the galah

i think they hand out warnings when deserved. Sometimes its the horses fault. I like to see those i bet on be up on the gate as it shows the horse is switched on.Also it is noticeable that when a horse who normally is keen to show gate speed is not as keen, then that is normally a clear sign they will underperform, whether they be driven forward or back. The most obvious example of horses who are never switched on is those from the mclellan stable in southland. They have got so used to not trying that they don't even keep up with the mobile anymore and have lost their chance even before they have reached the start. But if a start is done consistently the same way then the drivers should know to be ready.The issue seems to be more with these big fields where they have two groups of horses off the front,with those who draw in the middle turning in a bit slower than they should.From what i have read the policy is to let them go as long as they are not pacing or trotting,in other words a slow short walk is ok. If you watch those trotting races in southland,the horse crusher collins always plays up,always then gets a running start,and nearly always there are others in the same race that aren't positioned correctly due to the delay. Have a look at Thats the story for example. I backed it in its last 2 invercargill starts,but neither time did the driver have it anywhere near its correct position,partly because of crusher collins and partly because of the driver. But who drives them is all part of the factor in how much they are paying.And we can't expect everyone to be as good as Orange or Dunn.

It may appear like that,but the outside horses are the first to turn in and get their chance to be on the mobile arm. In fact the mobile being driven at a constant speed should be what those first onto the mobile want. Thats really not a starter cause.

Seriously,if you think the starts are inferior in canterbury to anywhere else then you are not watching the same races that i am. Also,surely it has occurred to everyone that canterbury often have full 15 horse fields in standing starts,whereas elsewhere they are normally dealing with under 10. Some seem to be looking for the perfect start everytime, but no starter is ever going to get that. I agree that in the past many used to get unfair starts from Lamb,but that's the past and he has changed his stance regarding trying to have every horse standing still like he used too. So what is the current procedure for standing starts that you think most recently was discussed in march and agreed upon by all concerned? If people don't know,should they be commenting on something being wrong when what we are seeing is in fact what has been agreed is wanted. As far as mobile starts go,i have said many times that if you want to get horses to break then you drive the mobile too slow.Just watch the videos. Its so obvious. You rarely see horses break in canterbury because the mobile is going too slow,but you often see it at invercargill. As i have said before also,why is it some drivers are always ready and others not. Thats not a starter issue. If you watch standing starts you would know that if a horse is a half or three quaters length back at the start, they are most likely to begin slower than they would if they were closer to the tape. Thats normally a driver issue or a horse manners issue. Finally i don't really care who the most popular personality amongst starters is.

What were you thinking when you saw it today? $151 on fixed odds,but looked like it was going to run 3rd until the last 40m. Not likely to win one,but did show improvement.

No i'm not mr lamb,don't know him personally,just base my opinions on my own reviews of each race run in nz. None of the previous posters seem to have acknowledged that the way he starts races now is vastly different and improved from what it was a couple of seasons ago. Its like most criticising him have the mindset that he should currently be judged on the past and not the present. I've moved on from being a critic,and now see him as the best in nz. Still each to their own opinion.

Personally i think his starts are way better these days than they used to be. Overall i think Lamb is doing a good job. I have noticed some drivers often just don't seem to have their horses ready,and others are always ready and well positioned on the tape. If you want to point the finger at a starter just have a look at the mobile races in invercargill. As i've pointed out before,the speed of the mobile is the cause of so many breakers down there.The worst one yesterday was Jimmy Carter in race 9. The starter down there really needs to be given some advice on what speed a mobile should be driven at.

hereford breeder,bullshit. Stuff news stuffing it up. Nice play on words.

I wonder what effect the proposed changes in australia will have on horses bred here. I have read a couple of articles on this ,with the latest one on harnesslink. Personally i see the merit in such a change,i just wonder how that will impact the numbers bred to the most popular stallions in nz. And whether it will effect in anyway the numbers the australians recognise for racing there. Would be nice if someone in the media could write a more detailed article on it as it has been in the pipeline for some time, but i haven't seen much coverage of the topic so far.

I guess he is a good salesman,and maybe that is what wellington have recognized.Lets be honest ,he sold the racing industry his ideas,and they fell for it hook ,line,and now sinker. Maybe wellington looked at what he did to the racing industry and thought if the racing industry can be sucked in like they were,then we need a saleman/promoter like him.

I see the stipes asked the question about the S Ottley drive on Sioux princess yesterday,and so they should have. The most surprising thing was that trainer,M Jones stated his instructions were to have the horse driven with a sit as that is what suits the horse best. Now i think he needs to watch a video of its last 2 wins, and the win the week before that at the trials,but hes allowed his opinion. But if we take his comment seriously,which i personally don't,then why do we not have a rule where trainers are required to notify the public of a change in tactics. Punters should have been notified Jones had instructed his driver to drive in the opposite way to the way it had been driven when it won its previous 2 starts.

I see they fined Butt $500 for excessive use of the whip so that must have been what you spotted. I can't work out why they didn't question john dunn about his drive. Hes a top driver but why did he pull off the passing lane,then why wait another 75m before pulling out? No questions asked a bit timid from the stipes.

Don't know brodie. Just looked like john dunn made a terrible tactical decision to not take the passing lane. Must have won had he taken the passing lane or even just pulled it out earlier.

Are you serious? What has that got to do with the racing integrity unit? Can you enlighten us as to which jurisdiction it wouldn't be allowed to start? To me we have here people moaning about connections who take good care of their horses and choose to continue to race one that is limited in ability. So what. How about they show the same level of concern in those who use performance enhancers which have negative impacts on the health of the horse.How about you take a look at those who discard their horses after racing with little thought as to their fate. Often the fate of a horse after racing lies in the hands of an owner who has no way of caring for a retired racehorse,or in the care of someone to whom the horse is just a commodity to be discarded when no longer useful. Or the trainers who would rather send one to the knackery than have someone else train it. As in life,racing is full of double standards.

Actually when i was young i won an on course betting competition by backing the townley runners that day who warmed up pre race with their eyes popping out. Worked for me anyway,

Wasn't that back in the day when milkshaking was legal? He does,but they don't look like they can go another round after the finish if they have a hard run. Being driven by a top driver like him also a factor as well as being a good trainer. Only negative is most of his better horses are they don't seem to last more than a couple of seasons. Mind you thats the same for most trainers.

He does have a great strike rate. You probably don't agree with me,but name another trainer that can turn around a horses form like he can. Tall poppy by 12 lengths in 2.25 at Timaru,love the blues by 16 lengths at addington,and now team kiwi. He certainly can get them to run can't he.

Their horse so i don't see it as a problem if they want to continue paying the bills,.Some people don't mind and just enjoy having a horse at the races,and they have had good success with others..Each to their own.No doubt those that run against it don't mind seeing it in the field.

That Team Kiwi performance was truly amazing. And after the post it looked like it could have gone on for a bit further. Already gone also went huge so maybe the fast track was a factor,but it certainly looked like that stable can get significant improvement from other trainers.We saw earlier in the year this stable produced love the blues to win by 16 lengths at addington. Its just a bit of a problem for the punter to predict when they are ready to fire. Obviously Nowornever predicted right.

Driven by facts and logic. Nothing wrong with that. I don't mind being fact checked if i have got something wrong. As to John Allens salary, i was quoting from a story titled "million dollar salary" about what they said he would get paid when he went to the tab 5 years ago. If you say he only got paid $700,000 then i will believe you, then again he is also quoted as saying in an interview he only got paid $560,000 a couple of years ago. I would have thought his type of job would have included bonuses for turnover met,allowances ,etc which i would have thought could have substantially increased his income but i don't know the detail of the contract he had and how everything he got paid was detailed in accounting. I still think you go out of your way to undermine opinions different from yours,irrespective of the odd fact check,but that's just part of any forum like this so don't mind that as you post a lot of interesting stuff.

I thought Tiebreaker at $4.20ff in race 8 was the standout for the day.

I like the galah, Here i was thinking you devalue my opinion because we continually see things differently,and its just what you do to get your point across.. JJ flash i do agree with on a lot of subjects.

When Allen was first appointed it was reported in a couple of media articles that Allen was expected to receive in excess of $900,00 per year. Yeah,yeah,yeah .... You hate Peters and you love National and you do think you have an opinion of more value than mine. Good for you.

.A true insight into the understanding of how those that have been driving the changes at the tab over the last 10 years simply were incompetent. He pretty much also endorses everything Rutherford said. It truly is farcical to think any business would focus on the side of their business that generated the least return, while undermining the side of their business that generated the most return. Basically,those running it at the top have been morons,and they have recruited and surrounded themselves with more like minded morons. Which if you think about it is predictable,because if the likes of john allen thought he had the skills and knowledge to lead the organisation,then obviously he would surround himself with similar like minded people. Time to sell it to tabcorp. And one last point ,who was the governent that appointed Glenda Hughes,who drove the recruitment of the likes of Allen who reportedly got paid close to a million dollars a year top stuff racing. It was the National government with Nathan Guy as minister of racing. Of course he knew his stuff,wasn't he the one that thought riccarton was addington. Bloody tories!

To be fair to Racing Ministers driver you would have expected Woman in charge to hand up the lead. Woman in charge has always shown it is a sit sprinter with a 100m sprint,so hardly surprising to see it stop so bad.

You have hit the nail on the head as far as setting a precedent for future similar indiscretions.. Having gone to appeal just confirms that. I understand the need to discourage such activity,but personally think the sentence could be argued to be excessive given there appeared no coordinated attempt with others to influence a result,and given he still drove his horse to its ability. He did of course punt on a horse he drove against. It does make me worry that some from operation inca may possibly be subject to similar penalties should they be charged and proven.. I say that understanding there is a need to stomp out this activity,but also balanced with the fact that from a punting point if view, some of those involved in inca are the ones who give punters the most confidence that the horses they drive will always be driven to the best of the horses ability.