the galah

I would have thought everyone would have a problem with a cluster of horse deaths in similar fashion from any stable,should it occur.I have no problem with the telfer stable. I think the telfer stable have changed things so they now place the welfare of there horses as top priority. Its a fine line and some put the $ first. You seem to be suggesting a top horse that tries 100% is somehow straining its heart more than a poor one that tries 100%,I certainly don't agree with that. Your right that certain stables have the occasional problem with horses dropping dead. I remember talking to an owner 30 years ago who owned a very promising horse that dropped dead. Apparently the stable had 3 that week. He believed it was a result of some sort of treatment. He never used that trainer again. Then once i was told that a certain product was a good product to use on horses with a virus. At the time it was perfectly legal.But a couple of weeks later it got a lot of publicity ,being trainers were being warned not to use in to close to a race as it would return a positive. Well i was only interested in treating my horse. Not racing. And guess what. the vet i contacted said they had stopped selling it because,in an attempt to improve performance,trainers had been overdosing their horses and killing them. He said many horses had died. Did you not read the new york cases. There was clear evidence that the multiple horse deaths were related to the perfomance enhancers being used.Remember the wire tap when a supplier was recorded as talking about the rene allard death camp. I really can't understand why people prioritise peoples feelings over animal welfare.and turn a blind eye to the obvious

Well speculate is what we both do on bit of a yarn. I add 2 plus 2 and get what i think is 4. I'm just not a fan of the dolan or stewart stables.I started threads on why in the past. But many are. I've seen what i have seen,you can't erase history. I have formed my opinions not on one off occurences but what i believe are patterns. You don't agree. Fair enough.

I guess i will say what most are thinking,but don't bother saying except to their mates and that is, that can happen when you pump things into them. The article goes on about how much they care about their horses, well yes i'm sure they do care a great deal,but they care more about the $. You know,harness racing is strange in how it worries about how the public percieives the sport.They focus on the whip rule but that is so insignificant when you compare it to stuff like horses dropping dead on the track.We all knows its what a very small % of trainers do to enhance performance that is the most obvious thing that is detrimental to their horses long term health. It happened on the same week emma stewart was disqualified for 6 months.Her partner was the blue magic guy. These people are great trainers but often the long term health of horses they train is comprimised. Some may say that p williamson had a young horse die recently,but you have to look at how they die. His horse got sick and died after receiving veteriarian treatment. Its the horses that drop dead on the training track that are possibly the dodgy ones,like amore vita.

number 4 for me thanks

Last year they had 11 starters ,7 of which were from the all stars barn. This year there is only 7 starters and 3 of the 7 are non win 2year olds.2 being from the all stars barn. The leading 2 year old ,chase a dream was taken out of the race a couple of days after his big group 1 race last month. Apparently a blood test taken from him showed he needed a spell. From hitting the line strongly for an outstanding perfomance to needing a spell within a couple of days. I'm certain they know what they are doing,but would be interesting to know what the blood tests showed.Was it his red cell count? The 2 year old colts and geldings trotters race only has 9 starters,4 of which are non win horses. The 2 year old fillies have reasonable size fields. so it seems the perdicted increase in numbers,because of running these big races in december has not eventuated in the last couple of years as was predicted..

I just watched that replay. Nerano impressive. A possible winner of final if he draws well and leap to fame doesn't.same owner as swayzee. I used to follow him over here. I backed him when he won his first race at manawatu,although he was one of those horses that seemed to hang a bit and do just enough to make you think he could win next time with the right run. One of those horses you keep following thinking he had speed,but that you seemed to end up chasing your money on. i just looked it up and see he had 2 wins from 16 starts,1 at manawatu and 1 at addington. I have followed him a little in australia because of that,but haven't taken much notice of who trained him. Certainly looks like he has gone to a higher level recently,especially this week. Has grimson always been his australian trainer?

T wilmas boy is an intersting one. won like a champ first up then never trotting ok last week .i liked judy j in that one although may get too far back as following wrong horse out. Deceptive lee in the last looks tough to beat.

i think looking to blame someone for having a hand in where it all started doesn't achive anything and is just confusing because there would have been no one person.. Also i think it again reflects the "either your with us or against us " attitude that some foster. I think everyone in the sport loves it in their own way and people should just try and do and say what they think is right.Its just on some things,many will never agree. But the one common thing is they enjoy the horses and most of the people in it.

So youv'e found most of the source of where it started.So it had nothing to do with a graeme beirne associate. All down to an owner who contributed to forums like this and ran a private facebook page. All his fault. Well thats clears that up,not.

What they need to do is get permission from the civil aviation authorities and get a couple of those surveillance drones that have cameras and can zoom in from some distance away.You wouldn't want to get too close and spook the horse. Its just common sense to me. They could get one of those for under $10,000 i would guess. I don't think they need one with a loud speaker,but hey just imagine it,put the milkshake and the tube down mr..... No ,probably don't need the loudspeaker;pp But i'm being serious.surely they must have looked into that. It would be a cheap and sensible thing for them to have. They just need to fet the appropraite permission to operate them.That would solve the chiefs concerns of having to hise in a hedge.

you would think that chief,but who is brodie talking about? I understood it was a non industry person who's complaint started the ball rolling. I may be wrong but have never heard of what brodie is referring to. So if someone narks and is telling the truth,why are people afraid of the truth???? Brodie seems to have doubled down on his no narking on fellow industry participants if they are race fixing or doping. Confucius once said something like, you should not set in your mind whether you are for or against someone or something,you should just follow the path that you think is right. Who knows,each to their own i suppose.

Have you seen them in hedges or just using the hedge for cover. I think theres a difference as i would imagine hiding in a hedge like you have suggested could prove a bit tricky if they wanted to move quickly. Flak jackets. do you think thats part of the riu uniform all the time. I don't know but they did say they have gear to record everything now. Perhaps they need flak jackets for incoming.Do you think its because they don't like it up em. perhaps one of them yells out "don't panic" when that happens. Or am i just being a stupid boy. Dads army always one of my favorites. I'm getting a bit off track,but i'm pretty sure the riu didn't spend $14million on inca. On a more serious note,i do think they should be looking at using drones with cameras. Thats the way i would go if i worked for the riu.

I get what your saying,but in my opinion i think things are very honest at the moment myself. I think almost everyone is doing their best to do the right thing whether they be drivers or officaldom. I think the drive we talked about of b hackett that we both commented on was an good example of what you shave said above,but thats auckland and is part of why they are going backwards from a turnover perspective.

I agree with some of what you have said. But i think in reality if you are going to say that,then you also need to be saying the RIU need to be resourced better to properly investigate such things. Its just logic. People on here seem to be arguing that they want the RIU to do the policing(which i agree with),but then in the next breath they infer they should have their funding cut and some staff should be moved on. When you think about it,people saying that don't make much sense to me. i'm no apologist for the riu. I actually contributed and started threads at the time of the johnny white drive(m anderson),the dexter dunn drive on the g anderson horse at forbury,the nigel mcgrath drive and one other which were later to be revealed to have been subjects of investigation. My points back then was where is the proper oversightand penalties for questionable driving and why were high profile people seemingly given different treatment. But i think when you look back,maybe part of the reason was because the riu was aware of the poilce investigation and felt it best to leave it to them.we can only guess. I've also said that i believed they should look into the palmerston north meetings,but it was my opinion that they actually targeted the wrong people and should have been looking more into those from the north island.

The spca did a 21 month investigation before laying charges,then it was about a year after that that they decided not to proceed for the reasons i stated earlier.The police leave the policing of cruelty to animals to the spca.It had nothing to do with the police from what i have read. The main point i was making was you need honest people to come forward if they see what they believe to be major dishonesty which creates victims,whether they be people or animals.Whether what they thought was accurate,at least they were trying to do the right thing. Calling someone a rat infers betrayal,but there was no betrayal in the inca cases that i can see. Thats why i believe brodies comments were more an emotional reaction than a logical one. I understand people wanting to stand up for there mates,but you still have to think logically or it does no good.

The similarities were obvious. After a very long drawn out court process the multiple live baiting charges were dropped because the spca in the end felt the evidence they had did not meet the high threshold to attain a conviction. You should read the many published media stories and the press statements released by the spca. One talked about the huge finanical and emotional harm it had done to Cole. He got off becasue one key witness withdrew his statement,and anothers timeline wasn't accurate as cole was in hospital. The spca said one of the most disappointing things was,although they had evidence, they had approached all past and present staff at the time the live baiting was allefged to have occured,but no more would come forward. So the no ratting thing that you like to see was exactly what occured there despite them having pictures and former employees quoted in the media saying it happened weekly when they worked there. Are you saying the SPCA are keystone cops because they failed to get a conviction?.

when you are saying "ratting on". No idea who you mean but it sounds like your suggesting someone who may have evidence that someone else may be doping a horse or even maybe race fixing,should just keep it to themselves.Forget the victims,keep the no ratting code. So can they mention it to their mates down at the pub,or do you think that shouldn't be allowed? your statement reminds me of the recent live baiting in the greyhound industry. You would have been proud of all those who worked at the cole kennels who kept their mouths shut and allowed that pratice to continue and for no convictions. And what about when the media that got hold of that story and made such a big thing out of live baiting being a known practice and industry people looking the other way. Do you blame the media for that?Just because it contributed to an inquiry into whether greyhounds should even have an industry,at least they kept there mouths shut i suppose. my point is what a silly thing for you to say. As to tarnished reputations. I don't agree with that either . Who thinks Inca has tarnished the reputations of the drivers and trainers who were caught up with inca and ended up getting off.I haven't met anyone who does, so i think its an exaggeration to say that.

Envy. you always throw that in when people comment about stables that are always winning on the big days. Are you channeling mick guerin or john curtin.

Inca has obviously significantly contributed to industry participants awareness of the possible consequences of their actions. Theres no longer an excuse of ignorance and complacency. As i have said in the past,its relatively easy to undersatnd how people who have spent years in an industry watching people and what they do and see rule breaking behaviour that is viewed as acceptable or not policed;then its just natural to think its an unwritten rule, that they could do the same.Thats why i believe everyone caught in operation inca can lay some of the blame at the feet of those from prior decades who did the same things without consequences and the officials at the time that turned a blind eye to such things,depending on your status in the industry or your connections. And also i think its time they had some guildlines as to pathways back into the industry for people outed.There should be some sort of steps people can do to show they are no longer a risk of offending.It obviously would mean more official oversight to satisfy everyone,paid for by those concerned. The pathway back into the industry thing can't be about who your contacts are,there has to be a pathway where everyone in that situation is treated the same. There should also be something like a 3 strke rule introduced where deliberate,(not mistaken) actions make it clear the consquences to everyone.

I don't see there being a need for another operation inca currently and think as long as the RIU are given the resources to properly police the industry and have the backbone to do so,there there should be no need for a future operation inca. Any future dishonest activity should be policed within the industry and each and every time something is uncovered, the industries administrative leaders,including the horsemmans association should come out and condem dishonest activity,even if it involves one of them members. I think thats the way it should be.

like i have said,you have the same views now on things as you did just prior to operation inca becoming public knowledge. You never saw it coming,because you never thought there was anything to see. When it did happen,it all became the riu's fault,and still is there fault according to you and many others.. Well thats your opinion. But like i have said before. Not long after operation inca started,they had a race meeting at nelson. The police were there gathering evidence to see whether there was anything to this race fixing thing. And what happens ,matt anderson drives what most watching believe to be a totally dishonest race,braggs about it to undervocer police.They look at the video and say, hes saying he did something and there it is on the video. And then the police say,hang on a minute,there is something to some of these alleagtions after all. Now you lay the blame for that at the feet of the RIU.Well i have always said,your blaming the wrong people and you and many others still are.

After all this time you would think people would have realised that those involved should be doing a lot of self reflection. For example ,isn't it obvious that those who got caught up in the saga would have and should have asked themselves simple questions like,if i was honest with myself,did any of my actions contribute to what i have been through. It applies to the RIU as well . The only thing about them is i see it differently from many who have posted on this topic. I think they should be asking themselves,why did we not take action when they saw questionable driving. Had they dealt with drives like the forbury drive on the anderson trained horse,then they would have sent a message to all drivers and there would never have been a need for a operation inca. But you can't go back in time. Theres no doubt that consequences have been greater than seemed fair for many. But all those that have posted whose focus has been to put the boot into the RIU,in there own little way have still shown that they have learnt very little from the whole inca thing. On a positive,I agree with gammalite when he said that the drivers who participate in harness racing in nz at the moment are as honest as they have ever been.All drivers,the riu and even operation inca have contributed to that. Long may it continue.

I remember the good trotter,raymauwarrhen sun winning for warren barlett of oamaru as a 13 year old in nz. Not sure about pacers that age or older winning or racing in nz in recent years.

I would guess the person doing the comments has mistakenly looked at the stats of the horse above(no 17) Spells of love(No 18). The number 17 horse has 3 wins and 3 placings from 9 grass track runs and 1 win and 1 placing from 2 runs on the track. Spells of love is back in grade but i'm not sure john dunn driving some of the stable at the moment with the confidence he normally has in them. I watched andy hall today. He was well backed on the tote but made no attempt at any stage to improve. I didn't back him myself,but thought if you had you wouldn't have understood why such a negative drive,especially given he was following a stablemate who moved up. Blair orange seems to have an edge over the rest of the drivers at the moment.5 winners today including, dalness arizona, a 9 year old 97 start 1 win horse.

Its great you seem to have the insight to understand where the industry has come from and where it seems to be heading. No doubt you were exposed to and acquired the love of the horse then got interested in harness racing through an owner trainer(i've read your grandad) and have since gone on to make a profession from the sport. Being able to relate to everyone is a valuable thing. Every small time trainer/breeder/driver that no longer participates,used to have a family who followed their horses and often there were many extended family members who did so as well. Then you add workmates,sporting buddies,etc ,etc and you can sometimes have 20 or 30 people not employed in the industry,with an interest in a race all stemming from the 1 owner/trainer.So for each 1 small time person that no longer participates,many other followers are lost. So people participation,,at all levels and all levels of skills is what used to make the harness sport so strong. The sport has many problems going forward. I used to be more optimistic. I tried to have the attitude that just enjoy my hobby as in my lifetime the sport will still be here and you can only control what goes on in your own we universe. But unfortunately negative impacts have filtered down to even my level and i sometimes struggle to see things positively.I'm not talking decisions made be administrators,just everyday things like the cost of living and even continued bad Canterbury weather. Does it ever stop raining here? thats the problem today,things seem to getting harder while the reward is reducing. I suppose it all comes mindset.Also fatigue does set in too as you get older. Personally i struggle to see where facilities to train from will exist in the future. There seems to have been no investment in the past in that and now land and the cost of setting up proper facilities makes it likely that only the rich can afford to do so. I hope you keep pushing your ideas. You seem smart. I can see your trying to make a positive difference and actually have been able to have some ideas implemented.Thats more than we on here will achieve,but at least this forum does give its contributors a good chance to express opinions. Its good that you are happy to engage in conversations.