the galah

Its all about the timing. In 2019 hrnz issued an official notice saying... "a clear day prior to racing means the 24 hour period prior to 12.01 am on the day the horse is racing and includes the day of racing" A day of racing commences at 12.01 on the day in which a horse is to race and concludes half an hour after the last race." So i had thought that was pretty self explanatory. Am i missing something as robert dunn obviously is happy to say that they treated their horses after they raced, apparently as they came home before the days racing concluded. After all,he said someone didn't go to the races and stayed home so they could do that. If people can treat their horses after they have raced,irrespective of the time,why doesn't that offical notice from hrnz say that.

I was just reading a story about the successful day the stable had at rangiora. Robert dunn was quoted as saying how they have a great team of workers. At one point he is quoted as saying "all the staff are great. Jenna does a great job.she stayed home on cup day and when each horse came home she gave them a saline,dressed them all up and put them away". Now ,what are the rules relating to raceday treatment? I had always thought raceday treatment is ....up to half an hour after the last race. i know the rules say treatment is allowed after they have raced,i just had thought the half hour after the last race was the timeframe. Can someone clarify that?

I wish the betting was as easy as you and brodie say it is at this time of year. The only thing i could have predicted about that race was the turnover on the recent non win races at westport,gore,motukarara would be greater than you get on a race with akuta and don't stop dreaming in. According to the tab website,they had $10,499 in the win pool and close to $7,200 in the place pool. The $50,000 high clas trot with 5 in that is to follow will be lucky to get half of that. People who say the good horses attract the most betting simply ignore reality. Shame about the weather there. Thats the 3rd north island meeting in a row where they have had a wet track.

I see he pleaded guilty to failing to take all reasonable measures to finish in the best possible placing today. Suspended for 6 days. Did seem to over drive flo motion and it got rather tired.Its been driven hard before and stuck on,but not that hard. An interesting race with both b orange and s thornley trying hard,but not helping their chances with the over aggressive tactics. Still i suppose when they drive like that others watch and tend to conceed the lead to them because they know they drive aggressively when trying for the lead.Wouldn't have helped their horses mentally though. Paul nairn suspended for 7 days for the same thing on tu tangata. Looked like he thought he had the rest covered and was being extra careful to make sure he trotted all the way up straight,after breaking the first day. He probably was thinking,how did you get there, when ben hope shot past him late. Both drivers were trying,just misjudgments. But it does show that south island stipes notice things,unlike the north island stipes.

Not necessarily. I get ads related to what my wife searches like womens underwear and crock pots. If your seeing prospective wives huey,it could be your wife has gone off you and you've turned her into batting for the other team.'

It may be hard to believe,but even i can make the odd mistake.

No. last week the conditions of the race allowed him to start in an up to R42 race. He looks a nice horse to own,but this week hes in a far stronger race,an up to R51, given how harshly 1 win horses like him normally get treated ratings wise if they win early in their career. The ratings system treating him as it did,would have played a part in why he was driven like he was in the race discussed.

Good point. He wasn't able to run in this weeks race so i got that bit wrong. He will have to wait until next week for one of those races.

Whatever chief.

changes nothing given the publicity this horse has now had. Connections must be aware of what everyone thinks. Can you just imagine the comments were it to have been entered and even won the junior drivers race? Besides they run one for his grade almost every week.

Also,Sam thornleys drive,lets get tropical, shied away from 8 seagulls standing next to the markers,directly in his path the first time around,then turning for home the same seagulls were there again . Had the horse not shied out,it probably would have run over a couple of the seagulls as they were slow to get out of his way the first time around.Obviously they wanted to get a birds eye view of the action.

I just googled Weirs disciplinary record. Fined or disqualified 15 times since 2001.(12 different years he was fined) Misleading statements,horse at trails when on anti imflammatories,milkshaking,have milkshaking gear on racecourse another time,positive swabs,horses he supposedly trained at other trainers properties,Horses he trains not at the stable that he said they were,horse late scratched because it appeared to have been stomach tubed on the day..... Then he has these new charges of animal cruelty.

So you can think a man who regularly electric shocked his horses with a jigger while they were on a treadmill machine and with blinkers on ,i guess so they could't see what was coming,deserves forgiveness for his actions. Weir isn't a genius,hes an abuser of animals who would have continued doing it until he got caught. He also employed people who were happy to abuse them as well. I suppose you would be all for having your daughter start going out and perhaps marry a man known to regularly bash his wife.No difference,after all,you are the forgiving type. No wonder we disagree that much. you never draw the line .

I dont follow the Darren weir case much. All i know is he was charged with more animal cruelty offences about 3 months ago realting to the time he was a trainer,,involving giving electric shocks to horses while they ran on a treadmill,some with blinkers on all designed to scare them into running faster when hit with the whip. The addiction to winning you refer to is a good way of describing the lengths some may go to win while ignoring the harm they may be doing to the animal and the connections of those they compete against.I actually think it is a real thing. But like any addiction,its always there and often hard for some to keep on top of. Which is why i personally think people like weir should be able to handle educating horses,but never should be able to compete in the racing environment where he has proven he can't keep his addiction under control. Putting someone in the same environment is only tempting fate.

Merry christmas brodie. Maybe we are expected to fill in the blanks.Maybe he was intending to clear his glasses further down the track but never got around to it.Sort of a christmas day quizz from the stipes? The crossing of the reins thing would be confusing until he realised and makes sense.As the horse lugs in slightly he would have tried to correct it and inadvertently pulled on the wrong rein which made the horse run up the inside even more.

Actually if you slow the video down and go frame by frame,it makes you question the accuracy of what the stipes have reported as "clearing his glasses". Mr chins hands do not seem to get anywhere near his face. The face is where most people wear their glasses. Maybe thats a north island thing,eyes on the chest.. clearly looks like hes maybe adjusting how he holds his whip. Turnpike joe,now that. Who do they think they are kidding?

It said he crossed his reins after clearing his glasses I guess that means he has put the reins in one hand while he cleared his glasses with the other,then when he has taken hold of the reins again with that hand,he has mistakenly grabbed the wrong rein,so in effect momentarily he has been thinking steering with the left rein would see his horse move in when in reality it would steer it out ,and vice versa. Obviously it was just a momentary thing but occured when the pace in front slackened and jasinova broke as a consequence. I remember years ago luk chin didn't use to drive on wet tracks. Obviously does these days. Sometimes it must get very hard for drivers to see on some wet tracks and they do a great job keeping racing.

I think thats an exaggeration,but i have always thought theres something dodgy about how emma stewarts horses run. This offence just reinforces my beliefs. Why,because it shows me they think its no big deal to break the rules. I certainly don't think that the stipes just happened to turn up the first time the stewart stable were doing something illegal.I'm sure it would be a regular occurrence and speaks to the culture of that stable. Also,its says they train 150 horses so obviously they need a reasonable size staff,yet it seems those staff are happy working in a stable that would regularly break the rules. As i said,clearly that stable is dodgy in my opinion. C tonkin was the blue magic man. His father was seen as dodgy. So when they get caught ,i certainly have no sympathy for them. So given i think they are dodgy,thats why i think the animal welfare excuse is a load of rubbish. Dodgy stables put animal welfare behind winning. They do what it takes to win,legal or not. So my comments just reflect what i think.

I see the stewards gave this race a mention in todays report. Well at least they asked him,but that should have occured on the night. They accepted his explanation and said no charges were warranted. They completely ignored the video evidence. If anyone doesn't believe me,just go look at the video and make up your own mind. In my opinion it was as blatant as you will see,ever. I can just imagine what anyone who had that horse in the pick 6 or quaddie or had even a $1/ew on the horse would have been thinking on the night. I always argued that the stipes bore a significant degree of responsibility for operation INCA,because they failed to properly penalise obvious questionable drives.

Your argument is that she was looking after the horses health . I'm saying she would know that part of the reason for the 1 clear day treatment rule was to prevent people administering treatments that can be detrimental to a horses health. all this ,she cares about animal welfare is just rubbish in my opinion. She cares about winning first and foremost. She was willing to knowingly break the rules to achieve that.Behavior like that has consequences if you get caught.She was. I've never said its a hanging offence,ive just said she should be treated the same as the next person.

Therefore i guess you think why did s wigg or cameron jones should have got fines as well? Where was the support for cameron jones? Well there was none because he was a small time trainer. Of course other trainers are disadvantaged by comparison with stewart. Haven't you and gammalite been arguing that the treatment stewart gave her horses. was just to keep them in good health. So given other trainers can't do the same because they are honest and play by the rules,they are being disadvantaged.Its the same in any sport. Rules are rules,whether someone agrees with them or not,they have signed a form saying they will abide by them. You know,you and gammalite suggesting its a silly rule is something even stewart hasn't argued publically. And of course the reason for that is she realises the backlash she would get for suggesting she is somehow special compared with the average joe bloggs.She just using her lawyer to do that. mind you ,thats life,double standards and preferential treatment in many things,not just harness racing. Doesn't make it right though.

Have you read the M walker decision. If you had you wouldn't say the facts are the same because they aren't. M walker had his stable foreman treat 2 horses the DAY BEFORE the races for respiratory infections and the stable foreman did so on the assumption that they would be scratched from the races next day.He was surprised to be told to start one of those horses the day of the races ,but said nothing as he was following m walkers instructions. M walkers explanation was he believed the one clear day rule in nz was the same as singapore. He believed he could have the horses treated the morning of the day before because that was what the 24 hour rule in singapore was.The one day rule started at midday,not midnight. As to you thinking e stewart should gain preferential treatment because she trains so many horses. Heres a quote from the adjudicators,jw gendall and b mainwaring(i wonder if pronounced mannering) in the walker case. "no special treatment should be given to owners,syndicators(large and small) whose license trainer requires to be disqualified. There will always be an impact,whether the trainer has a few or many owners.... but it is because of the licencee's breach of the rules.... ..the adjudicative committe repeats that all in the industry understand that syndicators,large or small,prominent or otherwise with one or several trainers can not be expected to be treated diffeent from others." So there you have the high profile NZ adjudicators saying everyone should be treated the same. Just seems common sense to me.There are victims of stewarts actions. They are all the other trainers who abide by the rules,unlike stewart.

I have read the decision you posted.. It does not say that. It says the possibility of the appeal may result in a variation all the way from a fine tom disqualification. The judge does say he felt the consequences of the disqualification being that 150 horses possibly would have to be moved to a different trainer and that he thought that outweighed the actual facts. In the judges own words,it sounds like he believes scale of operation is reason to treat a big trainer like stewart different from the average trainer. Stinks of one rule for one a big trainer and another for a small trainer.I would imagine that would be how nearly all other trainers would view the judges comments.

Again a misrepresentation of like with like. Read the walker case. His breach was because he thought the 24 hour timeframes for treatment in nz were the same as singapore where he previously trained. They are not.

You stick to that chief,i will stick to every one of them admitting they gave performance enahncers. I have continually referred you to their admissions,the evidence and the press statements issued by the prosecuting attorney's. I don;t know how you ignore that. I guess you do because it doesn't fit what you are saying,, so you just ignore the statements of facts presented in each case in court.