the galah

i see the stipes say style council lay inwards in the straight,but it fails to note that was early in the straight. When he finally did pull it out with 50m to go it ran straight as. I'm not saying it would have won but it sure would have gone close. The stipes not asking him why he didn't pull out when anyone watching the race would have been asking that,seems odd.We all noticed it. As to lester. Thats even more of a mystery why they didn't question the drive. Once again,the reason we are talking about it was because you couldn't help but notice it. Obviously the stipes think its ok to angle in behind horses when there is a clear run on the outside.

yes it was a bad drive. But to be fair she is a driver who i have faith in to drive well. thats why i included it in my multi. Just not her best effort today.i suppose had it got out late and won we wouldn't be talking about it,but it didn't. We do know she always tries so no questions in that regard.I guess she may well read this. Must be a bit strange reading what people think when you already know if you made a wrong tactical decision.

what about a couple of drives tonight at cambridge. race 9 luka doncic(d ferguson) and race 10 lord delmar(a poutama) They were the worst today. Watch them and ask yourself,were they driving for themselves or someone else in the race?. Just look at the videos of those races and you will see what i mean.

lester had a gap to its outside but instead angled in behind them. Turned out a bad move tactically.Should really have won. It was a big win mover as well so a few frustrated punters. I just had a look and if it had won it wouldn't have been rehandicapped for the 2nd day.Actually i had a nice 5 race multi finishing on it to run a place .Bugga. And style council. yes i thought that strange as well.

I always remember a bloke telling me a story about a fella who used to like having a punt and was always asking his mate for a tip. He would often travel to the races with him. The story went everyone liked this fella but because they thought he needed to pick his own and not rely on their tips,that one day his mate,a trainer or driver,can't remember which, decided he would tip him one as unbeatable,but in reality had no chance. Well he tipped megatrand. It was 2nd up after a long lay off over 2 miles at motukarara and off a big mark and had been well beaten first up. Well you guessed it,to everyones surprise the horse won ,paying a big dividend. The fella who they tipped it to had a big punt,thought the tipster was a genius. I also remember being at methven when i was a youngster and watched a race megatrend started in. Well the first time they ran the race there was some interference at the start and the stipe,i think neil escott came out onto the track after 300m and waved. All the drivers except a couple seemed to have no idea what he was doing or didn't notice him. They continued on . But then they had an inquiry and decided to call the race a non race and run it after the final race. well obviously there were a lot of irate people on course .Anyway half the field scratched for the rerun. Megatrend who had broken badly in the first race and was out the back came out and ran 2nd in the rerun. I think erin crawford his owner/trainer drove him that day.It was a very controversial decision that the stipes made and got a lot of publicity.

The point i make is the tab/entain obviously are aware and spend time assessing whether they can limit their losses from successful punters as regards ff yields. Then based on that, they sometimes place restrictions and algorythms on accounts.. What they fail to do is consider the tote turnover that these customers spend. The bookies only focus is on the ff yields. I would guess they have targets and even get performance bonuses if targets are met. So they have no incentive whatsoever to consider the big picture,which includes the tote spend of customers. When you can draw a graph of the monthly spend by someone and see a drop in tote spending by 70-80% at the same time they placed restrictions or imposed algorythms,then you should be able to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. 4 represents the overall profit/loss of income for the tab as relates to each individual account holder.But with the tab bookies, they aren't interested in 4. Its irrelevant to them. I'm not saying they should not restrict punters. Every punter is different.I'm always saying what i think is just coomon sense,i.e...They need to do consider overall ff and tote yields for each customer,not just ff yields.. Thats why i say they should have policies that incentivise greater spend on the tote. For example say to a customer... we will increase the amounts you can win on ff per month should you meet the criteria of x amount of tote spend. I personally think the tab/entain are run by dummies. People making out they are there for the greater good of the industry,when the reality is they are there for the good of their own department only and themselves. Its not rocket science what i'm saying. But some of those who work at the tab/entain seem to think it is.

As far as your car rental example goes. My answer to that would be the tab has two types of wagering. FF and the tote. .Not one,but 2 where it can generate income. to make a more similar comparison to your car rental example you need to factor in a 2nd part which returns a profit before you can look at overall profit/loss from the customers. So lets say that the customer(bigger punters) would rather employ a driver to drive them around because. So your car rental business,who also has drivers for hire, would have income from 2 streams,not the one. And given you can charge the customer an hourly rate for the driver with a good profit margin for you in excess of the discounted(profit loss) that you get for the car you hire out,then you are making money overall. Simple as that.

could that be megatrend and jack carmichael?

I see it got some coverage in the paper.. the headline being "harness trainer facing assault charge" It says in the article the RIB confirmed they are investigating the matter.

I do understand.Its you that seems to miss the obvious. The easiest way for you to get what i am saying would be for me to give an analogy. A man runs a restaurant/bar. A small % of his higher spending customers have a favorite meal. Problem is if he prices that meal at a cost where he turns a profit, the customers are put off and he loses them. When he loses them,he loses every facet of his business where they spend. In this case many are customers who when they come in spend large $ on drinks where his profit margins are very much in his favour. In other words,he has two choices. The first choice is to price the meal at a price that he could return a profit,but at the same time lose many of his customers that he makes a good overall profit off because of their spend on the drinks. His second choice is to price the meal that attracts them to his business in the first place,at a price which will see them stay regular customers. He accepts that he is losing a bit on the meals but overall coming out ahead when he factors in their spend on the drinks they consume. In this analogy the meals that the small % consume are the ff betting,the drinks are the tote betting. The answer to how he makes the most profit is so obvious. The problem with the tab is they look at at only from the profit on the meals side of things. The tab could even try a compromise for those they restrict.They could say to them,we'll increase the amounts you can get on for,if you increase your tote spend. But that type of thinking is outside the wheelhouse of the tab. If you talk to those that work at the tab and whose job it is to promote punter spending,they will tell you the ff bookies side of things is hamstringing them to a degree,but they can't change the way they work.

Brodie is correct plain and simple. I have said it before and will say it again,from my own personal experience the tabs policies to restrict ff losses have seen me close my tab accounts and i would bet only a small fraction to the levels i once did. And 90% of my turnover used to be through the tote. And as i have said another time,i know someone who used to spend about $2-2.5 million a year on tote turnover,much of that on harness racing,who since they started with their systems to limit winning on ff,now spends only a fraction of that through the tote. The tab employ people who are only interested in their own sector. By that i means its very obvious to me the ff bookies couldn't care less how their policies impact tote turnover and completely ignore the big picture for the tab profit wise. Also they are full of shit sometimes. One time i opened an account and thought i would use the rebates they give to high turnover customers, to increase my income. At the time there was no nz harness due to covid. So i bet on queensland harness.I spoke to 2 different people at the tab who told me i had to have an annual turnover of ... to qualify for rebates. Well i did that solely on the queensland harness within 3 months and rung them up . Their reply was they would consider it. Then 2 months later after still spending the same i rung them again. Their answer,no sorry. So i just stopped betting totally on queensland harness. Brodie is on the money.

Who goes to pubtab and whats that. the only pubtab I know i really dislike going to.I went to a pub tab the other day and put 4 1e/w bets on for the wife at nelson it took me about 6 minutes. The time before it took me about 10 minutes to do the same thing.The machine kept going back to screens that i didn't want. Those pub tab machines are very time consuming to use.

One time i did ring hrnz about how covid mandates would impact participation within the sport at the time. They put me through to Catherine Mcdonald who i didn't know and she wouldn't have known me,but i found her a very approachable and accommodating person. She also said she would email me after she had checked out how to minimise the impact of a certain issue on those not vaccinated. I got the email the next day and was impressed with her efficiency. Hrnz does seem to have and have had some people who work there who go out of their way to be very helpful.Its an organisation who in my interactions with their staff, always seems to be doing their best to help everyone at all levels of participation.

I think its obviously a good thing for the industry if they can run more meetings. I mean more races,even if the new ones are lower stakes,means more stakes are paid to owners,more income for trainers and drivers,more for the clubs,more for the transport operators,starters and their assistants,etc,etc,etc. I think canterbury should have no problem as if you look at the trials each week they always seem to have plenty in their fields. It would just be a matter of running the remaining trials before or after the races. from a betting perspective people will still bet on them. I guess they would have to look to have time slots that work in with australian coverage,but it would just be a matter of running appropriate stakes as relates to turnovers. some may say that punters don't want to see any more meetings for the lower graded horses. But the people that say that are the same ones who keep telling us people bet more on the meetings with the high quality horses in,when anyone who watches turnover figures can tell you thats not true. Its more about the exposure meetings get than quality that is the driving factor for turnover. Midweek meetings,whether they be for high class or low class racing will get limited exposure,so anyone who comes along and says when the turnover figures are just average because of the low quality horses,well i think they just talk a load of rubbish. It does seems a bit of a head scratcher that they would be suggesting auckland or waikato run meetings regularly. Obviously they don't have enough horses. The only problem i can see is the handicapping system. Talk to anyone and they will tell you the worst thing that can happen to any horse is to win its first start and be thrown in against r50 horses. Just imagine a low grade horse winning a non win race and getting a low stake and a big rating handicap. That will be a reason that would stop people lining there horses up or trying So the handicapping of the winners would have to be addressed.

He does just say what he thinks. I think he often has good instincts,but i think sometimes he just needs to go on the merits of each thing. For example he has a headline about john dunn in which he suggests in race 3 he forgot to pull the hopple shorteners until after the winning post when driving millwood godess,inferring that in some way may have been dodgy. The video does show him looking to pull something after the winning post,and if he is pulling the hopple shorteners then you would wonder why he felt the need to do it at all if the excuse he gave was accurate, that the horse paced better with the shorter hopples yesterday than on the first day. But i think if he is to write a story,he should have asked the obvious question before writing that story,well did the horse pace better yesterday than it did on the first day. And the answer was clearly yes it did. so i don't think he should have bothered writing that story. but hey,i still enjoy reading his headlines.

Part of what i mean by that is they sometimes run their horses at the trials without the same gear that they use to switch them on come rasceday.E.g. sliding blinds not used at its trial..I think that was the case with woodlea jewel .

Dalgetys are very good for sure and their son has now developed a reputation for liking to dictate in front and other drivers seem quite happy to give the lead up to him,and its part of the success of that stable. I often think having the right drivers working for a stable helps install in the horses the mental alertness that is required for a horse to succeed at the races. Many horses have that naturally,but having someone driving them at home that can assist them getting to the races in the right frame of mind obviously helps. I agree with you about the mile racing brodie. I would rather they race over further as over the short distance racing,the first 200m and where you end up decides whether you have a chance or not at the finish.But there is always a winner,no matter what the distance and its just a matter of picking them.

My 2 cents worth would be i have backed woodlea jewel at times,based on one off nice runs,even just prior to her transferring to the dalgety barn,but every time i do, i end up thinking why did i do that. To me she a horse with ability that lacks enthusiasm for winning and in a lot of ways would much rather go for a sunday stroll around the track than race. Time and time again she has been driven very hard to make her take the lead when she just prefers to prick her ears and say to the driver,settle down mate,i'm enjoying the scenery. that was again evident when she won on the first day,but i guess like any horse,enjoyed winning and that probably helped motivate her to do it again yesterday. Also i don't take much notice of how the dalgety horses run at the trials as they are one of a handful of stables that in my opinion seem to go better on raceday. Probably the best stable to completely ignore trials wise is the alistar black stable in southland. For years now they improve an awful lot from the trials the week before a race compared to there raceday runs. I often wonder whether thats a plan or whether they just don't run for him when he drives them at the trials. Also you mentioned blue chip rock earlier. That horse has been heavily supported its last 4 runs and really has gone awful every time. People are backing it on its previous form which i agree was very good.4 starts ago it ran like it had something wrong with it the last 600m. Then next start it ran last. It did get a flat tyre that day but the reason for that was because it stopped quickly. Then both days at nelson it just didn't want to compete. Hopefully they can sort it out,but i'm surprised it hasn't been ordered to trial given its recent races.

i see the chiefs mate,peter profit has a headline suggesting the victim of the assault is no longer licensed.That is the case if you check on his name.Obviously it has impacted him significantly for that to be the case.Hopefully he doesn't let the incident define what he can and can't do,life or industry wise. You know whether people like it or not,honest john does have a point. A lot of trouble does come from the woodend based trainers. It certainly must be very annoying for others who train there to see the small area where they base themselves again tarnished. Like i have said,thats the reality.

Pat corby, the trainer of Grey Way. I had an uncle who used to go fishing a lot with him and maurice jones. At one point i recall he had 4 good jockeys that worked for him at the same time and another apprentice.Snooky Cowan,Harold Pateman,Pat Collins and doug Holden.All white guys. You don't see that these days. Actually snooky cowans father,acka trained and drove a few harness horses after he retired from riding,including a couple of nice horses. II remember i played rugby with snooky when i was a kid when i lived in that area.. A really good guy.anyway the galloping trainers and jockeys from that area all followed the trots back then,i think more than most galloping trainers do these days. those were the days.

Forbury's is entitiled to his opinion but anyone who follows this site knows hes prone to getting frustrated often based on what he has had his money on and often his comments go beyond what anyone could reasonably conclude. So him saying what he did was never going to have an impact on any drivers reputation as a race fixer. Suggesting hes trying to destroy thornleys reputation seems rather over the top,even a bit forbury like. As with anything forbury does say,there is an element of actual observation that detects certain patterns. I belive s thornley had a recent pattern of over driving his horses prior to his suspension,but hey as brodie has pointed out,a punter would rather be on a fella trying really hard than someone who is too negative. Many drivers go through patterns of driving where they are too conservative to please the punter. the punter is a hard person to please sometimes. the bit at the end of your post goes beyond anything forbury would actually say,but hey you may think someone would want to assault him just for having an opinion and maybe it does happen,i don't think so. At the end of the day i no longer get surprised that people seem to take to heart someones opinion on this site. I never know why they should but for some reason it often seems to happen.

I think the below post proves you are not on the money this time brodie when you suggest people shouldn't be talking about it.your ignoring reality. Besides brodie,i struggle with how you have expressed your concern for the person who assaulted someone,but no mention of the junior driver who was assaulted. Your first post on this topic has things totally back to front. It should go without saying that being the victim of any assault can be a traumatic and stressful experience. Like everything there are factors that come into play as to the person charged and how he deals with what he did will be just as important in how he is perceived as to what he actually did. if he has plead guilty as has been reported then he has taken the first steps in taking responsibilty for his actions.How he treats the victim going forward will be important in how stressful the victim handles what has been done to him. From my own experiences i can say that if someone is genuinely remorsful then you tend to view them with more forgiveness than someone who is not. Once i was assaulted by someone who i knew was capable of extreme violence but i got past that as i believe he was sincere in that he wished he had not let his demons of alcohol and depression get the better of him when he started a fight with me. He went on to be a significant party to an assault that caused someones death and spent many years in jail. Yet we both would say hullo if we saw each other today..Another time i was assaulted by someone who had taken too many drugs. I got to realise that he was taking the drugs because of anxiety and depression and he too showed genuine remorse and after getting to know him a lot better with further interactions .I realised he was more a danger to himself. Then i have also been assaulted by someone who i view the most dangerous of anyone i have come into contact with. Again on drugs and drunk,but the worst thing about that experience for me was the way the police handled it.I had a mixed bag when dealing with police,mostly very good but that last assault i mentioned certainly left me seeing a different side of justice. Anyway this topic again highlights to me what occurs in the harness racing industry when dealing with certain issues. Many automatically take a stance based on personalities instaed of peoples actions.In my view the chief and brodies posts prove my point.

i only read his headlines. Anyone who reads his headlines and who follows harness racing in nz would realise he actually reports stories that people in nz talk about. Its like the story about the woodend trainer he names. People would be talking about it,but it gets next to no coverage by other harness media in nz.No one has mentioned it that i can see as at today,yet most in the industry would have talked about it.Harness racing media in nz are mostly seen as PR people. NZ Harness racing media choose not to be controversial.They take the 'lets offend no one except maybe someone who is a harness racing no one'. Easier that way as they realise there is a price to pay, if they are seen as not batting for the right team. Gutless in some ways,but i can understand the "don't rock the boat and be otracized" in certain circles,approach. Archie butterfly stories on "how to cheat" that you refer to i find a bit amusing in some ways,but it also has a very serious side as well. Why. Well hes just telling people whats advertised as for sale via the internet if your that way inclined and if you have the right contacts. He just has done or had someone with more knowledge of the subject ,do more research than his average subscriber and it would no doubt be informative to many. Like i have said before,I'm not a subscriber,but he is certainly well known,successful and often expresses opinions that not everyone shares.What you must know chief is there is a market for what he does. Many people view him very highly .Of course not everyone,especially those he may have written about and whom he has expressed opinions about that may not be accurate. But ilke in the case of the trainer who has plead guilty to assault,he can't go wrong when he reports what appears to be a fact.

So archie butterfly is scum for reporting that the trainer has plead gulity in court to assaulting another trainer. No mention from you as to what you think of the actions of the trainer. You think Archie butterfly is the bad guy,as always. At least your consistent i suppose.Always looking to deflect.

Well i have asked the question hoping for some clarification. you say in your opinion,which tends to suggest you think,but aren't 100% sure. I'm not saying your not correct,i'm saying if you read that offical notice that hrnz put out,it can be interpreted that no raceday treatment is up to half an hour after the last race.Thats what it says. I know theres reference in the rules to ..prior to racing..,but if it was simply no treatment prior to racing then why even have the half hour after the last race in the rules.And if it is half an hour after the last race on course,why not just say that.