the galah

3 more races at addington and addington have 4 winter rewards races that are a one off winter meeting. Addington don't run $35,000 races for mid grade horses like auckland do.

they changed that this week mikynz. so you drop a point if no extra srtake for 5th.

I think its very unrealsitic to think the sport will survive without betting. I know your ever the optimist,but thats a strange one gammalite.. As to the betting product ,its all about the quality of it whether it generates betting. And i don't mean the quality of the horses/drivers trainers. its not over complicated. Actually very simple. Punters bet more on the races that they find appealing and auckland turnovers are poor because obviously,they aren't an appealing betting product. You've referenced the victorian model. Gee,if ever you wanted a blueprint of what hrnz is doing,being done in the past,just look at victoria. past unrealistic spending by adminstrators who seemed quite dumb and incompetent. They lkept putting money into stakes when generating losses (sound familiar)and ,gee,guess what,they've had to slash stakes significantly. i really do think hrnz must have enough money in the bank to keep going paying the stakes they currently are,for the next 3-4 years as i feel the likes of mr steele will only jump ship before the shit hits the fan.And it will for sure,but mr steele won;'t be anywhere to be seen anymore. No one will get a bet on that happening as the tab would have it priced at 1.01 to happen.Actually how about they do that. come on entain,if you have any faith,put out a market on when mr steeles will go. Then we will see whether you believe what you say.Just joking,don't want to be censured.

No not mean gammalite,just worried that by running so many meeting at a loss,that it will eat away at the reserves hrnz have to sustain the industry in the future. Really someone has to be thinking of the people who will be trying tio make a living in the industry in 5-10 years time.Lining the pockets of the current auckland participants is i think selfish thinking.I don't get why some people can't appreciate that. anyways,back to the topic ,In my opinion,the answer is somewhere in the middle of the opinions expressed in this thread. As i have said before,run the meetings,but reduce the stakes if the number of starters is smaller. That way people can keep earning a living and that way the cash reserves hrnz have don't get eaten away too quickly. but doing as they currently are doing,simply is unsustainable. why do auckland have all those $35,000 races for mid grade horses regularly and addington only get $25,000 races less regularly. Why are auckland people more deserving than canterbury people.. then you have the 2 non win races with the really small fields as always. HRNZ pay out over $20,000 in stakes and bonuses to the connections of the winners of those 2 races,meaning they are tyhe 2 highest paid of the winners of all the reaces run on friday,no matter what the class. again why the preferential treatment Personally i think the new handicapping system seems to be going ok. I noticed they ran a couple of races where they allowed 1 win horses who hadn't recently earned much to run against the non win horses. I particularly like that as they need to do that if they are to maximise the racing potential of all the horse population. The 1 win horses who had won the weaked,lesser stake races need to have a future and should be slowly allowed to transition back to the level of non win grade they can be competitive without being dominant. Theres something about mr steele's regular comments, which fail to inspire much confidence in what hes doing, for me. i wonder what will happen with auckland. aren't they deciding that tomorrow. will hrnz leave the whole of nz hraness regions with an anchor called the ATC,that will eventually drag them to a standstill.

funny thing is i think that actually was a good start. Birdy was moving forward a wee bit like you sa,y but they were in a reasonably fair line.. from my observations,there was a deliberate attempt a couple of months ago to have them standing and giving them all a fair start and it seemed to be getting to a point where it was working. But just recently they have gone back to giving slightly moving starts and you are again seeing the people drawn in the middle,who are on the last horse to turn in from the the pre race circle,being disadvanteged.They often still aren't getting fair starts . and why is that,well its because some of the drivers are more worried about being told off for getting a running start than they are about getting their horse in an advantageous spot before they say go. You see,the last horse to turn in from the pre race circle has to be the last horse moving forward. I.e.,because its the last horse to turn in. so you see the clever ,very confident drivers keep walking up to take up their position when the started is saying stand and you see the less clever,not as confident drivers stop and stand when the started says stand,even if they haven't ahd a chance to get into their position. If you watch it,you can tell who they are as it happens often enough to see a pattern. but as i said,the race you've highlighted was as good a start as you would get for non win trotters.

now that interdominion final was a real horse race. I think you pulled off the trail a fair way from home from memory.you were swatting flies with the whip non stop from that point.2 great horses and the people involved really different characters. Trainers/drivers these days don't seem quite as colourful,if thats the right word. as to leap to fame,he wouldn't have been able to come off if the horse ourside him was slightly ahead of him.and given leap to fames average gate speed on the night it looked tom me an opportunity lost. leap to fame and dixon has got those aussie drivers beaten in their heads before they even start.Nz drivers can be negative sometimes ,but if you had some nz drivers in those races you would have seen better tactical driving. Where was b orange when we needed him.

i was being cheeky when i said j herbertson on the payroll.I didn't get it wrong. Herbertson drive like he was,was my point. He drew alongside leap to fame and restrained his horse at the start. Did he not realise if you want to keep leap to fame on the inside,all he had to do was maintain his position. And that was on a horse that the trackside presenters keep telling us has gate speed. herbertsons drive not very clever on that occassion in my opinion. Just look at what happened to see that.

there were some very competitive races last night,but lets be honest,the 2 interdominion finals were really boring,which was a shame as it would be one of the few times peope outside harness racing would have watched the sport. the only time they were interesting was the first 250m ,then the races just became little more than uncompetitve workouts,with no one making any attenpt to improve at all. i felt rather deflated myself as i had expected more. the times confirmed what we saw, leap to fame went slow until the final 800m which he rthen ran in 53.3 i know other drivers don't want to end up outside leap to fame if he has the speed on all the way,but that never happened and the driving of the other aussie drivers really was quite sub standard. none of them adjusted their pre race thinking and none drove to the way the race actually evolved. also,j herbertson who drew beside leap to fame,was he on the payroll as he restrained from the start and by doing that it was obvious he was going to let g dixon off. and g dixon didn't hesitate in exploiting herbertsons poor tactical move.I mean,if your another driver wouldn't you be hoping and trying to box in leap to fame early when you knew he would most likely be crossed. Obviously not was the answer. the trotters final pretty much the same,once arcee phenix held the lead,no moves and just a tame race. Bet and win was again driven very well early by b butt credit ot him . Oscar bonevna not driven well at all. A sanderson seems good if in front on a favorite,but not so clever if having to make tactical decisions if coming from the back. stlll he had a good night when he was gifted the front in his derby win, but he had 2 poor drives after that. full credit tio g dixon. He simply was much to clever for the rest last night. leap to fame didn't have to display his champion qualities last night,but he is possibly the greatest horse in the last 50 years.

yes i think your spot on when you say the bits you've highlighted are important in the success rate of the big stables. as to the m house stable you mention. I always get the impression the likes of w house or h orange,who drive their horses at manawatu drive to achieve the best result for the one they are driving.Sure,w house may have a bit of inside knowledge about all the stable runners,but i think hes always focussing on the horse he drives.

i hope he enjoys celebrating when he does clean up on the punt,so as to make up for the times when hes frustrated.Someone with so much passion,is that the right word,mmm,you would think has a few highs as well as lows. perhaps,for a bit of balance, he could post on here when hes having a good day ,about who or what he is smiling about on those days.

when you read the write up of k greens comments about her 3 wins yesterday,it highlighted why having multiple runners from the same stable is such a negative thing for the sport. she virtually said,the plan for the winner was always to go forward and lead and that she was pleased to see it relax . So with her thinking like that,she was never going to make any attempt to take the lead off it with the hot favorite she was driving that was sitting parked. now i'm not picking on her,all she was doing is what i think nearly all other trainers who had a couple in the race would have done ,if the stable had the money on the on in front,which had been the big market moverr. so she was just doing what others would have done in the same position. But it does highlight what nowornever highlighted in his original post,punters betting in races with multiple stable runners,are getting turned off from betting in those races. And turnover is part of what keeps racing going.

well ,if we go by the stipes report,forbury's criticism of c hacketts drive seems very justified. The stipes report says c hackett horse was 3 wide when the horse inside her moved out. In other words,she was never pushed out and C hackett elected to race 3 wide from the point she got outside the wheel of gotta go miki,who was to her inside.. Now that delightful chic is a horse who we've discussed on here before and its a horse who the stable has always said needs to be saved up for one run, as it has a short quick sprint. so,if we go by what the stipes said happened,what on earth was she doing moving up to sit 3 wide without cover for the whole of the last 1200m ,when she could have got a nice run just off the pace.. why didn't the stipes ask her why she drove in a manner that very obviously snuffed out any chance she had.? Here was i thinking i watched a race where a very obvious breach of the push out rule occured,when in fact forbury was right all along. very strange. perhaps people should have a look at that video and make up their own minds as to whether c hackett drove like a fool or not.

your back forbury. where you been? gotta go miki.I think its just going around to get a bit of place money at the moment. Thats what i think when i watch the way he drives it each time.Or maybe its unintentional that he gets himself into bad positions. But maybe next time, as its driver looked like he didn't realise he had pushed c hackett 3 wide,which of course hes not allowed to do. So he may get a suspension which could mean the horse will be driven by someone else,who most likely will try a bit harder.. so get on if that happens.

k green had 5 in that race. the money went on the one that b orange drove and it was allowed to dictate,with the stablemate and hot favorite driven by k green ,quite happy to be given the harder run in transit by racing parked all the way. i think shes very good for her owners as they will know what to expect i guess,but for punters they are often left wondering. That race an example of that. buit as you say.thats what happens when you have a few from the same stable in a race. Its where harness racing is headed though. everywhere is the same. look at queensland.so often they have races dominated by a couple of stables and its obvious some are just there to assist the other. Its part of the reason harness racing is in decline everywhere. some people marvel at the team driving,others are turned off by it big time.. I hope our old mate,forbury wasn't on the favorite that k green drove in that race.Obviously he isn't a fan and has started a couple of threads about her.He may have been, but probably burst a blood vessell and we may only hear from him once he gets out of hospital.

if you goggle the property investment strategy,which is where hrnz said the forbury funds were to be invested,it immediately comes up referencing grants from the infastructure fund and how that works. And if you click on all the goggle responses with the property investment strategy fund,theres lots of words on those searches,but just seems to say it will go where they think it is best used,which could mean anything. your seem to be saying,that the infastructure grants has no funding whatsoever from the property investment fund. I'm not saying your wrong,i'm saying a goggle search of hrnz links one to the other. It gives 3 people who it specifiies makes decisions around grants from the infastructure fund,one is a southern representative. So no reference to a canterbury or northern representative being part of that decision making. So i was saying that bit is confusing. Did forbury trade off a say in the management of all their money for a small saying in the infastructure fund. That seems quite illogical and weak. But why do they have a representative on the infarstructure decision making and i can find no apparent referrence to meaningful input into the millions they gave hrnz. i mean surely forbury weren't that silly,because if they were that would allow hrnz to use their funds in the northern region and the last time i looked,you don't see horses who used to support forbury lining up at auckland..Like i sadi,the peter profit article seems to be suggesting hrnz is considering using forbury fund for auckland. Now i don't know whether thats true,but what i do know is peter profit has been very accurate in the past in his reporting on auckland and appears to being fed correct information from a disillusioned inside source. anyways.we will see what happens as i just seems to make no sense for hrnz to bail out a club that generates continuing losses for the industry,without a plan how to turn around those losses. even considering that is sending the message to participants,especially breeders,that your going to be racing for poor stakes with the horses you breed in the fututre. Like i have said. I have thought it obvious,part of the reason why breeding numbers were down this year could be attributed to a lack of confidence in the quality of leadership decision making.at least thats what the small number of people i speak to seem to have thought. but hey,everyone movves in different circles and maybe those ever dropping breeding numbers were part of the reason the ceo keeps saying everything is looking positive,which of course is illogical.

Not being able to use it until a bit later in the morning wouldn't be such a big deal, you would think. After all,many dual coded racetracks around the country used to operate for decades like that6 when horse numbers were so much larger.. the only thing about that is hrnz would be investing into a property they don't own. But hey,thats what they do anyway.And at least the trainers and staff who live near franklin park wouldn't have to move house like would have to happen if they established a training centre somewhere else. But anyway heres some points worth considering,when people discuss any future training facilities. 160-200 horses is the number quoted by the atc as the average for horses being worked each day at franklin park a resident trainer says its can get as high as about 170. i think its safe to say,the 170 figure would be more accurate as that trainer has no ulterior motive in fudging figures to suit a purpose. so,if they didn't go with the,inside the galloping track plan,well what else could they possibly go with. j mckinnon was quoted a couple of years ago saying he thought $15 million would not be enough to set up a new training centre elsewhere. Of course occassionally he's since said ,oh,we may be able to do it for $15 million after all.Like,hey,you know how things always cost less these days. we all know if hes saying 15 million 2 years ago its more likely to be over 20 million these days. But lets be generous and say it will only cost $17 million. well,if you divide 17 million by 170 horses,then thats $100,000 per horse to provide a training track elsewhere. I mean, they could pay a trainer/owners who currently has 20 horses in work,20 x 100,000 =2 million and say to them,we're feeling generous,as we are hrnz 2025,and are giving you a 2 million gift for you to go set yourself up in canterbury or go buy a new property somewhere in the auckland region or just go sun yourself on a beach in hawaii before hrnz realise running small fields with poor turnover is going to snuff out the indutsry elsewhere in nz,so why stick around for that debacle,when you can get a tan and sip on a margarita now. Hrnz's said in their 2024 annual report that it was their intention that any funding allocation for this year will be sustainable for future. Of course very few believe that and besides,wouldn't spending funds on auckland impact that ,even if what they said was true.. HRNZ had said,net funds from the sale of forbury park of 12.2 million are being held by hrnz for the purposes set out in the property investment strategy,a copy of which is available on the hrnz website. (i've also read 14m,so not sure what that includes) the forbury trotting club were very strong in how they wanted the proceeds spent arising from the sale of the forbury trotting club. They wanted the money kept in the southern region and not dispersed nationally. There were several articlaes about that,even though they ended up signing an agreement with hrnz which didn't guarantee that. imagine just how badly they would feel betrayed by hrnz if hrnz was to use their funds to establish a new trasining centre elsewhere in the aucklnad region as currently being reported by peter profit. Its hard to believe in some ways that hrnz would betray the forbury people so badly. But,i don't think anyone would be silly enough to say hrnz wouldn't consider it,as after all just look at some of their recent decisions. then theres the infastructure grants fund.the maximum budget for grants from the fund is $250,000 per annum. wasn'tn that where some of the forbury money was supposed to be spent. the hrnz website said the hrnz chair,the hrnz audit and risk chair, and a southern regional forum appointee or nominee form the group that make decisions about how that money is spent. i don't confess to understanding how they operate as it says a maximum of a $250,000 grant is availble. Didn't HRNZ say they were considering writing off a $750,000 loan they gave cambridge. Where did that maney come from. anyways,i would have thought the auckland thing coming to a head was a good thing,but only a good thing if they make common sense decisions. It could well be a death nail for the industy if they decide to prop up auckland at alexandra park as the atc seem to want. My thoughts are its a good time for THE atc to say,we have come to an agreement to sell franklin park immediately and sell alexandra park and its assets over the next 5 years. That the future plans will be for a teaing cntre /racecourse to be set up somewhere suitable within a timeframe that allows the continuity of traing and racing within the auckland district to continue.They could do things like have portions of funds made available from aucklands asset sales to be used in the form of loans for trainers who could purchase areas at the new training racing centre. All funds invested by hrnz would have to be rtepaid within that 5 year timeframe and the atc could pay limited interest rate on funds lent.Auckland for their part could easily say,yes we agree that has to be done,but we'll only do it if you guarantyeee a level of funding for stake money for the next ,say 10 years. That way veryone wins.so i'm just brainstorming with those thoughts. but the point is,the decisions that are to be made soon by the atc and hrnz as regards aucklands future,will have a significant impact on wheter harness racing in canterbury ajnd southland will be snuffed out in the future. To me,people in aucklandmust realsie that if they don;t face reality,it will be the people who currently support support racing in auckland,who will suffer the most long term. No doubt about that at all.Because,if hrnz and the atc take the rest of the nz harness racing down with themto any significant degree,there will be no one outside auckland that will think kindly of auckland racing and people will act accordingly.

your man j herbertson wins. You can pick them gammalite. Carter dalgety 2nd with a nice drive. Wilson house on a 90/1 shot drove it likehe thought it had no chance. It probably would have run a place if he had followed dalgety,but was held up instead and ran about 5th.

Calling the horses they are driving today as slow,embarrassing and obscure i find a bit amusing gammalite. i'm sure you have heard of most of them. i only watch occasionally and would have heard of more than i haven't. The 3rd heat they are driving in today, the horses have all won over $100,000 ,several over $200,000 and one $386,000. tommorow night,which you describe as the slowest of the slow, they are driving horses that would be like r40-50 in nz,apart from that heat 6.. but you've drawn my attention to the series which i'm guessing was your intention. Ist heat due to start in a couple of minutes. i'll have a look.

i posted last week that theres actually more women junior drivers currently in nz than there are men. some very good drivers amongst them . o thornley is good. i think g thornley lost her driving form beofre she had the break, but has come back and is driving very well. Horses run for both of them. I think the reason theres more women is,men look at the industry and say ,can i make a living and have a family down the track as well. And the answer is ,unless your in the top handful,no you won't make a resonable living . And being able to look after a women financially of course is part of the attraction process. women know,no point marrying a good guy who's got no money. Its not easy for a wife who does that.I know,my wife,god bless her soul,reminds me of that every time i moan about not having enough money.oops,i've gone off track. anyways,back to the driving.Whereas the females look at it and say,well my priority is doing something i enjoy over finacial considerations, and down the track i can marry someone who earns enough to support me,then they can come back into it again when they want. actually, one thing i've noticed is woman who are drivers and can make a living,don't seem to have too many chidren Now thats just an observation,but then again women in general, don't seem to have as many children these days.Wheres all the catholics when you need them. Actually talking about children,i remember the days when addington had that big grandstand . About the 150 metre from the finsih,at the top of the stand,there used to sit enough young members of the butt families to fill a bus.Ok.maybe not that many,but there was a lot of them.No need for family reunions. They had one every week. You don't see that these days.I remember those days. My aunty would come occasionally and admire the le lievre families wonderful hair. Obviously that was a few years ago as i think their hair lines may receded a bit since then. Then i remember one day,my uncle pointing out a racecourse inspector chasing a bloke who wasn't allowed on course. I'm not sure whther he went on to own a nz cup winner or maybe that was his brother. ah the memories,anyways again,back to the junior drivers. as to your point about how many will make it after their junior status ends. Thats the thing isn't it. Hrnz focus on the juniors and neglect those very same people when they lose their junior status. I mean ask yourself.Say you may have got 4 drives a week,well if you throw in a stablehands wage, then you could probably pay the bills. But then you lose your junior status,,you now only get 1 or 2,so your income drops by $200. Who needs the free boots,skivvy,harness,free licence renewals,helmets,vests,everything is free.. The persosn who's just lost their junior status is more likely to have financial commitments..Yet they have to pay for everything and cross subsidise the juniors free stuff,even though the juniors are getting more drives and earning more. So thats why you see mnay drivers disappearing. Especially the males. Also the smaller the field size,whether it be at the races or the trials ,the less opportunity the drivers who drive will get.

i backed that one as well.yes,i guess if it starts in the same field next week it will only pay $3,which will be unders, with no guarantee it will get the same nice run. sometimes the good drivers don't get it right as well. Like j dunn on beautiful crazy,i thought it very obvious if he pulled it out craig thornley would pull out in front of him and give him the 1/1.He could have done that well before he did. R Cameron just ended up outdriving him and won the race. Not sure beautiful crazy would have placed anyway as it just battled,but did seem to miss an obvious opportunity. Some trainers are very loyal. d mcgowan one of those. I backed one of his the other night paying $21,which i found hard to believe and all it had to do was pull off the inside to win,but it didn't . I guess thats why it was paying $21 and i should have known what to expect.i. having said that,most of the drivers are consistent. Its the ones that every now and again pull off when they don't normally,that can be the ones that are frustrating. That last race ,a big win mover was sweet dreams. Now j howe is another trainer who is very loyal.fair enough,He puts the same drivers on ,even when you get the odd one that doesn't suit that driver.sweet dreams is a horse like that. Its certainly no champ, but r holmes drove it the week before and asked it to be a racehorse and it tried and ran 2nd.i know r close is a good driver and punters keep backing it.Then again j howe may think its best going to the back and inside devery time.If thats the case r close would be a genious. I know r close is a good driver but not sure why punters keep backing that horse. some of the form during the winter can be a bit inconsistent. That royal deidre who won that race just run i've noticed go a couple of good races but never the same week to week .Next week it can have every chance and stops,then again good and bad. Well today it sat parked and won easy.I see m cross tipped it. Maybe hes got it worked out.

obviously theres plenty of uninformed punters with more money than sense. someone put $2000 on beautiful crazy. They did that at $3.40 apparently. The week before it could not have got an easier run in front,yet never looked like winning from the turn. Then it was like punters were thinking,well someone put $2000 on, so they all jumped on and it closed at $2.20 Maybe thats why they have that big bet aleart on trackside,they put that up knowing they have the horse at stupid short odds,knowing the big bet alert will entice punters to back it anyway. All a cunning plan.

. your looking at it as a letter that deals with abuse. i look at it differently. i'm saying look beyond the letter and analysis where the trail started.. in other words.. .1)underperforming or ineffective governance ...2) leads to dissenting opinions being expressed,....leads to... 3)inapproapriate language....4) leads to the letter. take away the first factor and theres no need for the letter. if they don't address the root cause,( number 1),then you will still continue to get 2 & 3

no argument there. My point is theres an inference that part of the intent of this letter is to suppress the expression of dissenting opinions, and they have used the basis of the letter ,as those dissenting opinions sometimes give names of those they feel are making poor decisions.They can focus on the names,the dissenting views focus is on the industries wellbeing.m so in its own a way,the letter is proof theres merit in what the people they are trying to silence ,are saying. Its like a circle which has a beginning and an end with governance of the industry.There needs to be self reflection by the decision makers in favour of that letter.

yes all those other stables are quite consistent and always have been.Telfers i just find hard to follow all over nz. not just the north island. I do like the fact that the telfer stables appear to have no qualms about seeing horses they may have trained,being sold cheap on the likes of gavelhouse..I think it shows they at least try to give the horse an opportunity to prosper and have a life with someone else if they don't shape up within the timeframe they allow at their stables. I think many other stables sometimes treat their horses like commodities and theres too much wastage. I know it must be a side of the industry that many stables struggle with,but some do try and explore other futute options better than others.

i think you've got it sussed with the backing against the north island ones. They do move up parked quite a bit like you say,but dickie seems to generally make the moves at the right time ,but they still go awful. Like that secret desire last night.was paying only $1.70.o.k it probably should have been paying about $2.20 ,but Its a horse who used to have good gate speed,but either its lost it or theres something wrong with it. the way it paced early was odd,then it just stopped to a walk with 400m to go.Personally i think it has an issue of some sorts. Perhaps a stress fracture or foot bruise in a front leg or maybe nothing to do with that. and just had the guts run out of it early. Very few telfer horses last more than 2 or 3 years . but its the inconsistency which i find so hard to follow.there is a big difference between a horse not goping as good and a horse that stops to a walk. tonight they have just the 2 in at addington. christies art in the first. $1.55 is all its paying. Often thats the time to back against them.If it was paying $4 then i think you would back it,but $1.55,isn't that too short?.