the galah

psyche that should have read.

the one thing everyone agrees on is we want to see a sustainable industry.. We need leadership who brings us together and has everyone pull in the same direction and makes everyone ,whatever the level,or the scale,feel valued. we also need honesty and transparency. extolling confidence that everything is all fine and dandy, when people can see with their own eyes that the indicators show everything is not fine and dandy,well all that does is undermine peoples faith in the person giving the misleading statements. The industry also needs to use resources in areas that get results.They should not use resources to try and attain results in areas that for decades, previous administrators have tried and failed to achieve.Theres a reason for the previous failures. why can't people see that. Personally i think HRNZ has got so much completely wrong. they should be coming up with strategies based on intergenerational transfer of families interest in harness racing,whether it be as a racegoer,an owner or a breeder or whatever. emphasis should be placed on catering for the families of people who already participate.And not only to encourage families, but also their friends and associates, to come along to race meetings. Hrnz should be using resources to work together with clubs to provide facilities, entertainment ,refreshments and food at cost, all so as to make current owners and breeders feel their families and friendsare going to an event or gathering, were common interests can be shared and fun to be had.That should be the focus. HRNZ should be cordinating and directing resources to clubs who do this . It shouldn't just be based on the harness product,it should be based on the harness product being the catalyst for bringing them together. Do that,and your selling the industry in a positive way. That is the best way to plant the seed. It may not bear fruit tomorrow,but when those people hit an age where they have more of the discretion $ to spend,theres a good chance they might consider spending it on a family,friend based product,i.e. harness racing. HRNZ undervalue the contribuitions and importance of people 40 and over,and hrnz overvalue the importance of people under 40. stakes paid are only part of the reason peopleown horses,recognise that and place more emphasis on the other reasons. i say again,as i believe its being missed by administrators,intergenerational transfer of peoples interests in the sport where significant focus should be. I have also commented in the past that hrnz should be directing resources to get harness racing into the pshyce of people.Subconciously make people aware that its there,contributing to their communities.theres many ways they could do that without spending much money. then theres the horses.

i agree with you on this one,with a couple of caveats. I believe HRNZ is doing the right thing running these tuesday meetings and should be congragulated for having made those changes. especially in canterbury,where the horse numbers justify these meetings . As you say,owners trainers,drivers all those other people employed by the industry earning income to support their families maintain their presence in the industry.Breeders getting enjoyment and recognition seeing their horses race,whatever the level. everything inter related flowing in a way that is positive. My caveat is when they hold these meetings with small numbers,like todays at cambridge,they need to stipulate that they will run them,but stakemoney will be reduced based on the number of horses running in each race. e.g. they could stipulate they have a base stake of $4000 which goes up $1000 every extra 2 horses above 5,capped at $8000. In other words a 6-7 horse field runs for $5000,and 8-9 horse field $6000,etc. theres no way they should be running 5 horse fields for $8000. Its fiscally irresponsible. i don't know why they don't already do that. Of course,when doing that,they must reduce the handicapping penalties accordingly. e.g. a non win low stake race winner could remain eligible for other non win races before getting any further penalties or could get a small penalty,and then if it hasn't earned x amount of $ within a time frame, can drop back to its previous grade. Too many non win horses who win a low stake raceday struggle in the next grade and just disappear when they could be kept in training,boost starter numbers ,knowing they will get the chance to compete back in a grade that they really are more comfortable at. I could name dozens of horses who win a low grade non win stake and if you put them back in a non win race, you would still be thinking they will take a wee bit of time to win again. see heres the thing gammalite. Most believe HRNZ are eroding their reserves by paying higher stakes than is fiscally responsible, Turnovers show too many races are being run at a loss. The best analogy to descibe it is., Hrnz has come to a crossroads. to the right is a road which starts off on an easy decline,paved with stakes at its current level (and lots of bonuses if you drive an expensive car),but your fully aware that down that road,not that many years away, the road will come to a hill which you can see will get steeper and steeper, the more you progress along it and that road is paved with ever decreasing stake levels... To the left,is a road which starts off with a very slight rise,its not easy,but you can handle it.its paved with slightly reduced stake levels,but still at a level where you can prosper and make a living,plan for the future, or at least have a bit of fun and get some return,and that road continues exactly the same for years to come,just that slight rise,but you get used to it and live within your means. well HRNZ have turned right and they are enjoying their ride,looking out the windows are the good stakes,patting each other on the back ,their driver telling everyone have confident he is they took the right turn.. But the thingi s when they hit that steep hill,they're going to find they are going to have to start losing passengers just to make ever slowing progress. strange thing was,when they turned right,the map they were looking at cleary showed the big hill they were heading towards. in the not too distant future,everyone going to be saying,they should have turned left.

i think what that press release is saying is entains original agreement with the government meant they expected to be receiving money from turnover generated on nz greyhounds. so ,when the governments ban on nz greyhound racing comes into effect,it means part of entains income will have been impacted,so they have said,hey we will sort that out with adjustments to your share of the revenues generated from the australian greyhounds, through the nz tab.(maybe entain may have sued them about that bit?) but other parts of that press seem misleading a little,becuase the governmant already had an agreement with entain to do the geo blocking in return for an extra payment from entain of $100m to be split up amongst sports and racing and the government. That was already there before the greyhounds decision to close down. Is edward reneell and the greyhound people doing themselves any favours by attacking the government with statements that can be construed as a bit misleading.Interesting tactic.

you have a lot of fairth in the rich and famous gammalite. More than i would ever have. success in one field doesn't always translate into success in other fields,especially when not playing with their own money. E.g. Look who ran the auckland trotting club when they did the developments. Give me an accountant with common sense and an abilty to recognise what is both good and bad advice, when they get it. john green... gammalite,Look i'm sure hes a clever man who intended well,but he was one of the many who pushed the original development,that is the cause of all aucklands problems.He was appointed to help oversee the development right from the start.. gammalite... heres a quote from an atc press release in 2018 about 2 new board directors "the appointments follow the recent retirement of john green from the board,,who was specifically appointed in 2014 for his skills in property development and was a member of the auckland trotting clubs project control group. the property control group is currently overseeing the current construction of the clubs significant urban village development on green lane west due to open later this year". so ,well intentioned like everyone involved in pushing the apartments,but boy oh boy did he and the others involved get it wrong.. wasn't the likes of barry purdon and derek balle also atc diirectors at the start of the developments. actually i've posted this before. It was about a year in from when the apartments thing started,about 2015. I had a conversation with someone from auckland who went around the country advising councils about big developments like the atc's.. I asked himabout the auckland trotting club developmemts expecting him to just say the same as what you read in the papers and from the atc press releases. To my surprise he said the opposite,listing all the pitfalls and how other such developments had failed due to numerous factors, often outside the control of those involved. He expressed surprise about the atc getting involved to the extent they did,given what he said were very obvious risks. I distinctly remember saying to him,from what you just said,you don't think the ATC have made good decisions,to which he smiled and replied...."well, we will just have to wait and see how it all turns turns out. I often think about that conversation when i think of the atc.

yes that auckland meeting had no sky racing ayustralia coverage and like i said,no one bet on those meetings. Racingn does need people to bet to survive. Cut people out. Where have i ever said that. I'm consistently saying the opposite. i'll quote what i said earlier. if you want to create an environment where current stakemoney in auckland is no longer sustainable,do as they are currently doing. If you want to create an environemnt where the people you love gammalite, still have good races to race their horses in,albeit most likely at a different venue,make change before its too late and the equity is diminished too much.. you can't just think of tommorow or next year if you an administrator,you have to think of 10 years time.

If you want people who mix and mingle with people from the top to the bottom,those people you mention above would be your best answers. So who would you turn to for advise on what is good for the overall industry,those people. I'm not sure about robert dunn though,i can't work him ou. i don't understand why he can't see that his canterbury owners will one day pay a price for the way the industry is handling the auckland issue.Maybe hes is one of those people who believes in something that should be,instead of something that is real,like the population being aso called factor.. Theres lots of people who think like that,especially amogst those in charge.

that is long gone as being viable. They would get no sky australia racing coverage and without that the pools would be pathetic. Just look at the pools they had for those couple of auckland meetings run on a saturday night. Like i've said before. Once people change their habits,you hardly ever get them to change back. When racing gave up the saturday nights many years ago,they effectively killed any fututre saturday night harness racing.

If you look at nz. where is the profit making province for nz harness racing and what type of racing provides the profits in that province. A.canterbury,low grade racing,especially on grass tracks. Where is the very large loss making province and what type of racing rpovides those losses. A. auckland and their premier meetings. why is that. Its obvious,auckland is just big players,no grass roots. Focusing on looking after the big players is clearly not the answer in my opinion. it just makes no sense whatsoever to see HRNZ continue to artificially prop up auckland with cross subsidisation.They need to deal with the auckland issue and get it operating somewhere such huge losses aren't genereated and where better stakes are more sustainable. the massive irony about what HRNZ is doing,is auckland and the big players you mention,will be the biggest impacted by current fiscally irresponsible policies. Instead of looking to tasmania,isn't victoria more appropriate. maybe you r right about a bonus for a first win.i don't know. over the years i've posted suggestions,but my honest opinion is its too late. The people the industry has lost in recent time sare still interested .but only as bystanders,not as participants or breeders. Once those breeders have made the very difficult decision to say goodbye to their mares,they ain't coming back.

I hope the same people who are outspoken about "involving progeny of low cost stallions", are being consistent when they criticise prioritising one sector over another. In other words,if they are going to criticise the latest scheme,,then they should also have criticised the 2 year old bonuses which did exactly the same thing. thats what i'm doing,being consistent. i'm not sure who you are referring to,but if people aren't consistent then i think it would be easy enough to see their hypocritical thinking and self interest motives. you mention the golden gait. is that going to be run again. can you explain to us how a club that is so financially rooted,can still run such an expensive/loss making meeting. Hang on,the answer is in that sentence isn't it.

i agree that at least they seemed to have recognised the need to attempt to support other sectors ,other than the elite. Personally i think the horse has bolted in that respect.But at least they are trying. In the nz standardbred stallion book for 2024-25,half the pacing stallions are $5000 or under and 2/3 of the trotting stallions are. Whats relevant is not todays %,but the historical % for the years,which the grouip of horses eligible for the newly announced races came from.I assume it wouldn't be that much different. but i agree with you,how can they sustain such spending in years to come?

so hrnz have come up with a series designed to support the people who bred their mares to stallions who cost $5000 or less. They say the concept is to support people at the grass roots level. a $720,000 stakes raceday consisting of 12 races run for $60,000. Now i get what HRNZ are trying to do. They have received significant criticism for prioritising the top end and doing next to nothing for the grassroots level. So,i give them points for trying with this new concept. But what i don't get is why they came up with the concept of only people with horses who spent under $5000 on a stallion. My criticism of HRNZ has always been for 2 main reasons. 1)they haven't been fiscally responsible with their spending on stakes on top end races. put simply,they aren't erning enough to spend as they have been. so,its apparent how they think,in effect overspend even more to keep more people happy by providing races with good stakes. i just don't get how that makes any sense. 2)you can't prioritise one group ahead of another, In other words everyone has to get a fair go. When they have limited the series to stallions $5,000 or under,they have prioritised that group of people. And the strange thing about that is how they seem to think $5000 is the magical figure that grass roots people max out on when breeding their mares. I just don't get how thats fair to people at the grassroots level who have spent more than $5,000 on a stallion. I just look out the window and see a couple we have and think,well that would have excluded them had we still been going, as we spent $6,000. But whether it be $5,000 or $10000 or whatever,isn't the point,the point is the type of races and the level at which they participate. and also lets not forget,even the elite like the jones /hopes/dalgeties and the like have owners/breeders who race many bred and butter horses,whom are by sires they paid relatively high stud fees for. Why are the owners of those horses not included. so i don't think prioritising any group is a good thing. so Hrnz are at least trying,but I just don't think they have come up with a way that gets the greatest impact. actually is was watching a programme on the catholic church in poland the other night and it was discussing declining numbers that were going to churches over there. They highlighted how a couple of churches were doing great numbers wise and bucked the trend. They interviewed the priest at one of thoses busy churches and he said the church should be focussing on connecting with people at the grassroots level more like he was and not focussing as much as what goes on higher up..No matter what it may be,that is always the way things should flow.

i'm going to take a guess.i know your holding back forbury,,but sounds like you still aren't a fan of her tipping. actually her tips tonight haven't gone too good.I know ,i have backed a couple. Bravehearthighlander,bugga. actually its interesting how the dunn stable is giving j dunn junior all the drives at auckland. Once he gets going the junior concession /half penalties thing will be good for the stable and he does look like he has the makings of a good driver,and he drives them kind. But hes only just starting off and can't be expected to be as good as several of the other drivers available at this point in his career... Its a bit like the purdon stable who had that young lady driving their team as wel last month. she also looks promising. But those stables seem to be taking a different approach to what drivers they put on to what they have in the past when they used only the elite drivers,which most thought was a factor in why they won so many races.

when mcgrath was disqualified for 8 years,one of the 3 charges mcgrath had was attempting to administer a prohibited substance. The adjudicators decisions in both the mcgrath and dalgety cases, specifically addressed the issue of previous breaches of the rules as relates to prohibited substances and the impact they should or shouldn't have on the penalties handed down.. The mcgrath decision specifically said he got a small uplift in penalty because of the 2004 prohibited substance charges and the 2020 improper driving charge. The dalgety decision said ,becuase dalgety had no breaches in the last decade he got no such uplift. there was a clear difference in how the two people where treated by the different adjudicators. I would suggest the decision by the mcgrath adjudicators was a better decision than the adjudicator in the dalgety case, As pointed out,the adjudicatopr in the dalgety case said dalgety had no breaches of the rules in the last decade,which clearly was not true. the dalgety adjudicator seemed to reject the rib submission that the 2017 positives were relevant.Why? Would the adjudicator in the dalgety case have done the same if it had been mcgrath whom he had before him.. after all,the whole point of penalties being handed down is the consistency in the application of the rules/penalties. you see,as we all know,when you have someone who gets penalised for something and then they look at the next guy who does the same thing and gets more lenient treatment,you foster a mistrust and resentment towards authorities by the person whos been treated more harshly.Sometimes you hear people say,suchand such has a chip on their shoulders or whatever,well the people that say that should also acknowledge,well theres a good reason for that.

i've been out today,but just had a look at your tip of johns boy,2nd,beaten by a nose. the place dividend of $2.70 nice so i hope you backed it each way. i will keep an eye on the trotter you mention. Actually you've been tipping gus to win the interdominion. The way he came home last week i think you could be right.he certainly went as good as oscar bonavena, i have seen him break a few times in the past,but he does seem in the zone at the moment. As to imperial command. yes he won,but I feel a bit sorry for the horse as he seems to try hard ,but will the trainer keep him going if he doesn't improve? Watching todays replay,he currently looks like he did over here in his last couple of runs. Not in the right head space and trotting like there may be a reason for that.I saw nothing today to make me change my mind about what i said,when i said i couldn't understand why so many people wanted to pay so much money for him on gavel house. Today he was in a 0-3 win race and i thought he just fell in. He again looking risky early but managed to hold it together when very hard held in the score up,then was handed the lead on a plate,set a slow pace with a 66 second middle quarter,then clung on,appearing to be all out to do so. There were 7 starters in that race with the outsider who broke and gave him a 50m start, still challenging hard when it broke at the 150m. i will keep watching to see if he can improve,and yes he did win,but i think maybe he needs spelled for a year or so to see if it helps.

so the above couple of posts i think accurately sum up why there are very few extra 2 year olds currently racing,than were racing pre bonuses being offered. .. pretty much,the only trainers who have been lining up any extra 2 year olds, are the trainers who line up a runner they give little chance,to make sure a race gets off the ground,so another runner from their stable can have a chance to race.(e.g. as r green stated he does) And,the small number of extras that do line up,have the same owners as the other starters from the stable. After all,imagine if your a trainer and telling your owner your going to keep their horse in training and incur a couple of months extra training fees so another stable owner can benefit financially. And remember, Hrnz changed the programming conditions to say 2 year olds should only race 2 year olds,whereas previously trainers accepted that if they didn't have enough 2 year olds nominating,they would be put in against the non win grade.A better system,because it meant you weren't getting the number of 2 year olds races currently being run at significant losses based on the low turnover. In summary,trainers are saying,hey,we will try and win a bonus later in the year,but its not like they wouldn't be starting their 2 year olds then anyway,bonus or no bonus. So the year old scheme clearly was a failure. And that was so very predicatble. Hrnz also said the bonuses would mean an increase in numbers bred,when in reality it could be argued the bonuses actually discouraged some breeders because they felt others sectors of the industry were being prioritised over them. so hrnz,knowing the bonus scheme was a failure,knowing they had just paid out $1.15 million and achieved nothing,refused to admit it Instead the doubled down on it being a success,even though anyone with any sense could see it wasn't. To justify that ,hrnz used stats relating to the % of 2 year olds that raced from the crop in the year they were born,comparing that with the previous year. They claimed that the increase from 18% to 21% was proof the scheme was a success. They did not use actual numbers,because that would have shown there about the same number racing,pre the bonus. e.g. 21% of 1000=210. 18% of 1170=210. in reality the small increase in % racing could easily have been explained by looking at who had no longer bred in the relevant year. You would have found that group comprised mostly small time breeders who never prioritised racing 2 year olds anyway. so hrnz having paid out $1.15 million in bonuses and achieved next to nothing,privately knew the reality,so have changed future bonuses to pay people for just starting some 2 years,not all. (again they have prioritised one group over another). Problem with that of course is ,yes,it may help numbers to a small degree,but those numbers will come near the end of the year,when field size for 2 year old races are good anyway. There are still some who claim the big time owners and breeders,the more wealthy of those in the game,need the money more than the hobby,less wealthy people,to keep going and deserve subsidies. but lets not forget,those who have the better 2 year old races have been looked after with significantly increased stakes,as well as the bonuses. In efect.the reality of what the bonuses very predicatably failed to achieve ,is increase the number of mares being bred and the most significant drop off came from the small time breeders. and the most glaring folly of all,is the races in which profits are generated from turnover/stakes paid,comes from races run with horses supplied by the type of person who has been discouraged and who did not breed their mare. So,that means inevitably in the future,less money for stakemoney. So hrnz have knowingly been implementing policies to undermione their own future funding ability. thats why some of us say,the people in charge have no intention of sticking around when things hit the fan. even if they did want to,they would only have the support of the groups they have been prioritising.

This weeks 2 year old races in nz canned,due to lack of numbers. Only 1, 2 year old is racing in the whole of nz in the coming week. Actually,last weeks race at auckland was interesting. Pre race Ray green was interviewed on trackside and said one of the horses he had entered had bad manners and the only reason he had entered it was because,without it they wouldn't have had the 5 horses needed to run the race.It galloped and took no part. Of course mr green is just being honest,as he was when earlier in the year he said that he was lining up a 2 year old filly,when really it wasn't going good enough to take to the races. 4 months ago ,mathew peden from hrnz said, "we have more and more 2 year olds racing all the time" where have they all gone,or was he just pulling our leg?

Its interesting how ,when mcgrath was given 8 years disqualification,the adjudicators listed 3 aggravating factorrs relating to the case.The second of which was, he was disqualified for 18 months for2 positives in 2004-5(blue magic).Then they said they factored in a small uplift in the penalty,due to the 2 2004 beaches. that all seemed reasonable. But what about the opposite happening with the cran dalgety case heard a couple of weeks ago. the adjudicator in the dalgety case said this "the only personal aggravating factor is mr dalgety's previous breaches of the prohibited substance rules.The previous breaches are historical in that they are over a decade ago,and littlem weight is afforded to them in that context. There is NO uplift to the starting point. so,anyone who can read those 2 decisions. Clearly the adjudicators did a complete 180 fro dalgety,i guess because hesviewed as more of a protected species than mcgrath. how else can anyone intepret what the adjudicators said. And whats the meaning of the word decade. I had always understood a decade to be 10 years. obviously the dalgety adjudicator,mr g hall, must think its something else as he said,in one part of his decision, dalgety had 5 positives in 2017,then in another part of their decision,nothing in the last decade. Dalgety incidentally said his stable reps gave the horse nothing and that i had to have been someone alse who attended the nelson trots. anyway,it seems double standards still apply when people are dealt with. just look at mcgrath and dalgety. mcgrath had 2 positives 15 years prior considered tio be an aggravating factor at sentencing and treated as such. dalgety has had 7(3 different occasions) over the same 15 year time frame,and they qwere not considered an aggravating factors and were not taken into account. isn't it obvious why that was. Dalgety was not someone they want to catch,but mcgrath always was.

like i mentioned,it is possible,and i would say most likely probable,that the new lights are better than the previous lights. Su if you previously had segments of the track ,because of there proximity,or lack of ,to the light towers,that were slightly dimmer and then you go and put in better lights,but the dimmer parts still remain dimmer. Combine that with the parts of the track which the better lights are now making brighter,then the contrast becomes greater and noticeable. Meaning you can indeed install better lights,but end up with a worst result. so that to me is the most likely possible answer to what you see,but only those in the know will know for sure whether what i have said is the case.

? I also point out ironies sometimes.. But irony means your pointing out both good and bad,or double standards.So it sounds like having a dig. And just to make it clear,i like that your expressing your opinions,whether i agree with them or not .So dig or discuss perceived ironies as much as you like.i do the same. Whats that about a dog biting the hand that feeds it. My analytical self doesn't get that bit, other than to think ,aren't you just saying what i said,but saying its a dog in the example.When you say"words that i may understand",well you already know i understand.so thats more a sign i agitate you when you comment like that.Don't you realise that? Your comment about someone within the industry expressing opinions publically that may paint administrative decisions, or those making the decisions in a bad way. Well,if the administrators felt secure and truly believed they were making good decisions,then they would not fear what he has to say. The proof would be in the results and critics could easily be silenced or discredited .. in other words,when i read you say that,it illustrates to me there is an uneasiness amongst those who run the sport that they are not achieving the results they hoped for from policy decisions,they have a degree of fear of the inevitable accountabilty they may face. So thats what i think your comments indicate. To that you may say,what am i on about,but really,you know what i'm on about.

ii agree it appeared to shy at a darker patch on the track and that the track lighting is slightly more patchy. It could be that the new lighting improved the lighting around the towers,but not the areas that used to be slightly dimmer between the towers,in effect meaning it actually accentuated the darker patches more. Its hard to be sure either way,but thats what it looks like to me.Its the inconsistency that is more likely to distract a horses concentration. But the horses are always running with shadows coming and going in front of them, as they run around the track at night,depending on the proximity of the light towers. Just as horses on sunny days cast shadows that sometimes are in front of them,depending on the location of the sun,but of course on sunny days the shadows don't come and go in front of the horses like you get when racing under lights. also,take a look at auckland last friday. It looked like they were trying to save money on the lighting bill down the back straight as it looked quite dark.Auckland trots last friday had worse lighting than addington for sure. manawatu recently had new lights installed and they seem to have got it right as they have the most consistent lighting around their track. then you can factor in the number of towers.some tracks have more towers than others. forbury used to have a lot of light towers but maybe not as many lights on each tower. That horse just currently seems to prefer to have a bit of company close by instead of being on its own in front. Its shown that a couple of times now and i guess if it wasn't such a hot favorite then they would just drive it accordingly in the field or parked. Given the way it went the start before,it wasn't really that surprising it did what it did yesterday. having said that all horses should be used to running under lights,so its really the horses fault ift they gallop,not the actual lights.

nice post but i don't get why you are having a dig at him for being what you call an" outspoken critic of nz harness administration". are you saying he should have taken some sort of principled stand and not participated in the amateur chanpionship? Its almost as if your saying,be a good boy,keep your opinions to yourself and don't bite the hand that feeds you.That sounds a bit condescending to me. i don't see any irony in anything house has said and think house should always use his voice to express honest held opinions about the merits of nz administrators decision making. Whether you realise it or not,his views actually represent that of a large proportion of the industry and he is viewed by many as a spokeman for those people.

turned out as expected today,only surprise was the $3 tote dividend. The ff price closed at $2.35. The bookies opening the horse of $3.40 always appeared to be too generous. And michal house ended up winning the amateur championship.well done to him.

that was a strange one wasn't it. the horse to gus's inside moved out,which seemed a reasonable move,then gus lugged in a little but still it looked like mcmullen just carried on letting it roll forward and contacted the cart inside him.I thought it appeared more mcmullens fault. I happened to flick onto the racing channel when race 1 was on,and the mcmullen drive in that i thought was very odd. It looked like he was scared to come off the inside in case he contacted the horse outside him who was 1 length behind him and struggling.It seemed a simple move but mcmullenn just sat there and let the horse he could have followed drop him by 6 lengths. And in that same race you had n dawson driving the other favorite,leading,but seemingly angry with the horse as he was regularly jerking its head from side to side. I'm not saying they weren't trying,i've seen them enough to realise they most likely would have been,but to the casual punter both those drives seemed a bit strange.Do things like that help get punters to bet on the queensland product?

no yuo r right about that. that looks a top track to view races from as well. i did once stable a horse overnight at victoria park, after it was shut down,but quite a few years ago now.. i remember pulling into the car park and saying to the wife,we had better be careful and park in a spot that we can get out of,because itlooked like it had rained.. Well the only other horse floats we spotted were about 4 others,next to each other and backed up beside them. But ,blow me down,it turned out that area was too wet to get out of. So,being unsure what to do,we decided maybe the cheapest thing to do was to call a taxi and ask him to tow us out if they had an appropriate vehicle.Taxi turned up,towed us out and i gave him a $20 tip on top of what i said i would pay him. But he then gave the $20 tip back and said,no worries you don't need to do that and left.Mayber he thought we needed the money more than he did. actually i have a cousin whos an accountant whose lived in greymouth for decades.He told me a few years ago how the land where the track was,had become overrun with weeds and the whole area was a bit of an eyesore..Weren't the maoris given the lease by the crown (as some sort of more recent treaty settlement),then when everyones lease in the area came up for the 100 year renewal of the lease, the maoris rasied the amounts all the people with houses in that area and the trotting club,to levels that people and the trotting club couldn't afford. In effect the maoris kicked everyone off and then just did nothing with it and it just became overgrown. Many locals were very upset about how they were treated. but that was the end of night trots. thats my memory of what happened to greymouth night trots,but hey,thatw as a conversation i had about 10 years ago so may be wrong about some details, so you being from there may be able to clarify some aspects if i got bits wrong.