the galah

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..

Blair Orange is the best and most consistent driver I have ever seen. But his decision to not attend the world driving champs seems fair enough given operation inca. Matthew Williamson finished 4th with 83 wins last season,and the 3 who beat him are under a cloud because of operation inca. He's earned his selection.

The horse lifts its head 150m out when the driver takes hold of it,In my opinion because the driver thought he may win. K marshall then seems at a loss as to whether to let it go or hang on to it,doing his best to make it look like he was trying. That's my opinion after watching it several times. In my opinion the horse was pulled,and probably the most obvious case I have seen for some time.. Watch the horses action and watch its head and read its body language. I'm confident i'm correct after reading the stipes report. They did not even mention the drive. The north island stipes are blind as.

What do others think about that drive. Looked like he was just sitting on it. if you watch its previous race where he urged it along it was trotting with the same action.,so why was he holding on to it this time. Maybe its just the way he drives,he did the same on westy boyz 3 times in a row,until the bigger stake was up. Does Cambridge having half the stakes compared to Auckland lead to such inconsistent and questionable driving?

Not sure if jj flash deserves the level of aggravation he’s getting. That happens sometimes I suppose.

ive never once read on any forum criticism of how the all stars care for their horses,nor does anyone deny they are the best. So I don't see that as relevant to what I am saying. I know the all star fan club often infer that is what some say,but that's just fake news.. However what can't be denied is substances used to enhance performance today will be outdated in the future due to something better coming along, or a test being developed which can identify the particular performance enhancer being used. I don't think anyone could argue against that. Using your argument, any enhancer that is used legally is fine.. If they don't have a test for it then go ahead and use it type thinking. I understand that thinking, and have no doubt that is what is required to reach the top. Its just not the way I think. And clearly if you have greater resources and access ,then you are at a big advantage. Just logic.

I could understand the criticism of alford if it was accurate,,but I don't think it is. I actually had a couple of $ on the horse and thought he gave it its chance,and made understandable decisions as the race unfolded. I think he lacked a bit of confidence when he first started,often just following them around like most juniors do when they start off,,but he showed a bit more aggression in that drive, which is what he will need to do in future if he is to be successful. As far as junior drivers go John morrison is very talented and sarah o"reilly has improved big time lately.

If that's how you judge things then fair enough. Would you say the same to some catholics. Why are they against abortion if that's the way everyone should think?. I"m just expressing an opinion from my perspective of the world. I realise its easier to do that when you have no skin in the game so to speak. Your not influenced by factors that those involved are,So my judgement call simply comes down to what I believe is fair and what is not.

It depends whether you look at it from a legal or moral perspective in my view? You would get 2 different answers. ,

That's all true. No one argues otherwise that I know. But the reality is most believe there is more to their success than just that. Personally I think they are also ahead of the game when it comes to currently legal performance enhancers I think only the ignorant would believe they are ahead of the game in everything except performance enhancers. If you argue otherwise, well I think you can't be taken seriously. That's the reason you see some negativity towards that stable. Its so obvious that is where a lot of the detractors frustrations come from. One side argues they live in the real world,the other argues its all just jealousy. In all reality most would do the same if they had the knowledge, contacts, opportunity, money.. People in glass houses type thing. I think it also so blatantly obvious that as science progresses those that don't access what helps them run faster get left behind. The sad thing about it all is the health of the horse is often compromised. That is one of the reasons many no longer participate. One thing I would say about that stable is their horses don't have the intermittent form reversals due to ill health on the day that some others do. Not that we see on race day anyway .

The stewart stable is very dominant, but the Tonkin stable was caught in in the blue magic scandal, and of course many are still skeptical of whether performance enhancers are a current factor. I watched a couple of the races last night,,the all stars won them both and really made the opposition look very 2nd rate. The difference between the all stars and the also rans was rather noticeable. I thought one of the most notable things last night was the Butt stable. They had a couple of runners pull up distressed, and another drop out. They can certainly get them going, but when they aren't right,it certainly is noticeable.

I guess if there is no requirements to tell punters it was only going to sit and come with one run, then we shouldn't be too surprised. There is no doubt punters have too much faith sometimes . I think too you had a driver who often you never know what you may get these days.. That race illustrated that well. If Ricky May had driven it, at least you know he can try and not knock them around at the same time. They can do both.

Having viewed the video several times I can't work out how anyone could believe the explanation for the interference to capelli on the first bend. The horse was not trotting roughly,nor hanging out in the 40m prior to the interference, yet that's what the stipes would have us believe. Is that what the drivers said or did the stipes just make things up because the drivers concerned had higher profiles. Would a lesser known driver have been treated the same?

Your first paragraph just illustrates why this matter was always best handed on to the police. Do you really think the RIU could have conducted a thorough investigation without it being undermined. Have you forgotten the blue magic scandal where several trainers were tipped off on upcoming police raids by racing officials? You say 'the RIU is sieve like with information' then argue they should have conducted an investigation that required utmost secrecy over a long period of time while evidence/information was gathered. Its a contradiction. Your second paragraph is exactly what other sporting bodies do. Lots of examples.The Irish rugby players stood down for some time last year when they were charged with offences like rape which they were eventually acquitted on,the nz rugby league captain stood down for drug offences last year the day after he was charged, the many overseas cricket players immediately stood down when news of police investigations into match fixing surface. All other sports do it, its what sports do to protect their integrity. They all try to work with the police and the defendants to gain a balanced view so as they can make informed decisions as to what action is necessary to protect their sports reputation. Your 3rd paragraph seems to conclude that there may be a damages claim if racing authorities find guilt and the courts don"t. Then you quite rightly point out the 2 very different burden of proof thresholds that courts and racing have, possibly nullifying your initial inference. I think you have pointed out flaws in your own argument, which I supposed means your presenting both sides. The RIU are being criticized by many on here for not gathering the evidence/information themselves while at the same time being criticized for trying to gather evidence from other sources who have the evidence as a result of their investigations. I just don't get the logic of those making that argument. I've never been a great fan of the RIU, but i'm consistent, and I recognize when they are trying to uphold integrity and honesty. So I disagree with you for the above reasons.

this is what I think. I think many are only interested in truth and honesty when there is no wrongdoing by those they support. In all my time of following this sport it has never been clearer to me the double standards and hypocracy of many within the industry who claim to endorse integrity,that is as long as they can choose who should be judged. And whats with those pointing out past failings of the riu to properly uphold integrity issues. Criticize them when they don't,then criticize them when they do

They are not the same. Each enforces its own based on evidence they have before them. The RIU would be derelict in its duty if it were to put on hold investigation of possible breaches of its rules ,especially when the possible breaches strike at the heart of the industries integrity. How you call that really,really petty I do not know. Say the police had evidence of extensive use of performance enhancers by a high profile participant would your attitude still be the same towards the riu? Let them win as much as they can for 18 months,because another authority is already dealing with it. You seem to be pre judging what the riu may do. Are you privy to information that may lead you to that conclusion? If not,why do you protest?

If I am reading it right as to what you are saying. You think those that would have had their race scrapped due to insufficient numbers, now actually have a race,but may not be happy as they have to race against horses who have won previously, albeit those winners probably are horses of less ability than theirs? I cant see why the non winners would be upset,but if they are they can always scratch and get a vet to write a vet certificate for some non existent problem that will disappear by nomination time next week, like seems to happen so often.

No. In my opinion they should have been doing this long ago. Some of the non winners look to be the better chances in my opinion.