the galah

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.

I never thought I would feel sorry for the all stars team......................................................................................….and I was right

One over da sky in at Timaru tomorrow. The only certainty tomorrow is this horse galloping. Even blair orange driving cant work miracles. Amazingly the bookies have it only paying $5. What drongo's.

We all see things different,which I think is a good thing. I don't mind debating race tactic's because its a subject that I find interesting. I would point out that when ohoka matty won its race it was used up a lot in front yet kept going to win. You say he should not have put the accelerator down with 500m to go,after attacking earlier in the race,i fully agree there. Just a bit of poor judgment,given he was already on the front end,however that's all that was. The fact that the horse responded and was able to go 2 1/2 lengths clear of the field with the dunn driven horse turning for home,simply confirmed my view that Dunn would have got the perfect sit had he elected to trail ohoka matty earlier in the race. Given Ohoka mattys performance of sticking on until the 250m after doing a lot of work ,in my view confirmed my rating of his chances pre race,in that particular field. I agree with your dislike of team driving,its just I don't believe it ever entered the mind of mr Alford.

If you accept that he had a dig for the lead,as you say, then had he been successful in his intent of getting the lead, he would then have placed the stablemate further back on the fence and in a worse position. Dunns tactics of keeping the lead,despite being almost crossed, is what also played into the hands of the eventual winner. Made for an exciting race whichever way you view it.

I actually had Change as good down as a clear top pick,and had ohoka matty rated as 4th selection. I believe the tactics used on ohoka matty were not intended to help anyone except ohoka matty. Unfortunately Mr alford put all his eggs in one basket and he came unstuck when he could not get the lead. I think had he just sat outside the leader he was a good place hope. I had no issues with his intent,even if it did cost the horse I had backed the win. Personally I think John dunn made an error in not giving the lead away given the speed at which Ohoka matty came mid race,and given he all but crossed him. Every driver of a horse that all but crosses the horse to his inside always presses on for a bit because they think they can get the lead . Personally I think the fact that mr alford has the confidence to give such tactics a go is a positive for his future driving.

From your experience win movers are obviously a factor in predicting correctly the eventual outcome. I accept they are a factor,as obviously you have observed that. Personally I only bet on nz harness,and win movers or betting plunges with the bookies or on the tote have no relevance to me. I prefer to see my selections drift in their odds,simply because it means I get more back if I get a collect. I trust my judgment. I get what you say about in form stables on the day, and I sometimes do factor that into the amount I wager. There are a couple of high profile drivers that I will reduce the amount I bet ,however it is only very rarely I think they were not trying. I simply believe some drivers just make poor decisions consistently because they can't judge pace or form that well. You mentioned one of the drivers in another thread. Horses run for them but tactically they are a bit average. On the other hand some drivers always seem to do the right thing in every race.

From that I take it you want punters/observers to only say good things about everyone. If you think anyone who bet on Pauls Verdict and Bugalugs or horses like that,needs help then that would be nearly every punter. Is that a true reflection on how you value their contribution to the sport? You state on the other thread you won't even watch the races concerned,yet comment anyway. Everyone knows its just a race,and drivers make mistakes,but before they move on to the next race whats wrong with making comment about something that you have just seen. One thing punters hardly ever do,and I know I never do,is complain about drivers who put their horses in the race and give them their chance. 95% of what you may view as negative comments relate to drives where the drivers simply sat back on slow paces,or stayed on the fence,or never pulled out when the gap was there. Its the phyche of a punter to do that. So bobby bec, I think posters should be able to blow off a bit of steam and make comments without being told they have a problem.. Its just the process they go through before moving on to the next race meeting. You should know that.

There's that many One overs breaking nearly every time that it is confusing. One over da stars is the one who the stipes give the most preferential treatment of the Hope trained horses. I went back 10 starts and the stipes have done the warning, then no warning 4 different times in 8 of the 10 starts.. Other trainers must surely look at that, and the similar treatment given to the Ben Waldron One over horse,and must ask themselves why those stables get such preferential treatment?.

I see they both got a warning. Whoop de doo. I don't know who the stipes are kidding, but the pattern for One over the skye is breaks-no warning, next start breaks-warning,next start breaks-no warning,next start breaks-warning.

Is it true that the tab bookmakers have offered to pay all training fees,to ensure these horses remain in training? Will the bookmakers have betting on whether any of these horses will manage to trot a race without galloping. The wife reckons I need commited after backing one of those today,she's probably right.

Do you think those that got the big collect had some connection with the stable?. Looking at the video it just looks like the horse in front galloped for no reason, and the way it went afterwards indicated it would have won but for the gallop. Past dishonest happenings do undermine punters confidence if they see a race involving some of those concerned, maybe its justified, maybe its not?

He does seem to drive the horse the same way all the time..Looks to always position itself back on the fence. You know what to expect beforehand. I guess he thinks its best driven that way. Its only win came when it sat parked for the last 1600m.

Close is one of the better drivers around,however the drive on pauls verdict was poor,and not up to his normal standard. It happens. But I don't see anything wrong with newmarkets post, he's only referring to one drive.

If you read the stats,it shows currently about 9.7% of problem gamblers are horse racing related. I posted quite a few stats on here when that add came out on tv last year where 3 blokes were sitting round a table listening to a race commentary,with the commentator saying things like 'there goes last weeks pay',etc,etc. Clearly those making the add had targeted the easy racing target. Why did they,and did they have relationships with other effected industries which influenced the making of the T.V.add. About 50% of problem gambling relates to non casino pokies. The biggest growth in problem gambling has been in on line pokies. Racing % has dropped significantly over the years as other forms of gambling became available. What industries fund problem gambling? Are there some that don't that should? What is the definition of a problem gambler? People with addictive personalities are obviously susceptible. Is it fair to blame the forms of gambling for the problems individuals have. Can there be a constructive addiction.? I once knew a woman who went from addiction to smoking, gave that up but replaced it with the pokies,then gave them up for a sex addiction.