the galah

I would call him a very good trainer,not an average trainer. Just look at his results., but there can be no denying he improves horses and it won't be just training. The vet has to be part of the reason you would think. Maybe its a feed thing as well as facilities.. And I don't know why the Blair Orange factor is not emphasized more. He gets in the cart and horses improve, no matter who the trainer. And if you watch Houses horses he can improve them in the speed department. Vets tend to help stamina,not speed. I think some underestimate House. Still we all have differing views about different people and it gives me something to discuss before I go to work.. I can't be bothered doing the lawns.

I thought a good interview. It may have been a light hearted approach from House and the interviewer but the interviewer gave an insight into House and how his ability to communicate has helped him succeed. I do get what Newmarket means when he says he was disappointed with House's answer on the blood spinning question. But when you think about it what else was he likely to say. He did say he hadn't used blood spinning, but it was hard to take that answer seriously when he went on to say he had better shit. I know he was meaning that " tongue n cheek" but for someone so good at public relations it was a strange answer on that segment of the interview. I hope we see more interviews posted from Westview.

Another nights racing at Cambridge concludes and once again the normal questionable tactics from the same drivers. In the last zac butcher seemed intent on softening up the leader allonblack for the stablemate who was sitting in the trail. Compare that to his drive in the previous race on grey stoke where he made no attempt whatsoever to pull out with 300m to go despite going easily. Maybe I give him too much credit for his ability, but just watch both races and you will see what I mean. . Same old same old,in my opinion.

This thread has made me laugh out loud when reading some of the replies. I now know why the long que forms when newmarket is in the confessional at church on sundays.

You say the owners are selling overseas because there are not enough races,thus there is no chance of winning enough money. I don't think that's right. I think the real reason is the domination of the all stars in the pacing ranks is so great that owners sell before their asset is devalued. Proof of that is simple.Just look at who wins all the feature pacing events. The trotters have no all star domination and their numbers are good. And they operate under the very same handicapping system. You say owners of 1 win horses are disillusioned because they have to race the winners of multiple races.That may be true for those used to the multiple penalty free wins in particular,,but the reality is the current handicapping system has lead to greater overall retention and participation in the lower grades. So its doing what it was designed to do is it not? The topic is headed the gradual decline of harness racing. From a punting perspective the industry needs to look at itself as a cause. Punters expect honesty from participants.. They expect those who's job it is to enforce the rules to do so without fear or favor. Since the advent of trackside punters are no longer as ignorant as they used to be. Just look to Australia to see how harness racing has declined. I was talking to a bloke today from Australia who"s currently visiting over here. He likes a bet.He said he never bets on the trots as he gave up a few years ago because there were too many crooks in the game over there . I said to him he should follow the trots here as I think they currently are as honest as they have been. He just said no,he didn't trust harness racing because of what he knew from a few years ago.

What's a Pid? Ive looked up the word and its definition is an abbreviation for pelvic inflammatory disease. Are you talking in code ? The WH. Whats that mean. Are you suggesting he should be in the White House? I didn't know your such a big fan. Or is it some reference to his weight and height?

Just to be clear,i have no idea whether House uses uses blood spinning or not. I do think he is a very good trainer who always operates within the rules. His decision to use Reids skills is what you would expect from him, as he seems driven to get the best performances possible from himself and his horses,and can think outside the square.

You can't stop people having opinions, and its unrealistic for chat sites like this to censor someone expressing an opinion like brodie has. You don't agree he should be allowed too, but why is it so sensitive a subject? The main point is he has never suggested House,nor anyone else using this product has done anything illegal. He does seem to infer that blood spinning helps performance. Hell I thought that's what people who promote these type of products want people to think. If House does use the product and does so within the rules then why on earth should it upset him or his supporters what brodie has said? I don't know what world some live in,but why can't people accept the truth,and that is a lot of trainers will use products that they believe are performance enhancing and are legal, especially if the cost can be passed onto to owners or results justify the cost of its use. Globe derby, you may get annoyed when someone may suggest anything that implies anything other than training skills will help improve performances. Where do you draw the line?Do you get upset if someone suggests some trainers use vets that can help performance more than others?

mmm, blind spot didn't run fast enough. not a good tip. I'm wishing I took dougies advice and had given the first few race a miss. Still Franco Santino all up onto franco huntington may save the day, or just makes things worse.

I like franco huntington as well.i see its $9 on fixed odds. Also like race 5.blind spot at $41 on ff .

They say the Mongolian derby is the longest and toughest horse ace in the world. Its run over 10 days and they travel 1000km and riders from around the world are invited to compete in a select field. Go jesse and sarah.

Both are by Peak. He leaves horses with talent,but they seem very highly strung and extremely poor mannered when starting off. He will be beating the odds if either of them gets around without galloping. Will be an interesting watch.

I think if you look at the early sectionals it was nothing out of the ordinary. It may have looked like Pauls Verdict was forcing a fast pace because he was hard driven, but I think in reality he was just racing lethargically because he is a tired horse who has run 17 times in the last 9 weeks. I think with the benefit of hindsight his driver would have been better just going to the back of the field and driving him as he felt,(stuffed).

Just wondering when the lack of raceday experience excuse runs out. 5 drives ,10 drives,2 months ? When? Does it apply in Canterbury, southland,Manawatu.? Previously I have pointed out how it lasted a couple of years for a southland junior driver. Why doesn't it apply to non juniors or amateurs starting off? Well the answer to that is they aren't deemed deserving by those enforcing the rules. Its a joke in my opinion. Treat everyone the same and no one will complain about inconsistency. Treat people inconsistently as they are again and they deserve the criticism they get from both sides of the argument.

Gee " the tossers reveling in his misfortune" is way over the top. Mckees the personality, but the thread has not been discussing his personality,achievements or whether he's a top bloke. One thing you did say is "that does not mean the defendant agrees with worksafes summation of the facts but it is past the point where he can refute it." That's not how things work though is it. The proposed summary of the facts would have been presented to mckees lawyer who would have gone through it with mckee, and had he disputed parts of it,he would have had an opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. I think you have to take the view that everyone can learn from this. The whole point of the system/prosecution is to promote safer workplace practices through education. And I thought thats what the thread has been discussing.

Establishing standards and being more proactive go hand in hand don't they? We are talking about the prosecution side of things. It must limit liability if worksafe has approved the standards and you have met them?

I've read all these interesting replies. Maybe I've missed it,but from the replies it appears to confirm there is no recognized certificate of standard of competence which shows the person concerned has demonstrated they are competent to undertake duties listed on the said certificate relating to riding trackwork. And there is no jockey school accredited with issuing said certificates with worksafe approval even operating.. Surely that would have helped indemnify an employer if a person has an accident? It appears there maybe guidelines which trainers must adhere to when first asking said riding tasks. In other words oversight,horse,those accompanying etc which last for time frames,but . once again have they been approved by worksafe, Wouldn't that negate any likelihood of prosecution should an incident occur.? Would we be having this conversation if this was the case.. Or is this an over reaction? Isn't it either make changes to protect against prosecution,or decide to leave things as they are and accept those involved will accept the likelihood of prosecution and will be judged on their own individual practices. This must apply to both codes.

this is not referred to as the darkside without reason westview ? Who refers to the darkside? Or is it one of those comments you were about to expand on but your computer seems programmed to tell you that you were about to type a response longer than the normal one line? Maybe you are the light that will guide us in the right direction? If you are type more than one line so we can more often have a better understanding of what you mean.

That's a tough call to place any blame on the injured girl. The article doesn't give enough detail to make a judgment call like you have. You are assuming all horses react the same when they bolt and that she had been given instructions as to the strategies of how to deal with a bolting horse. The case does appear to highlight the need to have some sort of recognized policy/training on how to handle all situations ,and for those concerned to have been assessed as having demonstrated a level of competence which showed they were ready to undertake every new task.. There needs to be record keeping. Have the trainers association already got something in place where they have worked with worksafe to come up with standards which will protect both employees and trainers should an accident occur? As you infer,the nature of the job means no matter what safeguards are in place,incidents like this are always a possibility. Maybe those iinvolved in this incident should have input in developing future policy which would help lessen the chances of others being injured .

I don't think they should be called sub standard fields. They were just horses racing in the grades that they are in. I much prefer betting on races like that. The higher grade races dominated by a couple of stables with smaller fields are a bit of a turn off to me. If you gave the same pre race media exposure to say the non win race last night at addington as you did to say the junior free for all race on cup day I believe you would get a lot higher punter participation in the non win race.

Cameron drove her first winner last night. Well done to her..I

Curious,I found that a very interesting post. I did trial a system to analyze south island gallops last year, but only had average success with it and shelved it because time v return wasn't good enough.. The ratings of the horses were accurate on tracks with similar track conditions,but the major factor which lead to frustrating results was the very inconsistent performances of some of the south island jockeys.,especially the apprentices. I always thought I needed to factor in weight changes when assessing the fields,but my take on your post is weights are a factor,but are not as important as some may think. I agree with the item you posted when it says different jockeys should have different levels of assessment that need to be combined with the horses assessment. Then you have to factor in draws and the racing patterns of the horses concerned,as for an example a horse with a wide draw that goes back is at more of a disadvantage than a horse with a wide draw that can settle on the pace in my opinion because of the extra distance they will travel.

I understood it makes no difference whether you hit the horse, the shaft or thin air. I think you will get fined if you just do the motion of a strike with the whip even if they can see you never hit the horse once.

I don't agree that the stipes should take into account the inexperience of juniors. Thornley seems to have been penalized because of his inexperience, whereas A Cameron has gotten away with sub standard driving that an amateur would have got 3 months for. One rule for the juniors .another rule for the amateurs and another for everyone else. Seems ridiculous to me and will only lead back to where harness racing was a few years ago where those on the wrong end of inconsistent penalties become disenchanted.

Junior driver A Cameron after 300m steered her horse onto the wheel of the horse inside her,causing her horse to trip and break. As well she flattened the tyre of precious megan resulting in it taking no real part thereafter. An extremely poor piece of driving.t The stipes apparently gave her some friendly advice.Yet Sam Thornley loses his licence for some time for excessive use of the whip. Talk about inconsistent enforcement of the rules. Inconsistent stipe penalties seems to be creeping back. into harness racing. I don't know why some seem to be favored over others although who the stipes on duty are seems to be a factor again.