the galah

I have just started a topic on that.Agree some very poor driving,but in no way did fitzgerald do anything wrong.

Another quinella to the wiggs,so well done to them,but there was some substandard driving in that race. First you had petes dash driven by c negus clearly knocking over 2 of the favorites after 150m,although the only reason unfazed driven by s murtha was where he was,was because he didn't bother to have his horse in its correct front line position at the start point. Then if the clock on the trackside tv is right,they ran a quarter down the back the first time in over 35 seconds,then the next one in under 29 seconds. The answer for punters is to just back the wiggs,but that wasn't a good advertisement for amateur races.

I get what your saying,but from what i've read there seems to be some debate amongst vets as to whether regularly injecting horses joints is the right thing to do or not. Is it not a case of treating the sympton,while often not addressing the cause? From what you say it seems part of the reason for many trainers success is the fact that their owners are happy to pay big vet bills. That puts 95% of owners at a disadvantage to those with the big cheque books,even if they did see it that way. And its not as if taking the preventative action you describe prevents injuries.If it was such a successful strategy,how come the All stars had so many of their high profile horses have injuries in the last couple of years. You could draw the conclusion that preventative action simply delays the inevitable injury,sometimes the end result is far worse for the horse.

So your saying the zoning of the ground currently has restricted use? Won't a developer just get the zoning changed. Isn't that how it works. Given the housing development that has gone on all around,and right beside the all stars property,you would think they are sitting on a gold mine if they wanted to cash up or move.

So your saying some stables inject horses joints that have no soreness,but as a way of preventing their horses getting sore in the future. i'm not saying your wrong,but vets must love trainers like that if that were the case. I don't have an endless supply of money,so doing that makes no sense to me.

your obviously right that having hock injections may improve performance if the horse has some soreness. That would be the only reason you would give that type of injection would it not? I have done a little reading on it,and that seems to be the case.Your not going to inject a sound horse surely. So your left with the assumption that all 3 of Hopes horses must have some degree of soreness.They already are beach trained,and one was a 2yo with only 4 starts.

What would the all stars property be worth these days. Must be a lot given its prime position as rolleston has rapidly expanded around it. I have just been reading an article on stuff about some web site selling sections in rolleston crashing today due to excess demand,leaving hundreds of would be section buyers disappointed. Last week i happened to pass through rolleston,and struck up a conversation with a customer in the bank about the cost of sections. Don't know how accurate he was,but he seemed insistent that what he said was true. He said there are no sections for sale in rolleston,that only the developers could get them. He told me he paid $195,000 12 months ago for a section,but they had gone up about 65% more,saying one next to his which he described as very small had just sold for $325,000. He said he sold his house in rolleston 3 months ago,had expected to get just over gv,and was amazed that he got $120,000 over gv within 2 days.. He called his house sale a mad frenzy,with 56 different buyers expressing genuine interest in the property. He was loath to guess how much it would have gone up in the 3 months since he sold it. He called the housing market in rolleston crazy. He said down the road there were over 1000 new sections in lincoln,but unless you were a developer you would not be able to buy one. I also know you if you want to buy 10 hectares of bare land somewhere in the country,say 20 minutes from christchurch the real estate agents will say you need close to $700,000. Imagine someone wanting to set them selves up to become a trainer. Virtually unobtainable without a major benefactor.That is part of the reason why harness racing will decline in years to come.

On jewels day an interesting riu tweet,also repeated on trackside,was that the hope stable had advised muscle mountain,midnight dash and the 2 year old mr love had their joints injected. These notifications are nothing new,certain stables seem to do it quite often. I'm not suggesting anything dodgy,but i think it reasonable to ask why?. Mr love was a 2 year old with only 4 starts,and muscle mountain certainly hasn't been over raced. If beach training is supposed to help,then why are beach trained horses needing joint injections when so young. Is this an indication that soreness will impact the longevity of their racing careers?

There is no doubting the horse has shown good improvement since joining the House stable from the barclay/ellis stable.. As i have pointed out before,a lot of horses from the barclay/ellis stable had shown a drop off in form for over 12 months,and that drop off in form has continued since they have parted ways. The only exception was Watch me now,and it was obvious just observing the way that horse travelled during the running the night it beat amazing dream, that it was going to keep running no matter how fast they went. Why don't people ask about that horse and why it can't keep up since? Anyway,the point is Beta than love has come from an out of form stable to an in form stable.Thats a factor. Its been driven by Blair orange. The one constant i have found from my rating horses performances has been that blair orange has to be factored in. He improves every horses performance. Only natalie rasmussen seems to be in the same league,although not as significant in my opinion. Horses who do go to House to train do normally show improvement,but my guess would be it would come down to how he works them,together with a bit of legal veterinary treatment. They can be a bit hot and cold sometimes,and performances can vary a bit from month to month,but the changes aren't that significant to suggest anything untoward is going on in my opinion. Its natural for people to look at a horse like beta than love and say,that horse has improved significantly,because thats true. Everyone has an opinion.

Everyone always says the faster horses are more likely to break down,but is that backed up by actual research? As i've mentioned before,a european study which involved good numbers said that it was not a major factor and listed track surfaces,gait(often breeding related),training groudwork,medications given,all of more importance than speed. I've always thought the "good horses are more likely to break down" theory is just an excuse as to why a certain high profile stable has these issues. If they didn't have that excuse,then they would have to look at the real reasons,and supporters of that stable don't go there. Isn't it obvious. If you can get any athlete to perform where the restrictions from the natural pain barrier or body performance, don't kick in when they should,then you increase the likelihood of injury. That is why the all stars have had so many high profile horses have injuries in my opinion.

Who were those horses that spankem ran against? They looked to be handy,the equivalent ability of our horses over here that have won 5 or 6 races. And spankem only won by a half head after getting round the field on a slow quarter. Looked like he had lost 2 legs to me,and at no point did he look like he had the eyes popping out,run forever body language that we used to see here when at his best.Thats my opinion of that run,but its only one run so may be a bit premature to write off him improving,but he would need to if his opposition gets any better.

The thing is we heard that the telfers were to set up a satellite stable in canterbury a year ago. All we have seen since is horses with wraps on them come down and normally disappoint. Thats the reality so far.Why would it change? You have to remember Canterbury has far greater depth in its training ranks than auckland.

are you talking from your own experience in the job?

The trainer would have to request it i would imagine. Certainly seemed to handle it ok,albeit a little slow. Would have ended up further back if on the ur.Only issue may come in a full field where there is not as much room. One thing that is obvious when you watch standing starts. Horses who are close to the tape always have a better chance of beginning. And the reverse. If you have a horse standing a half length or more behind the others,4 times out of 5 they will be disadvantaged.It really comes down to the drivers ability to get them properly positioned at the start.

This seems like one of those ideas that makes no sense.For that reason that's why they may actually be considering it. Putting a greyhound track inside a trotting track,which is already inside a galloping track would result in no spectators whatsoever. I've been to addington and forbury dogs.Just the once. And it was a total waste of time,you can't see them because they are so far away. And here you have a suggestion that you put in a track at least another 50-100m further away from spectators. Anyone who watches dog racing in australia can see that they often get reasonable crowds at tracks where the dogs are within touching distance of the spectators.Increase the distance between the on track action and the spectators,and you decrease the numbers attending. Then you have the location of the dog population. Sure,90% of the trainers that currently go to forbury won't have to travel an extra 1 1/2 hours,but if thats the logic being used why not put the track closer to christchurch. There is a couple of smaller greyhound trainers who are listed as living in oamaru,but having 2 or 3 locals really is not saying much. Theres got to be better options than oamaru.And surely if they do put in a new track somewhere in otago,they will design it to make it more enticing to view than most greyhound tracks in nz.

Was john morrison lucky to just get a 3 day suspension for interfering with the horse who had pushed him out 200m earlier? You get drivers being suspended for far longer for 2 or 3 extra taps with the whip than allowed. Its interesting watching the video of morrisons drive. It appears his horse had a tendency to hang in,and as a consequence morrison was often turning his horses head outwards. But just prior to the interference suffered by 3 runners inside morrison,he turns his horses head in,which causes interference.It would be nice to see the head on to confirm what looked like a deliberate move in.The stipes report just states there was an "incident". What a strange way to describe it.Would they call it that if it was a lesser known driver?I don't think so.

i had thought krug was looking cup contender material,but that was a significant drop off in performance yesterday.Its only the 1 oerformance,and i always forgive a 1 off below par performance.so time will tell. I thought the 2 most amazing performances on recent form came from rocknroll mama and kaching kaching. Both showed huge improvement on recent form. It will be interesting to see if they can replicate that form again

so where do you get to see it?

As far as the racing went,Akuta and south coast arden were most impressive.The race may have been set up for akuta to win given how hard they went early,but he made the rest look second rate in the straight.And south coast arden continued the huge recent improvement and looked like a nz cup winner. The flop of the day was krug. Personally pre race, i thought he was so much better than the others that he would not risk the chance of getting trapped on the fence,but it turned out he took the gamble and followed through the winner,and had every chance. Had he not received the best run in the race he would have finished at the back. Natalie rasmussen took no such chances on amazing dream,but unfortunately for her david butcher did what the butchers are good at and got into a shoving duel early with her to push her back in,which ultimately cost both them ground and position, and most likely cost amazing dream the race.Still it was entertaining and good to see the dunns get the win.

As you say jones,you have said nothing but positive things about the jewels. So its disappointing to hear that the club failed to deliver for many of those who attended.All sounds poorly organised. As i referred to in another thread,i thought the trackside coverage of the races was also poor in the early stages of the races. It was like they were experimenting with the drone coverage and were far away in the early races,then all of a sudden switched to close ups for 150m of a couple of horses,then back to normal coverage. No continuity at all in the first part of the races. Sounds a bit of a shame they didn't deliver for many of those who attended on course,as the racing on the track was top class,and the unpredictability of the tactics caused by the draws made it much more entertaining.

They were ok, but to do them as the main shot while the race was run i thought was a mistake and i didn't like it and i thought was annoying.If the drone shots are preferred over the usual coverage,then i know a couple pf people who wouldn't bother watching.I thought the racing was good,the presenters good,but the trackside coverage when the races were run was average.

i happened to see that race. Didn't they say that it was a stablemate of spankem that backed away and swung round about 3 times before they were able to let them go.Given spankem kept standing directly behind it each time it happened it looked predictable interference given what happened pre start.In nz the driver of spankem would have started a bit wider to avoid that.

well done to verstegg. He rated it well.Having only 7 others in the field meant the ur wasn't much of a factor. It helped when jessica young on moment of kaos failed to give her horse much chance(again),by giving the winner a 7 length start at the 400m. But Verstegg deserved the win more on the night.

No field is shit from a betting perspective. The field in question may lack recent form,but its just a matter of comparing the recent form of each contender. Exactly what we do when assessing races like the jewels,only difference is there is often a greater difference in recent form in the fields like the one we are talking about at addington,which logically makes the addington field more attractive from a betting perspective. Maybe michelle will prove me wrong and run somewhere,but the point is why shouldn't the tab price it at more realistic odds.

I see bookies have this horse paying $4.80 on the final field win market for race 4 tonight. My question is,does anyone out there know why anyone in their right mind would back this horse? And why would the bookies have it so short? It actually started favorite 2 starts ago,despite never looking like running in the first 3 for ages. It rates with one over dover as one of the most consistent breakers to have raced for how knows long. I know its won 5 races,and did win 26 starts ago before it started its streak of breaking and hanging every time,but surely the tab should have it at $30 to encourage some support so they can at least say they made money on the race.