the galah

everything about the experience of using a tab outlet these days,leaves you reminiscing about better times when customers were valued,instead of the current day experience where you feel you are an unwanted interuption to someones day or you are someone to be tracked or your investments are taken for granted and that they would much rather re direct you to on line services. Its like the gambling providers have often enabled the product to be eaten from the core . They focus on saving $,ignoring the long term consequences of their decisions. Better to cut services than provide better services that would maintain punter participation. so many dumb, short sighted decisions. It would take all night to list them. But examples are reducing pubs % of the turnovers,shutting down terminals in working mens clubs because the turnovers fall just below supposed acceptable levels,outlets not putting up the fields or even having a tv with the nz meeting on a screen,emplyees at these pub tabs that have no idea how to navigate the machines if your unsure of something,etc,etc,etc Cost cutting to increase short term returns but at the expense of long term returns. i've always maintained,and i'm sure i'm right when i say,once people change their habits and once they change how they spend their leisure dollar,whether it be betting onhorse racing or going to the pub or whatever,once you lose them ,they just find something else to do and are lost for good.

the 2 meetings on a tuesday is an interesting concept. Maybe it has something to do with easter,but on the face of it,it would appear to make more sense to run one of those meetings on a wednesday. looking at the sky racing schedule,its indicates neither meeting will get any sky racing 1 coverage. Just sky racing 2. Some nz midweek harness meetings do get some races covered by sky racing 1,but the tuesday meetings don't,going by this months schedule. So that means the turnovers are going to be small. HRNZ never talk about sky 1 being a consideration in their allocation of dates.Given it has such significant impact on turnovers,you wonder why. another couple of things about the 2 meetings races being run 10 minutes apart,of course means lots of people who do happen to follow the 2 meetings,will only be financial enough to go from race to race and given it seems to take the current tab so long to confirm races or post results,turnover will be impacted to a degree because of that If they think people put double in their accounts to spend, because theres 2 meetings on. or those who would normally bet on every race,will do so when 2 meetings are run on the same day,simply don't understand punters. but i do think,big picture, these type of meetings are good for the industry. The only thing about them that i don't agree with is the allocation of more of them to areas which have the least horses and the running of so many more races with penalty free conditions in the north island. Why the preferential treatment for them in that respect,when compared to canterbury.

No is the answer to your second question.

you've previously suggested the field size needs reduced and i've come around to your way of thinking. 15 horse fields in stands and 14 in mobiles over 1980 simply give those who draw poor and settle back,niot much chance. back in the day they always had horses on the ballot ,so were always trying to give as many a start as possible,but thats not a factor these days. But i do think space is a factor. The more space a horse gets at the start the more likely they are to begin safely and the less likely they are to suffer interference.

HRNZ announced this week io intends t keep funding these metro races,which are $20,000 heats and $35,000 finals for the pacers and trotters. HRNZ have said they will continue to fund more of these races throughout the winter. i know i've asked this before,but still no one has given me an answer. Can anyone tell me why the preferential treatment for auckland at the expense of canterbury and southland. Southland is clearly declining numbers wise,similar to auckland,but HRNZ are doing nothing to help the southland participants,apart from run big stake 2 year old races for horses trained in canterbury that come down. And canterbury,who generate the racing that makes a profit are still being taken for granted as there are no heat and finals for good stakes there. Another thing i can't unerstand is why people in canterbury and southland let themselves be treated like tthis by there governing body. Really,they deserve to be in decline as well if they can't even publically voice opposition to preferential treatment tio other regions.

Theres a solution,that would reduce the problems in standing starts, which result in interference, horses breaking,horses getting unfair starts due to not being able to take their positions or being disadvantaged by being the horses drawn in the middle that are the last to turn in. simple. Just give the horses more space.To do that you would have to reduce the number on the front line. if you want proof of what i mean. go have a look at the standing starts at the recent timaru meeting run on the grass. That grass track is wider at the point the stands started,than any other track. The races there were started by the same starter,had the same divers,had less exoperienced horses...yet in the 5 stands only 1 breaker within the first 100m and no interference early. its the same logic that you apply when backing risky beginners who start on the ur.Many horses that start on the unruly are there because they don't like the congestion that exists when off the front. Horses like that,especially trotters, will have a far higher strike rate of going away if they start from the outside of the ur,than other positions on the unruly.The reason is,they have more space.

Her tactical decision to press for the lead for such an extended period of time after 400m seemed odd,when you would have thought she would know the horse in front was driven by a driver who normally doesn't like handing up ,when driving a strong winning chance. And thats how it played out.She had to drive her horse very hard for that 400m to get the front before the leader decided,well this is all getting a bit silly and diminishing both our horses chances. Especially,when the alternative run for green was the 1/1 and an ideal run. But hey,thats what happens sometimes and i suppose she took the "you have to crack a few eggs to make an omlet" type approach. In other words i may stuff this horse this time,but in the fututre i will be given the lead many more times without such resistance. And thats all well and good . my main issue with the drive was how she just kept at her horse when it was never going to run in the money.she did that,only for it to predicatably stop badly the last 100m. why didn't she just let it fade away,instead of busting a gut fior nothing?I thought that odd. One of the most important things i've learnt from analysing races,is always be very very wary of investing on a horse next up,who is over driven and who's driver continues to drive it out when its beaten. in horse racing,theres always tomorrow if you don't happen to get the ideal run and you just accept that and don't bust a gut if the best you can do is run 7th or 8th. But the "theres always tomorrow goes out the window as one gut buster can take an emotional and physical toll. Sure,horses can bounce back,normally with a freshen up ,but their long term earning capacity is normally diminshed. if you want an example of what i'm talking about. when dreams are free won,early in its career, in 2.55 after losing a heap of ground early in the race,social media sites like this one were abuzz that that horse was the next superstar. I commented a couple of times,that don't get too carried away,and predicted dreams are free would not last, would have the occasional good run,but most likely have ongoing issues that would see it not reach its potential. And i said ,the reason for that,was it was given that gut buster when it need not have had it. i've also commented many times,how often do you see horses break,goes huge races to finish not far away,then go poor thereafter all because the drivers made them bust a gut. so,thats why i commented on k greens drive. I didn't expect gammalite to say she drove it well. i just thought everyone would be thinking like myself and nowornever are. but everyone see things different i suppose and bit of a yarn reminds me of that. and no,i didn't back k green or p hunter so aren't talking through my pocket. and having said all that,i think k greens a very successful driver and from a punters perspective,overall punters have good confidence in her abilities and tactical nous.

i hope forbury wasn't watching that last race. would have burst a blood vessel for sure if he had any money on miki cohen.

the original plan was to lease the complex back for a time from the original buyers, while they built a new training complex,with auckland suggesting HRNZ would chip in a few million for that new complex. Which HRNZ never denied. But with that sale falling through, you would think auckland would want the next buyer to just sit on their 60 million dollar investment for a couple of years ,so auckland trainers can still train. that pukekohe complex ,according to some reports, was supposed to need a lot of money spent in remedial work to keep it going until it closed down. Bub of course,where was that money supposed to come from. So,reality that work won't be done either ,which makes sense, although some are complaining about that... so,it all seems pretty obvious to the casual observer whats going to happen. But currently auckland are publicly still saying ,it will all work out in the end.nothing to see here. In fact auckland even spun it to say they had exciting news.. And hrnz are saying,onwards and upwards. really you have to laugh.Theres an obvious lack of communicating a vision for a viable/realistic future is non existent and just undermines the inability of those in charge at hrnz to grasp reality. That may seem harsh,but its blatantly true. if you want proof of that comment,just look at the number of topics started on this forum and other harness racing forums about auckland. the only ones who agree with HRNZ's public comments and plans, are those from auckland,or ex aucklanders or those in the media. previously i refered to mr wonderfuls comments about restructering the business he has taken over. And the smart people in charge of DOGE,in the usa say the same thing. Eion MUsk said the same thing this week in an interview. You go in hard and you do it only once. tjhe worst thing you can possibly do,is make small changes time after time. Its a receipe for failure . why that hasn't happened already? it smells a bit to me of self interest groups again having the ear of those in charge. Again.. What other reason could there be. Maybe,just bnot too clever perhaps.

On the rib website they have the recent decsion as to the costs, bruce negus has to pay,in relation a positive he had for one of his horses . the positive occured 7 years ago. Yes,thats right,7 years. He was found guilty of being in control of a horse who returned a positive, to a man made synthetic compound that does what testosterone does. anyways,he was fined $5300,but heres the kicker,mr negus has to pay costs of $105,000. who knows what he would have paid for his own legal fees on top of that. now ,i read the decision,but wish i had read War and Peace instead, as it went on and on . Obviously over 7 years ,evidence was gathered ,witness briefs obtained and scrutinised,research done,countless lawyer work undertaken,etc ,etc ,etc, over those years..The actual hearing took 4 days when they finally got around to it. Now my very brief summary of the decision obviously is just that, brief. But it seems mr negus had 2 horses tested in "out of competition testing" in 2017. analysis of the blood taken showed one horse was positive to a synthetic steroid.The other horse had very small traces,but not worth pursuing due to the low levels. now,apparently the detectable levels in blood last about 8 weeks although they quickly reduce in that time frame. So,seems pretty straight forward you would think. but no it wasn't and because of the circumstances mr negus obviously thought he had a defence. His defence seemed to be based partly on the reducing levels in the subsequent tests,but that was rejected as a defence as the panel agreed on the balance of probabilities,with what the rib experts said,which was,thats what happens over time. e.g. test it 7 days after the sample is drawn from the horse,and the level will be...,test the reserve sample...a couple of weeks later and the level will be much lower. Thing is,because this is the case,those in charge made the decision to send the reserve sample away for testing to be sure(,given detectable levels reduce that quick),whereas normally that is only done at the request of the person who is being charged. i.e. mr negus. Mr negus when originally interviewed by the rib was obviously a bit shocked and actually said at that point he wasn't going to get the reserve sample tested,but then thought about it a bit more,only to find it had already been done without his prior knowledge. So the defence believed that was one of the grounds for defence. seemingly a procedural defence. another was hair samples showed nothing. But turned out experts said thats not unusual for that synthetic compound. Also clearly there were several other procedural issues that the defence raised and sounds like they did score many points in that respect. Every little thing seemed to have been gone over with a fine tooth comb. as was mr negus's rites to do so. thats a really short summary of something very complicated. but at the end of the day,the panel who heard the case found,mr negus was the person in charge of the horse. They don't have to prove he injected the horse himself.. They never do,as thats almost impossible unless they catch someone in the act. The $105,000 costs awarded against negus were 50% of the costs,normally they award 60 %. but gee,what a financial hit.

if that happened ,who would be left? its a bit like saying,if a member of a sports team you follow makes a bad tactical play,you can't express an opinion to that effect and if you do, you should really stop following that sport. Are people that thin skinned they can't handle comments,irrespective of whether they are justified or not? Besides,people can work out whether criticism is over the top or coming from someone who gets a bit carried away sometimes.

pace bias,i just try and bet on ones that will go forward at some stage. I think most of the drivers who feel they are in with a chance try and work there way forward in the first round. Then,when that happens,you have the best horses up front combined with the bias favoring those up front,so they hardly ever come from the back. There was one race ,high energy ,who came from the back,but it only managed a close 3rd. I thought that one should have made a move with a lap to go. More driver being too negative that time rather than the track. i was surprised Beside me got beaten . tI had been so dominant the start before against the same horses but these things happen. The big trotters race was an odd race,with 3 of the 8 breaking and queen elida hanging like there was something bothering it,yet it still ran 2nd. Muscle mountain making it to the Million $ earnings was great to see. Hes been a great horse and hes carried the burden of being a hot favorite a lot in recent years. I think the Hopes and especially his driver ,Ben hope deserve great credit for never taking the punters for granted and always trying to put him in a position to win,knowing that punters are trusting him to do that. Sometimes its meant hes hasd harder races than they would have liked,but everything the horse and they have done has been a crdit to them and they have been a credit to the industry. People should appreciate that aspect. the only thing now,hes had a lot of hard racing and its starting to show when they go hard. He just can't finish the final 100m like he used to. But hes still a great horse and now a million dollar earner. i also thought trackside need to use nicole sims as much as they used brittany graham. Brittany graham is a class act,but nicole sims does a great job as well and they could have combined the two a bit better in my opinion.

we enjoyed all the racing and wondeful to see leap to fame win. What a horse. the aussie trotters connections interview was also a good watch. The only thing i thought a bit odd,was brittany graham and nicole sims weren't supplied with an umbrella. i've seen presenters in aussie walk around with someone holding an umbrella for them,doing pre race interviews. i think both those presnters do a great job and both have good fashion for my wife to look at. But someobne,get them an umbrella if it rains next time.

slot 1 for me thanks. Shortest way home.

they use those funds "for the betterment of harness racing." So,while it would all be smoke and mirrors,reality is if they are dipping into their reserve funds to provide stake money and bonuses,then theres part of your answer.

I think your working your way, to my way of thinking.possibly.

the atc still would have alexandra park,so you wouldn't think they needed bailed out. just keep going and getting the bank to do one of those interest only loans with alexandra park as security. then don't think about the future,as many on here have pointed out ,thats being ever so grumpy and negative,let aucklanders just live in the present and keep smiling. Then in 10 years time,when those at the helm have moved on and when the bank says you have little security left and we are going to sell you up,if your an administrator whos just started in the job,just blame it on the lot that were in charge at the moment,but have since moved on. And if you are one of those who was in charge,(i.e. our current administrators) and that subsequently moved on,i'm guessing you will just order another margaretta,lay back on your deck chair and admire the sunset a little,before closing your eyes and starting to dream about the good old days when you were in charge. meanwhile back in nz,the new hrnz board can have one of their meetings and work out how to get their hands on the auckland money. one bloke sitting in the corner,gathering cobwebs,will pipe up and say well i've been here a few years and we have a precedent for this. Back in the day,he would say with a cheeky smile,we sold up forbury and put all the money in a reserve fund. To which,one of the newer board members will pipe up and say,forbury,isn't he that grumpy poster on bit of a yarn who's been around for years. No,the old man in the corner with the cobwebs will reply,forbury used to be a racetrack in dunedin.Then he would go on to explain what happened to forbury and where the money went.With a twinkle in his eyes,he would explain how the money went on group ones and bonuses and proping up the stakes for auckland. He would say,you see,auckland really owe us that money anyway. He too,then closes his eyes and mutters,those were the days before saying wake me up before you turn out the lights,joking he means the lights in this room,not the ribbon of lights. The chair will then comment,how about that,i thought that man was just an ornament.

peter profit had a headline a couple of weeks ago saying their was interest from 4 buyers and i had thought i read somwhere they had said around the $60 million mark,but i could be wrong there. So down 20-30 million from what they had hoped for from the original contract,but hey whats 20 or 30 million. harness racing has plenty. we all know HRNZ have publicly said they want to ensure racing continues in auckland. Thats seems to be about it. HRNZ never think too far ahead,so at least are consistent. Actually,the fact the financial hole may become so huge ,that even HRNZ could see the writing on the wall,could be a good thing in some ways. Never let a crisis go to waste type thing.

The thing about tonights race,which everyone seems to ignore,is it proves what i have always said about stake money.. Take tonights race. last year the million $ the race,was won by Merlin,whose connections and whose slot holder,were paid out a total of $450,000 for winning. now the point of being a slot holder is obviously to give them a chance of making money. So obviously they would not be putting up theit money unless that applied. we know the slot holders negotiate with the owners of each horse. So if you were a slot holder and had say aquired leap to fame to represent you,just to cover costs of the slot and travel here,you would need around $75,000 to just cover costs,so would use that as a starting point to negotiate more, to get any profit at all. so say that slot holder decided to take just a 10% cut of the winning stake on top of their expenses,that equates to them receiving around $120,000 of that $450,000 stake. So that would leave leap to fames connections a winning stake of around $330,000. so a payout of around $330,000(i actually think in reality its probably less due to the slot holders wanting more) is atrracting leap to fame to nz. So what did the winning horse in the 2021 and 2022 nz cups get when the total stake was only $631,000 . $330,000,exactly around the amount they will get tonight if they win. So tonights race,totally disproves anyone who claims races like the nz cup need to be worth a million $ to attract the best horses in australia. People,like those at hrnz ,who tell you the nz cup needed to have an extra $400,00 taken from stakes funding and put into last years nz cup,to attract the aussies,just are deliberately pulling the wool over peoples eyes. either that or they are stupid.Personally i think a bit of both. So ,there you go,tonights race proves what i have always said. Actually the victoria race ,which attracted by far the best field to have raced in australais in the last year,of course had already proved that, They halved that stake to $250,000 this year due to overspending,that had already been proof of what i say.

Brodie simply pointing out.. If your expenditure exceeds your income,you end up in trouble. so they are pumping money into 2 year old racing,yet we consistently are seeing the smallest fields numbers wise ever,for 2 year olds . they are pumping money into the group 1 races. they have not told anyone what their plans are for auckland ,other than auckland has to continue,because thats where the most people live. That sounds such simplistic thinking. But thats the current position. So what is there to show for those policies.. A significant drop in the number of mares being bred. I read somewhere that the number of licence holders is also decreasing. i started a thread some months ago saying people are looking at where HRNZ are putting the money,and are saying,this sport doesn't value me anymore and i'm out. i predicted the policies of HRNZ would lead to a significant drop in mares being bred and trainers giving the game away. I coud see it,people i talked to could see it ,but those in charge never did. the sport is run by people in a bubble which excludes and is out of touch with significant sectors of the industry. I started a thread recently about tanzania. tanzania is the current leading point scorer in the country cups series after 8 races.hes won 1 country cup and placed 2nd or 3rd in 4 others. So how much has he earnt in the last 4 mionths. $26,000 thats all. Money spent on many of those group 1's would have far more positive impact if they were directed into country cup races.The winners of all those 3-5 horse 2 year old races, get double the payouts that most of those country cup winners get. Thats what a horse just below the highest tier of horses in the sourth island earns if its too consistent to continually drop back in the ratings. i accept that the next gen bonus was a factor in the higher prices at the recent sales helped the commercial breeders with high end horses. But,surely people can see the overall drop in number of mares bred is of more significance to the industry. i can see a couple of positives in the future. They are the redistribution of funds that greyhound nz has been receiving,once they finish up.And entain have that deal where they pay more if the geo blocking eventuates by a certain date. i also think there have been some good decisions made by hrnz. The extra meetings are a good thing,but they have to be careful with the stake levels paid there as well. Anyways,i just looked at that pacers fileld, the nz horses won't beat the aussies,so that money will go to australia. and 5 australian based trotters and 1 ex australian trotter make up 6 of the 9 horses in the trot race.

On another subject. I'm not a facebook person,nor ever will be. But i used to be able to watch your videos by just googling unhinged harness racing. Doing that used to show the videos posted in the last week or at least saw most of them. Nowdays it seems restricted to only the last 3. Was that a deliberate move?

Honestly,i havent looked at any pre race coverage,whether it be any media or hrnz website.. I don't even know who's in the field although i understand the top 3 aussie pacers are coming. Personally i think most people think like me. I've heard no one i know even mention the races,although the wife did say to me this morning,whats queen elida coming for as its out of form. So obviously its a starter. I think the average harness follower thinks like me. Having said that,come friday,i will certainly be watching the races and i think its great leap to fame is in nz. I understand people like tabforever have a differing point of view,so good for them and no doubt they have followed the pre race coverage and will enjoy being there on friday.Harness racing needs people like that,so you have to cater to their needs as well. also i appreciate its always great to experience being on course when the top quality horses run,especially the aussie pacers . i agree,these type of races are good for the industry as a whol,but with the caveat that they not be heavily funded by HRNZ. I have no doubt that HRNZ boosting the last nz cup stake to 1 million got not 1 extra horse,or 1 extra $ invested in the tote than they would have ,had the race been run for half a million less. The same horses would have started.As i pointed out ,the best field to line up in the last year that i saw,was in the hunter cup and that had a huge stake cut to only $250,000. But ,i'm not a party pooper and hope everyone enjoys watching the race,as i will on friday, and i hope everyone on course gets to experience the feeling, that witnessing the very best horses race can give you.

seems you have misinterpreted what i said. Maybe you should read what i have said again. you say i said nothing about the young lady. Well i did,calling her courageous and standing up for doing the right thing and i commented on her mothers comments of the significant emotional harm.her daughter suffered. i even said HRNZ should have already had the riu lay charges against both,the day of their being found guilty,irrespective of the level of involvement,for breach of the code of conduct and hrnz shpuld have announced that,if hrnz intent was to be viewed seriously.. the reason i said that was because its obvious from the mothers comments that she feels her daughter was let down by not only the individuals involved,but also the lack of support she perceived she received from those within the industry, and that obviously reflects poorly on hrnz leadership. I have my own perspective about people who behave like the main offender did,that is if they behave like that when they are 25 then that really will always be prt of who they are.the only way they can avoid repetitive destructive behvior is for thwem to avoid the things that trigger such behavior,e.g. alcohol. offenders like that,from m y observations ,do learn from things like that,but learning and changing is 2 totally different things. They also learn how to avoid or hide such behavior. But all that is not really why i commented. I commented ,because to me,,theres something broken in the industry if the victim feels she can't pursue her dream job and if the perpetrators actions are not properly admonshed by those whose job it is to do so and those its job it is to set ajnd standards. so anyway newmarket,your have your opinion,i have mine,but they aren't that much different.

oops,i obviouly meant to say ... he had NO !!!!! excuse for how he treated the victim.

so the case finally came to an end with the sentencing last week of the trainer/driver concerned. The wheels of justice turn slowly. for the person convicted,its been reported 3 months community detention,1 years supervision and a $5000 payment to the victim. Sounds like the accused person should never drink alcohol . Of course by the time you get to his age ,you would already know how alcohol effects your behavior,so he had real excuse for how he treated the victim. i suppose the light sentence is an indication that the judge doesn't view the case as very serious and has factored in the accused circumstances as much as the victims. Thats despite the victims mother reportedly saying the incidents and the subsequent emotional harm to her daughter had been significant. If your were the accused you may think the sentence fair,if you were the victim you would no doubt lose faith in the abilty of the justice system to make people truly accountable for their actions. i have always understood community detention means you simply have to be somewhere you say you will be and that is approved.Like having a curfew,but still being able to work. Obviously the supervision part really means very little. Most likely all he would have to do is turn up to a meeting with his supervisor, mayber monthly and keep them informed where they will be driving and working. Maybe the supervisor could get a tip or two. Anyways,i'm a no way diminishing what the offender did,simply pointing out the sentence imposed for his actions in the court really are just minor. Its the damage to his reputation which no doubt will be weighing most heavily on his mind. The trainers friend ,who seemingly enabled and helped facilitate the offences got off with a discharge without conviction and a $1500 payment to the victim. It does make you wonder,seemingly from the reporting,2 other males were there when the offences occured and did nothing to help the victim and allowed,someone who they called their friend,to engage in activity that compromised the victim(and also compromised the accused as well). who would ever want friends like that. The victim showed a great deal of courage to stand up for whats right. So what know. how come neither the stuff news article or the harnesslink article even bothered to ask HRNZ for comment. Thats very poor reporting from those people. And HRNZ themselves seem to never front foot things like this. They must have known of the case. Why haven't they commented and why haven't they advised the public of what action they intend to take. If they are to say,well we had to wait until the sentencing,well thats just a cop out as they should have had prepared responses to the possible differing sentencing outcomes,but also obviously the sentencehanded down was entirely predictable you would have thought. so what are HRNZ going to do? the code of conduct must apply. Anyone who bothers to read the peter profit headlines would know who the high profile person convicted is.even the article earlier on this thread gaves a major clue as to who it is. So the interim name suppression seems a bit pointless to me,but thats how the courts processes work i suppose.