the galah

yes,i understand what you are saying. I also have understood what gammalite has said. I have a mutual view and interest in what you both post. But I think we all need to realise mutual respect gained over time,doesn't just disappear if someone has an opposite point of view,or if someone words a post in a way that draws an unseen inference. Why anyone would think it does makes no sense to me,but we are all different.thats a good thing.

I agree,posting positive things is good,but you can't expect anyone who has an opposite opinion on certain subjects not to be able to express them. I never take anything personally if someone disagrees with my view on here,but maybe i have a thicker skin than some.What is positive and what is negative in this context anyway. Maybe gammalite has viewed one of my replies as a personal attack,but i have re read my reply and i can't see why.Like i have said,his focus is on me using his words,and he has not focused on my reasoning to counter his point of view.People should read what is said,instead of putting a spin on replies that was never there. Perhaps people should ask themselves,when it comes to discussing personalities, why do some think only one point of view can exist depending on who the personality is?

yes,10 races with 95 horses going around.Just had a look at the weather forecast.An over night low of 7 degrees predicted at this stage. Thats warm compared to what its normally like down there isn't it.You may not have to put two lots of thermals on if you or others from your area go.

By the way gammalite. I don't have a problem with you thinking that,just pointing out i don't agree with you,and giving reasons i think myself and others have ,for not agreeing with you.

Come on gammalite,when you were saying "sore losers", thats what you meant and think. I guess the reason you've focused on that part of my reply is because you realise the rest of what i have said makes sense.

I may be wrong,but i think brodie was trying to make a point with a touch of sarcasm in what he posted.

Labelling as "sore losers" those who think there is more to the level of success the all stars have than just training, is not accurate. Like i've said before.If we use this forum as an example. Ask yourself. Who have the trainers been who have been the topic of discussion as relates to out of the ordinary performances in the last 3 years or so.Theres only been a handful from my recollection,so its easy enough to remember who they have been. They have been the all stars,jesse alford,mitchel kerr,barclay/ ellis,steve dolan , cran dalgety,g anderson. Now if everyone,and there have been many(myself included)was a doing this because they were "sore losers",how come they have been so accurate in identifying those who have ended up being charged and dealt with? how do you explain that??? Its true the all stars and barclay/ellis can say their is no proven basis for anyone to suggest what some have.And because of that they must feel more than a little peeved. And its true that operation inca's raids on both those stables may have been about unrelated matters to the subject being discussed. But you generalising and calling everyone "sore losers" says just as much about your approach to this topic ,as it does those you are calling losers. And perhaps you can explain what you think the motive is for those you call sore losers. From my observations those who raise these issues mostly are punters and observers. So what have they got to gain. What is there motive? And as you have noted,if it was because of whoever's success,how come there is no pattern to the level of success when it comes to these topics. And if it was because the people you say are losers,don't credit the success rate of some to the their training abilities, how come they continually say the likes of the all stars and dalgety are admired by everyone for their training ablilty,as are their drivers and their horses. This subject is something that will always be discussed ,and people just have to make up their own minds.

Thats a hard one to be sure of. No denying Udr and on track performances have improved. If you look at their winners akuta,bettor twist and samhara . What was noticeable was how they pulled away easily right at the finish of races run in very fast times. Then you had South coast arden do the same thing. This horse has definitely improved since being trained by the all stars. Theres no doubt rasmussen is much better than mangos as a driver,and maybe the all stars are better than mangos is as a trainer,but this horse has gone to a new level in a couple of weeks with a different trainer/driver,albeit against weaker opposition. Its obvious from some peoples comments on this thread what they think is the reason. Personally i'm not sure the total reason.If we put to one side South coast adern,then its possible that its rasmussens driving which is the main factor. Another factor is some of these horses have natural improvement as they previously had not raced many times. its all hypothetical. Its just something that goes with their success,and everyone will draw their own conclusions,and continue to make comments about it.

Not a fan by the sounds of it. His results are showing they run for him,so well done to him.

good thing for you you couldn't get a bet on that. Maybe if f phelan or j kreichbaumer drive the next winner and fitzgerald fails to score with his drive alexy. I wonder if they get to represent nz in the usa like they used to?

This fella got a bit greedy in my opinion. He made a tactical error by doing that.A payout of that amount would always get attention from the tab.They were never likely to pay out such a big amount given he placed the bets when the games were almost finished. A couple of years ago i just happened to watch some race at the port pirie trots, i think it was.The commentator said it was one of those races where the same horses went round again later in the night .There were 2 such races. i think they each had about 7 horses in them.Anyway,i watched them both while i was doing something else,and looked at the odds in the later races.What the tab had done was they had the wrong odds for all the runners for the finals. They seemed to have dropped a number.I placed my bets before they corrected them. So i put 2 bets on 2 horses in each race. $5 and $10 bets to win. I rung someone else and suggested they place a $10 bet as well. Well the horse who won the first heat easily at odds of$1.80 i backed at i think it was $16.It won again easily. Then in the second heat the 2 bets i had placed on 2 runners only ran 2nd and 3rd,shame because they were both paying over $20 although their real odds were about $4. Anyway,i came away with a profit of $240 from memory. The moral of the story is, if you ever see that,don't get too greedy. Small fish are sweet sometimes.

Same old same old. At least you put forward what you think are solutions i suppose. Strange how my view of what is basic common sense and logic is the opposite of yours on a lot of these issues. I suggest how to turn a negative into a positive,where as you seem to deny the negative ever existed. From what you say it appears we may have many similar views of where society is at ,and what paths it may be heading down.I just think applying that thinking to the harness racing industry is actually over thinking the current issues. Things should be simple. Sometimes it should be easy to recognise right from wrong. Things normally need to come to a head before the problem is dissected and dealt with.Your view just leads to putting things off,and that approach just leads to the same issues rearing their head in the future.

The main point of the debate today has been about whether having dominant favorites who pay under $2 is good for racing,and good for getting the punters to bet. You may like it,but most don't. If your theory is correct then you would have loved those penalty free races the all stars used to dominate. You know,the ones where 8 win horses would line up against 1 win horses.The ones where they used to get 25 nominations,but only ended up with fields of 6 or 7 in them. They always stifled betting. The whole point of the recent handicapping system has been to make fields more attractive betting wise by not having dominant favorites.The reason they have done that is because they know thats what needed to encourage betting and participation. One thing i believe has been obvious is if they wanted to encourage betting,they were wrong to rehandicap the 3yo winners only half the points. That change has lead to more short priced favorites at tracks like addington and auckland. I think that was a dumb move just to placate the big players.Why should a 3yo get half the points of a 4 yo and over for winning the same race ?

Adding up what punters would have made had they put $1 e.w. on each of the natalie rasmussen drives last night. She drove 8 horses for 5 wins and 3 places. If you put $1 e.w,a spend of $16,you would have made $2.30. Punters who follow her would have to see her maintain the amazing strike rate just to break even. Thats hardly worth the effort,unless your just backing for the entertainment,which is fair enough,but many punters will get turned off.

If the all stars go back to dominating like they used to that would be a definite negative for the industry as a whole. Call my statement what you like,i call it reality. 5 winners last night and the biggest dividend was $2 wasn't it. That may encourage some people to punt,but turns off far more. Most agree multiple short priced favorites in races causes reduced spending by punters overall. The new handicapping system has been based around the principle that more even betting fields are required if turnover is to be increased.

What that conversation reflected is the failure of industry leaders to get the right message out there. I've said it before ,and am saying it again. Its a good thing that the cheats are being caught,and that is the reason why harness racing is currently one of the most honest sports to be involved in.. Thats what i think your answer should have been karrots,thats what everyones,including industry leaders should be. Anyone involved in harness racing should welcome such questions,as its an opportunity to paint a more accurate picture of the industry. No one within the industry should have reason to feel uncomfortable about receiving such questions. It should be the opposite.

how about that,repaid the loyalty with a win.

Well its always better as a sit sprinter,and could have got the trail behind the 2nd favorite,so i thought it not a great drive.Connections had also previously said its better driven with cover about 3 months ago in the media.

Cullen does seem loyal to his stable drivers. Nothing wrong with that,I think Orange is better than rasmussen myself. I note cullen has put o thornley on amazing dream and a better you at auckland. He's been very loyal to her.I suppose they are not big races.He can't be expecting either to win tonight.

about 2005 i think. I don't refer to blue magic much,but you can hardly forget it can you. I am a believer in the best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior, but of course there are always exceptions to anything. As far as horses being set for races,and maybe not trying as mentioned earlier by other posters in this thread.I think when it comes to harness racing in 2021 in nz,some over analyse whether everyone is trying in every race. There is no doubt occasionally a horse may not be driven to win,but those occasions are very rare,and they stand out because of that. N.Z Harness racing drivers are very honest in my opinion. And on that very rare occasion that something dodgy driving wise occurs,it gets highlighted on sites like this one. I think sometimes you get drivers that seem to go through patches where they lose self confidence,and their form may drop off,but thats not because they aren't trying. An example of that currently is jessica young.Normally she is a good driver,but nearly all her drives in the last week have been poor,but we shouldn't confuse someone losing there confidence with someone not trying. Then you have the likes of dunn,orange,rasmussen,etc who are always in form.

he had 2 positives to the drug known as blue magic.

Those were the days. But i was reading an article just this week on how many sports were struggling with participation levels. In particular the article focused more on rugby,but noted many sports have similar problems to racing.

that just means they probably have a budget as relates to how much they can spend/lose. Their thinking is the same as what you really have been expressing.Why lose it midweek on races they have little knowledge of,when they can invest on horses they know something about at the weekend.their thinking being they are more likely to make money there because of their increased knowledge,which makes some sense. Its like betting on a provincial sports team. If your local team is playing your going to bet on them if you think they can win,not on a higher grade of the same sport you have no knowledge of. People also like to follow those they can relate to. Every sport/competition/race is an event with winners and losers. The quality doesn't have to be always at the highest level. they can all be entertaining.

Isn't that the norm on 90% of nz harness on those aussie tabs.A lot comes down to how much pre race exposure they get,no matter what the class of horse racing.

Your words. I know you weren't referring to betfair and backing a horse to lose as you have suggested i may have thought. The point is you have been saying people are more likely to make money betting on premier nights than a low grade mid week meeting.And thats what i have said is not true. The tab payout exactly the same % of every dollar invested on the tote at both meetings.there is no difference. Then if betting with the bookies.Your suggesting that punters are more knowledgeable about the horses running at premier meetings,well thats true. But so are the bookies.They still set the same % when framing markets . The reality is being a successful punter on either meeting is based on your knowledge of the form. You are more likely to get horses over the odds on the lower grade meetings,because the overall knowledge of punters on the horses running is not as great as the premier meetings. saying the fields were pitiful,as you did, really just meant you had little knowledge around those that were running.