the galah

I agree. Reality is your never going to stop it no matter what the stable. That doesn't make it right. Its one of the most regularly discussed topics on here and by punters. The only way to have a deterrent is to create a mindset amongst those involved that they may be charged and held accountable for improper driving when it is so very obvious. I believe in each horse being driven on its merits no matter how many there is from one stable in each race.Simple as that.

Is a leading trainer/driver being found guilty on a charge of improper driving mean nothing? Some people just don't seem to get it. Treat punters with contempt and disdain and you create a distrust that lasts for many a year. It taints the whole industry. You criticize everyone involved in operation inca, but no criticism of someone who pleads guilty to in effect team driving.

1. Team driving is a bad look 2. what nigel mcgrath got fined for is not that uncommon in the big races,so in some ways he must feel he was treated different and more harshly than others. 3. Orange is the best and has always been honest .

Shame lincoln farms did the team driving thing with tommy lincoln.. I've expressed the opinion several times that this stable always do .While it's not uncommon,i wonder why stables just don't have their horses driven in a way that gives each horse its best chance. Can't be good for their long term prospects when they are sacrificed like that horse was. Good win by the filly having said that. I wonder what Nigel mcgrath thinks when he watches races like that? Blair orange never sacrifices a horses chances for the sake of a stablemate which is one of the reasons punters have such faith in him.

I agree with what you have said Brodie. The other thing about the oamaru grass track is it has always been a major advantage to be on the fence due to the grass being dryer and not as thick closer to the rail.. I"ve walked that track and also observed how they irrigate it with those pivots that go round in a circle. You would see more water go on the middle than the inside..This especially applies because the oamaru track is wide and the middle often got double irrigated when doing both inside and outer...Mind you they're not the only track with a bias,just theirs is the most noticeable..

Yes the media do print comments which fits the narrative they want to portray. Hers the point i'm getting at.. You had so many bleeting on about the RIU not advising HRNZ of the investigation,primarily because the RIU believed the investigation could be compromised had they done so. And here you have the head of hrnz making comments which clearly justify the RIU decision.

I get your point. What do you think he told mcgrath? I've inferred he supported mcgraths decision to defend the case because he agreed with the senior drivers evidence that there was nothing wrong with his drive. Are you telling me i'm wrong and he believed mcgrath was guilty. What about his comment about putting his friendship above his role as head of hrnz. Seriously do you think he comes across very well to those who have an are unbiased view of the case. He states" i'm not going to turn against a friend" . Whats that all about. To me he lost a bit of perspective with such comments. Should he not be more thoughtful about what comments he makes to the media. mind you we do get an insight into his thinking with such comments.

So McGrath pleads guilty to the lesser of the charges. Obviously because he and his legal representative could see the writing on the wall in respect of there being sufficient evidence to prove the charge. Subsequent comments from the judge confirm that. Yet we still have people inferring that he did nothing wrong. It states in the article that several senior harness racing drivers gave evidence saying they saw nothing wrong with the way mcgrath drove,as it appears did the hrnz chairman mr spicer. Is it not blatantly obvious that those suggesting there was nothing wrong with mcgraths drive were proven wrong. the question is does the article accurately reflect current attitudes of the very same licenceholders and administrators who say there was nothing wrong with his drive. In that respect i think as a result of operation inca there has been a rethink by some as to what is acceptable and what is not.As i've said before i think race driving is the most honest it has ever been.. For the head of hrnz to openly criticize the press for reporting a decision that proved Spicer was clearly wrong in saying mcgrath did nothing wrong does make you wonder about his judgment. Sure many he is associated with will value his loyalty,but there can be no doubt his judgment was questionable. Maybe someone should have told Spicer true loyalty is telling someone when they have made a mistake. Then again maybe Spicer did truely believe that team driving is an acceptable part of racing,or maybe he just couldn't see what what was obvious to any unbiased observer. Finally i think what Mcgrath went through far outweighed his actual actions.Lifes not always fair.

Sometimes you wonder if those making the decisions regarding trackside coverage actually find harness racing nothing more than a nuisance. Race 2 at nelson just run they cross to the track with 1 minute 45 seconds to go. People like myself actually like to see the horses pre race,so I didn't bother investing much,but why are they previewing the last few races at Ellerslie with 2 minutes to go to a nz harness race. Surely anyone with any sense can see that is having a negative impact on turnover. I swapped channels to trackside 63 and they were having a 5 minute lead in to a north American gallops race. same thing happened on day 1 at nelson. I have rung the tab to complain previously, but its in one ear and out the other for them.

I think a rule that needs changed is the one where a horse is late scratched and the starting positions of horses change. Yesterday Star Ruler went from 2 the second line to 1 the second line moments before the start of the race. Effectively it went from following the 2nd favorite to following a horse of lesser chance. In reality it hindered its chances and punters were mislead. I see the stipes asked the question of tetrick driven by the punters friend(not), mr Mclellan. The thing is they asked why the improved performance,but not why the changed tactics. Anyone watching this horse has seen it driven with a sit for what seems forever. I've watched this horse driven that way so many times and have always been convinced that the horse has got that used to being driven that way that It simply knows it doesn't have to try. If punters knew Mr mclellan was going to drive it in a way to give it a chance it would have been paying half what it did. Should he not have been asked why he was trying yesterday?

I agree with your view that by entering the passing earlier than permitted it allowed him to get up in the last stride and win. The question is did theJca have the discretion to relegate or was disqualification automatic. if there was no discretion t would seem a rule change may be required to allow it,as disqualification seems out of proportion to the indiscretion committed..

Thanks for that. I actually thought its first 2 days runs were as good as any in that field. It was just the right field for it to be considered a top chance. My theory has always been if they are in the top 3 in a race it is better to get a run and be driven at a speed they are comfortable with rather than sitting and hoping for luck. I think most horses prefer it that way and are more likely to give their best that way. But I understand the tactics used,its just I think they were not the right ones. I understand the driver not keeping coming out as the horse was going strong at that point and would have taken quite an adjustment in momentum to be restrained behind the horse outside it. I find the races from reefton just as interesting as a premier meeting as having a bet is my hobby. We all have different takes on things,but the main thing is we enjoy it. I hope the horse does well for the connections and driver in the future.

Isn't washdyke on leased land. So no assets to sell there.

Driven quiet all 3 days. Right field today,just wrong tactically.Should really have won.Waiting for next year? I have to admit its hard to work out what the point is of sitting on the fence when you can sit parked on a slow speed,especially if the leader has average form. Lots do it.

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..