the galah

Turns out there is one more race in that series,so by starting tomorrow he can qualify. Cunning plan back on it seems. They may drive it a bit quieter tomorrow as they may not want to get another handicap penalty if it won. Who knows.

i didn't realise the police fund those things.

Do you really think the incentivising south island owners to shift from racing their horses in the south island,to the north island, really is part of the plan? That makes as little sense as giving the north island more races. Actually when you think about it ,given that,maybe that is part of their thinking. But surely it doesn't make much sense. They already get regular racing in the south island and they already have races with small numbers in the north island,so if they were going for small numbers then they would have already done it.Also,its a safe bet that due to insufficient numbers, they will not be running the number of north island they said they plan to and programmed races will be abandoned.. Also wouldn't it cost more to have them trained in the north island. Certainly the transport costs to get there wouldn't be cheap either. Only the likes of michael house may do that. But didn't he try that and only lasted for a short time and wasn't even that a result of him not being able to get back to the south island due to the ferry not running. One of the disturbing things about the press release from the chair of HRNZ,phil holden,is he goes on about how great the extra north island races are for the industry,yet fails to give on tangible reason of why. Just saying "the time is right","fantastic partner in entain",'provide significant benefits for the sport nationally",etc. Its just more blah,blah,blah with no substance of how? Maybe theres a simple reason they haven't given one reason why extra meetings will mean extra horses will be trained there. Its because they,like everyone else ,they can't think of one. Will there be any accountability for poor decisions? personally i actually think having extra meetings is a good thing,but obviously the majority of those should have been in canterbury.

i think those trainers will be stressed out thinking about their appeals,but their horses will be feeling chilled out about it all.

What about the story on harnesslink this week. The newest drug to hit harness racing in the usa is synthetic marijuana. 19 positives just recently. Doesn't say what it does,but i did read once that it was banned for its performance enhancing effects,namely it could reduce anxiety. Before someone gets too carrired away and says thats ok,just realise when its comes to that type of thing in harness racing,the stakes have never been "higher" ,so get down off your "high horse."

We can't really disect the merits of who was charged and what evidence was presented to support that.We don't have access to that. There was sure to be many threads to the rope which provided the strength of evidence to charge. With time and reflection,we can now say the police had insufficient evidence to prove what they alleged and that those charged have proven that ,through their defence offered,often in court. Thats the reality. But no one,can tar everyone involved with the same brush or judge the merits,or lack thereof, of everyone based on someone elses case.People can't use one example and say thats a reflection of every case. There is sure to have been higher levels of innocence and sometimes wrongdoing,but it did not meet the burden of proof required for criminal wrongdoing in the courts. Personally i have always said i did not question the integrity of some involved as i've seen them go out and try 100% week after week for years. Blair orange the most obvious example of that. But i also said,im my opinion,sometimes you just know beyond doubt,when a horse is being pulled and to me, johnny white at nelson was a perfect example of that.So no one was convicted of that. Finally ,i've always said there were 4 groups of people who should shoulder the most responsibilty for inca. 1)the stipes for their inaction and for the lack of guts to properly investigate questionable activity.Their weakness in standing up to the backlash they always get from industry participants and some officials,when they even dare question or hold to account more high profile people,well that sets the standards for what people see as being tolerated,when it shouldn't have been. 2)past licence holders and stipes who set standards of integrity which lead current participants to believe the same standards were still acceptable. Its just natural for someone to think something is ok or tolerated if they have seen it going on for donkey's years. Why would they think they are doing much wrong. 3)those involved. absolutely they have paid a price that was unjust,but they still must look at themselves in the mirror and reflect as to whether ,had they done something differently or not done something,would they have had to pay that unfair cost. 4)finally industry participants and supporters who see obvious questionable activity and just go along with it,often because they benefit from it.The type of person who judges something on the personalities involved,and not the actions .Both are relevant,not just one. If you knew someone well and they respected that you were saying something in a way that wasn't judgmental of the person,just you didn't agree with the actions,then just maybe the person would think twice and reconsider doing it again. Who knows.we don't live in a a perfect world.Never will. There are so many shades of grey in life and sometimes you get caught up with something where you are left feeling aggrieved,frustrated and angry. And i'm sure ,in some instances there were some involved in operation inca that would be totally justified feeling that way,even after honest self reflection. Thats not fair and would be very hard to deal with. But it happened and you have to. Thats my final thoughts.

Its certainly a "unique" approach to the problem. You have an area struggling to survive ,its major issue being a lack of numbers meaning its not generating enough wagering to break even let alone run at a profit. So the answer,give them more racing so stakeholders can earn more money and punters will have more choice of races to bet on.. Like i said,a unique approach. i thought most businesses look at where they are profitable and say lets do more of that. Not the other way around. Doesn't it appear to epitomise the saying"throwing good money after bad". Also,phil holden,in his press release said "the changes are designed to breathe fresh life into harness racing after years of zero growth and decline". Its interesting he would say that,as somehow he must believe there are people out there who believe "the changes",will do that.. Maybe there are. maybe they are geniuses and we just don't know it. I will go with no,theren't cleary not myself. But if it turns out they are the stupid ones and the rest of us were just pointing out the obvious,then shouldn't that mean they really aren't the right people to be involved in decision making in any form.

i see mitchell kerrs back in the news. this time sentenced to 5 months home detention for misleading the official assignee,not telling them about 6 bank accounts he had used to gamble over 2 million on with ladbrooks. Also a covid wage subsidy he wasn't supposed to get as he wasn't supposed to be in business. But the one i find interesting. it says between april 2021 and june 2022 he continued to be involved in the management of his business,mitchell kerr racing. Yet he was supposedly banned for life in april 2021.And being a bankrupt. How does that happen. Surely others must have been aware of this.esn't HRNZ have some serious questions to answer. like did they investigate and have they charged anyone who assisted or was complicit in his deceit of carrying on operating after being banned and declared bankrupt. Am i missing something or does this all seem very,very dodgy. And i'm not talking just mitchell kerr.

Under the proposed law changes before parliament ,currently supported by the ruling party,if brodie had even 1 losing bet he would have to supply credit references,credit checks,bank statements and anything else they may view as relevant. Maybe the nz rules not that bad after all.

it may not be a nz harness racing topic yet,but its interesting to see whats going on in britain.Who knows whether something like that will come here and when.Most probably i suppose depending on who is in government. in the 2022/2023 season,betting turnover on british racing was 9.12 billion pounds,a dramatic fall of around 900 million,or inflation adjusted 1.75 billion they say. It seems the most significant reason is affordablilty checks. In other words punters are being told that they are betting too much. And what they say is even more concerning is stricter rules are currently before parliament and are viewed as being a major issue if british racing is to survive. Currently a survey found 1/4 of punters were already being forced to undertgo affordability checks. The newest proposed implementation of the checks would be triggered if a punter lost an average 1.37 pounds a day(500) a year,or if they lost 125 pounds in a months.Once you hit those levels they do a credit check and you would not be able to gamble if your credit check was no good. Also the harsher checks which most likely would lead to limitations would be if you lost say 1000 in a day. Wouldn't matter what else you were spending your money on or how rich you are,but gambling would be looked at. Obviously if betting agencies were proven to have allowed say someone to lose even the propsed 1.37 pounds a day and they had poor credit,then the penalties would be harsh. i havent read what the exact current rules are but it seems even wealthy people are getting notifications from their banks if they lose. One example i read was a wealthy owner who was contacted after he lost 1000 in a month. they are even currently saying postcodes and job descriptions are factors in current affordability checks. The gambling commision is saying it will only effect 3% of punters,but a survey found 26% have said they have been subject to the current checks and half of those told them where to go and stopped betting. racing authorities have pointed out you can spend as much as you like on the national lottery,alcohol,ciggarettes,fast food,etc. They are also pointing to the major impact it will have on betting agencies who will find horse racing less attractive and instead will focus more on other betting products.

Just to point out whats happening this week. Cambridge and auckland are both racing this week. They would have the biggest fields they've had for a while when both racing in the same week. They have 175 horses in total,but 16 of those are south island trained and 2 aussie trained...meaning 157 north island trained horses. Then they have 14 horses running at the trials this week trying to qualify. Compare that to the 2 canterbury meetings. They have 267 horses running. Plus another 52 qualified running at the trails,26 trying to qualify and 12 in learners workouts.90 in total. So all up,including the trials,you have 171 north island trained horses running this week. In canterbury alone you have 357 running in canterbury. plus the 16 south island trained that are racing at auckland. So you have well over double the number of horses in canterbury than auckland and waikato combined running this week. So the decision makers who have come out with the new racing calendar have looked at those figures and said,lets give auckland and waikato 3 times more new extra races than canterbury.

What do people think of the new racing calendar? Auckland and cambridge will have more meetings run in the same week. In total that region gets an extra 216 races. Manawatu gets an extra 50 races. Canterbury,where i thought most of the horses in training are,get only an extra 64 races if you include the extra timaru meeting and southland an extra 26 races. So the north isalnd get 3 times the extra number of races than the whole of the south island. So they have looked at things,said where are the least number of horses,then given them the most number of extra races by far.And vice versa. More meetings where auckland and cambridge run the same week. if someone was to tell you that was going to happen,no one would have believed it because it seems so stupid. But there you go. Who are the people making these decisions?

a I've said it before and will say it again. it seems general knowledge that early on in operation inca the police were gathering evidence through various means,including having people act as undercover type operatives.They were looking to establish whether there was anything to the allegations that had been made.And at that stage,they were being treated as just allegations. So part of that early evidence gathering took place at the nelson meeting. so what evidence did they gather that weekend. Well i thought it was common knowledge tthat they spoke to a driver who boasted how results could be manipulated through team driving. Then,what happens.We got what many consider one of the most obvious cases of a horse not being driven on its merits. The johnny white race.It was all over social media and even the trackside presenter said as much,although anyone watching could have worked it out anyway. So what did you expect the police or whoever to do. The evidence they gathered on that day cleary kept the wheels turning for their investigation. Yet, here you are,still going on that its the fault of jealous ,poor trainers. No one else. just them.What a plonker. I'll give you points for loyalty,whoever you are and whoever it is you are trying to be loyal to.But without self reflection,people won't learn anything going forward. So lets hope others aren't as blinkered as you.

I've wondered whether the fixed odds bookies get some sort of performance bonus for reaching certain targets of profit. I say that because i can't think of any other reason why they wouldn't see the big picture as relates to including income the tab receives, from customers combined spend on tote and ff. Bookies sort of placing self interest first is my guess..

I agree brodie and tab should talk,but going by my experience and having spoken to another punter classified as a so called elite punter,it would be a waste of time for him. The people from the tab who liase with the elite customers(their elite team) would do there best to help,but the bean counters with no brains in the other departments would stop anything constructive coming from discussions. so yes,brodie should talk to the tab,but only so he could add to his posts,i've talked to the tab and that was a waste of time. I know my hypothetical won't happen,but to me there is logic in what i say as i believe it could well work and create income for the tab. whether the time and resources v returns is that good only giving it a go would tell. The main point there was to highlight how small place pools are very unattractive to bet into and bigger ones are enticing. Also ,when it comes to pool size,how much of the win pools are being inflated with money offloaded from bookies holds to mitigate their losses. That wouldn't happen to the same extent for a place. My theory is the tab/enatin is promoting the win pools more on their graphics because theres more money in it for them in that they can offload their liabilites in their holds on ff win,onto the tote,whereas they can't with the place pools. Personally i know everyone i know that bets prefers to back each way. I have met a win punter or two,but the win punters bad days are far higher than the place punters. Sure they win more on a good day,but i have always thought the best way to keep the $ flowing to reinvest is from betting more on the place than the win pools. Thats why i prefer the place pools as well. Its the same with any form of gambling anyway isn't it. pokies,lotto,etc. They all keep their customers reinvesting by returning wins in lesser amounts while keeping them chasing the big win. I also saw a good entain ad on last night in the middle of the film monster ball. It was promoting its hosts and the new free to air channel. That at least made some sense.

heres another different hypothetical solution to the brodie issue,from the ones i suggested earlier in year. The tab currently guarantee some pools. Why not have 3 or 4 races on some racedays with guaranteed start pools of $10,000 already invested by the tab on the place tote. All they would have to do is calculate the $10,000 they invest to have the starting pool place prices have a starting point reflecting the ff prices they have set.Obviously they would be slightly higher given the tab bank on taking bigger % from ff than they do tote.from there further money invested by punters changes the prices as happens now. Then if brodie saw a horse paying $3 for a place on the tote at the last minute that he thought its real price should be $2.50 ,then brodie could invest his $1000 a place on the tote and the price would only drop to arounbd $2.40-$2.50.That would happen and is calculated on the 10,000 guaranteed pool,plus the average $6.000 we currently get. Brodie happy,the tab happy as while the tab return from that horse not as much ,they getting the extra $ commision from money brodie bet,plus their return on the other placegetters would have increased . Win/win. Then more and more punters get involved on those race tote pools,returns go through the roof and all punters and tab, live happily ever after.

Having seen them for a bit longer,i still like the colours and the less clutter on the picture seems better. But i do agree about the place odds and would like to see results.I can't see why they can't interchange it with the win odds occasionally if they want to keep just the 2 columns. probably the most confusing thing i find is when they show a race with the current first 4 placegetters numbers at the bottom of the screen.Not sure whether someones already mentioned it ,but my brain is finding it hard adjusting to seeing them have the leader on the right of the screen going down the back straight and then on the left of the screen coming down the front straight. The way it changes back and forth is especially confusing in the longer races.

You must have great genes in your family. Last week you were refering to betting when they had the yellow tickets that closed 90 minutes before a race and being alive since brodie was a fetus.How did grandma go in last weeks triathalon? but seriously,brodie and i just are saying things that are real that we have experienced. The way i see it is,there is a problem going forward and that problem is reduced levels of wagering on harness racing. But some people can't see the need to address the contribution tab policies have contributed to less wagering. Until those people recognise that problem needs to be addressed,then they will never look and find a solution.Recognising a problem is the first step in taking steps to fix it.Thats not happening on this topic. TAB/entain have a deliberate policy of restricting winning ff punters,yet offer no alternative policies as a compromise which would be a win/win for each party. I've previously given compromise options that would achieve that. I'm not saying winning punters like brodie would take that opportunity,but at least there would be an alternative. As to anyone betting on the tote. if the average place tote pool is about $6,000. Say someone puts $500 on a horse paying $3 at the last minute as they believe $2.50 is more a true reflection of its chances. Well the $500 invested on the tote will see the odds reduced to about $1.75. In other words only a stupid punter would do, that. Brodie isn't stupid.So betting on the tote for someone who invests those amounts is not a viable option.Even amounts half that size influence tote dividends too much to make it worthwhile if your putting place bets on.Surely people have worked out by now, that is part of the reason place pools have been dropping.

Where you go wrong is categorising every winning ff punter the same.Just like the tab does. I won at fixed odds,apparently i had done it month after month for some time.Thats what i was told when i was discussing why i was closing my account.They had rung me to try and persuade me to keep it open. What the tab bookies failed to take into account is my contribution to tote turnovers and the % the tab was taking from turnover i helped generate. I can guarantee it was far greater than any winnings i had on ff.The elite customer service people could see the big picture,but not the bookies. Also what they did was put algorithms on accounts which directly meant i was better off placing the bets on ff,instead of the tote.In other words,through their policies i was better off betting on what they didn't want me to bet on.I kid you not.I'm just telling you as it is. The whole argument that if your a winning fixed odds punter,then your automatically classified as a liabilty ,that argument is flawed. But for some reason,people just don't seem to get that. Then of course the tab never factor in other things of relevance. e.g. contribution as owners/breeders/sponsors,etc that winning punters may put their profits towards. Also how about the tab/entain look at themselves in the mirror. Why can't they do what capable bookmakers do,that is create a balanced book that will see them making a profit whatever the outcome of an event.

Pretty much sums it up. Tabforever is saying something we agree with in regards to how to increase turnover,and we are saying the customers he describes are people like us and others we know like us. Us being,not just punters who win on ff odds that the tab may not want,but being a cross section of both ff and tote punters who in the big picture, generate much greater money for the industry than they take out of the industry. So until the tab/entain cotton on to how to use and view them as an asset and not a liabilty,then enatin/tab are on a road that leads to nowhere.

your saying someones going to keep money aside to bet after seeing an ad on mainstream tv a couple of days before, promoting win bonus bets back if you run 2nd to 4th, at an australian race meeting that starts late in the afternoon, after most of the nz races are over. Maybe,but surely there can't be too many of those people around. Also,if they are doing that,they have to be doing it online on their accounts,as it only applies to that,so most would keep that to themselves wouldn't they? Personally i don't know any punters who have thought like that,but possibly your right as there would be some degenerative punters out there. But,if they are degenerative punters then there would be many opportunities for them to lose their money in the days before the advertised free bonus back bets.

I've had just the one small business experience, that was part of a co-operative. At one point i did put forward proposals on how the business could market itself and increase customer numbers.I did a lot of research. Pretty much what my research clearly indicated,is exactly what you have said,so i'm very much on the same page as you in that regard. The only couple of things thing i would add that i believe are. If you do decide to use advertising to attract new customers,you should target the advertising at people similar to those that are your existing customers.Then you factor in why word of mouth and providing a product/service that is an enjoyable and efficient experience is most important, as your existing customers are already mixing in the circles of your potential new customers. I think the same principles applies when considering promoting racehorse ownership. And that is why i have always considered racing places too much emphasis on young people. Sure plant the seed early,through things like country racing ,but best target them when they are at stages in their life where they have the money to participate in your product.Syndicates is a component that can promote younger participants. And of course BGP a very good example of that.

Sure enough Aardies express wins by a length in 1.48.9,after sitting 3 wide then without cover for the last 1000m. Just too good although was asked for the effort to do it. The thing that surprised me was the price. I had thought $2 was great,but it ended up at $2.80 on the tote and $2.70 on the ff for a win. The money came for its stablemate manhattan which was the big shortener. What was a bit of a shame was the mare still seemed to be a bit sore somewhere and jack trainor seemed to steer a wider path in the back straight as she had a tendency to move in on the bends. A very good mare,just hope she handles the racing ok. i though fate awaits went very good gammalite. Ran 3rd. But the couple of 2 year old races i saw were dominated by the clayton tonkin horses. What was interesting was how big a gaps there was between the winner ,then place getters,then the bulk of the field. 7 of the first 9 races were won by horses paying $2.50 or under at melton. The other 2 races the winners paid just over $20,with the red hot favorites running a place.

I guess the cost of advertising has never been cheaper for some time. Personally i believe its something that entain should do,but it has to be targeted and marketed properly. In that vein,i give you an example of where Entain dropped the ball. Instead of giving $25,000 back to Boys Get Paid last week,they could have spent it on showcasing that nights racing with ads in mainstream media.. $25,000 would have gone a long way. Just imagine them spending that on ads with video clips of the Boys get paid cheering their bets on at the races,winning connections after the races were run,matt cross jumping for joy after he won the $50,000. It was all there,the excitement harness racing and all racing can generate,but no,entain instead of promoting the sport in that way,chose to give a gift to the BGP. The BGP would have been better off getting free exposure on mainstream media in a video clip,than being given money. So much of what happens i can make no sense of,but its not me making the calls. As to montana being owned by the entain man. Yes i had thought that was the case although i wasn't 100% sure of exactly the level of his connection with montana ltd. My points around that bonus scheme and what hrnz and entain said the goals were. The main one was to increase 2 yo numbers starting. surely they must have known that never made any sense. Like its as if they were saying people would race their 2 year olds,knowing their 2 yo still weren't going to have anymore chance of winning than they did the year before,because they still had the same ability,bonus or no bonus. It will only be late in the year when that may be a factor,but not for great numbers. So i'm also making the point that self interest appeared to be significantly behind the decision for those bonuses.Surely its not just me that sees the people who came up with the idea of the bonuses were the ones who are winning the bonuses. Self interest decisions are made in all aspects of peoples lives,but that doesn't make it right. There has to be more depth in the thinking when decisions like that are made,otherwise things will never improve.

Thanks. I lkie the way, you like the way i think. Hrnz are spending $750,000 on bonuses for the owners and breeders of the 2 year old winners..That seems to be doing very little to increase field sizes. I see montana park got another one of those last nightfrom those small fields they have. Montana park,who is that,must be pleased entain and hrnz are so generous with money that would seem better spent elsewhere. Just imagine if they were to spend half that money running the ads i mentioned. They could do it for a couple of months, just before the bigger carnivals, and it would significantly increase the general publics knowledge of industry participants and horses. The cost of tv ads has never been cheaper in the right timeslots.They could cut a deal where they run them as the first or last ad break.Produce the content themselves. If not,what about them trying that on the stuff website.They are always desperate for new advertisers Whenever i click on the news on stuff,there are these adds that always pop up between the news stories. normally for real estate. All they would have to do is caption them right to gain the attention of the reader. They are what people are looking at these days.It doesn't always have to be clips or headlines related to high achiever. There are many feel good stories in harness racing that don't actually win but people are rooting for. Its all about spending where you gain the most exposure . Harness racing has the product,its just doesn't get the expsore or is sold to maximise returns.