the galah

I think on these small tracks the drivers with no tactical sense get lost. I just watched nadira franco driven by a driver with 2 placings from 102 starts. Waited until race over before even pulling out. Drivers with poor stats are the ones who show no aggression. Stats are a factor that is very important.

yes bb lass has improved a lot since joining house and even though the forbrury form not that strong I think this field is similar. It did hit the line strong at forbury after hanging a little on last bend . I thought it was nice to see race rival the 10year old little miss run 4th the other day.The jellyman stable has been trying for a while with this one. Having said that its odds of $23 seem rather short as well. I like watching these races to see how the likes of those mentioned go..

Race 1 tomorrow at reefton ,the non win trot. I see K gill who is yet to drive a winner in 149 starts is on the $2.80 favorite Gotta ticket. Will start 150 be the lucky one? The tab seem to think so,strangely enough.

I agree with you on that spanna drive the week before. Mcnally seemed to show very poor judgment,actually a bit comical unless you had backed it that day. As you say the stipes ignored that. Hard to work out other than what Brodie says, which was dobbs is an easy target. The start you highlight should not have happened with the starters assistant still holding that horse. It was a race with a few fractious horses pre start,but an error made there. I still think the starts overall are good these days. Those big fields on the grass tracks with a few fractious horses can be a frustrating watch.

Race 1 at ashburton on Tuesday sees Steel Dust have a change of driver. The driver change should see major improvement in the horses chances.

Whats peoples opinions of the stipes decision to suspend the driver of kens dream for striking the wheel of mono gamble after mono gamble broke and ran in and out and virtually came to a stop in front of trailing runners. Mr Dobbs driving may not inspire punter confidence, but I've watched this race several times and to me it looks like mono gambles driver fails to take his horse clear of the field when in a gallop.

If you were to say that you would say the same about the likes of dalgety, dunn and some other successful trainers. He was / is a very talented horseman who from my observations was always very kind to horses in his care. Unfortunately people who don't know him too well may not know that and the publicity over the whip thing .probably doesn't help. Having said that I think he would have been better to not express his frustration in the way he did. As I said earlier, lets hope he reconsiders his decision to give up having a licence.

This has been a very positive change for connections of horses who are to be promoted. We once had a horse involved in a promotion and it took almost a year for them to have a hearing , despite connections of the horse who returned the positive wanting to get it dealt with and admitting they had made an error. That was pre RIU days. its appears only recently that those dealing with these cases have shown common sense and fairness when dealing with this side of a positive.It is good to see.

Its a bit like a couple of the other recent positives where they disqualify the horse so stakes can be paid out but deal with the penalty at a later date.

In this case I think authorities are pursuing an agenda that they think will help public perception. Nothing wrong with that, but problems arise if they don't sell the changes needed t to licence holders. And you have to treat everyone the same. You just can't go and pick on someone simply because they are an easy target. They should have guidelines for laying such a charge and surely part of those should be a vets report relating to whether the marks,if any, left on the horse are out of the ordinary and detrimental to the horse. Keast makes a very valid point. Because this is a first of its type,it probably is a learning experience for those involved. But this is someones reputation that appears to be unfairly tarnished.

The article came via an email promoting some new publication,the wife told me about it but then deleted it after I read it,so I can't help you there. I'm not sure what the lovey dovey moment dispute has to do with the whip charge,if any at all. I doubt its advisable for a trainer to comment to the media on an owner dispute. Takes part of the focus off the whip charge when that is where the focus should be from keasts perspective..

I've just been reading an article about Jamie Keast and how he has handed in his licence after becoming upset over apparently being charged with hitting the horse ascalabus too hard when winning on cup day.. The article made interesting reading in regard to the way the case was handled by authorities and Keast's reaction there to. As to the charge of hitting his horse too hard and what drove authorities to pursue this matter. Having watched the race there is no doubt there can be a perception that Keast"s whip action can lead to a view that he hits his horses harder with the whip than most others. But what is too hard and is the perception reality? Keasr has pointed out many times that if his horses were to be examined after the race authorities would see comparative to other drivers he does not leave marks on his horses which warrant being singled out. The reason he's continually pointed this out is because their is truth in what he says,and could be confirmed by those he has driven for and by simply having authorities taking the time to have a look at his horse/horses after the race. So keast is in my view a victim of a false perception. Having said that having the attitude that perception should be ignored by authorities is unrealistic. That's the world we live in. Now personally I can't understand how it is fair to charge Keast with such an offence if they have not given him warning specifically relating to this point. I don't know whether this has happened,but there is a big difference between warning someone about their whip action and warning someone about giving the perception they have hit their horse too hard. Keast subsequent comment about one of the riu staff seemed unnecessary. He can make a case that the treatment he has received is unfair without such comments,but I guess his frustration is understandable. Keast clearly is unhappy and it is unfortunate that he talks about no longer renewing his licence as that would be a waste of his talents which would not be able to be used by those he supports. So he really is mistakenly punishing the wrong ones But ultimately that's up to him as to how he feels. What will be interesting is the reaction of other licence holders to this case. So many have been quick to condemn action taken by authorities in the race fixing saga,that is despite not having full knowledge of the evidence involved. Will they be just as vocal here as this could easily be argued to be a case of unfair treatment. Or are those vocal over the treatment involved in the race fixing sage only interested in defending high profile licenceholders. It will be interesting to see how that side of things plays out here.

Great days racing at motukarararara Punters paradise. The wife punted the $111 winner night schooll,(3/3 ew). The first win for its driver A mugford I think. Ray Reekie back in the winners circle with bobby t and I was smiling after the R Cameron stable doubled up with Islas joy at $48.. I had a small investment on star reactor at $28 for a place,but unfortunately thought the stable might get Young stranger home but that never happened. You can't beat grass track racing for its good dividends and the stories related to each success.

It was a good nights viewing last night,even if I didn't bother with the betting due to favorites being so dominant. After I watched race 2 I wondered why John Dunn appeared to drive to give Natalie Rasmussen a gap in race 2 on Above and Beyond . After watching the race it looked like he pulled out to protect the safety of the drivers behind him because Rasmussen went into a gap that wasn't there. But no. Nothing to do with safety. Nothing to do with Rasmussen. The stipes report says John Dunn advised stewards he thought his horse was about to choke so he pulled it wide at the 300m.. The stipes believe anything these top drivers say.. Its like they have a book of excuses for every occasion and the video of the incidents are irrelevant.

I think the reason the pools are so small at Palmerston north is because the form is so hard to follow and the driving inconsistent,with no real scrutiny by officialdom. Add to that the Michael house factor where he brings so many new horses to the meetings who's form is so hard to asses in their first runs for the stable. Its best to just follow blair orange and house but the dividends offer no value. I had a theory that you put a line through anything the commentator labels as his better bets of the day. He's helped me out a few times in that respect as I often picked the same as he did prior to finding out his selections.I no longer bet there anyway for the earlier reasons I gave.

Seems a fair enough decision. It was a poor drive,but it happens. Just unfortunate for the connections of the horse. I see earlier she had said she had expected Paduka to trail as this was its racing pattern. She was right there. Paduka has been driven to take a sit virtually every time E. Barron drives it. Of course the big difference was b orange was driving paduka. He would have realized that Paduka does not always require cover like it is always driven.. Its 2 wins had come when it lead all the way and when it sat parked all the way.

Makes an interesting read. I don't know what else she was expected to do in the circumstances as the race unfolded. I don't think anyone who looked at her whip use would think it was excessive or unkind, but there is no discretion which can be used when it comes to charging drivers by those enforcing the rule. I don't have a problem with the rule. In this case I do believe some discretion could have been used as far as penalty goes. But then again, consistency in penalty is also important. Its just one of those subjects where occasionally you think the penalty is not deserved.. Its very unfortunate if you are the person concerned,and k Barclay must feel understandably frustrated. to say the least. But its a big picture subject, and the rule is needed in my opinion.

The support Clark barron and his owners show his daughter is admirable, but if you look at the stats he has had a very poor run in the last couple of seasons by his normal standards. So far this year he has trained just the 1 winner from 43 starts for a udr of .1137. Last year he trained 6 winners from 170 starts for a udr of.1183. Interestingly he trained 18 winners the previous year from 164 starters and a udr of .1924. I'm guessing he was still using Blair Orange then. This is a stable that always tries,but if you follow some of their horses you can't help but feel their ability is not reflected in their results. I've noticed E barron actually seems to have some success for other stables. I would say horses do run for her,just tactically it can be a frustrating watch in my opinion. Obviously her father is going to stick with her and its unfair to compare her driving to blair orange who used to be the stables regular driver. There are a handful of horses in that stable that really should have won that haven't as yet this season ,so it would not surprise to see their stats improve.

That will be interesting how it impacts on future racing and travel. Depending on who you talk too some reports have the rangitata bridge being opened up later in the week but a couple of locals say its most likely to be condemned for future use with doubts of the other one inland at Arundel as well.

No one is complaining about what happens after the start. You should be more specific in your comments regarding fair starts . I would be more interested in what you have to say about those as your view on punters doesn't have much relevance to the starts being discussed.

You talk about not being able to treat the horse because of withholding times then in the next statement say the problem was not serious. Clearly it effected his race performance . You can' get away from the fact they knew that before they started. Would Nairn have started the horse if it did not require the points for the final. Its a very poor example to set.

Bling it on was just the victim of a poor tactical drive. It looked obvious the all stars would dominate from the front so you would have thought Bling it on would have gone forward and then handed up to the all stars and end up 3 back the fence. His alternative waa to creep forward from the 1200m and take the 1/1 behind A G 's whitesocks who was following him. Probably would have run 3rd with either tactics. He did neither and instead tried to sprint from the rear from the 800m, wide on the track when they were running a 54 second 800m off the front. That was setting his horse an impossible task and his poor final placing was more about the drive than the horse in my opinion.

What I take from that is the trainer lined his horse up so as to get enough points to make the final. And that this was sanctioned by a vet who would have us believe hives would not effect its performance. There is no integrity there at all.

Read all reports on hrnz that connections very happy with this horse. The horse then runs terrible. clearly not 100%. Turns out the horse was pre race checked and passed fit to start despite having bad hives. Punters robbed again

There can be no suggestion Chase Aucklands driver was team driving as A g's whtesocks is not trained by the alll stars,anyway he trailed at the 1200m,not with 600m to run. Team driving is why the stipes asked the question. As to your reference to The Fixer being driven for a quiet run. That's not what the video shows.She was looking to improve throughout.