the galah

The interesting thing is did the change in track conditions effect the results. 8 of the 10 winners raced handy on the fence,while the 2 that didn't came from 1 back and 2 back the outside in races where the leaders went 2 fast early.. The pattern was its hard to make any ground from the back,but would that have been the case anyway? Personally I think generally its more important to get handy early without over doing it,.

This is a major setback for nz harness is it not? I have not read anything about this on this side of the tasman,and you would have to wonder why that is. Whats the coverage like on the sky racing channels?

Your make good points old whiteman,but as far as enhance your calm goes,the video clearly shows the horse easing up with 120m to go with mark purdon seeming to have it under a hold,then it clearly stretches out again when purdon asks it to go. Part of the reason it looked like lotamuscle came that quick was because the horse in front eased up. Very unusual to see purdon get caught napping,but he did this time Credit to the winner for catching him by surprise.

Yes,and it no longer shows your balance. Still often will not show pending bets. Takes a long time to load,if it does at all.

The website certainly is still a nightmare at times .. Tonight being one of those. Even the phone betting is getting rather ridiculous. How many others have experienced the bet accepted voice only to find the bet was never put on. I know its not just my imagination,i have spoken to others who have had the same issue.

I do agree he got caught by surprise, and would have won had he given it a couple of taps a bit earlier. Having said that,the winner did come home very fast.

I understand where you are coming from. However I would say those competing at forbury tomorrow night would be trying just as hard to win as those running at addington on Saturday. I do enjoy watching good horses race, however I get just as much enjoyment out of watching a good keenly contested race,no matter who it is competing. I only factor in the money coming if it relates to north island races. For example if it is a runner from the green stable,where they have 2 runners,you can almost guarantee the one without the money on will underperform,.normally due to the driver. That's my opinion anyway. Pulling horses happened more in the past,than it does now days. If you've had a bet on one that has not been driven to win,you never forget and you do feel that you have been taken for a ride by those concerned. For me the biggest turn off from a punting perspective is having small fields dominated by the one or two stables,no matter what the quality.

I I don't factor in the stake money when having a bet.I do agree it should be on the tab website I work on the theory that everyone is trying. You may get let down sometimes,normally in the north island , which can be very annoying. I think the best value comes in races with full fields,and not dominated by one stable. Therefore I would much rather have a greater spend on a maiden at forbury or methven,than say the easter cup. And that is what I do,and it works for me.

Just watching American mainstream news and amongst the headlines was the reporting of the 23rd death of a thoroughbred at the track in just over 3 months. Horse racing apparently under siege from the anti racing brigade because of the unprecedented horse death numbers. The figures include those racing and those in training. Gives the sports detractors plenty of ammunition to fire.

The easy pickings ruling. Seemed the only logical decision given the rules. You need to check the rules out if your unsure why. The wendys jewel drive. I watched that last night and thought the driver felt it going into a gallop prior to it happening,starting easing the horse,then it galloped anyway slowing up quite quickly in the prcess. Maybe in hindsight he would have been better to just let it gallop but i think it was the horse at fault by over reacting,not so much the driver. I see they stood down one over dover to trial once.I just cant figure out why only the once. The horse gallops every start,always being a nuisance to others when it does and often causing interference. Its done it for years now. The only way it may not gallop is if they change the driver like they did at oamaru when it actually trotted all the way,however they never do that so I think it should be stood down to trial multiple times. Has there ever been a horse as bad in recent history?

Would connections have been paid the $550 starting fee if it had been declared a non starter? Would sam ottley have lost her driving fee if the horse was declared a non starter. Are they factors. Was peter lamb the 3rd gunman on the grassy Knoll in dallas when jfk was shot?

On the cards driven completely different from previous runs to suit its stablemate who won.Team driving is so common in the north island.

Who made the decision not to late scratch virgil. Certainly not peter lamb. How they did not come to a conclusion that virgil was denied a fair start is a mystery.

True.. He was drawn to need a bit of luck,but good luck did come his way, just he never used it. That's the way he has been driving for a while, possibly because he is not very often on the better chances. Just seems to have lost his mojo.He seems to drive like there is always next week. Look at his drive on accelare at Auckland the week before, as one of many recent examples. His son is a far better now days and deserves more opportunities than he gets.

Just drove his first winner since 1993,when getting Monaro maro home in front today.. Well done that man.

Well it certainly was an aggressive drive happy. The stipes report noted mr hunter was at a loss to explain the horses poor performance,that comment made me chuckle.

Gee ,how fast do they go down there. And you had peter hunter pulling off the trail to keep the pace on after going cut throat for the previous 1000m. No surprise to see it stagger home from the 400m. Drives like that are hard for a punter to factor in sometimes. I guess that's racing.

was the stake increase announced to appease the negative publicity they have been receiving in respect of their original projections of profit from their foray into construction? why would it lead to better racing when the number of licence holders and horses is on the decline? What steps are being taken to address those issues? Bigger stakes are a positive,but are just part of the overall picture.

I think its just what they have on there has little appeal to the viewers.Same old same old. All they ever do is go on and on about the big races,and because they are dominated by the same stables, in effect they are just going on and on about the same stable. There is a detachment from 99% of participants and punters. Instead of being inclusive,they are exclusive,which is actually to the detriment of the top 1% in my opinion. From a punters perspective its a waste of time as they provide nothing new to punters,that can't already be accessed in other media. They avoid any controversial topics because they don"t want to upset anyones feelings,but by doing so are in effect avoiding obvious talking points which would attract viewers. For example Mick g keeps referring to the auckland stakes,yet at no point that ive seen,has any reference been made to the trouble the atc are having with their projects. Why not. some in depth reporting there. Where are the behind the scene stories, and not just of the top 1%.. Virtually non existent. That's why your falling asleep happy.

The ratings seem to work good. Generally accurate, especially in the south island. There are certain things that can catch you. For example any horse having its first start for Michael House always overperforms. And blair orange seems unique in that he can consistently improve performance. Cambridge form can be a glitch. A handful of stables going average in the smaller stakes then improving markedly in bigger stakes at Auckland or penalty free races is a pattern. Yet those same stables are consistent with their horses that race at only Cambridge and manawatu. In my mind team driving in the north island happens a lot,especially if the money is on. Your reference to Tabitha franco I agree with. Its ratings were strong initially but continued to drop to the point I thought it needed a new driver. It definitely over performed last time with a new driver. Maybe that was right or maybe it just had its confidence up from winning the start before. jesse alford is a bloke. Jesse james being his first names. I agree with your comments about some drivers driving their horses too pretty. That's the factor that can't be determined pre race. Sometimes it just comes down to confidence,sometimes its just not everyone is good. Take K Tomlinson on cheezel in the race that ford rule won. She seemed to know it would be to her detriment if she dropped in behind the roughie, So she kept it out,then after making it work dropped in behind it anyway. I think horses run for her,but she drives like she has no confidence in her own decision making., Sarah o'reilly was like that,but now look at her,she has confidence and her results reflect that. K. Tomlinson will probably turn out as good in another 12 months.

I do my own ratings and had ohoka matty clearly on top based on recent performances.Easy to say in hindsight but his form had been in stronger fields and the horse has continued to improve since Christmas. I think J alford driving him actually helped his price. You mention ford rule.Good result there for you. I think having the best female driver on helped a lot,especially when the likes of cheezel and the kaik got into a lot of strife.

I agree it was unlikely he would have won from where he was,but given the ground he made up he may have gone close,and certainly would easily have run 3rd . The point is should drivers have to factor in whether a fellow driver will all of a sudden change direction in front of them. That's what happened here,and it certainly was not di caprios drivers fault. To me it was a clear case of unnecessary interference. Personally I don't know why 1 or 2 drivers do it,and why the stipes have done nothing about it. Safety was not a factor. The other factor is was it a case of them driving. I don't think that was smiths intention,but why is it ok to pull out and let others through some days and not others.

I didn't back this horse,but you would have to feel sorry for those who made it a hot favourite today. Previously I have posted on gavin smith pulling his horses out of the race when he thinks he is beaten,suggesting that it was only a matter of time before this unpredictable driving would get in some ones way. Well he was at it again today by the looks of it,completely confusing di caprios driver who,quite understandably, had not expected smith to take him out of the race as smith steered his horse wide as di caprio was improving to his outside. It was always going to happen sooner rather than later. .

I guess it all comes down to the way we see it . You thought he was holding it together more than anything else. To that I would say it was trotting the same throughout the race,the same it had in its previous run when he had driven it out, so why not give it its chance to run faster. To me the obvious answer answer is what I have stated. I would go further and say the video shows he garbbed hold resulted in it lifting its head a couple of times. Your happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. Fair enough. I think he's a crook myself. And I think the stipes couldn't care less. I have interesting memories me of a driver from the past who used to drive with similar colours. I''ve labored the point enough now,so that's my last comment.

I think in his own unique way he may be saying If the stipes can't even identify what is right there in front of their eyes, it undermines confidence in their ability on everything. I think the integrity unit has internal issues to deal with. exhibit a-race 2 at Cambridge..