the galah

gee its in to $6.50 and a $1.60 a place. i'm a bit like nowornever. I too have backed it,actually in its last 4 starts. It just never had much luck and last start it was taken on and in the end the driver handed up the lead with 900m to go and i felt that wasn't a great move and the horse just knocked off a bit then.It may have run a place otherwise. But $6.50 its now paying is too short for mine. The fields a handy field,but on its best form for r holmes could place. it always gave me the impression its a trier and willing so it wouldn't surprise me if it had been working well for the new stable. I would guess it used to be a good track worker for homes as well. That harriets moment does have clearly the best recent form,but its only paying $2.30 now which is not a price i would back it at myself as its a bit one paced and needs to be driven with a bit of aggression in a race like that to ensure the race is run to suit and thats not ideal. that race theres 3 or 4 payinga bit over the odds,i guess due to the support for the 2 favorites. actually i always thought that midnight diamond would be an ideal manawatu horse once those meetings start up again. The likes of house or dickson could win $20-30,000 over 6 months up there if it ran up to its capabilties and maintained good manners.

As long as they have plenty of funds to run those 5 horse 2 year old races,with all the bonuses,i'm a happy man. I guess it will be the tuesday type meetings at addington that have gone? If thats the case i suppose it would indicate what we already know about hrnz's priorities. Just a guess,but those who competed at those meetings will see that,realise they were right all along in thinking they are not a priority for hrnz. whats new i suppose.

So your saying jones and house had blazing knuckles and super fund at their invercargill satelite stables,trained them in invercargill, then transported them back to canterbury to race and trial in july, without racing in southland. Gee they would be racking up the transport costs wouldn't they. So thats what you believe i guess. . And your saying the likes of house has always had the horses he had based in invercargill,shown under m house,invercargill. Why then has he previously advised they are with the likes of t dewe,when they were all along at his invercargill base,like you say.

also,the coalition for the protection of greyhounds websites,keep regularly updated stats as to greyhound deaths and injuries on the tracks within australia.. e.g. 73 on track deaths and 6280 injuries according to their website,so far in 2025. it lists specifics. for each death. you can see most of the deaths are a result of interference. so its sort of different in a way to horse racing, the actual racing is a lesser factor that causes the deaths or injuries to the horses. Especially harness,they have very few deaths due to racing.That comment is not to lessen the horse deaths,just an observation.as to when they occur.

the greyhound NSW inquiry,which was to ensure a viable and sustainable future ,is suppoised to release its report by today,(31/7/2025).Previously the report date had been extended twice for several months,due to the volume of submissions and evidence taken at the hearing. that will be interesting reading.

You would assume HRNZwill use the same reasoning behind reducing canterbury meetings,to how they assess the number of north island meetings.I guess this will be another lesson on HRNZ's honesty and fairness, in how they treat different regions. LOL. Doesn't sound good for the northern district which continue to run meetings with small numbers that generate big losses. maybe lose a couple of dozen northern region if addington has lost 4?

i was listening recently to brad steele interviewed on the alumni racing show. I think the interview was dated about 3 months ago. what struck me was mr steele seemed to genuinely believe what he says. I.e.That harness racing in nz has so many positives happening and things are shaping up well for the future. I had thought he was just someone who always talked positive,irrespective of the realities of whether that was the case or not. so the answer to why he always paints a picture was staring us in the face. personally I didn't recognise it, because i thought it is such an unrealistic outlook for anyone to have. but hey,how about that .

the field size thing is so obviously caused by the small number of horses trained in the northern region. so no point expecting anything to change in that respect. so the real question is are they going to continue to dilute the product be running the number of races they do. i understand the reasons they are trying to run more meetings,there are several positives for doing so, but there are also many negatives, such as diluting the product which leads to a less attractive betting product which leads to less turnover and greater losses ,given the stake level being paid.. really ,realistically the current way they are doing things is obviously unsustainable. Its surprising that those in charge have not already realised the obvious.Hopefully theres a workable compromised solution in a different form that maintains the positives and reduces the negatives. However ,hrnz seem to be doubling down on unsustainable and have instead expanded the running of more meetings everywhere. Just look at southland,they run extra meetings over the winter and claim thats an overall success,wothout even knowing how that will impact horse numbers or longevity,over the next 12 months. And of course they also need to evaluate whether the extra southland meeting turn into profit or loss generating for the industry. from a betting point of view. I'm not a big punter anymore,but i have changed my focus over the last 12 months to south island galloping meetings,because they are a far better betting product. Especially the synthetic track meetings as the form is very consisten, with the fuller fields and being run on consistent track conditions. The grass tracks are consistent enough as well,you just have to categorise the form based around prevailing traxck conditions.I would rather prioritise the harness,but 7 horse harness races run on tracks with a leaders bias and with a $2 favorite just don't compare the 12 horse galloping races with $5 favorite,like you get currently in the south island. The south island gallops have stakes almost double what you get in harness and over double in betting pools for comparable races, because they haven't diluted the product with excess race meetings.

i think the problem was the people who designed the southern surge conditions,apparently the southern people,appeared to want the likes of house and jones to support their meetings regularly,but exclude them from the opportunity to race for the southern surge stakes. Like i said at the time they announced thoses condition clauses. why the double standard from southland. They happily enocurage trainers,who they hardly ever see throughout the year, from outside the district, to come and compete in their high stake racedays and yet they want to exclude trainers who regularly support their low stake racedays throughout the year,when they have a mid stake day. So really,the trainer locations shown was a symptom of an unfiar cause. So the people who designed the clauses,which hrnz said at the time was the southern people, are the ones who should get the blame,in my opinion.

well it looks like the souther surge has turned out to be a successful promotion. over double the number of horses racing at the meeting this week in southland, than what raced at the same time last year. What surprises me is that the amount of horses racing ,who have already been racing most of the year. One thing i've noticed over the years is horses who have previously raced most of the year,then keep racing over winter,well theres a pattern ,which is their form will drop off once it warms up,if they keep racing. Which seems predicatble as racing and training in winter is harder on a horse. But the southern surge has brought all the southland horses out of the woodwork. The next question will be,how will that impact the numbers running later in the year. They aren't machines. Also, How come the likes of michael house and mark jones are now recorded as training from invercargill. They have obviously found a way of getting aroung the only horses south of the waitaki clause. the clauses said-the horses had to either be based with a trainer domilciled south of the waitaki as at 1 july or trained by a trainer located south of the waitaki. So obviously looking at the horses house and jones have entered ,they were not based with a trainer as at 1 july as they were racing in canterbury. so that means HRNZ have changed it to show that house and jones are now located in invercargil. In other words it appears whereas previously they always said they were located in canterbury,but the horses under the care of a southland trainer,they are now saying house and jones are actually located in invercargill.. Has the souther surge resulted in a change in how HRNZ now record where trainers are located. Like if i any trainer was to go on holiday in invercargill for a month,and take their horses ,does that mean they can get their training base changed to show invercargill and thus qualify for any area limiting southland series. I guess so.. another strange thing that seems to be occurring at hrnz. One of many.

i agree its obviously easier watching on tv. i don't agree theres always penty of hard luck stories behind you if you win one. I'm happy to debate what i think are the most important qualities needed to be a successful driver.. 1)assessing the current form and abilities of the horse your driving and how that compares with those in the same race. In other words driving the faster horses in any particular race gives you more tactical options than if driving a horse of lesser abilities. 2)being able to judge pace is a very important skill for any driver-obviously knowing when to make a move based on tempo in a race and having the ability to drive a horse at a consistent speed is important. Horses are like cars,if you drive them stop /go they will run out of gas earlier than if you driver them at a consistent speed within their comfort zone. 3)confidence-drivers need self confidence in their own abilities as well as their horses abilities. 4)Making split second decisions is something the drivers who are out there a lot,have a natural instinct of getting right. But to blame any poor decision making on having to make spilt second decisions at points of the race where the horses have run in the same posiotons for some time,well thats just a poor excuse in my opinion.In every race every driver would be constantly assessing whats going on around them ,how their horse is travelling and what they anticpate will be their next move and the next move of those around them. They will be thinking what plan b and c are if plan a isn't able to eventuate because of where they are positioned in the run. 5) important is whether horses run for you. Some horses will run for anyone,some not,but most are in between. Horses think like people. For example,drivers may be assessing the horse as they stand beside them before they get into the cart,when they warm up and when they run the race,but it works both ways. The horse will be assesssing the driver,especially in the warm up.Some horses can be just as complicated as people in how they think. The horses also feed off the confidence and expectations of the driver.I'm certain,that horses,especially those who have raced a bit,know when they're in with a chance and will try ever so hard,but they also realise when they aren't in with a chance and will look after themselves. I'm sure a good genuine horse wants to win as much as the driver and they are the easier ones to drive,but there are others who can bludge a bit if they have a negative driver or a driver with no confidence.The bludgers tend to get that way because of a(vconsistent negative driving or b)they aren't good enough and don't want to overstrain themselves. A good horse will get just as pissed off with interfernce as a driver may. I remember we once had a horse who 3 weeks in a row,copped interference and bad checks through no fault of his. He was a kind,gentle horse,but i remember the 3rd time in a row he came back in and was so pissed off .he was biting and kicking out,totally out of character,just pissed off with the interference he had got at the start. 6)finally,obviously very important for the driver,is how the trainer presents his horse on the night. Again,how the horse views its trainers is a factor. A horse who wants to plase those that train it is a far easier horse to drive than one who doesn't get appreciated and feels undervalued by it trainer.And if a trianer has switched said horse on by giving it the right type of work,then its easier for the driver. but of course at the end of the day,everything can be a positive,but if the horse isn't fast enough it still won't win.

You say j grays horse wasn't going good enough at the time he switched off its back, to get boxed in to its inside. Well if you stop the video at the 300m point when b wilmmot switched to the inside,which i have,j garys horse was only a head behind the horse to its inside.Thats why it seemed such an obvious no brainer decision to pull to his outside and take the clear run. I mean it was pull out and your in the clear,or pull in and hope j grays horse stops. then, 100m later the reason why wilmott switched into a gap between horses,that quiclky closed as maynnard let his horse drift in,was because the j grays horse was still boxing him in. Shortly after that,it got to the point where the 2nd gap to the outside came ,but wilmott was already commited to talking an inside run amongst horses. but as you say,we all see things differently sometimes.

its very odd isn't it. In theory ,the conditions of sundays race could have seen a 1 win, 100 start trotter, who hadn't won for 5 years and was also driven by a concession junior,having to give last start winner,origin, a 20m start in that race. Or the 1 win 100 start trotter,could have been driven by a driver who hadn't driven a winner in 10 years,but wasn't a junior. And had that horse won,it would have got double the penalty rating points origin would have got for winning.

heres the simplest way to put it for you taku. what they did was they implemented a rule which allowed for "the handicapping process to change form its original state to one regarded as debased from sportmanship." the exact definition of corruption and thats based on what you said. (not me)i.e. taku are you now withdrawing that comment. Maybe your now saying they shouldn't be specifying any such allowable programming change in any race programming,as people should know how it works. lf thats the case,then how did that go for them,going by this thread and all the negative comments. And back to mark jones point,how is it fair or sportsmanlike to have a race like they had where other 1 win horses never had a chance of a let up ,even if they had been driven by the very person who drove origin on sunday. And why should a horse who wins a $16,000 race be treated better than one who's won a $10,000 race a few days prior. here i was,starting off by saying i thought that race was an example of a positive change in the new handicapping system,as it allowed horses who struggle in the 1 win grade to drop back to non win races,thus retaining their participation,when all along it wasn't.lol.

How many times do i have to state the definition of the word corruption. Why are you ignoring the defintion. Its not me who makes up the defintion of words. "the process by which a word or process is changed from its original state to one regarded as erronous or debased." i don't know,perhaps your unsure of the definition of the word debased. It means.. reduced in quality or valued. and gives the example..the debased traditions of sportsmanship. If your confused as to defintions of words i've used,just google them. You've lost me to be honest. I started out saying that you would think the original wording in the programming allowed such a change,then you came on and said no. I quoted what you said above to highlight that. so i said,well ok maybe your right and what they have done falls within the definition of the word corruption. Anyway i suggest you go look up google or a dictionary. i do get what your saying .i.e.they don't need to state any such clause in any race programming.

can you name one similar example to what happened on sunday, or any other race where junior drivers have replaced other declared drivers to gain let ups as a reseult of changes to pre published race conditions.

Well its you who is saying they changed the conditons of the race after the horse won.. You said there was no such condition originally.( I've referenced what you said below) To change means alter/modify,so using your words,there was never a provision for a let up So why are you now saying its ok to change the race conditions after the fields come out? where's that in the rule youv'e quoted? And i quoted the definition of corruption "the process by which a word or process is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.". so thats why i said it falls within the definition of the word corruption,based on what your saying. And this whole non win/1 win isn't the crux of the argument. As if we go by what your saying,then whats to stop them altering any race conditions after the race when the fields are out. For example what to stop some horse in a mobile 1 win race winning,then them changing the conditions of another 1 win race that its accepted in 2 days later to allow the junior driver concession penalty. ,and so on. really,lets cut to the chase,your seem to be implying that its within the rules to have many future examples of preferential treatment happening, irrespective of what type a race is being run. so why do they have a rule that can be manipultaed by someone,i.e. the handicapper,to give preferential treatment. And its very obviously preferential treatment. As pointed out by you,not me,they specifically altered the conditions of sundays race to exclude the other 1 win horses from getting a let up if driven by a concession driver.

c wigg given a 4 month suspension for making her own horse fall over and m maynard 1 month for running in up the final straight. They do seem to penalise the amateurs for too long in my opinion. 4 months is a long time . neither does anything to change my opinions expressed earlier in this thread.

well,i'm now consideing there is the possibilty that they put that condition in when the fields came out,that is prior to origin winninng on friday. now i not saying that happened. i don't know.Others on here are saying,defintely not that. But it does seem the only likely available escape route for those who handicapped that race,otherwise it seems corruption and favoritism,if whats alleged is true.. I just find it hard,even with my sometimes lack of confidence in how they run hrnz,,that they couldn't possibly be that dumb as to score an own goal of that magnitude. Could they really be that stupid? Especially when they have people like mark jones already criticising the handicapping system and people. But even on best case scenario for hrnz,the other 1 win horses were still excluded from being able to take advantage of starting off the front, if driven by a concession junior,like origin was Does the owner or trainer of origin have some connection to the handicappers. or maybe someone at hrnz has deliberately sabotaged the handicappers ,so as to look corrupt. corruption-i just goggled its meaning to confirm its the appropriate word"the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regareded as erroneous or debased" seems thats the right word if what everyone is saying is true. what more can you say.

also,when m jones said origin,a 1 win horse got to start off the front when the other 1 win horses were made to start off 20m,well thats not true They also could have started off the front had they put concession junior drivers on. Unless what taku said is true. Maybe thats why taku has said what he said. Hes interpreted what mark jones has said as meaning that,when mark jones unintentionally left that possible inference open to interpretation,without meaning to. we will just have to wait and see if anyone clarifies it so we know for sure either way.. Also,if mark jones isn't happy with concession drivers getting drop backs ,then i have no problem with that. I don't believe in them either. I think drop backs should be based on a horses form and $ won ,not concession drivers. But i would point out the handicapping of drop backs for concessions drivers has always been around. Its nothing new. the only thing thats new is, they have realised it should aplly to 1 win horses as well,which to me is fair enough. having said all that,i think its good that mark jones is out there debating these things. Hes trying to help. And hearing both sides of the argument allows topics like this be discussed properly. People should always feel free to express their opinions,especially people like m jones.

Just to clarify what your saying .as your making some serious allegations. Correct me if i'm wrong,you've just alleged above,after origin won at addington,they changed the race conditions of todays race,thus giving preferential treatment to the connections of origin. Thats a serious allegation taku as it would mean favoritism and corruptuion on a scale i've never heard of before. if true then why didn't mark jones allege that. He doesn't say that,he just says they allowed davis to change the driver after the driver notification time had elapsed,due to davis realising that since he won on friday,he could get to still start off the front today with a concession junior on. i also doubt p davis would want any part of what you are say taku. Hes very honest and wouldn't want to be seen to be getting preferential treatmant on the scale you have alleged. I can get why he may want to change the driver... so all thats different from what you say taku, so perahps you had better check that out as what you have said seems a tad unbelievable.

yes your right ,some of the amateurs are hard to predict. But we don't criticise average drives. They have to be really poor to get a special specific mention on here,except maybe forbury's posts.

i get what hes saying. i.e. Its unusual for a 1 win horse to get to start off the front in a non win race. But i disagree with what hes saying about the new handicapping . i just had a look at the conditions of todays race and it states any 1 win horse could have started off the front if driven by a concession driver. Now its obvious why they have done that. They have been trying to give 1 win horses who are struggling to be competitive in the 1 win grade,a chance to run in a race where they may have a chance. In other words,don't retire ,sell or get rid of that horse, because we are going to try and keep the numbers up that are racing, by providing all horses that have enough ability to win a race opportunities to race in races where they aren't outclassed.For example theres 1 win horses around who won non win trots at addington tuesday meetings with winning stakes of $4400. Doesn't mr jones want to see those horses and their connections stay in the game?Its not all about the bigger stables who have owners who pay the bills.. As i've said before,those type of horses are the ones who aren't being catered for in the previous handicapping system. I don't quite get why mr jones can't see that.. possibly they could have placed a condition on the stakemoney won when providing that concession,but why bother when any 1 win horses around who have not won in a long time who deserve an opportunity like todays race . as to the driver,well if a driver has to be declared by 1.00pm on thursday,then that hould be it. Just because a trainer realises he could start a horse off the front after the closing time for declaring drivers,if he puts a concession driver on,well that should be his hard cheese. he should have read the conditions of the race. so if they changed the driver when they shouldn't have well mr jones is right about that,but i don't know whats that got to do with the the handicapping system like mr jones infers.

personally i've watched it a few times and place no blame whatsoever on maynard, for willmitt not getting a run .. Sure maynard came in slightly and m house came out slighty,but why did wilmott not just come to the outside with 400m to go and take the clear run and why did he not come to the outside of maynard with 200m to go and take a run you could driver 3 buses through. B willmott used to be one of the better amateur drivers but when he went professional he drove the same each time,just pull back,look to take the shortest route and never move up and while the horses he was driving were of limited ability,you could tell the horses weren't trying for him.. i made comment to someone about that a year or so ago. To be honest i just thought he had such a negative approach to his driving because he thought he was on horses with limited abilty,but,he hasn't changed even now hes getting some better drives.Its like he lost all his confidence when driving in the professional races.He needs to drive to give is horses a chance to place by positioning them in the best spots, when those spots present themselves. And when you have a choice of pulling out and being 100% certain to get a clear run,you do that instead of taking the option where you have a 25% chance of getting a clear run.its not as if he had to make spilt second decisions that driver s have to often,today he had 10-15 seconds time to think about the 3 decisions he could have made in that race today and made 3 very poor tactical decisions. oh well,i may be analysing him harshly,but i think i'm just being realistic.. really punters should expect better.

I backed don juan as well. i know i had sworn off betting on amateur races,but i've been following don juan waiting for the right race and today i thought it looked a certainyon recent form. all he had to do was take any opportunity to get to the outside. well i hadn;'t factored in the b willmott facotor. Well,b wilmott down the straight had 250m to come off the inside,but no he thought to himself,lets sit here and get boxed in. Then when c wigg tried to push off when there was no room on a horse who's known for often going rough under duress,don juan got a lucky run, as c wiggs horse understandably fell over and took the horse bedside don juan out as well,presenting don juan a gap. so what did b wilmott do,well he pulled out but that incredibly stupidly with 400m to run,made a decision to pocket himself again by going inside behind a wall of horses instead of coming outside where even blind freddy could see there was a clear run. Well again b willmott had some luck, as the horse that looked to have pocketed him in, dropped off 200m later,again allowing a run to the outside,so what did b wilmott do,he again went inside . I'm with you newmarket,that was just shocking driving. It doesn't get much worse. my wife reckons he wasn't trying. She said no ones that bad. But i think in this case,he was trying and it was just incompetence.