the galah

Mid way through last year Hrnz had an independant working group come up with recommendations to "achieve the fairest and most equitable method of handicapping" The independent working group comprised rob lawson,tony thomas,jay abernethy,darrin williams,regan todd,nathan williamson,andrew morris,kevin smith and cameron kirkwood. So these people don't seem stupid,but it doesn't take einstein to work out that no,they didn't " achieve the fairest and most equitable method of handicapping". What they gave us is a system that rates a 2 win horse like Avenger,3 rating points higher than a 16 win horse like superstar legend who has won $145,000 more and who in its last 16 starts has had 4 wins,3 2nds,2 3rds,3 4ths($33500).

correct cyril. obviously your not slow,the reason you can't make any sense of it it because it makes no sense.

Remember ,before answering the above quiz,just remind yourself how clever the people are who came up with our current rating system.

Heres one for you. Which of these michael house trained runners has the higher rating a)superstar legend-16 race winner,stakes $161,000. winner of 2 of its last 5 starts including the highest rating race today. b)warloch- 15 race winner,stakes $226,000 c)avenger- 2 race winner, stakes $16,000

If you look at the trainers still going in the north island i would think they fall into 2 main categories. 1)The big trainers who train form properties they own themselves. 2)trainers who train from rented facilities like racecourses. I'm guessing there may be a handful of other trainers who train from their own property who mostly have small numbers,but you could count them on your fingers. The cost of setting up private training facilities is unaffordable ,except if you are a very big trainer like say stonewall. So realistically you won't be getting any more of them. And the rented facilities like racecourses or training centres,are limited in the numbers they can cater for and people have to live close by to make it practical to use them. So therein i have identified why harness racing in the north island is doomed. Its as simple as that. If you had another 500 people with 1000 horses wanting to train,where would you put them. Nowhere,thats the reality. Mark my words,the same issue will gradually become more obvious in places like canterbury in years to come.Its already a reality,just not on the same scale. And an observation i have made in the likes of canterbury, there are unused facilities on private properites that could cater for more trainers,but nearly all of them the owners would rather not have someone other than themselves use them. Which is up to them,its theirs, if they don't want to. i'm just stating what i think is a blatantly obvious fact ,yet it gets very little attention. Why that is,i've never been sure. Maybe its because there aren't the funds to fix that.Maybe its because some of those people who complain about dwindling numbers,know it exists,but know that stakeholders and licenceholders have no inclination on a personal level to allow a trainer to rent unused facilities they may have. Probably a bit of both.

obviously we see things different. personalities don't come into it for me. I view each race based on what i see. My philosophy is simple. Drivers should be trying to get the best result they can and should drive their horses on their merits to the best of their ability. When they are not it annoys me that they would treat with contempt the very people who all within the industry rely on for their long term viability of the industry.The punter. I also think there is a lack of understanding by some industry participants of the damage they can do to the perceived honesty of everyone within the industry when obvious cases of lack of intent occur. I can guarantee around nz in pubs and in homes more people than normal would have watched the mounga race. That race was a high turnover race,run just before tea on a friday,so it would have had many more eyes on it. To the casual observer and to punters who made mouaga favorite or took him in their multis,i can guarantee their would comments questioning r close intent. So you can think there was nothing wrong with the r close drive and the lack of stipes action.however i would say i am far more in touch with what the average punter or observer with no personal interest in whether r close or r todds feelings may be hurt because of a negative social media comment.

I have to admit,i can see no reason whatsoever for you to say i should compare the sarah o'reilly drive on dashing major today,to the robbie close drive on mounga at westport. On one hand you noted riley harrison overdrove dashing major at westport by moving around the field on an average speed after breaking and losing 50m,then tacking on to the back of the field with about 1800m to go. Yet today,it broke again at the start losing about 10m but because of a good speed set by the leader,only tacked on to the back of the field with about 1300m to go. For you to suggest any punter would expect her to send a $31 shot around the field after finding that it wasn't capable of doing that at westport,well that just leaves me scratching my head as to how you could think that. And for you to say it finished as fast today as mounga did at westport,well thats not accurate.. You may well think they were the same but in my opinion i think saying the 2 are similar is not accurate.

Turns out no. To be honest that didn't surprise me as you had to ask yourswelf ,what the trainer/driver would be thinking pre race. Do they come out and drive it in a way that is the opposite of what it was driven at westport,then people would have said,there i told you so. And if they were happy to just run on at westport,why would it be any different today for thw same stake. The money i thought came because everyone saw how he came home so fast at Westport,so he had to be favorite on that,despite there being obvious ? over todays tactics. He went another very good race. Not as obvious today that he may not have wanted to win. But certainly driven again today in a manner which gave himself no chance whatsoever in winning.The horse did very well to run 3rd after leaving its run so late. If you look at its record. Its 4 wins have all been when taken to the front,so clearly its a good frontrunner. I've always thought its the type of horse they would be aiming at the country cup series with the $100,000 final. They would want to get in off the front so wouldn't want to get too many points beofre hand,but still have to earn enough to get a start. So the way to do that would be the run a couple of places then get a win in the qualifying races.maybe win the cheviot cup or something like that with a bigger stake than today. Now i have no idea whether thats how they think and i'm clearly guessing. However psychoanalysing a trainers thoughts before placing a bet complicates things a bit..

I never said you were ridiculous. I said the scenario's you put forward were ridiculous . In my mind theres a difference,so thats what i meant. Personally i don't think R harrison would have given a 2nd thought to jimmy arma when driving dashing major. She can't really have known it would end up parked. Shes not a driver that i have seen team drive before,but maybe you are right. Harrison was most likely always going to have driven the number 1 horse tomorrow as she normally drives it. As to mounga. I read on the other forum that someone by the name" pure steel" commented this week about an aussie race. He said.."my reasoning is they will win from any draw if driven with a will to win and put in the race". I have always thought that man knows what hes talking about..lol.

Thats exactly how i see it as well walt. mounga had 3 trials and workouts prior to yesterday and there was no doubt that the win was there for the taking had they wanted it yesterday. Personally the todd stable is not one i ever invest on much.Thats just my choice. I've previously commented in my opinion theres an inconsistency to their form. My thoughts are they run their best races early in each preparation and don't hold their form for that long if given consistent racing. They tend to be lightly raced and my guess would be they are always well prepared and have had plenty of work to race well when lining up fresh. Todd is a very successful trainer. I have always thought R Close is an extremely talented driver and like todd,a likeable bloke. But when it comes to betting on him,i never quite know what to expect from him..

My comments on your observations. 1)look at who owns mounga. Some of the most high profile owners and administrators in nz. I would suggest they would be most unhappy to see their horse/trainer/driver drawing such negative attention. However did that provide some type of .. lets not go there...in the aftermath of that race?Also the horse was a significant drifter on the ff. 2)fully agree. Once people have formed a perception about something,it sticks in their mind and rightly or wrongly they view everything through that lens of perception. 3)when it comes to these type of things,its often who the head stipe on the day that equates to action taken. There only appears to be one stipe who will consistently place importance on maintaing punters confidence, by questioning perceived dodgy driving. Just look at who gets charged with these type of offences and who officiates on the day.Theres a definite pattern. 4)thats why we had operation inca.Ironically our leading driver somehow got tied up with that,yet he is the one that has always done the most for maintaining punters confidence in the integrity of the sport. Life isn't always fair i suppose. But the point being when you have one dodgy driver it creates a wider perception that draws others in who may not deserve it. 5)punters are irrelavnt. Thats the message the punters received yesterday. 6)no,but many within harness focus on whats best for them. As to yesterday,punters aren't asking for much from trainers/drivers. Just go out there and try to do the best you can.Why is that unreasonable?

I'm not sure whether your being serious when you say that gammalite? I can't see how anyone could watch that race and come to the conclusions you seem to have,but if your not just being the devils advocate then ,well your entitled to your opinion. As to your comment about having a never ending que if they question every driver that sits back. You appear to be saying that form,favoritism,horses abilty,tactics used and how they actually run on the day are irrelevant. Treat everyone the same you suggest as if they are all warm favorites.If your going to question the driver of a 2/1 shot then you should do the same with a 50/1 shot. Thats just ridiculous to suggest that.You should know that. As to you suggesting riley harrison should have been questioned because she over drove her horse. Thats just ridiculous as well. Sure she over drove the horse,but she was trying. Why would you want the stipes to take action that gives the perception that drivers should not try.The stipes should never ever pursue actions that create a non trying mindset from drivers.She broke and lost ground at the start but tacked on to the back of the field after 600m then made a mid race mover when the pace wasn't strong. Why would the stipes question that?The drive from harrison would be discussed with her by the dunns. Thats the way it should be. Finally i do agree with one thing "you said robbie close drives a lot of races,he should no what hes doing." Yes he does know what hes doing.Thats what makes the drive even worse.

I'll pick race 5. 1&8, race 6. 1&2 and race 7. 9&10

So it seems it was common knowledge that the horse was not trying to win before the race. How dishonest is that stable,knowing it was a warm favorite. But how about this. Unbelievably the stipes in charge at that meeting didn't even give it a mention. So those in the know beforehand knew it wasn't going to try and win,then everyone who watched the race must have concluded it was not trying.......yet the stipes never saw a thing.Astonishing really. I said many times on here that a significant portion of the cause of operation inca was the result of the stipes turning a blind eye to perceived dishonesty,by not protecting the punters interests,instead being more worried about not wanting to upset industry participants. Punters taken for mugs and no one in the industry cares.

Interesting what you heard pre race walt. I agree with everything you have said. There are no winners from the robbie close drive,just losers and in particular harness racing. You know i happened to watch the box seat today. I haven't watched it for a while because i'm not a fan of mick guerin. But on it they went on about providing a "product" that is attractive to the betting public and which encourages punter participation. Well that all makes sense and is well and good,but the elephant in the room is you occasionally have industry participants who sabotage the industry through a lack of intent. Case in point-robbie close and mounga. So no matter what bright ideas people may come up to encourage punter participation,its all a waste of time when the product you are supplying is viewed as dishonest.

Now i didn't bother having a bet today,but i'm glad i didn't because i thought mounga looked a sitter. I was surprised it was such a big drifter ,although it still started a warm favorite. Well anyone who watched that race and backed mounga would have come to one conclusion,the horse was not there to win and they did their money cold. Watching races like that and you can see why people don't bet on the harness sport as much as the gallops. Put simply,they try harder in the gallops each time. Now if someone was to tell me ,well robbie close was trying,but he just drove it bad. Well,,sorry i wouldn't believe it,because no one trying is that poor. He chose to be pushed back and sit last on an average speed when others around him move,and then goes to last on the rails at the 400m. No one is that bad a driver.The speed the horse finished at he clearly would have won without getting out of 2nd gear,but he wasn't there to win was he.

Do you think theres a connection there ranga

tried that and it worked but i'm guessing most people would have no idea that they had to do that as they never have had to in the past. Interesting to read the Sean Mcaffrey failing to give a urine sample. Seems he had trouble on the night,so he says,,so they asked him to attend the cambridge jockey club,10 minutes from where he lives,the next morning,but he never turned up. What strikes me about reading the decision is in the summary it says luk chin thought it a very unreasonable request to ask mccaffrey to turn up to have a urine sample the next day and instead they should have taken a blood sample on the friday. When you read that you have to wonder whats going on with Luk chin when he says that it was a very unreasonable request. Sounds like he was just trying to cover for mr mccafery. Now i have no doubt mr chin is a wonderful human being,but why does he think his mate should get some type of special treatment. I just think the whole thing stinks of people trying to justify preferential treatment when none should be given. Now i'm no expert,but google detection times for cannabis and it clearly says that they use urine tests because they can detect it longer after use,whereas in blood tests it usually leaves the system within a couple of days. So isn't it obvious someone who had smoked weed 3 days ago would want a blood test knowing that it most likely wouldn't show up whereas they would know it would in a urine test. Personally i couldn't care less who uses cannabis,but if you get caught using cannabis then you only have your self to blame.

Interesting observation. To me it was hard to tell from the way he was holding the reins that he had deliberately run out to interfere with the horse outside him,but a telling factor was his horses head was straight as,then all of a sudden went a bit side on, like they do when being steered outwards. Interfered with 5 different horses through its sudden movement outwards. Hard to guess what he was thinking,as has often been the case with him,but perhaps he was trying to give tony herlihy a run who was in behind him. Maybe they are mates. Personally i had been telling someone i know for the last 2 years that mangos had lost it driving wise and couldn't be backed due to his erratic driving.I think there have been many instances of that. I had actually started a couple of threads about it on here. Seems we were seeing a symptom with the cause only coming to light recently.Pressure efects different people in different ways.

Strange that the RIB haven't put any decisions on their website for the last 18 days. Maybe the person who does that has gone on holiday and will get a shock when they come back to find no one has done their work for them and they have a backlog.Who knows but seems strange. Reminds me of the hrnz website not uploading videos of races held, for normally about half an hour after they have been run. If you have an australian tab account you can see the replays within 5 minutes every time. Actually the australian tab website is far superior to the nz tab website in that respect. They have the recent videos of races of each horse next to their form.You don't get that with the nz tab. I've often wondered why the nz tab doesn't have a link on their website for nz harness meetings, where people could click on it and go directly to the the hrnz website and access more form details and videos. Suppose that makes too much sense to be goer. Having said that the hrnz website often seems to have problems when races are on. Last sunday i tried to look at the form on the hrnz website for a few races but it wasn't working every time i looked. You would think when they are looking at ways to improve turnover,that having a website that works all the time may help encourage betting.Just a thought.

I think the clue about mr mangos was in a handful of articles written over recent months by Peter Profit. I'm not 100% sure ,but thats my guess putting 2& 2 together. Mangos certainly drove like an angry man a few months ago,as we noted on bit of a yarn,that night against chilcott when he deliberately ran her off the track for no apparent reason, but in hindsight he obviously was under immense pressure with other things on his mind.. Very sad and two sides to every story,but taupiri wonders observations certinly very relevant. The ben yole thing is nothing but a disater for tasmanian and australian harness racing.Having him and his co defendants still competeing means no one will trust the integrity of all tasmanian harness racing anymore while he is there.

I think your spot on with everything you have said brodie. I, like you, believe in the harness racing product,the horses, the people,but recognise what you have stated is the path we are on unless things change. As far as the handicapping system goes,we have discussed in this thread one of its major drawbacks,namely the same horses winning then quickly dropping back to the same grade they won in,thus being able to race much lower performed horses than themseleves again(often 1-2 win horses). So the answer is simple enough. For every win a horse has in the previous year,when rated 49 or below it shall receive an additional point from its previous rating penalty ,after its 3rd win.A win in a non win race would not be included in that. In other words,retain the current rating penalties for a horses first 2 wins when rated its 49 or below,which say is currently 7 penalty points. Then its 3rd win if it was rated 49 or below at that time,to be an 8 win rating penalty. Its 4th win,a 9 win rarting penalty,its 5th win a 10 win rating penalty. All based on wins in the last 12 months when rated 49 or below.

Your right brodie. Its been so obvious for so long,yet the powers that be have made no changes for some time. In my opinion the current handicapping system is one big joke. What you currently have is a system designed to greatly favour horses who in the past were capable of winning 3-5 races. Trainers race them to run them down the track 5 or 6 times,then they get back in the grade where they can win ,then in another 5 or 6 runs they are back in that same grade again,beating the same 1-2 win horses they beat 6 weeks prior. Bruce negus said that on the unhinged segment when referring to chris kyle who won at rangiora on sunday. The people with the horses who used to be 3-5 horses,think its great that they can win every 6 weeks or so. What is ignored by anyone who supports the current handicapping system is the number of individual horses winning in the below 50 grade is dropping.Its just basic maths. X number of races are run each year. So if horse z is winning 5 or 6 wins a year through going up and down the ratings system and there are more of these z horses about because its rather lucarative for them,then their gain comes at the expense of another group of horses and their owners. So what we currently have is a system which encourages the connections of one group of horses to race and encourages the connections of another group not to race. What people in charge fail to recognise is if someone is battling away,they don't need much of an excuse to say,hey this sport looks after some groups far better than others. To hell with this,there has to be something better to do with my time and money. And that is what is happening. The 2 year old bonus is another example of that. HRNZ somehow think giving the connections of 2 year olds $12,000 bonuses is somehow going to lead to greater participation.Like prioritising a minority over the vast majority is going to somehow be seen as a positive by the majority. I see on the hrnz website last week that they published the findings of a working group which seemed to recognise the current handicapping system is unfair. They recommended it change from the 1st of august. Some of their findings illustrate they are more in touch with grass roots than the decision makers of the past. One thing i didn't agree with was they wanted to make all 2 year old wins penalty free and they go back to being rated non win when they become 3 year olds. Except a small number of the bigger races. Now that makes no sense to me. The reason being its just another scheme like the current handicapping system where the number of overall lindividual winners will be less,because horse z will be winning more of the races. At the end of the day ,the current handicapping system has been operating now for a few years. Ask yourself,has it stopped the decreasing number of owners/trainers/horses.

i will pick race 1 2&4 race 2 1&2 race 3 3&7

I think if gerard o'reilly was intent on leading then he should just have let dunn go to the front then come out of the trail before orange did,and take the lead back.Just driving at a consistent pace throughout that manoeuvre. But of course thats easy for me to say after the fact,but it still was a good option at the time. I agree its interesting to share different takes on tactics used.