the galah

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.

Whether that is true or not is up to each person to decide. Personally i'm sure its a sign that less people are participating in the sport and by thinking its a good thing, is ignoring that its part of the reason why harness racing is in decline. one thing i've seen following harness racing over the years is the more you get smaller fields with only the same drivers competing in each time,the less exciting harness racing has become. Take southland or auckland for example.The same 9 or 10 drivers drive in nearly every race.They all know each other,often work in the same stable,are related or travel to the races together.. Its only natural that they often try and look after there mates with tactical decisions they make during the running. Also when it comes to oversight by the stipes in these regions it appears the relationships between drivers has an influence on the evidence they may give or penalties they may get. For example read the stipes report from the last race at invercargill yesterday.It says "ramblin rover lay in rounding the final bend and raced in restricted room close to the sulky of Step it up a notch." In reality thats just a clever way of saying b barclay,the driver,took a tight gap and as a consequence got too close to the sulky of the horse in front of him,made conatct with its sulky and as a consequence hindered his own horse which went rough and then knocked over the horse on its inside.Anyone can slow the video down to the point where you can see the contact. Both b barclays horse and the one to its inside checked because of a misjudgement be a driver. The horse checked suffered bad interference . Yet the horse got the blame and a warning for doing something that it clearly didn't do. And why did that happen. I would say its a case of the drivers concerned and the stipes concerned knowing each other and not wanting to be too harsh on them because of that. The point is, i believe the reduction in numbers of drivers or trainers is a bad thing,irrespective of whether they naturally don't have the same skills as the best drivers.Its just a sign that field sizes are down and with that the betting product not as appealing.

$1.90 again for the win price tonight. Seemed higher than you would have thought given he won so easy the 1st night and started off the front again. You have to give credit to the house team. They look after their horses very well and place them where they can earn the most $. Thats what its all about for trainers. W house driving with confidence and making the right moves.

Its a bit like the junior driver concessions that they brought in this year. At the time they were introduced you had the media,commentators,hrnz..everyone saying that it was a way of helping the lesser known juniors get greater opportunities.That it was a great scheme and that it would be a great success. I suggested at the time that it would not achieve that and in reality all it would do was allow a handful of stables to gain reduced rating points for their horses,by putting on juniors that they were giving opportunities to anyway. I suggested if they really were serious about juniors earning more $ in the industry there were better and more effective ways of doing that. Well given we are virtually 11 months through the current year what do the stats show. In 2022 there were 36 juniors who drove. In 2023 there were 45,but of course the number increased mostly because they changed the criteria to allow people already driving as non junior,s to be reclassified as juniors. so dar in 2023(11 months) those 45 juniors have had an average of 105 drives each compared to the 2022 figure of 132. The total number of drives by the 36 2022 juniors currently just exceeds the total number by the 45 2023 juniors. The bottom 21 juniors in 2023 have driben 15 winners while in 2022 the bottom 21 drove 61 winners. So looking at those figures i think its fair to say that ,as i predicted,the change has done little to help the juniors it was targeted to help the most. Sure there have been a handful ot two who have beneffited ,but its clearly done nothing for those at the bottomof the table and less experienced juniors. Giving half points to the horses driven by the juniors that met the criteria has just further,in a small way, created a loophole for the clever to take advantage of an already unfair rating system. Good luck to them,but it does seem unfair overall.

yes hes been a very good to his connections and obviously been well looked after and very well placed. So he won yesterday,but his low rating stays as is,it was a penalty free race if driven by a junior driver.,which he was. If he wins again tomorrow,he will only get a half penalty because of the junior driver thing. So after tomorrow he could end up a 13 win,last 3 in a row,and still be rated less than the likes of one his rivals ,kiss my pixel who has has 1 win and 1 3rd from 9 starts. In reality the 1 win horses should have had a 20m start to be any chance and even then they most likely would struggle. They could have programmed the race like that,but those who programme races simply don't seem factor that in. As a betting product,its just another race where they dish up a red hot favorite. Races programmed are not factoring in money won recently and the emphasis put on junior driver concessions has cmade the system even more inequitable for many. i honestly don't understand why some horses are continued to be trained. They will never get away from running in races that they have no chance. If the systems goal is to race like against like then it is failing.

Wins by 3 lengths under a hold with the 1 win horses well beat. I suppose $1.90 seemed money for jam.I'm surprised it paid so much given it looked such a good thing.

If the tall poppy syndrome was the reason,then how come it doesn't get used against trainers like p nairn,g hope,p williamson,etc, etc? In other words i think your describing selective use of the tall poppy syndrome. And given its obviously selective,doesn't that undermine your idea that it is even tall poppy syndrome...Youv'e got me talking in riddles now,so i will end on that note,but the riddle does make sense.

Whats staring me in the face is an industry where the big races are all won by the same under 1% of trainers when it comes to the pacers. Theres nothing for the remaining 99% to relate to. when it comes to winning the big races,there are no hobby trainers or no trainers with the rest of their team just average horses. There are no role models where the 99% can say,i can do that one day if i get the right horse.The 99% don't believe they can and the results confirm they can't. thats a significant reason why the industry is in decline.It seems to be ignored by many,but once again its staring people in the face if they bother to see it. As we have discussed ,there are many reasons the 1% win all the races,but the perception is perfomance enhancers can make the difference between winning and being an also ran.Thats why the perception around this years trotting cup is not a good result for harness racing in nz. It just reinforces in the 99% what they already think and know.

This horse starts in race 2 today at palmerston north. The handicapping system has him ranked the 2nd lowest of the 8 starters and consequently he gets to start off the front,even though a last start winner at kakoura.From his 108 starts he has won 11 times and had 19 second or thirds. He has won more money and more races than the other 5 horses that start from the same mark have combined. Now he looks a good thing to win given his handicap. But it just illustrates how harshly the three 1 win horses in that race are treated. They have to start from the same mark yet everyone who may watch the race realises they have no chance of beating him.