the galah

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.

A recent example of why your suggestion of relying solely on testing is a failed approach are the New york/usa cases that i have posted multiple times about. All those people(29) either pleaded guilty or were found gulity and jailed for years and stripped of their assets. yet none were picked up in testing. The chief would say,well they were all just mugs who thought they were buying performance enhancers,but because they didn't return positives they were unkowingly being sold snake oil. testing is a tool,but as those that investigated the new york cases said,its the boots on the ground that is the best tool to catch people who act dishonestly. thats just reality.

So you seem to have just said your advocating no rules for raceday treatment. Does that mean your happy for anyone to turn up to the races with their pre mix of hartmans solution and a bucket and tube. Or do you think they should do that in the float or at the stables before they come?Wouldn't want to create the wrong impression. Nothing illegal in my milkshake,just take a blood or urine sample and i'll prove it. Thats funny as,but seriously i think your advocating something that would kill the sport off quicker than happens in a knife fight in a phone booth. Also you seem to have just said that if someone is using performance enhancers then you have every confidence that anything illegal will get picked up in testing.I know the chief says that,but surely your not being serious when you say that. Why can't people just play by the rules of fair play. Is that too much to ask?

What i'm saying is the content of the drip is a red herring. The focus should and is on the raceday treatment People who take chances and get caught just have to deal with it. They have knowingly done something with possible consequences.I can understand her trying to get as light a sentence as possible. Makes sense to me if i was her.Same priciple as the raceday treatment. Doing something that helps her. Just one is legal and reasonable and the other isn't.

I can never understand that you think people knowingly break the raceday treatment rules,believeing they are not helping performance. That she has risked her livelihood and reputation,when believing she was gaining no advantage from such actions. I mean,surely no one thinks anyone even exists that is that thick.

tact macleod actually went a very good race and ran the 3200m in 3.58.9. remarkable that a horse having only its 6th start and only its 2nd run in 9 months, could run that well. Running a race like that will have taken a toll on that horse. Maybe not straight away,but it will sooner or later. Hes a meister and robyns playboy were the last 2 to finish today.At least they are hardened campaigners. I see they are supposed to back up in the $25,000 gore cup in 5 days time. They would have been chances in that race,but i'm guessing that no longer the case. But its things like that that added to what was a very interesting days racing.

That race is the catalyst for casting doubts in the minds of punters in any race where you see d butcher make tactical decisions that don't appear obvious. In other words..well i've seen him do it before,so did he just do it again? Thats the perception that race will create last night for people who watched it. The north island stipes just ignoring the drivers tactics also casts doubt on the oversight of the integrity of the product that people may be spending money on throughout nz. I really don't understand why things like that happen. It damages the perception people have of the sport and of those involved. I just don't get it myself. What else can you say.

Just had a thought. I wonder if theres a junior drivers race next week that if he happened to win would be a penalty free win for him. so i just looked it up and sure enough there is one. were punters being taken for mugs again. my guess would be yes.

I watched turnpike joe to see how he ran in this race as he was the recent topic of conversation on here. It had thought the last thing he would want to do is win,as he would be crucified ratings wise if he won.I certainly thought he should not have been the favorite because of that. I did however assume he would appear to be trying. Well after watching the race,i don't really know whether he was or not. I certainly know anyone who watched the race would think turnpike joe was driven to lose,but who really knows. What i find amazing is that the north island stipes ,once again,fail to even question d butcher on his drive. If you want a reason why people don't back on north island harness racing. Just go look at that race and then read the stipes report.

seems to like ashbuton. Has won the last 3 times its started there.

All that makes sense. So you've just said "the handicapper and cambridges michael douglas ....have judiciously used their discretion." Judicious meaning good judgment or good sense. Reality is more often than not ,1 win horses are not treated with judicious discretion. So why not change the rating system so as to give them a fairer more realistic rating in the first place.R50 is too high.Treat the cause not the symptom. Also if they are to continue using discretion,how about some consistency. Also why are some horses able to use half penalties for concession junior driver wins over and over again. Not that i agree with it, but why not limit it to 1 per horse and if they are to keep that rule then make it up to the juniors 100th win. Also why are some horses able to win a penalty free race each season. Why not limit it to one like they used to. Why do they have such systems when they complain about not having enough higher rated. After all they are helping create that problem. also those who design the rating system use the logic that a 2 year old or 3 year old need half penalties because they progress too quickly if given full penalties per win. So it matters to them,so why the double standard for 4 year olds and older. Why don't they matter:

So if turnpike joe's rating of r50 is fair,then why have they programmed a race where he can start against the much lower rated horses. If the rating system was fair,why not just have him run in his own rating band? Them having to programme a race like that is clear evidence that the ratings system can not operate fairly just based on ratings. Isn't that obvious?

Using the horse you refer to,turnpike joe as an example,we could look at him and say,what happens if he happened to win. Well he would be penalised i think 3 or 4 points,as being a 3 year old he gets reduced rating penalties. If he was older he would be penalised more. So he would end up having run 4 times for 2 wins and be rated 53 or 54. Compare that to say katies princess who runs earlier in the night. If she happened to win,i assume she gets the win penalty free as she hasn't won a penalty free race this season,just last season. Anyway katies princess,if she wins her rating stays a r48 with a record of 6 wins and 8 placings from 29 starts.Thats significantly lower than the horse who had only 2 wins. In fact hypothetically katies princess could win its next 3 in a row driven by L hibelll,thus becoming an 8 win horse from 31 starts ....and still be rated no higher than the 4 start 2 win horse turnpike joe.And thats remembering turnpike joe would have got the 3 year old concession. If Turnpike joe was a 4 year old,katies princess could win 4 in a row,become a 9 win,8 placing horse from 32 start and still be rated no higher than a 2 win 4 start 4 year old. As brodie says,there are actually worse examples than that.

Looks like they have the best betting fields they have had all year. Like most places,draws are important as its such a front runners track.No point backing anything drawn wider if they go back at the start.Those drawn the second line chances hinge on whether the horse they follow out on the front line goes forward or not. If not they may as well go home. The worst thing about the racing down there is all the mobiles are always 2200 or 1700m races.They don't seem to run 2700m mobiles anymore and that is why luck with the draws is more of a factor. Tact macleod, a 2 win, 5 start horse by sweet lou seems a strange entry to run over 3200m against beach ball and self assured. Doesn't matter how well he may well run,there seems as much chance of downside to upside in running. Also with some of the summer country cups races coming up down there,it seems others who have put in late entries run the risk of over extending their horses before they get to compete in races that would suit better. Still all that will make for interesting viewing on friday afternoon/evening. Weather wise they seem to be forecasting warm days there,except on raceday where they currently forecast only 16..Lets hope the forecast is wrong and they get a fine/warm day as we know the weather is always the biggest factor in crowd size.

I was getting jeremy young mixed up with brad mowbray, brad mowbray was stable foreman for geoff small. Jeremy young,i asssume is the same jeremy young who worked for the all stars and was auckland reactors constant companion wherever he went. Young travelled to the USA with auckland reactor,spending time in new jersey where auckland reactor was initially based.