the galah

Re reading what I wrote , I think I should say I always enjoy reading what you select (c.p.)as they are always worth watching. My point really was to say why not call a sub standard drive what it was. No one in the media ever seems too, for fear of upsetting someone.

What is the definition of tragedy beaten. I think that implies the horse had no luck. I was on it last week, but thought it had several chances in the running to be positioned where the gaps were. I think a more apt description should be it was an extremely poor drive. I don't think luck was a factor last week. i see it has drawn 1 tonight in a preferential barrier draw race,maybe that was a factor?.. I have it rated about 4th,but won't be on because of the driver. That's my opinion.

I was talking to yet another disgruntled punter yesterday. The tab keep trying to tempt him back to betting with the free bets,however he was telling me he found the website so frustrating he gave up using his account not long after it was introduced.. They had even resorted to contacting him by phone. Those who think the new website has helped promote betting on races are ignoring the many the website has alienated.

People who think they know everything are of great annoyance to those of us that do. (just joking cross codes) The old jealousy chestnut is just a way of your deflecting reasonable concerns about the negative impact one stables domination has on participation and betting. I'm not envious of their achievements or possessions. The only area I feel I could be construed as jealous would be my perceived suspicion about advantages gained through team driving,and why their horses never seem tired after a race. Also from a betting perspective one stables domination, whatever the stable, of any race is a complete turn off to me.

You cant have used the main car park as you could not miss what I was talking about. Its been like that for years from memory. Good luck with your horse qualifying for the jewels. I agree with nearly everything you have said happy. As to rangiora, a one positive is you can get closer to the horses when they run a meeting on grass. I fully agree with your comment about tracks with a galloping track around them being doomed as a spectacle. I've always thought oe of the main reasons you get more spectators at the country grass track meetings is because of the close proximity of the horses pre race and during the race. Its just a better experience and viewing.

'

I stated they weren't parading in the birdcage, which was correct. The parade ring is in front of the stables as I stated. Sure people could walk down to the parade ring,however some people are elderly and park close to the birdcage for that reason. As well it adds more to the atmosphere if the horses walk past the public on the way to the birdcage pre race. Did you notice if the public car park had been cleaned up. Last time I was there it had big mounds of dirt covering half of it along with machinery related to a business there. It always surprised me that they could have it in such a state with public access, given the focus put on health and safety issues these days. Counter punch believes the Timaru Club do a good job,so that's good to hear. My observations aren't about the racing side of things.

Just heard greg O'Connor comment on the horses not going into the birdcage pre race at timaru. The horses would only be parading in front of the stables. Apparently they don't want the horses coming out of the birdcage,then crossing from the galloping track to the trotting track. This despite Timaru having had little rain recently. This all to protect the galloping track for a mid week meeting. The closest the public at Timaru can get to the horses pre race would be about 100m. Its just another example of those running these meetings taking away part of the experience of going to the races and getting closer to the action. There is a clear message coming through more and more at some of these tracks. Stay at home and watch the races.

Williams is talented, but he is like most drivers,positive driving gets positive results,negative driving gets negative results. Williiams drive on the just run race 2 at winton was a case of negative driving snuffing out any chance his horse had of placing. No ones perfect I suppose. I've noticed S McNally going through one of those negative patches at the moment. I never quite understand how good drivers can drive so negatively some times. you see it a lot where out of form drivers would rather sit 5 back the fence than face the breeze half way through a race. Its obviously all a mindset they get into.

I backed spot on and had him on top on recent form,i also backed franco nevin but thought he just went a bit too hard,maybe because of the parked horse giving him no time for a breather. I didn't fancy any of the first 3 in that one,and find The DUde a hard hose to follow. As to Valloria,i had him rated 5th but it is a very capable horse with the right run,and destiny jones breaking early helped. Kings landing looked like it had issues which saw it underperform. The all stars seem to have a few who look like they carry a few issues these days. Sometimes you can have a good stable,or horse,that never seem to go as good when you back them. I know its a bit frustrating when that happens,however I think its just coincidence most of the time,as most stables are consistent,its more just the way the race is run that can alter form.

I'm not real fan of Tim Williams,but from a punting perspective I always view him as a positive to the equation when assessing his drives chances. His decision making during a race is consistently of a high standard. We all have our favourites,sometimes we are unfairly influenced by a good or bad result punting, however that's understandable..

The Payne stable is quite inconsistent. Some days their horses run well,but then the same horses seem to not perform at the same level in following starts. They always seem to look good,go best when relatively fresh. Horses like awayovernight often are well supported but never seems to get a good run,and tactically is consistently driven like the driver has no confidence in his horses chances. Having said that,there are lots of others like that. As to peraki reactor,it had shown ok gait speed at its first start,but seemed to put in a funny stride early which resulted in the driver taking hold and ultimately settling 4 back the fence. However she did well to get it off the fence with 900m to go,then totally undid that good move by sitting behind a horse with no real chance on previous race form,and as a result got hemmed in. There was at least 250m for her to improve outwards into the clear prior to getting boxed in. It was hard to tell thereafter whether it would be one of those inconsistent performers I referred to earlier as it never really got a chance to underperform. thats my take on it.

From what I have read. Blood doping can include blood taken about 1 month prior to competing,,Spun to remove the red cells,then closer to competition the red blood cells are transferred back into the horse,thus enhancing the ability of delivering more oxygen. While Blood spinning is defined as being to repair soft tissue issues by increasing healing time,by injecting it directly into the injury. So blood spinning appears to relate to injury repair. Im no expert,but if all they are doing is the definition of blood spinning,they would use it for injuries or quicker repair. So blood spinning isn't going to make them run any faster if they are injury free anyway. It all sounds like smoke and mirrors again.

How many bets do you actually have on each race on the tab website and how long before race start? If you like it then that's good, but I absolutely dislike it.I much prefer the previous tab website.

Just re reading these comments and it made me think of the mark jones drive in the non win trot at Timaru last week where his tactical decision making early in the race made no sense. Then again who can really be sure. My point is he is sowing the seeds for punters to mistrust drivers intentions.That is not a good thing,whether the comments and drive was rightly or wrongly interpreted. If drivers are thinking along these lines then they should leave the driving to someone else.

We both know that Mangos was given preferential treatment yesterday.. This was just another obvious illustration of the double standards the stipes who officiated at that meeting have ,in my opinion.. Inconsistency in the application of the rules only leads to a lack of trust and disrespect .

Yes , it gets a bit tiresome at times,but you have got to do the form if you are trying to make a few $.. I actually think manawatu form on the first day is unpredictable,but the 2nd day tends to go to form. Its all part of a master plan,at least that's what I tell myself. I do think I need a holiday.

Only at manawatu could brent mangos get away with one of the most obvious breaches of the push out rule seen in recent times. The stipes obviously don't care what punters think of their integrity.

Feet issues. Whats that excuse number 33 in the excuse book? Can you tell me what ever happened to the 2 McGrath runners who were being prepared for the nz cup the previous year.. Serious question. Ears burning and classie brigade I think it was. Where did they get to, as after the pre cup media hype about being challengers to the all star barn, they have never been seen.

The stables who are complaining are the same stables who have no trouble getting owners and turn away clients. You would think an alternative, for those complaining about the lack of suitable racing for 2 and 3 year olds, would be for clubs to programme races limited to those age groups ,with reduced points applied to the winners. Of course that was what clubs used to programme with the penalty free wins, but everyone used to withdraw their horses as soon as they saw an all stars runner in the field . I agree with the brodster, in that the all stars dominance, and the inability of any other stable to come within cooee of their success is the reason the all stars find themselves in the situation they do currently in respect of the handicapping system. Why do they expect sympathy? One or two stables may have the odd horse compete against them,but hardly ever can those horses sustain it for more than a year before they make the odd intermittent appearance running well below previous levels of competitiveness(e.g. sheriff). Which only reinforces what everyone else thinks,that is unless you have an exceptional young horse, then you will ruin your horse by taking on the all stars. Why can't the all stars see that?

Its understandable why the high profile trainers are being pro active with the media in promoting their own interests, and the interests of those who support their stables. Of course they should do that. However we should not lose sight that they are looking at it from only their perspective. We should not forget why the new handicapping system came into place ,nor forget those who benefited from the previous system. Some of the major benefactors of course were the very same people quoted in the article. For example did they ever speak up about the plight of the 1 win horses who consistently had to race 3 year olds who had won 5,6 & 7 races,or the non win horses who had to race the winners of multiple races. I never heard them call that appalling. Why should we think they have an all inclusive view point now.. I think they would like to think they have,but I think they are showing understandable biased. As is the article..

I've looked at these tco2 readings for some years. It used to be an effective tool,albeit sometimes with the odd questionable result. Personally I believe its a way for hrnz to say they are doing x number of testing without x number of positives. I believe its just a smoke screen to quote numbers to fool people into thinking performance enhancers are not in use . When was the last time anyone had a positive for a high tco2 level. Maybe Scott Dickson last year. Who really knows,as the riu has a policy of hiding the releasing of information relating to positives. The question has to be is tco2 testing a cost effective way of detecting the use of performance enhancers. I believe the answer is clear,no it is not,and that is why hrnz still put the resources they do into tco2 testing. They know the results they get are what they want. There was a time when tco2 used to publish the actual readings,now im guessing they publish readings with the error of 1.00 millimole per litre of plasma factored in. Why else was there an overnight change to published readings a couple of years ago. Who came up with that bright idea and why? As to tco2 testing. It clearly is an indication that those with higher levels should be looked at more closely when it comes to other testing. However I don't believe those in charge use tco2 for that purpose. They don't want to go there.Call me cynical,but i believe I am a realist. Finally the figures quoted in respect of the all stars earlier in this thread. Personally I don't think they are unusually high. The 33.3 rating is higher than you would expect,but they are not alone in having some figures consistently like that. That in itself to me is an indicator that tco2 testing fails to adequately get results which are true reflections of its supposed purpose. The money spent on tco2 compromises more effective testing. Just the way industry leaders want it.

I think it had its chance. Drove it o.k.To me its looked past it since cup time. I may be wrong, but i'd be surprised if it regains form at the top level. To me it has issues. What about temporale. It was reported it had an atrial fibrillation that took much longer to come back into rhythm just 3 weeks ago. Tonight it drops out badly,as it had done not that long ago.Well that wasn't a surprise was it. What about Enhance your calm. They stated before tonights run it had its hocks injected. The horse has only had 7 starts and already it must be sore enough to require hock injections. Went huge,but why do so many horses need injections for soreness issues after so few starts.

I see she was stood down,however connections advised she is to be retired from racing. Good luck to the connections on the breeding side of things..

Reading the stipes report I see its ok for drivers to "merely err in their judgment". Correct me if i'm wrong,but every time someone gets fined by the stipes haven't they erred in their judgment. For example why fine someone who hits his horse 11 times instead of 10. That is a very minor error in judgment Its nothing compared to pulling off just before the passing lane from behind a horse going well,then all but falling over as you run into the back of the horses you find yourself following ,while the passing lane gap is taken by blind freddy. I backed the winner,so Im not talking through my pocket,but that stipes report is hard to take seriously.