was because i believe if you asked his critics if his policies were contributing to an increase in co2 emmissions then they would say yes,which of course is not true.

The global warning thing and the usa contribution thereto under trump really is severely overstated. In 2016 when he took over the usa produced 5,170 million metric tons of co2 emmisions,yet in 2019 it had dropped to 5,130 million metric tonnes. Just seems to be more fake news to place so much blame on Trump .

So is that an excuse for you to ignore what they are highlighting?

Sadly watching all the coverage on fox with the likes of hannity and tucker carlson,more and more evidence regarding skulldugery is coming to light. Personally i was rather skeptical initially,but it is becoming obvious to anyone with an open mind,that peoples confidence in the results will be seriously undermined,no matter who wins..

70 million americans voted for Trump, despite a bipartisan respected media watchdog saying 93% of all media coverage in the usa leading into the election was heavily biased against Trump. Our nz media would be 100% negative in its coverage. Its not suprising most view him as you have implied when the same message is repeated over and over again through the media.Just a shame everyone who judges Trump has only been exposed,and in my view cleary manipulated, to think a certain way.