the galah

yes i guess he will come and maybe kingman won't. Who knows . Thats not to say kingman can't win if he came,he could beat leap to fame with a good draw and quick beginning,but how would any punter know whether kingman even begins ok. That would all be a guess. The TAB was accepting bets on kingman last week and now,like you say,people who bet on him may well have wasted their money and anyone betting against leap to fame may have done so believing he wouldn't come. And then you factor in the really poor odds on offer for all the horses in the market.

well Leap to fame looked back to his best again tonight.Unlike his recent 3 runs,he looked full of beans and ready to go the whole race and when asked won with a leg in the air with a 26.1 last 1/4. you could tell he was going to do that the way he was travelling on the bit this time. Things can change in a week can't they. It looks back to ...they cant beat leap to fame again... Should never have doubted him i suppose.

yes it looked like the driver was very inexperienced and lacked confidence in her own tactical decision making at this stage of her driving career.And i guess,thats to be expected because she is inexperienced. actually i watched that race in real time and i thought the pulling off the trail was a smart move as i expected her to then come to the outside over the following 200m,when she had no one boxing her in.Had she done that she probably wins. But turned out i overestimated her tactical abilty as she simply decided not to take the clear run that existed had she simply pullied out.Now we are talking about her,she's gotten a mention in the stipes report and every punter who watched the race would be thinking either,thats why i put a line through anything she drives or,if they backed her,what was she doing? The joys of punting i suppose. all drivers seem to start off with a lack of confidence in their own decision making and tend to err on the side of caution with their tactical moves. I've always thought its because they think its better not to get noticed doing something that may draw attention to themselves,not wishing to look a bit silly. some of the inexperienced drivers up north have really improved in recent times. J dunn jnr has been given a lot of oppotunities and he had used them to be what i think is the most improved driver up there.H orange has a natural talent which you don't see very often and horses just run for him,but even he makes quite a few tactical moves that you think aren't the best. Mind you,its always easier driving them while sitting in front of the tv.

Because i ask why they hadn't released the findings of the nsw commission and the queensland report,you say i'm anti greyhound racing.I think thats over defensive thinking on your part there. And you seem to ignore that critics of the greyhound industry gain traction ,when they continually say,well if you've got nothing to hide,just release the report. You've again suggested the reason the report hasn't been released is because greyhound nsw is too busy with other priorities and that it doesn't have anything to do with what i suggested seemed the likely reason. i.e.the government giving them extra time to try to get their house in order to mitigate the negative aspects of the report,before it was released.. so you believe greyhound nsw. Well i don't myself. And hang on,your thinking appears based on the presumption that greyhound nsw have control of releasing the report.. i think its a bit odd ,that anyone would think greyhound nsw are the ones who decide whether the report be released or not.The nsw government,not the greyhound industry asked and paid for the reports. The nsw one must have cost hundreds of thousands if not a million or two to hear and prepare. The hearing of evidence alone was hard over several months.So given the taxpayers paid for it,why do you think nsw greyhounds should decide what and when the public get to see it. its the nsw government who are running interference for the greyhound industry and i thought its always been obvious that the destiny of the greyhound industry everywhere is its about the influence politics on its future and of course vice versa,how public opinion of the industry effects political decisions. In other words the current nsw government has invested heavily in the greyhound industry and believe its in their political interests to mitigate any fall out as they are tied to the decision to keep the industry going and they have invested so heavily in it. anyways,i read quite a lot of the evidence heard by the commission. I have to say i got bored with it about half way through,but i think i had an understanding of some of the things that would be in the report. How much of the evidence did you read.Of course theres always 2 sides of the story and that was presented in evidence and you would assume that would be reflected in the report.

well add 1 more to that. But ithe numbers have been widely reported in severeral media articles and the coalition for the protection of greyhounds lists each one death,the injury and the date they were put down. About half were put down on the day of the races .The other half were stood down due to significant injury sustained in the race,then officially listed as dead with a week or so of the race. The information comes from the official gryhound records so theres no arguing that they aren't accurate.they had about 430 other injuries in about the last 6 months as well during the races..

Everyone has got so used to the ATC thing by now, that no one expects much from the atc or hrnz anymore,other than to let auckland continue,irrespective of the self harm and harm they do the industry as a whole. just groundhog day. Its great that westpacs not panicking though...Actually why would anyone think they would panic. Thats a bit of a mystery as they won't ever lose any money,but hey,they're not ,so thats good so we are told.

i just had a look at the unhinged interview and it seems the owner trainer had been in hospital for about 4 weeks and munro had the horse in that time.Munro mentioned dover terrace had worked well ,at, sounds like dalgetys recently and was expected to race well.I thought it great to see that trainer get a win.I wish there was more people like him still in the game,but unfortunately there aren't anymore. Anyway,from memory i think it was a horse that at times could look a little hairy and sweaty pre race but last night it looked spot on and a lot of work would have gone into getting it like that,with munro just topping it off with a different environment. and company work. We've all got our own theories and one of the ones i have isthe likes of beach work will improve almost any horse,as long as it settles in,but that only last for a couple of weeks and then there is no improvement and if they are worked on the beach a bit hard they actually go off pretty quick. We've had about 3 horses trained like that and the same pattern emerged for each one.i'm not saying that applied in this case. I also have a theory that horses worked around the grass verges of the roads and jogged 45 minutes will end up much ,much fitter than one jogged around a track for 30-40 minutes.i'm absolutely sure of that from trying that but the only thing is a farmer with a tractor trailer full of big hay bales flapping,tailgating you for no apparent reason ,can cause your horse an injury. I've often wondered whether that was part of p nairns winning formula when he was going good,although i have no idea how he works them. That was just a guess. anyway the point is there can be quite a difference in performance within 2-4 weeks sometimes. personally i think that racing in nz is pretty good as far as everything currently being above board.the riu did a good good in recent years,not so sure about the last year or so,they need to do more out of competition testing but i'm guessing maybe a couple of administrators probably wouldn't want that .Theres only a couple of stables that i would guess the vet helps significantly enough to notice. I think the cullen stable is by far the best current example of that,but i'm only guessing.Not saying its anything that other couldn't get if they used the same vet,although i have noticed over the years that tyhe odd,now retired vet certainkly had his favorites when it came to things like that. Anyway ,i had better not go down that rabbit hole or chief will get all fired up.

personally i think the michael house horses are relatively consistent,but some can have their good days and bad,just like other trainers. Don't see anything unusual ever happens with that stable. like yesterday,santanna mach had been running below par for its last few starts,but he was well paced in not a very strong field yesterday and seemed to improve enough on recent runs to win again.I didn't pick him to win,based on the recent racing but wasn't over surprsed he won based on what hes capable of.Beudiene quick step from the same stable is another that can be like that. Actually yesterdayn i had thought w house first 2 drives would win,delightful dreams and ask me lazarus,but both ran well below their last start runs.Still they will probably bounce back again quickly.I think w house choses what he thinks is the best drive each time,just sometimes it doesn't quite turn out that way. b munro doesn't drive too many,but him driving never puts me off. He doesn't drive much and that win yesteday took his udr back up to .2278 for this year. last year it was .3232 and the year before he only had 1 drive and it ran 2nd. I have no idea of who he works for but always got the impression he had something to do with that b mcintyres horses down south and hes had some nice handy horses. he of course got a bit of publicity one time for being a bit insensitive with his language on the rugby field. That was a strange story that seemed to be blown out of proportion . At the time it seemed a sign of the times and i found it sort of funny when you looked at the context of him having been a canterbury rugby maori representative. But hey,maybe thats just my sense of humour. anyway,i has a small bet on it ,just based on how healthy and relaxed it was pre race,knowing it had shown the odd glimpse of speed in the past and that i had never noted it looking so good in the past.Of course its always easy to say that after the race,but thats what it appeared like pre race..I saw nothing of concern about the way it won. It wasn't a win based on endless stamina,it simply just had too much speed for the horses it ran against last night.

i think the form kingman has shown,he looks the obvious one to me,but i don't know whether he goes away from a stand and then we don't even know if hes coming or not. But theres only 3 weeks to go and hes the form horse. Republican party is the form horse in nz, but i think he would need the idela run to win. I.e.if he got the front early without working much,which of course may happen. While he has been too good for the other nz horses recently,i think the gap between him and the others isn't as much as the recent results indicate. He has been very well driven recently by c dalgety and really his driver has used the horses capabilities and just outsmarted the other drivers a bit as well. i think 2/3 of the likely field could run in the top 3 if they got a cosy run on the markers and then got a gap at the right time. but to me it looks like kingman to win if he comes. leap to fame still has to be a chance,but hes not racing as well as kingman has in recent starts and im don't know why he would come if hes not at his best.. whats your thoughts.

can't say i knew that you invest on the nz cup futures market. I'm truly surprised anyone does given the odds of the horses are so significantly shorter than you would get for 100% of them on the day of the races. And your betting into that market with no idea what your selection is drawn and in several instances little idea whether the horse will even start or what the opposition is.. then throw in you have been betting under the assumption a horse, who may well start favorite if it comes,(kingman),was not a possible starter and now knowing it had not even been in the market until this week. with so many factors working against anyone considering having a bet in the nz cup futures market,i assumed,obviously wrongly,that only a moron would have such a bet. Obviously your not a moron. So i will reword my comment based on what you've said. I have to be honest ,so now say,smart people obviously do bet into that market,but i think the bet,not the person,is stupid.

i think its very likely he doesn't want to race the horse when he thinks theres something not 100% with him.Makes sense. But he hasn't pulled out yet so who knows what may happen.

So the premise of your whole argument is that winning a race while the race is classified as for 2 year olds, is of greater importance than winning the very same race ,while the race is classified as being for 3 year olds. and so on.. thats why i said,well if that is the factor of so much importance and you can do it by moving the dob like they did,then its just as logical to say why not make the d.o.b. as the 1 st of april instead of the 1st of january. Because that way it will lead to even more winners who are classified as 2 year olds,the thing you deem of so much importance. i not saying they should do that,i'm just pointing out how artificial that logic is. If the field sizes and turnovers for all these 2 year old races were anywhere near the average for races elsewhere,then you wouldn't get the level of criticism you get directed towards the 2 year old racing stakes and bonuses. But they aren't are they.and as much as you and others place no significance to them,the reasons are obvious. Racing administrators need to acknowledge the realities of today for all races,including age group races ,and run the quantity and quality of races everywhere, based on the demand horse numbers wise for them. Its just a common sense business model which maximes profit and minimisess loss. That way they won't run out of money in years to come and everyone who is still in the sport won't need to suffer. well,it wasn't that long ago that racing clubs would not run races if they only had 6 guaranteed starters. only about 20 years ago. and why did they do that. Becuase they deemed them unviable financially. so,whats changed. The thinking of those in charge has changed. And they currently have money from the entain deal and are happy to spend it until it runs out because they have enough of that money left to last another 3 or 4 years and by then those making the decisions to spend now will have moved on.Then the cuts will start. Its inevitable. And running 4 horse races with next to nothing in turnover will only make the day of reckoning come quicker.On that cherry note i will end this post.

well,i have to point out this topic is another in a long list of topics about the same subject. i.e. the very small field size in so many 2 year old races,often with the higher stake races. i've never disagreed with you when you say people will be aiming to have their horses in these races when they train them early in their careers. So we agree on that. and i agree there has to be good financial incentive and reward for the connections of those who do end up with a top young horse But when trainers and owners come to realisation their horses at best could well get gut busting runs ,just to run a midfield place at best,they think, whats the point in that,their horses have greater earning potential in graded races or at other tracks and therefore are placed accordingly. Thats just what happens and makes perfect sense anyway. the only time you will get larger numbers in the age group feature races is when the abilities of the horses is more even.Or when you have runners with connections who are willing to sacrifice their lesser horses because they like to be there for the big occassions.99% of trainers don't want to sacrifice their better horses to run midfield in a big race.They don't have the numbers waiting in the wings to do that to them. then you get the very rare trainer,like say brad mowbray who is happy to go around with an inexperienced green horse, to earn an extra couple of thousand for running at the back. Hey good luck to brad mowbray,but very few new zealand trainers do that. hrnz realise that,which is why they have to pay out around $3000-$5000 to the horses that run last in some of those high stake age group races.And why they think its a great idea to pay out bonuses from next year to some horses who run last in any 2 year old race. You often talk about the need for high stakes to go to the top end,yet the races you talk about reward the horses who can't keep up and run in the last few with tens of thousands in these bigger races. as to the change of season. Thats just a red herring in my opinion.A horse is born on the same date and has lived the same number of days ,whether they changed the official date of birth for all horses to the 1st of january or left it as the 1st of august.No one can argue thats not correct. Like i have always said,its just smoke and mirrors to say they are getting more 2 year olds to race now we have changed the d.o.b. to 31 december. They would have run anyway in december, whether they were shown as a 2 or 3 year olds based on the official.d.o.b. It would have made just as much sense to just changed the wording on the race programming. i think theres always been a lack of logic for anyone to say a horse is more likely to race as a late 2 year old,than as as an early 3 year old,simply because they went and changed the date.Using that logic,i could say lets put the d.o.b. back another 3 months to 1st april and that way we will get even more 2 year olds lining up. And then i could claim how clever that is. At the end of the day,it all comes back to the cost to the industry of runningraces with small filelds that generate next to no turnover. there has to be a balance found where the owners of the best young horses are rewarded enough by way of stakemoney,but very importantly that has to be balanced with the flow on impact on stakes for the races that generate the turnover that provide the money to pay all stakes. In other words if you over subsidize the product that is draining your finances and underfund the product that is replenishing your finances,then that will mean you have to cut back on the funding for all the industry,including the part of the industry generating the profit,which will lead to less partuicpation at that lower lever,which will lead to less money being generated,which will inevitably lead to less funding for the high end races. so in effect, maintained the level of stakes in the high end races,irrespective of whether they have only 4 runners, will lead to significant reduction in stakes for the very people you want to get it. a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. one of the ojnly positives for nz is the likes of victoria was silly enough to keep paying the big stakes to the top end horses,so they ran out of money,had to cut stakes significantly or they folded,and now that don't import as many nz horses,which is a plus for the nz industry as far as oless horses being exported. always a silver lining somewhere if you look hard enough.

if what you said actually played out ,then yes that would make sense. But it doesn't and has never done so. Your making an argument that simply ignores reality. trainers/owners know that pushing their young horses to enable them to be a likely also ran in a high stake race is rather pointless and often counterproductive. its been like that for decades.How long a pattern do people have to have befiore they see something. Administrators can ignore the obvious,but its obvious to everyone else.. administrators woke up a little with their 2 year old bonuses this year and announced and in effect announced,hey these 2 year old bonuses we have been paying,well,duh,they failed to get any more starters so what we will try next is ,lets pay them $4000 to run last at their first 2 year old start if a horse meets the sale conditions..In other words they admitted they had failed but doubled down on failure and went again with another hair brained scheme that benefitted only a very small % of the industry.

can anyone tell me what the point is of the tab having a futures market on the nz cup. And why do the harness media continually talk about the market ,then in the next breath state the obvious,that only an absolute moron would bet on the futures market anyway. here we are about 3 weeeks out from the nz cup and the tab prices are pathetically small for all the runners and now,given the latest news story on the hrnz website,it seems a horse who has never been ever considered a possible starter,(kingman) may well be allowed to throw in a late nomination and would most likely start favorite if he does. i mean,its humourous in a way,but ridiculous to the extreme. isn't it about time the tab stopped ripping off the dumb and the nz racing media stopped talking about odds that their audience know are just a load of rubbish.

your above reply to my comment brushes over the point i made. and i suppose you've done that on purpose. I guess your just trying to mitigate negative comment some outsiders may make about this site, because you allow greater freedom of speech and allow some posts that others may not. i don't know,why not just do as you say in the last sentence of your above reply. In this case,say to mr fitzgerald ,look you got some bad publicity from peter profit, who for reasons your unaware of doesn't like you,but hey forbury's post repeating that comment has given you a chance to clarify the facts and now people can see whats what.. So instead of people coming on here and suggesting this site is full of complainers talking shit(which fitzgerald did),tell him or anyone else to step back and get some perspective and deal with life,but also,tell them they are free to use this site to get across to people the message they may want to sell,but of course realise they may get the occassional response from someone saying,hey,i don't agree with you or you've overreacted.. So personally chief i think you shouldn't be empathising with people who don't have perspective,,because those very same people sometimnes have an ulterior motive,which is sometimes to paint the very small % of posters as a reflection of the overall posts that appear on here. anyways ,thats what i would do,but isay that realising i'ts not my site and your the fella clever enough to run a site like this which everyonne appreciates.

i've watched leap to fames last 3 runs and they all have been below his best.I've always been a fan of his, but i'd be very surprised he turns up and if he does he won't win on his current form. Then you have swayzee and all the hard racing and what they would have pumped into him may finally be catching up with him. i've been amazed that he kept going as long as he did.he's had a wonderful career but they aren't machines. But you would think he won't come either.So all the talk from the clever people about the need to attract the aussies with the million dollar stake,well that looks like it will fall very flat.Still the nz cup will be a great race whoever is in it.

well you quoted me . So your saying forbury has a history of posting,to use your words."absolute rubbish".And at the same time, your saying you fully undertsand why someone would get upset about forbury's posts. Those comments combined like you have, seem to illustrate a lack of perspective by you and the person getting upset at forbury's comments. so you run a racing social media site and are thankful new particpants have nothing to do with racing social media. so i guess that means you think most who contribute on your site are full of constant negativity. interesting. Then shouldn't we be blaming you to a degree because your enabling the negativity. Also,its nice you that you have observed the succesful people having an enjoyable time, are managing to avoid the constant negative people on course. Let me guess,a sign of the ones having a successful enjoyable time will be they won't be on social media.

personally i saw why gamma said mr fitzgeralds post was aggressive enough.It seemed a fair comment after reading mr fitzgeralds comments about "the complainers on here talking shit". Mr fitzgerald gave a very good reply ,then ended it with an unnecessary generalised swipe,seemingly at what could include everyone who posts on here. i couldn't quite see the point in that. Anyways good luck to mr fitzgerald and his syndicate. Those who organise the syndicates deserve a lot of credit for the effort they put into helping sustain the industry.Him included.i don't know him but from what i've seen he seems a freindly bloke just doing his best and certainly isn't out to rip anyone off. the horse,smackdown is a prominsing filly and has been highly rated by s reid,although it hasn't delivered on the wrap reid put on it at this point.. Maybe it will,maybe it won't. My guess it will all come down to how he places it. Reid seems to like to run his horses in the big races on the big days and when you do that you aren't really maximising their earning potential if your running around having hard races and only running a nice 5th. But some owners seem to be more about running in the big races than earning potential and thats up to them.

yes thats the one. i hadn't thought of the paywall thing. .

i was reading an interesting article on the state of british racing this week. I don't know how to post it but it was"foreign buyers bet big on british horses as domestic racing declines" it seems over there they also have a proposed increase in tax rate on sports betting(including racing) to worry about which is currently being considered by parliament. The government has propsoed it go to the same rate as on line casno's,from 15% to 21 %. that would be a major blow if it happens and with all the rules and regulations around betting agencies keeping an eye on punters spending and credit ratings and the like,the bad news seems to be piling up in recent times. the article also really saying its the foreigners with all the money who are propping up the industry more for prestige,as stakemoney in britain is not looking good in comparison to elsewhere. foreign buyers and owners still willing to pay top $ but not the numbers going to british owners anymore. interestingly it says the number of foals being born has fallen by a quarter since 2022. Horses in training down 8% since 2020 and betting revenue down 6.8% last year when compared to the year prior.

Now i see they've done a report in queensland into the issues they are having at the $86 million ipswich greyhound facility. but like nsw,the queensland racing minister is also sitting on it and has not currently released the report, that facility ,with its 3 tracks,1 a 2 turn,1 a 1 turn and the other a straight track,having had `16 dog deaths on the track in just over 6 months. they've even had serious issues with the surface on the straight track the head of racing queenslands racing department quoted as saying"this series of incidents have eroded public and stakeholder confidence in the industry." Not the best of headlines again but a couple of the state governmants over there have invested a lot into the greyhound industry.But with all the issues they still are having, it doesn't seem to have helped the industries public perception at all.

theres too much congestion when you have horses off marks spaced only 10 metres apart. it would be ok if there was only one line of horses on those marks,but often there are 2 lines, or horses off ur as well. It appears the problem is compounded by the track not being as wide as some tracks as evidenced by the lower number of horses they can fit onto a front line at motukarara. And while i haven't taken much notice of how they parade pre start,i assume they do the same as they do every other race where they have 2 circles off each mark.. Well as i've pointed out many times,the 2 circle formation has its negatives and one is when they turn in the congestion is greater and when you have horses starting on marks 10 metres apart,congestion is even greater.. but would having a smaller field size have helped congestion yesterday. Well if they had reduced yesterdays field size to 15 instead of the 17 they had,how would that have helped? Because the 2 less horses who would have been eliminated would have been the only 2 who started off the front and it could be argued that wouldn't have changed anything whatsoever for the better congestion wise, for those behind them,as it wasn't the 2 front line markers causing any of that. personally i thinkif you look at the way the starter does those starts,they are a bit of a debacle. The horses off the ur are starting behind the horses who are supposed to be starting 10m behind them,you have starters assistants running interference to those who start on marks behind where the starters assistants are. It shouldn't have to be for a horse and driver to guess which way a starters assistant is going to move in front of them,after the start ,like happened yesterday. so whats the answer. well,they need to have a greater distance between the marks the horses start from. i.e. 15 metres instead of 10 metres. If they do that they would just have to have a front line,a 15m line and a 30 metre line,instead of a front,10m,20m and 30m.And why not have a pbd in a stand to have the horses who were higher assessed,drawn the second line off the 15m and 30m.If they are to keep the marks 10m apart they need to parade them differently in a 1 circle formation for combined marks. They did a 1 circle formation for decades so it should be no biggie. as to the trifecta pool The figure you give is a huge pool by normal starndards.as you say,the big field must have helped,but also as i've pointed out before,when there are delays to a start,all pools will increase. And when there are significant delays,there can be significant increases in tote pool size. Thats why that fella from the usa said ,the simplest way to increase turnovers is crib an extra minute before they start to line them up. He said when the meadowlands changed to start there races at the carded time,it was one of the worst financial decisions they had made.i know over here they have that many races on trackside,but as i've said before,even changing the starting procedure to say have a flashinglight come on when the all clear comes through then have them do not 1,but 2 rounds before they come in,is a way of increasing turnover while still getting the trackside coverage.i don't know why they don't do something as simple as that.the worst thing any meeting can di to keep turnover down is have then coming up behind the mobile when they are only jst ticking on 0 seconds to the start time. Places like southland could improve their turnover if they just put another starter in charge who wasn't as strict on starting on time.

you don't hear people booing these days on a racetrack but thats probably because theres never that many there. actually going back a few years, people did use to boo occasionally when a winner would come back to the birdcage or just after they passed the post. Most didn't take it too seriously. Actually,we had a horse win the main race at our local track about 20 years ago and what was noticeable after the commentator concluded his commentary, was the high level of noise from chatter and some loud booing that could be heard.If i happen to watch that video,it always makes me smile as to the atmosphere and also as i wonder why some people would be upset about the win.But i think a bit of booing just added to the atmosphere and thats what people did at sporting events more back then. i remember bob negus gettting the booing treatment one night when he won a race at addington. i wasn't there that night,but knew someone who was and it got a lot of press coverage. Apparently,he walked through the public stand bar area which was full and he got as major roasting from most in there.I'm not sure whether he was a poor driver or simply didn't try much,but every punter seemed to think he only tried to win very rarely on that horse and whether people liked it or not,i'm sure most punters weren't surprised about what happened.Actually i remember i had an uncle who told me his mate had a big treble finishing on scholar one day after a couple of roughies won the first couple of legs. Scholar in front half way down the back,travelling easy,thinking is this the day he wants to win,but no he poped in behind and seemd happy not to look for a run in the straight.actually i rmember not long after that,one boxing day,being at the races at ashburton. that was the day when the car parks were totally full and everywhere was packed on course. Well this day bob negus just happened to be walking past in the public car park and a punter walked past him and gave him a serve about not trying and the 2 got into an argument,with mr negus telling the fella he should be fighting in the falklands war,.funny the things you remeber. I do remeber negus being regarded as a top trainer and even though not the punters friend as far as driving went,he actually of course won a nz cup with armalight. He sure did get the last laugh as far as driving that winner. actually thinking about thazt ashburton boxing day meeting. I remember going there about 20 years ago and the place was packed right past theend of the straight. It was like the boxing day trots at ashburton were where it was at socially and that was only 20 years ago. Young people werer there to party as well on that very hot afternoon.They raced the same day as westport ,with westport starting earlier. Well it was amazing to see the decline in attendance within a few years and they eventually canned the meeting.The decline in recent years has been really sad when you think back to not that long ago.

what about the effort of y atchama and morrie in the first race today. Jumped out and the jockey was no where to be seen in the saddle for the first 10 metres,then popped back on. Then took the short cuts thereafter and still got up to win.You don't see a recovery like that often.