the galah

Whatever

No,obviously you haven't read what i posted. just to remind you the very first sentence of what i posted when i started this topic. In fact i repeat that point 4 times in my first post. I even gave what i thought was a logical solution and suggested non winners should start on 40,not 50. perhaps,next time, you should read what i have said before calling me ignorant.

Actually,to put some perspective on the stakes increase side of things. It was only 7 months ago they reduced stakes by 10%. So in reality the stakes won't be much more than they were last year.

Reading the breakdown of the new increase in funding,it seems increases in stakes aren't necessarily guaranteed in all races.. It seems to be up to be the clubs how they use the funding. For example it says a club could run a several $9,000 races and use the increase funding to increase the stake of a couple of higher class races they run on the day.Lets hope clubs spread the increase amongst everyone and not just a couple of races. The bit i like is the breeders bonus. It says every time a filly or mare run in a race restricted to fillies and mares they earn a credit if they run in the first 3 and that credit can be used by that mare when she is bred. $1000 for first,$300 2nd,$200 third.The exact cost of that funding may be a little hard to predict,but it seems worthwhile as long as clubs run those type of races for the lower grades so the grass roots owners get some benefit. After all,they are the ones that need encouragement to breed. It also has a bit which rewards those whohave bred to nz bred stallions,although there aren't many of them around.

The tab attracting new customers and the tab attracting new customers to betting on racing are two different things. The TAB in their latest annual report predicted this... revenue in 2023 improves compared to 2022 due to growth in sports betting and a return to full operation of retail sites. Revenue performance through to year 2025 reflects continued growth in sports betting whilst other revenue items(racing) remain broadly stable. ...so clearly the tab doesn't believe attracting new customers will lead to an increase in new customers for horse racing. When they sell the "getting new customers who bet on sports,will see some bet on racing",they never also point out that the more sports betting is promoted the more likely those who bet on horse racing will spend some of their betting $ on sports.It works both ways. If you look at the stats they say worldwide,sports betting makes up 30-40% of all gambling. Now,sports betting is mostly done on line,certainly far greater than racing.The area where its recognised the greater % of problem gambling comes from is on line gambing. Thats why when you hear the government talk about taking steps to limit gambling harm,you have to take that with a grain of salt. As after all,they are quite happy to allow the likes of the nz tab go down the path of promoting growth in on line betting through their deliberate policies. Also the stats say those who bet mostly on racing are aged over 45,whereas those who bet on sports are aged under that,especially in their 20's. Now given the growing area of problem gambling is in the younger age bracket,then it just makes sense that there is a direct link to sports betting creating greater problem gambling.The point i'm making is the tab and the government say one thing but in reality do another when it comes to gambling harm.Its all just hot air to me when you look at the stats.

Just shows how ignorant you are of what i have been saying. The point i have been making and continue to make is how unfair it is when a non win horse wins its first race because of how high it was initially rated(50),especially if it hasn't had many unplaced starts. Anyone with any grasp of how the current rating system works would understand that.Obviously that has gone completely over your head. It seems even people like the whale don't get it sometimes.On sunday he has tipped winnyzback,a 2 start horse who he labels a clear rating special because it is a r50 horse in a race for r35-44.. He states hes not sure how it got into the race.What he fails to point out are the top 3 rated horses in that race are the ones with the least number of wins and clearly the least stakes earned. Obviously its a race where 1 win horses are included in the conditions of eligible starters.Furthermore,If winnzyback were to win on sunday and receive a full penalty and the same races were carded at addington next week as this week,he would have to start in the race against ardies express,lifes a beach,american me ,evangilist,etc.

But it never raced on the 13th. It just appeared in the stipes report on the 13th as that must have been the closest meeting to when the trainer notified the stipes of its treatment.They put it in there so punters would be notified of that as soon as they had found out. I get your point. Many punters who follow press play would have missed that which is why you are suggesting it would help if there is another way of making such information available.

I guess it had its hocks injected sometime after its previous race on the 16th of june and the trainer advised the stipes of that close to the 13th of july,which is why it appeared in that stipes report. ranga's suggestion seems reasonable. I've always thought each horse should have a treatment record history on their profile.That way dates and times and types of treatments would be available for anyone to see. I'm no expert on hock injections,but the date that occured must be of relevance as there must be an optimum time after treatment when they are there most effective. Those hock injections,were they such a common thing in the past or is it just more noticeable nowdays because they have to be notified. Are horses more susceptible to carrying soreness nowdays and why is that,or is it just trainers rely more on vets to assist in maintaining their horses soundness and if so,why is that needed?What does it all cost as no vet treatment is cheap .

I see not quite as many non winners in the top rated % this week,but last weeks sunday meeting at addington was again proof how badly non winners are currently placed in the handicapping system. 88 horses started. 25 of those were non winners. So who were the highest rated horses to start on the day?. The answer was a staggering 90% of the top 20 rated horses for the day were non win horses. So the least performed,non winners made about 28% of the starters,yet provided 90% of the highest rated.Rather farcical.

On sunday,darryn simpson used his whip once,while not holding the rein. For that he got a 12 week suspension. Apparently the criteria is they work out the number of days suspension deemed appropraite,in this case 6,then multiply it by 2 weeks for amatuers. Mr simpson is one of those drivers(of which there are many) who are having a bit of trouble adjusting to the whip rules. But was a 12 week suspension reasonable? In my opinion, what these type of suspensions do is make those who receive them feel victimized and create disillusionment. Theres something not right about that.

You were on the money when you predicted a while ago that Leap to fame was going to be a top horse. Certainly won well last night although the race was set up to come from the back when the grimson trained betterzippit stopped so badly when in front. Actually cast no shadow and loyalist also dropped out for Grimson.Maybe they needed a bit more sunblock or something. Anyway,grant dixon drove like a cool customer.Thats why hes driven over 5000 winners i suppose.I wonder how he rates leap to fame compared to previous top horses hes trained.

But in this case the RIB submitted a 12 month disqualification was appropriate and noted her regular recent offending. So its the adjudicators,not the RIB who seem to have shown leniency. They are two different entities. Its somewhat astounding the difference in what each felt was an appropriate penalty. It does make you question both and illustrates why people lack confidence in the fairness of penalties sometimes. In this case it seems waretinis submissions may have swayed the adjudicators. She submitted that they,i assume the RIB were unfair,and said she believed in karma,and words to the effect that she was happy knowing that Karma was coming for them. Now,given the penalties,you have to give credit to waretini for taking such an anti authority approach that no one else seems to have previously. It clearly worked in her case.

Just read the penalty decisions. Now i don't really care what the penalties given to waretini are,maybe they were appropriate,but if they only deserve $400 fines for shoulder barging another trainer and throwing her dogs around,why do harness drivers often get more, simply because their whip action for a couple of flicks wasn't deemed appropriate. Its hard to follow sometimes.

Your right in that you will never keep everyone happy. But the reality is its no where near fair currently. i gave the example recently on another thread,of a meeting held at addington a couple of weeks ago It had approximately 120 horses that started. 7 of the top 10 rated horses for the whole day were first starters. Thats just ludicrous.

cinamod junior? If it is him,i once met the fella that broke him in,i think the horse had a bit of age on him from memory. The fella invited me to a party at the stratford pub,didn't go and was glad i didn't as the two who went came back with shaved heads the next day. Maybe thats a taranaki thing?

Clearly the system has become unfair to non win horses,especially the rating a horse gets if it wins early in its career. Over time,more and more horses have dropped back to levels which place them at a huge advantage rating wise in comparison with the rating a non win horse starts on.Its just the way the current rating system has evolved.. Its simply discouraging many people.Just ask someone who has a horse who's won early in their career. Everyone will tell you the same thing.Why hasn't it already been changed? I think the answer is rather simple. Drop the non win horses to start with a rating 40. Any horse winning a non win race should remain a r40.A non win horses rating should not be reduced until they have had 3 unplaced starts. There should be a scale which ensures each subsequent win to the first by a non win horse should not generate more than a 5 point penalty.e.g.2 win horse never rated higher than r45,3 win r50,4 win r 55 etc. The reduced penalty points for younger horses should only kick in once they have reached a rating 50. i.e.No longer such exaggerated preferential treatment for 2 and 3 year olds. The half point junior wins should be limited to 1 per season per horse.The penalty free junior drivers races that they run should also be limited to 1 per horse each 2 seasons. Races programmed for non win horses should not only be based on ratings,but also based on stakes won in last 6 starts. Currently those who decide the make up of fields are not using the stakes won in recent starts as they should. Its a criteria thats should be used much more than it is when compiling the fields for all the races.

One of the nicest people you could ever meet,as is his wife.

I enjoyed it. Top job. The video you put together was great.The music does add something. Just another dimension to a great product. Trackside occasionally has mainstream music on some of their clips,which is good to watch.Not sure how they access it.I believe some of what you produce is even more suited to music than the ones trackside does. That video you put up today an example. Theres almost something haunting about what you capture sometimes(not sure whether thats the right word). Thats the type of thing i think the right music can bring out. Anyway,i have a daily routine of goggling unhinged now,just to see the latest on your website. A bit like i do with bit of a yarn.That and the news.

The decision raises the question, when is "inexperience" to be considered a factor when setting penalties. The answer is,when you are a junior driver.. And it seems when you are an amateur, its not. Monika Ranger had a similar charge last month and the adjudicators made a point of referring to her being an inexperienced junior driver and gave her an extra days reduction in penalty for that reason. No such luck for buckland stevens who has had less drives. Seems reasonable to consider inexperience,so why not consider it every time if its applicable.

Buckland-stevens recognised she made an error and pleaded guilty in the end. She was given a 7 day suspension,but given they said she only drives once every 2 weeks,they suspended her for over 3 months. Like if it were blair orange who did that(not that he would),but he would only get a 1 day suspension compared to buckland-stevens 14 weeks. Does that mean a driver who drives once a year will be suspended 7 years when another more experienced driver would get a one day suspension? sounds like it. To base the term of suspension solely on the criteria they do seems to be unfair. And what about junior drivers. Does that mean someone starting off who gets very few drives would effectively have a career ending suspension. Or do the powers that be that came up with the criteria, treat a junior who doesn't get many drives,different from other drivers who don't drive many. One assumes they do,so it appears they would be practicing discrimination based on age.

saturdays not a good night for tv thats for sure on mainstream tv. I just tend to watch the channel 73,the history channel on sky or channel 71 with all the real murder stories. That always cheers me up if the horses haven't been going too good.At least im still alive.What about you paleface.

Another paul. One thing i remember about the ted lowe trained,paul young driven horses. They always seemed to want to go as soon as they got on the track. They certainly had some good ones. A successful partnership. From memory they published ted lowes obituary in one of the papers one day,then the next day apoligised because he was still alive,then the next day he was dead. I wonder if he ever read his own obituary and wonder what he thought of it if he did.

Sherlock still on the case paleface. He hasn't closed the case yet.I just got to know paul at one stage,he has his own unique style of holding a conversation but i think a knowledgeable man when talking about horses. He must be getting on a bit now.I think hes moved into town these days,not that i come form there..

Another thiought.You mention yarns.At one point you interviewed paul gallagher.I enjoyed that one. If you ever see him again ask him about him training a horse that was first past the post with its cover still on. Thats a good yarn. He used to have the photo of it they published in the paper at the time.

I always thoroughly enjoy your productions. Earlier today the chief posted some barry white music on the thread about barry white. Got me thinking, thats the type of thing mr unhinged may do on some of his productions. I've no idea whether its practical.or whether you have the appropriate software or whether its too complicated to register to get access to use music clips,or if it costs anything or if you have the time. But having said all that,you produce stuff that would go well to music,e.g.those beach reports you do are great as they are,but also seem ideal to have a bit of nice music placed on the end part of them for a minute or two. So many great songs that would be ideal for them. As i said,maybe too complicated to do,but my 2 cents worth as to some good tracks if you ever did add music. Songs that come to mind like, one of these mornings(patti labelle),wildfire(michael murphy),somewhere over the rainbow(israel kamakawiwo'ole),slave to love(bryan ferry,)don't dream its over(crowded house),song for guy (elton john). Or you could go the themed type ones like say the one on sam ottley you did,you could do a second one exactly the same,and play Without a woman(zucchero and paul young). Some of the clips on facebook that appear to get so many views,your stuff would be better.then again sometimes i think maybe i should keep my ideas to myself. Who knows.