the galah

What i would say gammalite,is irrespective of the merits of both sides of the argument about specific drivers decisons,isn't it clear from what you have read on here,that there is an expectation from many punters that its appropriate that stipes sometimes ask questions of drivers . lets face it,racing can't afford to lose any punters . . for example walt has said he hasn't had a bet since he backed mounga. i can tell you i stopped betting for a wee while after watching mounga who i backed. Also i remember after reading the stipes report on that david butcher drive on turnpike joe i stopped betting on north island trots for a couple of weeks. Why support something that you don't think is honest? I also know someone was unimpressed with what he saw as questionable tactics as relates brent barclay drive being discussed so just stopped for the rest of the day on saturday.(not me) so my point is. harness racing these days can't afford to lose punters for a day,a week or months.Most punters just keep betting ,but theres a % that get turned off. For some reason Its a factor that people don't seem to consider when discussing this type of subject.

Just had a look at harnesslife. Not much to it. Points for trying i suppose. But theres a bland feeling to it. i don't know,but isn't it obvious theres reasons unhinged is so well known and so watched . So,forgive me for stating the obvious,but its the content of unhinged. obviously the front person helps,but the subjects of his interviews are real people,with real relateable emotions and personalities,all that combined with also showcasing the horses and delving into their personalities. its a proven product with nothing but positives. Hard to understand why hrnz doesn't take advantage of something right there under their noses. but hey,some of the decision making by hrnz seems to lack logic,so if the same people are coming up with strange decsions in other areas of the industry,should we expect anything different?

what makes a top driver is an interesting topic. youv'e stated IQ and ability to read a race and desire. I think abilty to judge pace is one of the most important. Self confidence another. You only have to look at how good some drivers can be when they are in form. Johnny cox an example of that. Currently he would be the most in form driver. Even some top drivers form can be a bit patchy,so current self belief and confidence show the mindset is important. blair orange an example of somone who always at his best. obviously the horse is extremely important. abilty of the trainers that they drive for another. very few can reach the heights of the very best,but anyone just competing ito the best of their abilities is an achievement that should be applauded when they do have success. Thats the thing about harness racing and racing in general. For 95% of people that have success,the level of enjoyment is the same at the bottom level as it would be for those in a group 1 race. that actually should be part of how racing is promoted going forward. Keep it real. You can't sell the dream that you can be expected to make money in horse racing,but you can promote selling the dream that you will experience a high that you can't get elsewhere should you have some success. thats what that unhinged fella does so well and is why his content needs promoted more.

Stewards do factor in what a horse is paying when considering whether to ask the question as to why a poor performance or driven in a certain way. It used to be standard practice to read what the driver of a beaten favorite had to say in stipes reports in nz. Doesn't happen now,but it did not that long ago,so if you wanted proof that a horses short price is an indication that the stewards will consider seeking comment if they deem necessary,well there you have it. I'm not sure why your sticking to the stewards are different from punters theme. It is just one of many things that they must consider. Who would have anyone have any confidence in the sport if they thought stipes couldn't differentiate between a 70/1 shot and an odds on shot being driven to go on the fence at the first opportunity and be driven for luck. When you said stewards don't tell drivers how to drive,and i should know that. well i agreed with that,but i gave context to that so i'm not sure what you are meaning there. when you said Walt was deliberatley implying barclay was trying to get beaten. well thats not my interpretation of what he said about mr barclay. i thought he was implying the level of tactical competence was sadly lacking and that because of that the question as to why he adopted thoswe tactics should have been asked. Have you ever thought gammalite that perhaps barclay hasd a reasonable explanation that had punters been informed they would have accepted. The southland stipe gave barclay no such opportunity. That drive iis different from moungas drive as two different posters on here said they were told before the race mounga was not there to win. One thing i'm tired of,is people ignoring the video evidence. Every race has a video which captures what happens. Anyone can watch it.

I think thats a very over the top reaction to a stipe asking a simple question with the intention of informing the punter. I can't see what the problem is. as to your point about consistency. i think you do make a good point. But i think they are consistent in their own way. The canterbury stipes make more of an effort to inform the punter and police the rules. the north island stipes seem to occasionally have slept through some races and aren't as committed to transparency and miss some obvious things. And the southland stipe comes from an area where he most likely sees those involved more on a social level than stipes in other areas so tries to tread a fine line and occasionally the punters lose confidence in the product because he hasn't scrutinised something that he should have. Now i make those comments based solely on what i read in the stipes reports they produce. and without knowing them. Its similar to district court judges for example. Judges put their own interpretaion of the seriousness of certain offences and use their discretion when deciding what an appropriate sentence may be,knowing what the legislation says. I've always thought you can get quite a bit of inconsistency around the country depending on what judge is in what area. for example.I know in one city there was a resident judge who for years was pretty hard on repeat drink driving. Then when he retired the judge that replaced him took a much softer sentencing approach to repeat offenders,with the result drink driving numbers increased even with less policing.

I thought it went without saying a horses odds are a reflection of how the public see the chances of a horse. So i think your quite wrong if your suggesting the stipes should not consider the tote prices relevant.Like walt said,you have to respect punters intelligence and not put them all in the same basket as being unable to differentiate between good/bad or the odd questionable drive. Then you say stewards don't tell drivers how to drive. well that is true but their job is to oversee an industry that expects a level of tactical competence from the drivers and very importantly,the perception that everyone is trying. Harness racing just reflects society,not everyone is honest 100% of the time or plays by the rules every time.Its the same in any sport especially with gambling or money involved,which you must know anyway. Your background does give you an insight,which most don't have, into the many reasons why things can happen in a race and you have given a couple of good examples of what you mean.But while thats an asset and advantage in understanding the subject,you don't have to have driven in a race to have a thorough knowledge of it. I can understand the fine line a steward may tread in an area like southland where theres a smaller circle of participants and the participants are all just trying to make a living. But stewards jobs are to protect those very same industry participants by maintaining perceived integrity in the product,so punters invest and keep the money and fun flowing.

If your going to say that,then i would say you haven't given me a good example. good time betty last 2 starts its finished 9th,beaten 37.5 metres and 11th beaten 43.2 metres. Betterthandiva had finished 6th,beaten 5.9. metres and 4th beaten 5.1 metres.I've stated the distance beaten in metres as i'm using the aussie tabcorp website as the hrnz website is not responding,as often happens. The point is,well done if you backed good time betty,but the more information the punter has the better. Better to question more than do what they do in southland and leave many punters feeling pissed off because they can't even question the obvious.

I think thats a bit tough nowornever. Either we want stipes doing their job to provide information to the public,or we don't. Surely thats the whole point of this thread. If you want to know which stipes are doing the best job to protect punter confidence,then you should just look at who the stipes are and whats in their reports. Todays stipes would be the most switched on of any in nz.

I think your pretty much on the mark walt,but i do get newmarkets point as P nairn driving of forgiveness isn't doing himself any favours. Personally i think on top of what you have said walt,nairn is trying to make a point that he will drive a horse quiet if he wants to. Now no one is arguing that forgiveness has been foolproof under pressure. People have seen it break a lot a few starts ago. But nairn still carries a whip that he never ever uses,nor has he informed the stipes so that they can inform pubnters that he will not be pressuring his horse in a finish because of his lack of confidence in its manners. So for 4 weeks in a row now people watch him just sit there and they are beginning to wonder a bit. Hence thats reflected in newmarket starting a thread about it. Nairn obviouskly has been driving under a stay of penalty as he was suspended last month for lack of vigour in a finsih on this horse. So thats why i say he may be trying to make a point. Maybe hes thinking about how it will effect his upcoming appeal if he were to show some vigour on the horse and it was to respond.I'm not saying he doesn't have a point,i'm just saying its not helping his public perception from the comments i have heard from some punters.

punters just expect better tactical decisions i suppose gammalite. The key is this horse was a $1.70 hot favorite. Theres a justified expectation for the driver of a red hot favorite not to get boxed in with 600m to go. really it comes down to, if you want to retain punter confidence then stipes should at least ask the obvious questions. Its also pretty pbvious,that if stipes don't question drives like barclays then the drivers concerned will think its ok to drive like that ,which will lead to punters losing confidence in the product. Funny thing was i was talking to someone today and the second thing they said to me was whats wrong with the southland stipes. I asked why and they said well brent barclay clearly made no apparent attempt to get a clear run with the $1.70 favorite being talked about. Personally i just think sometimes drivers made poor tactical decisions and theres no doubt b barclay did that. Any normal driver would not have got boxed in with 600m to go on a $1.70 favorite. I also thought in race 8 they may have mentioned the outward movement of the b gray trained winner onto its stablemate,hayley jaccka,driven by barclay. I only watched the head on once but i thought the winner clearly moved out enough to impede hayley jaccka .I'm not saying the winner was ever going to be relegated but the stipes normally mention things like that. Do they not realise people were shown the head on on trackside.

just did and a bit strange to read stufff like that isn't it. Only 2 of the 72 start with a letter that comes after H. Healgender-a gender identity that gives the person peace ,calm and positivity. I wish.

The whole transgender and gender diverse thing i think is a very complicated subject and just one of those things where we need to look beyond the vocal minority of them,the morally bankrupt media and the woke politicians who often promote the issue based on what they themselves have to gain. Its a subject i found interesting and read a lot about about 5 years ago when you could see it coming and i think you just have to follow the data gathered from countless studies and you simply can't ignore that there is a direct linkbetween the majority of trans/gender diverse people and mental health issues. Thats not to put everyone of them in the same boat as there are many genuine people out there who are actually happier and genuinely transgender.So those people have done whats right for themselves. For example in 2022 a USA government department did a study which found 82% of people identifying as aforemnetioned,had considered killing themselves and 40% had actually attempted suicide. The rate being higher in youth. Then last year another study found 42% had attenpted suicide and 56% had engaged in non suicidal/self injury behavior and again 82% had accessed mental health care.. It also found non binary people were 4 times more likely to have drug and alcohol problems thans trans peoplle. To me it makes sense to think the surge in numbers is also linked to social media and peer groups. Youth feeling emotional and mental health distress often looking for a reason and being pushed in the direction of gender diverse or trans and parents,often well meaningl but also sometimes taking the easy choice and being ignorant of the real mental health issues there child has. every time i see someone pushing the issue to the forefront,whether it be politicians,media or the vocal supporters who want to ram there message down our throats,i think what does someone who is genuinely transgender and who is seeing themselves represented by these groups,actually think about how they are being portrayed and what are thoses groups actually doing that can make a difference to those amongst them who have mantal health issues. But its just another issue which leads us to believe the leaders of the westen world are creating populations who will never be as happy and contented as previous generations. And its all man made which is why its rather sad.

oh well,you can't be right 100% of the time. Got it right when you used to talk about the possible adverse effects from the vaccines,not that many will want to hear that again. Astrazenaca withdrawn world wide just reported.Today they reported, that in nz there were 1868 reactions to that vaccine and of those 329 were adverse reactions. consider those numbers when last year they reported only 9090 doses of astrazenaca were given in nz. so 329 adverse reactions from only 9090 shots.thanks jacinda for lying.Mick guerin what a loser on that as well. And what about the oncologists explaining why many of them are saying the booster(3rd shot) and any subsequent shots is unfortunately contributing to the undeniable increasing cancer numbers. Apparently something in pfizer which in the first 2 shots increases the immune response,but in some people they are finding each subsequent shot actually doing the opposite and the body reacts by reducing its normal level of immune response,which of course is not good.

peter profit headline may be able to tell you that.

Just out of interest ,here are the win pools on tabcorp compared to our tab for todays trots. they are the tote pools and don't include ff . Nz then (tabcorp) in brackets.6836 (6793),5290 (3516),6352 (2750),8820 (5265),6647 (7336),6255 (6320),,8429 (10740). Exotic pools seemed well supported overall as well. So the point i could make is racing midweek in canterbury does get good overall punter participation if they are run in the right time slots. It seems HRNZ wasted the opportunity to generate more industry income by not programming the bulk of the extra meetings announced recently, in canterbury.

Yes but it did go away but just looked like it resented being taken a hold of at that trial. It did settle at least 100m behind the 2nd last horse in the trial,yet finished under a nice hold 3 lengths off the winner at the finish.i thought it looked a next up winner myself as long as it got plenty of room early. $1.90 wasn't the right price for me ,but well done to those who backed it.

The hrnz website not working again but pretty sure i saw him put in an impressive trial a week or so ago. Looked a next up winner. However i was like you and thought its odds were too short given its not foolproof and was off ur over a sprint.

what i find confusing is how the handicapper gives some horses more rating points for wins than others . Mounga is an example of a horse receiving winning rating penalties at the lower end. consistency builds trust in the system. Handicappers discretion applied inconsistently doesn't.

Dave di somma once did an interview with the canadian owner ,mike tanev and discussed the name aardie. i just watched it again to answer your question. He must have played a bit of baseball and his mates nicknamed him aardie because of his big nose. So aardie is the owners nickname. Anyway,there used to be a cartoon series which featured a character called aardie the aardvark. The aardvark is an actual animal with a tongue thats a foot long and obviously a big nose that eats termites and other insects and comes out at night and is from africa.They occasionally are shown on those widelife in africa shows.

Are you letting HRNZ leadership off the hook? No doubt just trying to be diplomatic i suppose as youv'e mentioned that before. But we shouldn't stop reminding ourselves,Phil holden,head of HRNZ, clearly stated in his press release that the new dates were a result of HRNZ "working in close partnership"..."Joint strategic plan"...this calendar and the upcoming strategic initiatives.. designed to breath fresh life and confidence into harness racing". Clearly HRNZ is promoting the extra dates in the north island at the expense of the south island, as being a joint decision. joint meaning they shared in the decision making for the extra meetings. so my point is the first thing that should be addressed is the expectation of common sense decision making by HRNZ. Entain you can understand where they are coming from. so when you say "they(HRNZ) have only 2 real weapons in their armoury",i think you need to include basic common sense decison making in there as well,really its the number 1 weapon. Obviously your 2 points are very important and from what you write,perhaps hrnz needs someone with your common sense involved in decision making..

This is another subject where clearly theres inconsistenies regularly being applied. Anyone who follows the scatching penalties must realise there is 1 rule somedays and another the next. The use of exceptional circumstances is applied when they want to, but not always. Just depends whcih way the wind is blowing from my observations. Its a topic i've observed for a long time now. The lastest example is millwood godess. Its been scratched from tomorrows races yet has been accepted for the races on friday,drawn 1. i suppose the connections think it is more of a chance now its drawn 1. So how is scratching because you have a better draw an exceptional circumstance. Getting a good draw one day and not another is not an exceptional occurence. Its a farce to say it is. And why can't it work in reverse. a trainer scatches on the friday to run on the wednesday because they have a better draw on wednesday. i've seen it before,same reason, but a different application of the rules normally applied.

yes the ratings sysyem is a complete joke in how harshly non win horses are rated. But how can the handicappers possibly justify the inconsistent treatment they give horses that win. A 2 win trotter getting penalised 8 points,other 1 win horses sometimes 7 or 8,then well perfformed horses like mounga only 6. It would be a fairer system if they just picked the numbers out of a hat.

So what do horses that win get in rating penalties these days. The conditions of the country cup hasn't changed,so what did mounga get rehandicapped after its last start win. Mounga has had 15 start for 7 wins,2 3rds,2 4ths and 4 unplaced. of the 7 wins,mounga will have been rehandicapped for 6 wins as 1 was penalty free. then it would have dropped 1 point for each of its unplaced runs. No ratings change for the 3rds and 4ths. so in effect it started off on r 50,then assuming its been re rated even a discounted 6 points for its wins(most get 7 or 8 points) then that means 50 plus 36 =86 -4 (umplaced) +82. so how does it end up rated only 79 ,thus allowing it to start off only 10m in the country cups final. Its hard to find a similar horse to compare it to, as the ratings system is so utterly messed up that horses who win early in their careers don't seem to stay around much anymore and who can blame them. But the closest example i could find was the south island trotter Moment of what. Its had 8 starts for 2 wins,2 2nds,2 4ths and 2 unplaced. Going by its current rating,it must have been given 8 penalty points for its latest win. as its r56. 8 points,clearly more than what mounga gets given for his wins.. To me moungas rating seems to have a bad odour to it. The whole ratings system is driving people out of the sport,and this appears to an example of an inconsistent application of the ratings penalties. If anyone can explain how mounga hasn't been treated as others are,then please inform me.Has this horse not been given preferantial treatment? Harness racing has a lot of issues of its own making and the inconsistent policies of the handicappers appear one of them. Is it who you know that the handicappers factor in?

heres the main 6 ways they do affordability checks. geo affordability-where you live. wrong post code more likely to be looked at. application data-whos applied for a loan type thing vulnerability data-do you have the wrong characteristics. In nz the profile of problem gamblers could be called racist and sexist,but i suppose britain isn't nz mortality data-to identify gamblers using dead peoples identity. property data-seems to be linked to geo- average house prices and assets of residents of where you live derogatory financial scores-seems to relate to the credit ratings you have. Imagine all the above crap as being possible factors in how they decide whether you can have a bet or not.bureaucracy gone mad.What a strange way the world is heading. All about controlling the sheep. Like brodie said,nz had its first taste of it with the previous government,luckily we are not on the same level as the likes of britain,yet.

entain said a couple of months ago that regulatory changes as relates to this issue in britain and around the world would have a 40 million pound impact on earnings for 2024. entains net gaming revenue in the uk was down 6% last year,reflecting the regulatory changes. entain had apparently put their own systems in place in anticipation of the proposed changes,with many confused punters as a result.. Entains chief financial officer admiited"its even hard for us to articulate our approach and for our customer service people who are picking up the phone to confused customers. Its hard for them to explain why they have been sent an alert or why they are being asked for bank statements and so on". as mentioned earlier,a survey found half of those customers who had been asked for affordability check information had said they would no longer bet with them or would stop betting. Racing industry people are saying all these changes will have a major impact on the viabilty of the british racing industry. But don't worry,the british can spend whatever they like on other frivilous things. just looked up what they spend on the national lotteries. it only pays out 57c in the pound,which meant in 2022 the average household lost 121 pounds,3.44 billion all up.Government won't touch that. last year the uk govt got 982 million pounds in lottery duties. Just an example of big brother and what hypocrites and fake those that run britain are these days.