the galah

finally some communication from HRNZ on the implementation of some changes recommended in the horse utilisation report. Hrnz,via their website news, saying changes will be made to the current handicapping/ratings/programming in 4 months time,from 26 may. Better late than never i suppose. While the handicapping/ratings/programming was the most significant issue dealt with in that utilisation report,there were recommendations concerning other issues. Given the report seemed to talk common sense,i think they should be adopting all the changes originally recommmended. And if not,for the sake of transparency,perhaps HRNZ could explain why specific recommendations that were made,were not going to be implemented. Anyway,the wheels may turn slowly,but at least they are turning i suppose.

The stipes report makes for interesting reading. According to it,dragonstone,the winner,did not in fact cause the false start the second time. Yes,i know,everyone watching on trackside could see he did cause the false start. Have these people not heard of trackside?. Do they not realise people can record the races and watch them again?And that includes the false starts. so,anyway, the starter blamed the 10m horses(not the 10m tape) for the second false start. Even though the winner went through the front line tape when the starter had not tried to start the race on either occasion. Thats why the 10m tape was still there. The starting regulations i read say this 'in the event a subsequent recall is sounded,any horse involved in the reason for a previous recall shall be declared a late scratching." it also says.... ."if a recall is caused by the failure of any equipment or mechanism then the starter shall order that the barriers be hand held for the restart"..." So the stipes report clearly says the starter blamed the 10m horses,not the 10m tape for the second false start.so why hold the tape? Now the video says that is false,but if it were true,then why the need to hand hold the tape?After all,the stipes are telling us there was no tape problem at the second false start. Then theres this.The stipes report says... Run forest run(number 2) stood on the mark briefly. Well hullo,the video shows his drivers back was almost making contact with the 10m tape>He was slow was because he started behind the other front line horses,he wasn't given a chance to start in his correct position as the starter was too foccussed on the winner getting the perfect start.

So the eventual winner causes 2 false starts and delays the start by over 6 minutes,43 seconds. Then the starter on the 3rd attempt has the tape on the front hand held and the person holding it lets it go about 1/2 a second after the tapes on the 10m,then after 50m we have a horse in front who started off the 10m,presumably it got a running start, as well as the advantage of the tape going slightly earlier. The other thing was the starter waited,then as soon as the winner straightened up, let them go. The starter ,seemingly having no interest in the horse drawn 2 off the front,who clearly was back from the tapes by about 2 1/2 to 3 lengths,also impeding the horse who started behind it off 10m. Compare the winner to the other horses on the front,especially number 2,and you would ask why the preferential treatment?

Yes,the only question is was it accidental. While theres lots of examples,I've given a couple of examples of the same thing happening with both the o'reilly brothers on the same day in the home straight at methven. Why do we assume hes doing it deliberately to give his horse a fright and run faster? And why do we assume, its accidental when other drivers drop a leg and hold it in the same position in the home straight? I'm simply saying,on the video evidence i wouldn't condemn him based on the level of proof. And i've even given an example in australia,where just 3 months ago the driver got off on appeal,when his foot made contact with the horses hock 3 times in a very close finish. If i was a betting man,i would say he will get off this case,most likely on appeal.Then the owners will sue for the stake and reputation impugned ,if possible some punters may as well.

actually i just googled the hrnz rule and while there have been many rule breachs over the years,the first one to pop up to search was a meeting in 2017. That day both Gerard O'reilly and Leo O'reilly both drove "for an extendfed period ",with a leg dropped in the home straight. Both got a $100 fine. I had a quick look at the video and neither was hocking,both i assume just lost their footing and had their foot about where Moran had his.They had it for about 4-5 strides whereas moran had it for 9. I don't remember at the time any outcry as to foul driving or cheating.

i think thats a very fair assessment. The only bit i don't agree with is i don't think anyone should suck it up without a fight if they think they have been unfairly treated. And clearly moran and the owners ,(as well as many punters) think they have been unfairly treated. They have to defend the case. They have to appeal as well. It will be stressful for them,but given their perceived unfair treatment,they will be disillusioned. So who can blame them for,in the moment,saying stuff this i don't want to take the horse to the races this week when i'm feeling like this. Them not starting this week shows thats exactly how they are feeling. Also,i believe that decision will forever taint Morans and his owners,respect for the stipes. Thats what happens when people feel strongly about being wronged. That lack of respect can come from one instant like we are discussing,or it can come from an accumulation of smaller incidents over time. Either way,respect will be gone. sadly whats playing out is all so predictable given the circumstances and in my opinion, shouldn't have happened.

interesting interpretation of what i said. I thought i have been consistently saying that there is a reasonable possibilty that Moran will be found Not Guilty,most likely on appeal,If he is charged with doing what he is alleged to have done. And i say that because of the precedent out of queensland,heard in september 2024 involving hocking. Gatton,race 6 -25 august. Mathew neilsen puts his foot down with 40m to go and it strikes the hocks of the horse he was driving 3 times and it gets up to win by a nose.In that casse the stipes used another rule,which allowed then to relegate(not disqualify) the horse to 2nd and gave neilsen a suspension. neilsen appealed and his case was overturned on appeal and he was found not guilty. One assumes queenslands australian harness rules are the same as victorias australian harness rules. Then i said,the 2 other most high profile cases of this type of incident ,did not result in disqualification on the night. Punteres were paid as they crossed the line,the drivers subsequently charged ,found guilty at a later date and then the horse was disqualified. I noted in all 3 cases,the actions of the drivers were clearly hocking. I suggested someone put the videos up as i don't know how to and then inferred anyone watching the videos would see Morans placement of his foot in the shepparton cup was nothing like what occured in the 3 other cases. and i raised the possiblity of the owners of captain hammerhead trying to get the decision to disqualify overturned,should Moran be found not guilty,which as i said is a possibilty based on the case at gatton. Hop that clarifies that for you.

So those hearing the appeal that overturned the neilsen case in australia,where contact occured over 40m ,didn't know the rules. Funnily enough,the stipes report today at ashburton noted a driver did the same thing briefly,making contact with his horses leg once in the final straight. no action,no warning. Just a note that it was accidental. like with many indiscretions for the same thing,they have many different outcomes depending on the circumstances

to anyone who thinks that horse should have been disqualified on the night. Ask yourself this. Moran has not been found guilty of anything yet. There is no doubt that he will vigorously defend the charge when there is a hearing. there has to be a chance he may get off. Just look at the neilsen case i referred to earlier that got overturned on appeal. So just imagine the outcry should he get off. will he even get a fair hearing? Surely ,whether true or not,that question may be raised by his cousel , Because those hearing the case will know there will be a masive outcry,with punters already threatening rto sue,mainstream media already interested in the case,etc. Will the stipes treat him fair given they persoanlly would have so much riding on the outcome. If moran loses the inital hearing,no doubt he will appeal like neilsen did. The victorian stewards did the whole thing arse about face.

I've tried that in the lazyboy as you suggested and see what you mean. Maybe that was what he was trying to do and unintentionally ended up being accused of something that the stipes are saying they found as intentional. My take, its clear the reason the stipes said they only had proof of the horse striking morans leg twice,was because thats all they could prove from the video. Now those stipes would have knownn they have accused Moran of something that everyone with knowledge of that type of thing,is called hocking. And just look at social media,thats what has happened,he being accused of hocking. Yet those stipes also knew Moranwasn't hocking and in fact is clearly trying to get his foot out of the way after the intial twice contact. The video shows that. . People are calling it hocking,because thats the area of the horses leg that drivers previously are known to make contact with. yet Morans foot was never near the horses hocks. a quick google search revealed 2 good examples of hocking in australia,where the winners were subsequently disqualified.. Bur,and its a very important but,neither of those horse were disqualified on the night and punters were paid out as they passed the post,one assumes because the stipes on the night showed more common sense than the stipes at victoria to go there. And another but,the cases clearly were deliberate,contact being over far greater distances than morans and contact was very obviously made to the hocks of the horse. so,basically you have the victorian stipes handing out a far ,far harsher penalty to punters and the horses connections,for a far,far less obvious case. Bullys delight 2021 tasmaninan cup video is a very good example of hocking.Maybe someone could put that video up ,as thats a real case of hocking. Nothing like what Moran did.

The video evidence on the replay we see is the same as what they would have used to make their decision. What more do you need.you can see what happened. it was only about 3 months ago that mathew neilson,in australia, had an appeal heard,after he had been found guilty of this offence. He appealed. He had dropped his foot in the last 40m. His was on a grass track. He maintained his action was not deliberate. The appeal hearing noted how many previous drives he had and how he had never been charged with that offence previously. Neilson won his appeal and the stewards decision was overturned as those hearing the appeal said there was not the evidence to say it was anything other than accidental. There been talk on why weren't punters refunded their money,possible punters law suit,media coverage,etc. possibly may not come to much but is an indication of how many feel. Do Harness racing victoria think how it was handled will improve their image as far as integrity goes? and all over something that couldn't be proved for sure whether it was delibertae or just careless. Oh well,strange things can happen sometimes.

I think the key words in the rule you've quoted gammalite are..."a horse MAY be disqualified... In other words it was up to the discretion of the stipes as to whether to throw the horse out completely. so when the stipe, in response to criticism, said the rules only allowed for disqualification ,not relegation,he was leaving out the bit that it was at the stipes discretion,not mandatory. Like i've always said chief,the video evidence is what i base my opinions on and in this case i agree he broke the rules by dropping his leg,but i earlier gave my reasons why i think no one can be sure either way whether it was deliberate or most importantly,whether it gained an advantage. The reason the decision is so controversial is, based on the video evidence, its unclear if any advantage was gained and the margin at the finish. The reason the stipes are on media justifying their decision is because of the criticsm they are getting. If the stipes decision was viewed as fair by punters,there would be no controversy . Common sense to me was to have an inquiry,dismiss the protest on the basis it could not be established that the foot dropping was deliberate/and even if it was it could not be established any advantage was gained while also factoring in the winning margin.Nice and simple,easily understood. Then move on ,penalise the driver,not the owners or the punters,controversy averted,everyone happy,all blown over within a couple of days....

i th just to add to that,i think the decision should have been based on the same simple principles as every other decision they make in protests. in other words,would the have winner have won had the dropping the foot not occured. and i think he if they just used that simple common sense principle,that everyone understands and sees as fair,then they would not have changed the result.

I think your above summation is very fair. Maybe you should have been a stipe. The HRV stipes post race comment,where he said thehorse couldn't be just relegated to 2nd,the rules only allowed a total disqualification,to me clearly indicated the stipes themselves thought if there was to be a penalty,it should have been relegation to 2nd,not total disqualification. Why else say that post race unless that was the case. yet they went and made a decision that they knew the magnitude of the penalty far outweighed the indescretion. In other words they made a decision to apply the rules,knowing it was unfair.Knowing the level of unfairness was far greater in what they did,than leaving the winner as the winner. Administrators should not underestimate the significance of that decision on punters perception of the victorian industry. Things like that are very rare,but it was a significant race and would have got a lot of publicity becuase of the cuircumstances. Punters aren't the mugs that some make out they are,they know when things are fair and when they aren't and they will have perceived that decision as an indication of an industry that doesn't place much consideration on whether their perspective is valued,or just taken for granted.

Gamma,i hadn't read this reply before posting my most recent one. The chief stipe for HRV said the rules didn't allow for a relegation,only a disqualification,hence the disqualiification. The stipes surely should have given the severity of their decison consideration when making it. Bit of a cop out to blame a rule for a poor decision. Afterall they are making many judgment calls every day. As to the number of times his foot hit the horses leg,maybe it was 9but the stipes did say they had proof of only a couple, but do you agree,if moran really was intentionally using his foot to encourage his horse,then to drop it and position it as he did,with his foot facing backwards and up,well do you not think he could have placed it better and that maybe t6hat was an intention of his intent,or lack thereof once his foot was dropped? you've driven,What do you think about drivers driving instinctively in a finish and when you've dropped your foot at some point in a race before,did you instinctively put it straight back up or did it take 50m or so before you focused your mind to put it back up. Moran was driving the horse out as well which would have made it even harder for him to do it straight away. I still don't know how they could infer it was intentional if he said his foot slipped. Maybe it was and moran was willing to risk being called a cheat and suffer a substantial suspension just for the sake of one race.But if your cheating then you do it in a way that you try to hide it.. In this case it seems very hard to condem Moran based onwhat i saw from the video. It doesn't seem fair at all .

Chairman of stewards for HRV said this "The film was quite evident that the foot did become detached from the sulky and there was contact with the horses hind leg on a couple of occasions. We also believe mr morans foot stayed in the vicinity of the horses legs." So basically the chairman of stewards has said they believed morans foot made contact at least twice. So the HRV stewards concluded that the driver,who drives in thousands of races,has the state of mind to do something different, from what he has instinctively done tens of thousands of times over the past couple of decades. This moran fella must be hell of a guy as ,as we saw with the nz whip rule here,most drivers do things instinctively when driving a horse out. And we are lead to believe that because he kept his foot down for over 50 metres,that the stewards believed he was making no effort to put it back in the footrest. Now i've seen hundreds of drivers drop their foot down,deliberate or not,but its quite hard to get the brain lined up with the body and put the foot back in the footrest straight away when driving a horse with the whip. People should try it on their seat holding their foot,backwards and up, like moran was. Instinctively putting your foot straight back would not happen,you would think it would take about 50m to register with the brain. Thats why you see nearly all drivers taking that long when it happens at any time of a race,let alone one where a driver is also using a whip. And the stewards believed that a good way for someone to allow their foot to make contact with their horses foot is to place ones foot back and up as moran did,not forward and down as would have worked better if that was the purpose. Going on that stewards post race comments,to disqualify that horse and punish punters and connections seemingly based on the above assumptions seems bizzare.

I see harnesslink have that video on as well.

Having watched that race last night,i thought i had seen a good race with the winner,Captain hammerhead simply too good. Tact mcleod,after a brief skip early.having his chance but struggled into about 6th and was never going well enough despite getting the 1/1. This morning i read that captain hammerhead ,was disqualified because his driver dropped his leg for about 50m with 150m to go,when fighting out the finish with the second horse,when the two were well clear of the rest. Its unclear whether the driver slipped or the move with his leg was deliberate. Now i think theres no way anyone can really know either way by just watching. He did leave his leg downfor 50m and his horse may well have contacted his leg,but i'm sure we have all seen drivers who inadvertently drop a leg out of the cart take 50m to put it back in the footrests of the cart. So,did the dropping of the leg make a difference from running first or second. To me,there is doubt either way,but clearly over the last 100m,when he driver had returned his foot to the footrest,his horse pulled away significantly to win by about half a length. Now ,o'm looking at that race from a punters perspective. And if i was a punter,i would be outraged at thed decision to diaqualify the horse. In fact i would go as far as tio say,it seemed incompetence by the stipes on the night to do what they did. To disqualify the horse totally when the first 2 were lengths in fron of the field,even if they deemed he had gained some sort of advantage,just seems crazy. In nz the driver may have got a $200 fine or maybe a couple day suspension,but for the australian stipes to disqualify the horse and subject the industry to ridicule or anger,seems total incompetence and just unfair to the horses connections. Clearly HRNZ victoria should look into the competence of thioose making that decision. Notably,the race video has been remover from the austrailan harness website. All other races on the night are on there. Obviously,if it was a justifiable decision then they would have left the video up.That tells a story in itself. I know its australia,and not nz,but punters here would have bet on that race. If you want to see the video,you can see it on the TABNSW website. They have all videos of races that have been run and put the nz harness up far quicker than HRNZ does. Thats one of the reasons i say tabcorp website is far better than tabnz website,for racing.

Theres a pattern to virtually 80% of standing starts. And that pattern is the horse/horses who are back a length or two are the ones very ikely to be slow away and consequently get back in the field,effectively diminishing their chances.That 1 length behind at the start can quickly turn into 10 lengths off the leader after 150m. And when the starter is letting them go almost as soon as the last horse turns around,then its going to be the last horse that turns into line that is unlikely to get a fair start, compared with others. And who is the last horse to turn into line,well its the horse drawn in the middle,in other words the last horse to turn in from the 2nd of the 2 circles that turn into line .(The front line being split into two circles pre race). Theres the occasional exception to the that,mostly when the field does not have a full front line, giving more room, or if the start is delayed,giving more time. Its become so obvious that i now factor that in when making my selections. In particular some drivers are nearly always are in the last couple after 20m if they draw the middle. in some ways you can't blame them too much as its a little unreasonable to expect horses to begin at speed when the horses,as well as the driver,know they have other horses in a starting position to crowd or cross their line due to those horses advantagous pre start circle formation position. Theres only 2 or 3 drivers who can be relied on to have their horses who draw in the middle,in a favorable position as the tape is released,possibly thats becuase the starter may give those couple of drivers more time to come forward ,or simply those couple of drivers are just more on the ball.

oscar bonevena stud fee was $2500. seemed very reasonable for such a wonderful racehorse. I wonder how many mares he got this season. The wife even thinks she might breed a mare to him later this year. Have we seen a trotter with his speed before in nz?

Actually Tabman,i've been thinking about what you said above. And i think your comment above is a bit of being designed to exaggerate and mislead, deliberately designed to silence ,and a bit of ignoring how you know things work. Lets take the issue of the breeders bonuses. people should ask themselves this. Who are HRNZ more likely to listen to? Who are they more likely to visit? who are they more likely to seek feedback from? who are they more likely to want to please/ Its the bigger breeders. why? Well tabman,its obvious. The bigger breeders are organised, have a history in business of achieving what they want and need to succeed,who have a history of lobbying and bringing pressure and persuasion to bear,who are more likely to be in leadership roles in breeders groups ,etc... Now i don't blame the bigger breeders for trying to ensure their interests are looked after,thats just the way it works...They are significant and deserve to be heard. But its unrealistic for you ,tabman,to suggest that their is a level playing field in influence between the bigger breeders and the smaller breeders. And who is it that are trying to make breeding commercially. And what is a very important factor in being a commercially viable breeder. ....having the progeny of their mares and stallions race as 2 year olds. I'm just stating the obvious. Its obvious who has the ear of HRNZ decision makers if you look at their focus.

Good to see your actually saying what you think tabman. No being over diplomatic with a bit of elitism that i sometimes detect from your posts.I'd thought thats the point of social media like this.. Whats this about the price of hot dogs. I used to like those american hot dogs.I haven't had one of those in years.I stopped eating them when i found out they were all in bred. As to me needing to get out more. I do get out and about. I'm unvaccinated so feel safe to walk around whenever i hear theres another covid wave. I'm sure you'd be pleased to know i still haven't caught it. You make assumptions about me not knowing what people are saying,ownership,not reading factual stuff,etc.Like i have said before,i do all those things and know what people tell me or tell me others are saying.and like i have said,i just move in different circles. I know who saying what and who supports what. Nearly always, people will support what is benefitting them and if they are the people you talk to, then the feedback will be good.Where i believe some in power are getting a lopsided view ,is when you ignore talking to those who are dropping out of the sport or stopped breeding or stopped having their horses trained. I would have thought retaining particpants would be just as important as getting new ones. rodney,i suppose you mean when i say i find mr steeles comments not too clever sometimes.I say that basically around what he says the 2 year old bonuses will achieve, and how hes expecting auckland racing to be reinvigorated because thats where a lot of people live. Well,like i keep saying,i believe there are far more effective and wise ways for hrnz to spend their money for the betterment of racing,which,yes rodney,should include auckland. Hey,i'm a data person,prove me wrong with what i say with data. If your bollocks is reference to comments we have made about entain,then i think you went off on a strange tangent to find your bollocks ,as 80% of my thoughts that i have posted about entain ,are positive.Now if you were to refer to the tab,pre entain,i certainly had a low opinion of some of their policies. And i gave example after example of how it effected me and others i know,directly driving their spend on the tote down. Also, entain themselves highlight the significance of access to nz sports betting,so when someone else said that,he was just stating a fact. rodney,if your bollocks means comments about hrnz,well then i would just say i will put in a bollocks,and raise you a bollocks. i think thats a cop out. I specifically referred to mr pedens latest press release and said two things. Why does he not produce the data to back up his statement about more 2 year olds racing and why, if that is the case,did HRNZ release a dates schedule which reduced the number of 2 year old race in the south island. Even if he wanted to be area specific with hiis data it amy have proved him partially correct,but he didn't even do that. He would have the data,so why not silence the disbelievers. i know why. And if he doesn't have the data,then why make a press relaease saying something that the data may show is false. I know that hits a nerve for you. But your twisting the words i've used rodney. When decisions are made, where some of the beneficiaries of those decisions are the decision makers,then to state that,is just a fact.I've never said the decisions aren't well intentioned. I've said,for me,they indicate they aren't fully aware of the impact and perception on certain sectors of the industry. Anyway,its been a long reply,i'm suffering from RSI. I can hear footsteps from above as my wife walks down the stairs. Shes turning the key so I'm about to venture out into the sun,haven't seen it for weeks as i've been locked in my dungeon,glued to bit of a yarn. The wife assures me shes bought me some sunscreen and that she will take me to thelocal tab where i will spend 5 minutes navigating my way around the self service machine.At least there are never any ques there. Anyway,tabman,you have your opinions and voice,heard far greater than mine will ever be. I say keep up the good fight. Make harness racing great again. Now Donald trump,that was a comeback. Actually,i used to have a donald trump bobble head on my dashboard.When the jan 6th thing happened i sure did cop some flak. I told each and everyone giving me flak,mark my words,he will be the presdient again in 2024.If only the tab had been running a book on that i would be rich now. Just like winston,as soon as he walked out amongst the protesters at parliament,i posted on bit of a yarn,why has he taken so long,you watch if he caters to those peoples views he will be back in parliament.If only i could pick winners at the races like that. have a nice day tabman. Hope you earn some bonuses in 2025,on and off the track.

Interesting history. I'd never taken much notice of what he does or says until the entain partnership with tab nz. His track record explains why he has been able to influence some significant positive changes in some areas,for example broadcasting. Harness racing nz need to take a big picture approach to his influence,treading a fine line between using his skill and knowledge to beneift the industry, while balancing the need to ensure no one person or one influential group needs are prioritized over the grass roots that the foundation of harness racing in new zealand is built on. I see the 2 year old bonuses as an example of HRNZ decision makers not getting the balance right,in their efforts to please influential groups and owners with connections and clout. All decisions HRNZ make should always be subject to examination and reason,including those made with entain/dean shannons influence. Shannons heart may be with harness racing but his head is with entain.He hasn't got to where he is by not making the hard calls, based on whats best for his business interests. Gammalite i do like your thoughts about harness racing tapping into funds entain have in promoting established venues. Alexandra park may be a possiblity,but if you had a company with millions to spend in advertising ,would you invest it in a racetrack with an uncertain future? it sounds a bit risky but then again on balance i could see how entain could take advantage of the aucklnad clubs issues ,driving a hard bargain to further their interests while at the same time doing real good for the auckland club. So i like the way you have thought outside the square there gammalite. Wenthworth park,with the backing of greyhound nsw, is an example of a precedent for the idea you have floated. I started a topic on wentworth park/entain,about a month ago and how it looked like entain was going to pull out of the multi million $ support they gave the likes of wentworth park due to contractural disagreements. I see just before christmas they resloved those issues and entain have recommited their funds. Thats where a major stumbling block was the naming wrights on the dogs numbers ,which were exclusively supposed to be ladbrooks(entain). Iat the time i posted that i suggested harness racing nz should look into cutting a deal the same with a starting point being entains branding on the numbers which all horses wear throughout nz.so your idea isn't fanciful,its an idea with possiblities in my opinion. Thats what the likes of Mathew peden should be spending a lot his time on.And don't look at just entain. harness racing in nz with the right leadership and the right vision can make real positive change.I just see more examples of good ideas and visions for the future,being expressed and discussed on here,than i do coming out of HRNZ,in my opinion.

To make it clear,i said i think tabman is a plonker because he's called me a tag sniper for expressing comments about the need for HRNZ transperancy and the need for hrnz to keep everyone informed and the need to use data to back up what it is they are telling us. And of course,recently tabman said it would be a great thing for these pages if.... i refrained from commenting on things i neither understand.... (actually i'm laughing when i type that as i must really have annoyed him, for him to say something like that). Anyway,when you say..."its not his fault these things are happening"...,well i'm pointing out no ones ever said it is. I do wonder,why is tabman so sensitive to comments made about HRNZ. Dean shannon i view as a major positive influencer for the nz harness industry,basically because he has a thorough understanding of how everything works,from how punters think, to most things to do with harness racing. He seems to have a common man persona and his persona gives the impression it would be the same in public and private.I like that about anyone. entain have been influential in some of the changes which i have viewed as positives for the indstry over the last year. The only caveat to that is some of the changes within the harness industry that he and entain are promoting could be viewed as promoting his own self interests. For example 2 year old bonuses.Hes probably the biggest nz benefactor of the very bonuses he promotes.But thats what people do,when they are close to the action they run the chance of falling into the pit fall of thinking promoting something that they see as beneficial to them,will be seen by the wider public as being beneficial ,when in fact people with different circumstances,justifyably may see things totally different.And thats not too bright as its something thats pretty obvious. I do agree with brodie,when he says entain the company is all about making money and sports betting is very obviously their major focus.Its unrealistic for anyone to expect Dean shannons major loyalty to be to anyone except entain. ,but he still can be a major positive influencer.

i think your a plonker sometimes tabman. All I've suggested in this thread, is HRNZ keep everyone informed about the significant issues that effect everyone in harness racing. And you can't even agree with that. Instead you do what you do,deflect from the issues and make out the topic has been a personal attack on someone. Why do you do that,well we both know why. If there had been better or proper communication about what i discussed,then you would point to that. But you know there hasn't been. so you deflect,its all you've got. To me,Its like your playing cards without the full deck,so you have to take a defensive approach. How about you come over to our side and not only ask questions,(which you often deem as negative),but also make positive suggestions or give alternatives or give visions of the future(which you never seem to acknowledge we do).Yes,tabman,there have been many,many positive alternatives and visions of the fututre discussed by the very people you say are always negative. And acknowledge the significance that,decisions made in the present,can have in impacting the future.