the galah

Do they now late scratch every horse held up by another after the tapes have been released. Also,how can they late scratch navara and not sundons flyer. Sundons flyer was given a terminal check in the same incident. They are very inconsistent when it comes to these late scratchings at the start.You never really know how they are going to enforce that rule.

Personally i think its about time the "Whip" used in harness racing had a name change. Using the word "whip" gives connotations that harness is trying to distance itself from in this ever increasingly P.C. world. Perception is reality for most, quite often irrespective of the truth. So time for the "whip" to have a name change. Maybe officially become the "persuader",or the padded prompter, or some other p.c. name. It is the world we live in.

All the above seems relevant but the question still should be asked. Would The banker have found a bit more had he been driven with any vigour late in the race. We will never know because it never happened. Should the risky manners shown earlier in its career be a reasonable excuse. If you trained or owned it you would say yes,if your a punter you would say no. Stewards are there to protect the integrity for punters,so the driver should be questioned by the stipes in my opinion..

They don't seem to stand down trotters like they used to. I think they should,but they don't. Trotters often avoid being stood down by getting a warning for starting manners one week,and then a warning for breaking during the running the next,then a warning for starting manners the next,etc,etc. I pointed that out when i started a thread last year about the horses with names starting with "one". Personally i think punters who bet on this horse should not blame the horse for their poor judgment if they back this horse. Its actually very consistent. Its lost its chance through breaking in its last 7 starts. Anyone who has backed it must know the likely outcome.

I'm agree with happy's assessment. There is not much between 5 or 6 of them at the moment. Leaf stride had to work harder to reach the lead in his latest race,then maintained the lead whereas the week before he had trailed after not burning as hard early. Personally i thought he went just as good as he had the week before. In my opinion he was only disappointing if you were expecting more than he had shown so far. Having said that everyone has different opinions on every horse/driver/trainer. Who's to say anyone's wrong.

Purvis horses do seem to race consistently and he does seem to do a good job. Bagrie seems to have horses with more ability,and does get his share of wins. I think he does a good job but they seem to go better fresher for some reason. The one which made me wonder from that stable was Eye of the tiger. John dunn for some unknown reason gave it a very hard run fresh up after being out of contention early,then it was lined up for the next few weeks and its form got worse and worse to the point he looked like it had heart strain. I found that very strange from such a competent trainer.

just wondering what you are expecting? 129 horses with an average field size of 12.9. Surely thats good. You say woeful stakes but every race is $7000 or over. The size of the fields shows the stakes haven't deterred anyone. As to racing on thursdays. Its a bit unrealistic to expect them to get a stand alone friday night meeting. The fields certainly look better betting races than the oamaru meeting a couple of weeks ago.

While i don't go to the races often,i never bet on my phone and never will. Would not bother going to races at all if they had no on course betting. Besides,If your saying there is no need for on course betting outlets then your expecting all the casual racegoers who turn up at meetings like motukarara to have tab accounts. Until you can tell me the tab has statistics that say they do,i will continue to believe that taking away on course betting would be a dumb move.

I just watched most of it. I skipped through some bits as i was getting bored and saw nothing of interest and don't know what all the hype was about. Maybe they have a limited budget,but why could they not highlight any of the grass roots participants. I thought the most interesting story last week was that of the Southlander who trained his first winner in tad lincoln.,decades after first trying. Or what about the clive herbert colours being seen in the winners circle again at cambridge. i don't think it was there was it? Surely one of these inspiring stories could have been given 3 or 4 minutes. Or what about smokin bye. Sold for good money not long ago but now on gavel house. There's so many relatable stories out. I can only speak for myself,but to me those running the box seat are sadly out of touch with what potential viewers are interested in.

Mocking someone is not humour. Now your just being pedantic to muddy the waters relating to what i am saying. Your not interested in transperency on subjects like this. You know,your very good at saying i have said something,when in fact i have posted the opposite just prior to your post. You do it all the time. And what is it about this topic? You have a story on the all stars web site relating to the Oamaru scratchings,which suggests the two top nz cup contenders have sore feet and are being rested. Then 5 days later they run at a trial where they run an exceptional time,and do so without appearing to raise a sweat. You can't help yourself to criticise anyone who treated the original story with scepticism. My final comment on this subject is if a punter is to be successful they need to recognise patterns. Patterns for example where a driver is out of form,where a stable is consistently underperforming,where a stable has every horse perform in a way that suggests they have an edge ,legal or not. I would be more than happy to compare the results of my analysis to yours.It would show i am very good at reading patterns. Still you carry on with your head in the sand.

As an aside . I have always believed every horse in training should have a log book specific to it,kept detailing any treatment ,whether veterinary or private ,that it receives. It should be a requirement that every vet and trainer has to meet. The riu should be directed to do cross audits to confirm record keeping is accurate. If there is to be true transparency, honesty and compliance then everyone should accept this. It would to a greater degree of confidence from trainers relating to a level playing field.i This type of reply i think pathetic. With all that has gone on in recent years,and you still have an attitude like that.

Inferences or opinions. You can take it whatever way you want. For example the all stars never made any specific reference to spankem and self assured in the original article as being amongst "a number of all star horses will spend more time resting than racing in the next couple of weeks". Yet the writer of the article wrote it in such a way that it could be inferred those horses to be amongst those who were feeling the ground and had sore feet and would be briefly spelled. As hunter has pointed out. They went an extremely fast time today,all within 5 days of the writer inferring they had sore feet and were being rested. I'm not questioning the all stars training ability,just pointing out in my opinion we may not have been told the actual reason for their raceday scratching. As i say,i expressed that opinion/inference as soon as the first article came out.

Firstly this article comments that the circumstances "will have tongues wagging". So that contradicts your comment about my posting about something that "wasn't worth commenting on'". The article is itself an acknowledgement of the apparent contradictory comments which have come from the all stars. When the article refers to" punters like nothing more than a good rumour ". Well maybe they should realise punters know when they are being fed spin,and that is how rumours start. That,and what i still call the claytons scratching rule,is why i have commented. Its good to see both these top horses are ready to go again,and i like all racegoers no doubt look forward to seeing them race again shortly.

Show me where i said i took exception to them being scratched.I couldn't care less about whether they scratched or not. The scratching rule is,and always has been a joke and open to manipulation and misinformation. This is just another example. I have posted about that for years now. No doubt you are quite happy to be fed information which is then contradicted within a few days. You only care and comment, along with some others,when you can have a dig at the riu because your upset that they dare enforce the rules against someone you know or like. Give me a break.

Maybe. Maybe you can scratch and then line up the same day,or next day at the trials.So much for a scratching penalty if that is the case. Earlier in this thread i expressed my scepticism about the article relating to the all stars. No one seems to comment on stuff like this. Don't know what they others are afraid of,or who they don't want to upset.

It seems the foot soreness which required a couple of weeks rest was not as bad as they said. Did they re check the x rays? Both spankem and self assured in at the trials 3 days after oamaru. How do the scratching penalties work anyway. I thought the 5 day stand down they got meant a 5 day stand down. Or is it a claytons stand down.

On the contrary. I think harness racing is the most honest it has ever been. You won't find me hiding in the hedges of your trainer. Its too crowded in there.

What about it. I have my own rating system and had marked both those horses down significantly in recent times. Even having done that they were rated the top 2 in what was a field with no form whatsoever. So no surprise they ran the quinella. Where did i ever say they were not going to train their share of future winners? You say wrong again. Just as you are about who i am. Was i wrong when i posted about the d dunn drive at forbury which later became the subject of official scrutiny, Was i wrong when i posted about 3 of the races that subsequently became the subject of operation inca.I have made the occasional post about some horses. The likes of sheriff ,arms of an angel. Horses like that it was so easy to predict their future well before it happened. I posted multiple times about the dalgety horses, pre the cobalt positives, and said i thought that stable had some type of issue due to their erratic ,sometimes distressed performance All that stuff is so easy to predict because its obvious. Call me what you want,but don't call me ignorant.

Thought if anyone was to ask that it would be you. i see hunter has done the same. What do you think i mean? How about we approach it from a different perspective. You tell me why you think every horse from this stable has lost 5 to 10 lengths performance wise since lockdown? Whats your answer? The only exception from that stable is Watch me now who won last friday.However that is a horse who had won untested in its previous starts from a previous campaign and it was hard to gauge how good it was. Next week it may all turn around and be back to normal.But i'm talking about the present. So you tell me why?

Is that what you call it?

Ray a heck of a nice fella,but had driven only the 1 winner in about 140 drives in the last 20 years. Yet it was still the plunge horse apparently.

Who doesn't assume a lot of things. I understand you thought the purdon penalty was harsh, fair enough,but you need to give specifics of other cases with no consequences, where licenceholders have ignored a stipes direction to attend. Only then can we compare like with like. In the past i have highlighted many inconsistencies, where stipes based what action they took on whether the person was high profile or otherwise. There is nothing more i dislike than seeing one rule for some,and another for someone else. Whether you want to admit it or not, the rules are being applied in a far fairer and consistent way than they were 7 or 8 years ago and prior. So when i see criticism of what i believe is a more even handed approach,i comment. I understand why you criticise the riu on this matter. Your criticism is actually more about how you view the riu's handling of other matters,and the purdon case is just another vessel for expressing that dissatisfaction. Have you ever thought that the reason i disagree with your criticism of the riu is the same reason for your criticism. Its just we have different history and backgrounds and because of that we differ on what message we deliver and as to who it should be directed at. Put my name. You choose too, i do not. I understand those,like yourself who put their name on their posts no doubt believe that is what everyone should do. Of course most don't do they. I see it as neither here nor there.

Your example of jack ryan. What has that got to do with purdon seeing the stipes? They questioned the driver of jack ryan as to why he was off the gate prior to the start. Had they asked the trainer to see them, then one would expect he would have. You say i piss you off. So we don't agree on much. Your opinions or criticism don't annoy me. I think you should be more selective in picking the subjects on which to criticise the riu like you do. You wouldn't come across as so ant them if you did.

Noodlum/chief,whoever you may be. You can think what you like about what i post. One thing i have observed is the opinions you express relating to the RIU are always critical of what they do. To me you have an agenda. Thats the way you come across to me. Name calling just shows the opinions i express are annoying you.

So you think the stipes should hold off writing up their reports until a couple of days later in cases where trainers or drivers don't attend as requested on the night? You say no steward was directed to catch up with mr purdon at the qualifying trials the next day. From that can we therefore assume Mr purdon did not approach the stipe on duty that day? Can we also assume that you think it ok information may be relayed 3rd hand to a stipe,via another stipe,when that would not have been necessary had mr purdon attended as requested. Have you ever thought to reflect how this would have been perceived by a lesser known licence holder if they were aware no action was taken against mr purdon, If that were the case they would no doubt have thought the the double standards the stipes displayed a few years back were still in play. This really is not a big deal but you seem to be making excuses for another high profile trainer,yet again.