the galah

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.

The question is would Purdon have driven like that if ultimate sniper was not trained by him. And I think the answer is no. His job was to drive cruz bromac to achieve the best possible final position and its debatable whether he did so by allowing his stablemate an easier run. Of course both did not have to strain as much in the final 400m as they would have had he remained parked. I think we have to be realistic and accept that in a series like this some horses will get driven more conservatively so as to get through the 3 runs in a week in better shape. The punter and the trainer have different perspectives. I think the stipes were right to ask the question but nothing will come of it because it is unclear whether staying parked would have made any difference to the result. Having such high numbers in the final will make it very hard for the opposition drivers.

Well reading the stipes report it confirmed Monkey Selfie did not get a fair start at the 3rd attempt because the tape did not clear it. That is what it looked like and that is why its driver was looking in front of her horse when it was reluctant to move. Clearly a case that Chilcott should have reported but obviously she had no thought for punters who backed her horse. What a debacle. 3 tries at a standing start and even the 3rd one was unfair. Punters shafted. If that happened in Canterbury we would not hear the end of it.

As expected the one I backed was looking for a false start 3rd time round spooked and broke shortly thereafter when the horse outside it squeezed it up. They should allow punters to get off.

How hopeless are those standing starts at Auckland. 13 minutes and 3 attempts to get a start where the tapes go. You don't see that sort of stuff in the south island. Do they actually pre test those tapes before a meeting?

Its not irrigation that is the problem,but excessive irrigation. That may be true , but is that a valid reason to alter track surfaces through irrigation?

Again Mr Pitman was asking the question why so many tracks are watered so as to make it unsuitable for horses who prefer firm tracks. Every time I hear him say this,which is often, I agree with him. He was commenting after a win by one of his horses who he said finally got the firm track that it needed. From a betting perspective punters should not have to factor in how much a track is watered, as in the end it just puts you off betting as the form is more inconsistent. Some horses yesterday turned their form around big time which just goes to show punters should be wary of betting on gallops as the form can change in summer depending on track irrigation .

I tend to agree. The starters assistance should not have been there but the 2 horses bad manners happened after the start. A poor look in that race. That starting point at oamaru is poor for horses who draw the outside,they get spooked by what appears to be the noise of the tape hitting the outside fence. Anything drawn the outside seems to break.

Would this be the boring race ever run in recent hstory. Going by the times posted the highest assessed lcass race of the day ran their first 2600m in 3.50. Snails go faster down hill. The pacemaker,doitson,is known for being better with cover but no one seemed interested . It looked like one of the 6 pulled so hard it dropped out badly. An old lady with a zimmer frame could have shown more mid race speed.

Doing some reading it seems Russian athletes were using this well over a decade ago. Tests on rats showed a 70% xenon,30%oxygen mix doubled the epo levels a day later. Remember we were all told how those oxygen chambers were being used by Australian trainers who were leaders in their field when it came to new training methods. As we knew, it was just another way to get an advantage, not through training, but through science. As far back as 2015 Australians officials were saying this would be a significant integrity threat to racing in the future. If NZ officials are serious they would test all frozen post race samples of the stables who look like they use .They say they can test for it,so go ahead and do so. That will never happen. The only thing I would say is it once again proves what many of us have been saying for years. That is science is a vital part of a successful winning formula.To be a successful trainer you have to embrace science. People like the mick guerins of this worls think we are all stupid. But no we're not. Anyway,from a punting perspective does it really effect the way we bet. For me no it doesn't. The reason for that is because those using the latest science appear to always be there to win and they race consistently. I'm not saying it is ok, i'm just saying its the way it is. This subject is the reason many give the game away who used to own and train.

Does anyone really think anything will come of this? You say the article says hrnz is able to test for it. That's different from saying they are testing for it. Does it say it is illegal,or is it just another one of those things that will become illegal. All a bit of a yawn to me as nothing much ever happens and will hrnz really want another scandal? I doubt this has anything to do with the all stars,as currently there are a couple of stables that's horses seem to have more oxygen at the end of a race than theirs do. That's saying something isn't it. What this all really means is its just time for the search for the next performance enhancer to begin. Find something currently legal and use it until someone kicks up a fuss. its just history repeating its self. Call me cynical,but hrnz is probably saying the matter may be investigated by the SPCA or Ministry of Primary industries because they know those agencies will not put much resource into doing so,and they also have seen how many of the industry participants view operation inca and the search for the truth there. In other words,best not to go there.

While they don't hold them as long as they used to,that hasn't really happened in Canterbury as yet from my observations, It does still happen occasionally further south but I think it better to have that than have them stand too long. Prior to the change in Canterbury you would see horses from down south becoming fractious prior to a start when having to stand for too long in a Canterbury start. And the opposite applied., Horses from Canterbury would not begin as quick in the stands down south as they were not used to there starts. It especially applied for horses who were inexperienced. The current overall consistency has got to be a good thing.