the galah

This topic i find interesting because it highlights the different perspectives. Punters like newmarket and brodie have a good understanding of all the effort that goes into having a racehorse but their focus is on how best to get a return from their punting dollar. Thats not to say they don't care about the horse/owner/trainer.Its just thats not their primary focus. Then on the other hand you have k butt. Its obvious from her reply, she has an understanding of all the effort that not over's connections would have put in to have him racing and how running a nice 4th,albeit after getting the perfect run,would be seen in a positive light and would have been enjoyed. i often think maybe the punters perspective probably doesn't factor in the feelings of whoever it may be that is being discussed and on the flipside i think sometimes the people and connections of the horses being discussed are over sensitive to what is actually being said ,especially when no malice has been intended. Thats why this thread sort of sets a nice standard in the communicating of both perspectives.I don't know k butt myself,but a bit like a harrison who sometimes replies,i'm guessing that apart from their skills as drivers,part of the reason they get drives is because they enable the horses connections to enjoy each horse and each race.

I'm not sure whether its the whale,but i mute the tv when he presents as well. At least i leave it on the racing channel with him,as if it was mick guerin i change channels when i see him. Both very knowledgable,but they aren't my cup of tea. My theory is the punters who do the form are the ones who get most frustrated with him.He causes horses to come into unrealistic prices when he selects them. And it is the uninformed punters,who in reality will remain uninformed by using the whale as their sort of robot selector,who like him the most. I honestly don't know whether trackside catering to the people with not much knowledge of form,is a good thing for turnovers.I very much doubt it gets people to follow the sport long term. But the betting focus these days always seems to be about todays picture. Then theres those who watch for the people/horse stories.I can't say trackside would be doing anything to encourage them to keep watching.Theres much more to harness racing that can attract peoples attention,but it somehow doesn't come across that way on trackside when all the focus is on getting the uniformed to bet. i think its as much a trackside focus problem. Although i do prefer their other harness presenters myself and don't mute them much.

So i guess that means you prefer my 10 paragraph replies instead of my 2 paragraph replies. The case being one from the USA didn't really get me over interested this time.

He's like a TABloid version sure of a harness racing site. It sure is entertaining some of his headlines. One of the latest that caught the eye was "zoologist that roots dogs-only in australia".People can give him stick about his accuracy sometimes,but hes on the money there. I must have too much time on my hands as i goggled that story and discovered that the zoologist was originally from britain and was a crocodile expert. Seems he had a thing for dogs was a very sick person.The judge even sent the security staff out of the court for fear of causing too much distress when the facts of the case were read through at his hearing. Anyway another news story that was on that news page site, was about a vietnamese lady,just a week in australia,hitting the accelerator and running into and injuring 2 boys. Seems she thought the accelarator was the brake. From that news page i goggled a story about a gathering hosted by a village chief in thailand ,who invited 31 police to his restaurant for a meal. Seems he was upset one of the policemen,a local police major, hadn't promoted his relation. So he had one of his henchmen shoot him in front of all the police.Then the local police did nothing until the area commander,nicknamed "Big Joke" learnt of the incident and tracked down the henchman and shot him and arrested the village chief.The story referred to how "Big Joke" was doing his best to stop the perception that justice can be bought in thailand. Which reminded me of a bloke i knew. He actually won a bronze at an olympic games as a cyclist and he went to coach in thailand. I used to occasionally run into him. One day i saw him and said to him are you not coming back home as often, to which he replied he was back to stay. Then he told me he had been stuck in a thailand jail for a few weeks because he had been targeted by local police who took away his visa and threw him in jail until he was able to raise enough money to bribe his way back out.Apparently he had told one of the cyclists he was helping coach that he should coach him full time.That cyclist went and sacked his normal coach. The sacked coach then bribed the local police and hence thats how he ended up in jail. It turned out it cost him as much to get out of jail as he had earned there. Obviously there are worse things going on in the world than backing the wrong horse.

I haven't missed anything.Not sure how you get that from my brief reply.. I just repeated the abitrator referring to it as truly an exceptional case.Then i just said it seemed pretty straight forward and made a comment about the pony's name. You posted it and i just repeated it.

So that was in ohio ,usa. The arbitrator described it as a truly exceptional case,although it seemed pretty straight forward reading it. Sounds like it was easy enough to trace the source of the positive to the pony who used the stall prior to the racehorse arriving. Bucky the pony,its a wonder you don't get some harness horses named that,or maybe there are.

If you look at the names of todays sponsors ,they all are with businesses in gore or townships that aren't far away like clinton.Southlanders like to support their local communities so racing in gore must be a help when they sell the sponsorship side of things.

I don't follow galloping as closely but the te akau thing i thought got its share of publicity and i believed them when they said there own investigation revealed it was a result of a senier foreperson making an error treating the horse with an anti inflammatory medicationIn,in other words no intent. Stewarts actions were clearly intended and she even admits that. She had no choice but to admit it anyway. I have never observed anyone ever do anything that i believe was intended to break the rules and cheat and is why i particularly dislike the actions of people that do.I know what those who abide by the rules think about this type of thing.

What do you think if they had been doing more that day they would do them all at once?g You must have heard of retrospective drug testing.Obviously there have been many examples of that. Why even have such a thing if what you say is applicable each time. Thats not correct. To quote anthony butt...."i'm disappointed in the media too. Its been brushed under the carpet by just about everybody" How can you call it speculative when stewart herself issued a press statement saying she did it? This isn't an operation inca type case. Someone was caught red handed.They do treat people differently. In the blue magic case the trainers were tipped off by someone who worked for the industry. Theres many examples i could refer to. I understand the 24 hour rule is 24 hours prior to 12.01am on the day the horse is to race.

Everyone has their own opinions but my answers to my questions would be. 1)she must have known she was doing something illegal. For that reason i think she has lied,which is just more indication of dishonesty.If she didn't she shouldn't have a licence anyway if she doesn't know about the treatment timeframes.. 2)her motive was obvious-to increase performance. No one breaches the treatment rules without an intention to increase performance. 3)breaching the rules like that would be a regular thing. Does anyone really believe that authorities just happened to fluke turning up the first time stewart had ever done that. 4)high avhievers are just as likely to cheat as anyone is. logically more likely because they have more to gain.History is littered with so many examples that indicates that. 5)testing does not pick up the use of all enhancers.for a start if they aren't testing for something,they won't pick it up. How long should it be played out in the media you ask.Simple. Give it the coverage it deserves when it happens,then cover it anytime there is an update and when the case is heard. The most obvious and daming thing about this case,is that the harness racing media would rather cover up the story to protect the stewart stable. The media and some industry leaders are so weak on these matters its stunning. They never promote the message that cheating will not be tolerated and that the integrity enforcement ageany is coming for you.That should be the message,but never is when it comes to anyone high profile.No wonder people like stewart think they are untouchable. Finally,what does it say about the stewart stables employess. Isn't it supposed to be a big stable. Are they all that complicit in the dishonest behavior and have no empathy at all for the other industry owners,trainers,horses who do things honestly?

And one other one gammalite. This topic started by being all about the media giving next to no coverage of the stewart stables rule breaches. You may have already answered it when you said.. you don't expect harness racing journalists to criticise the product...the product you inferred was represented by stewart. The question i have is what level of success does warrant discussion,or is everyone to be treated the same and best not given any media coverage.

i'm just trying understand your thinking. so wondering if you can you answer these simple questions gammalite. I think things that i have asked are black and white,so much information and examples out there for me to say that,but you may or may not agree.Anyway. Emma stewart says in her statement? "i now know this(the iv drip) was inside the permitted time frame". I think they all just require a yes or no answer,but thats up to you. 1)Gammalite do you believe she knew what she was doing was in breach of the rules. 2) did she have an intent to help the horses performances by giving the raceday treatment. 3)do you believe that is the first time she has given raceday treatments? 4) do you believe a trainer or athlete can be great at what they do and also use performance enhancers? 5)do you believe all performance enhancers will be picked up in testing? I won't comment any further as your entitled to your opinions.i've already expressed mine.

You've just written something that unfortunately is in line with the thinking of racing journalists.(apart from brad reid and even peter profit) Watering down integrity issues is a very,very bad strategy. I know you vigorously defended the stewart stable on here recently against any suggestions they were cheating,but reality is you got it wrong. Thats why so many high profile harness meida ignore it,they don't want anyone saying i told you so to them .some in the media are just hypocrites. Now it seems your saying whats the big deal and point to other high profile stables who have returned positives. i don't get that approach nor understand how that helps your argument. Ask yourself this. You seem to think the grimson stable use performance enhancers.Would you be saying the same thing if it was the grimson stable that had been caught in similar circumstances? As to your coomments about it being right for the media to ignore it, because they are supposed to be promoting the sport. Name one other sport that does that? Use your rugby team as an example. I listened to a well known australian rugby identity yesterday commenting on the world cup performances and the coach.Given you think its not for journalists to lampoon the product,you wouldn't have been happy. I think maybe your expressing the views you are is partly because harness racing is a sport dear to your heart and it hurts that people tell truths that are not nice to hear.

So your saying because i have agreed with what brad reid and anthony butt said,i.e. that most high profile media are giving next to no coverage of the story,that therefore means that the media is an example of someone not talking about it. A bit like saying everyone thinks elvis is dead except joe down the road who saw him last week. so therefore no one can say everyone believes elvis is dead Or like me saying i always lie,so if that were the case then i must be lieing when i say that,therefore that means i'm not a liar. I can talk in riddles as well chief. But can't see the point on this topic as its quite a serious topic. That was a quote from brad reid's article. I understand what he meant,as i'm sure you do.its not complicated .I don't see much sense in your reply there.

I have just read the article he wrote on harnesslink(a peter profit headline put me on to it) Titled "when ignorance is no longer bliss." People should read it as he seems the only one in the media with the integrity to actually be honest and open when it comes to that stable. Here are some quotes from his story. "Are the industry participants meant to simply accept stewarts apology as meaning this is the first time the rule has been breached. Or simply the first time stewart has been caught. can you imagine an athlete or high performance coach in another sport being caught red handed breaching a fundamental rule the weekend it had achieved remarakable success,yet only having their highlight reels dished out for 5 days while the media ignore the elephant in the room?It wouldn't happen. The mainstream media,further mars public confidence in harness racing and creates the perception of a coordinated effort to paint australia's leading stable in a favorable light. The same media pushing the mistake narrative are nowhere to be seen when smaller players suffer a similar date." Then he quoted Anthony Butt. Butt said "It was a clear breach and is not a good look and casts a pool of doubt over their success on saturday night....But i'm disappointed in the media too,its been brushed under the carpet by just about everybody.If this had happened in galloping it would be headline news. Its not a good look and it doesn't shine a good light on the stable". So Brad Reid and Anthony Butt have had the guts to actually say what you could virtually gaurantee nearly every honest industry participant is thinking,yet next to no other high profile people have the balls to actually say. As to the nz media. A couple of weeks ago i almost choked on my food when i saw Mick geurin say something along the lines about ,we in the media have to be open and transparent about issues such as integrity matters." What,i thought,mick, the hypocrite, guerin saying something that cleary he doesn't practice.his response to the stewart case is just proof again that he can't be taken seriously when he talks about integrity matters. For mick guerin,raising integrity concerns about stables like the stewart stable is a no go subject. Adam hamilton has the has the same attitude. Just read the last australian news on the hrnz website. Hamilton mentions how great the stewart stable are in 3 different segments of the australian harness news,yet ignores what everyone is talking about. As to the box seat.Here's what they had to say. Greg o'connor said" there was a little bit of an incident". Thats was it. The only message anyone that listens or watches is so obvious.We don't talk about this stuff because it involves people that we like. Sadly,the responses of those who look away is repetitive behavior that we have become accustomed to and is easily predicted.And its such behavior which makes them complicit in their own way to enabling those that do this type of stuff.

Maybe its a psychological thing to make the horse feel more comfortable about having a pee? Some horses(and humans) consider splash back. I've always thought they should have the regulations/rules that apply to swabbing displayed on the wall somewhere in the swabbing box. I say that because of a couple of experiences i had a few years ago..One time our horse being swabbed took an awful long time(hours) to have a pee and i asked at what point they would take blood if he didn't pee. I was told a certain time frame,which i checked out the next day. It turned out i was given misleading/incorrect information. Also i once experienced a time when they swabbed one of our horses after it won the last race one night. The race had been delayed and was not run until 11 o'clock.The horse had won the week before as well and was swabbed then and they had also taken blood earlier in the night off him.The swabbing people told me they would take blood if he didn't pee very quickly. Because of all that and my previous experience, i insisted they wait until the full timeframe allowed was up before they did so,(to annoy them like they seemed to go out of their way to do to me). The swabbing steward was not happy and said he would have to take advice,but then the horse had a pee 2 minutes later anyway. So the rules and rights of those being tested should be properly displayed in the swabbing area in my opinion.

Thanks for that. I had no idea such a rule existed. G thornley obviously just doing what she was told to do,so sorry to her for that. As to the rule It makes me wonder why on earth the contradictory logic of that rule. If the logic is they want the second line horse to still follow out the same front line horse ,for the protection of the punters,then why not apply that same logic when the late scratching happens to a front line horse. By moving the front line horses in they are immediately changing who the second line horses follow out. And it appears that it only applies to mobile starts,not stands. Talk about a rule being confusing,contradictory and sending a mixed message.But i learnt something new today.

I see Rosie Richter is running in a race worth $2000 more at gore this week,plus the owner/breeder would also get the extra breeders pay out that applies to the gore fillies and mares races. Maybe its coincidence,maybe its not.Who knows. Watch the race at motukarara that the chief has posted and make up your own mind.

yes it is on the outside of the track.

Clutching at straws with that approach chief. Using that logic any horse that is drawn either the front or back line can start as wide as they like as long as they are outside the correct horse and inside the correct horse,as you put it..For example you could have the drivers of the only 2 horses drawn the second line agreeing the horses drawn 1 and 2 on the front were slow beginners ,so lets follow out the 3 and 4 horses on the front line as they are fast beginners.Or the sole starter on the second line saying i don't want the get anywhere today so i will follow out the horse drawn 9 on the front. It makes no sense,it would be totally confusing.This matter is black and white,not shades of grey.

The video shows what i say.Good that you posted it. The horse did not start from its correct position. The driver ,not once but also in the false start,did not have her horse in its corrcet barrier position 50m before the start point.That is a requirement that they strictly enforce,until yesterday. The horse that drew inside it started in its correct position of 2 on the 2nd line so your incorrect if you say that horse was not in its correct position chief. As to the driver taking upon themselves to change starting positions in case she wants to avoid a rough going horse,the rules don't allow that.That would make a mockery of having starting positions..Besides she did that in the false start before anything broke.

I watched this horse closely at motukarara yesterday and have watched the replay of both the false start and the eventual race several times. I had a wager on it,nothing major but after my wager expected the ff price to go down,but no it went up instead shortly after. I thought thats strange given on recent form,it was a standout top 2 chance along with the eventual winner seacracker. Well it ended up just going around for a run after its driver elected to give up a nice midfield position on the outside,ahead of its two main rivals who had drawn outside it and had gone back at the start.Not sure why it was driven like that,but the ff odds may have been an indication. I was happy to put the drive down to just poor tactical decision making from a very capable but currently a bit out of form driver.Thats just the way it goes sometimes. But what i couldn't understand is how the driver,the starter and the stipes let punters down by not looking into why the horse very clearly started out of position at the start. If you draw 3 on the second line,you start from 3 on the second line. Rosie richter did not start from its correct barrier position in either the false start or the actual start. How did the driver not know where to start from and how did the starter and the stipes miss that. It clearly started from behind the horse drawn 5 on the second line both times with no reason it did not start behind the horse drawn 3.It also clearly contributed to the eventual winner seacracker being forced to start further behind than it should have as rosie richter was in its barrier position. After the false start i looked at both the hrnz website and the tab website and rosie richter is not a horse that starts from the unruly position.Had it won and seacracka run second they surely must have at least had an inquiry into why it was in seacrackas postion at the start. How does stuff like that happen twice and only the punters notice it?

I see reading the peter profit site headlines, it says your favorite victorian stables horse mach dan,has to go through the procedure of presenting early and blood tests for a while,due to having a tco2 level over 35 last week. Reading the nsw harness site it doesn't say what the level was, nor that charges will follow. I guess its just one of those ones where the tco2 level is a sign of something else being administered but not high enough to warrant charges. Just one of those things that a stable like stewart gets. I thought they would have had their own analysing equipment for that. Thats what they say a north island trainer who no longer trains used to do,then he would scratch them before he got to the races if the readings wre too high. Whether that was true,but that was what i was told back then and he sure did late scratch a few and had a few breaches of the rules back then. I see yole has 37 horses in tonight at hobart. All 7 starters in one race.Only the stewart stable with 28 at one meeting have numbers near that level. If it is bad that the yole stable has such numbers the same logic should apply to any other stable.e i see sherlock ran the last 400m in under 26 seconds when winning last night. My granny would have been able to keep up for the first mile as they went that slow,but not the last 400m. I watched a bit of australian harness racing this week. Two drivers that seemed very talented that i haven't heard of much were a n rothwell from queensland and i think it was b or j hughes driving at tamworth. Both seem very talented. I think n jack and one of the turnbulls,(maybe n turnbull) are the best over there. That n jack always seems to do things that arec split second decisions but makes it look like he has had all the time in the world.

i think your right,but it is a strategy that appears to be able to increase their winning %.That seems to be all they focus on.They don't seem to worry that they are suppressing turnover on the ff and also the tote,as the tote dividends for the 5 favorites reflect the ff odds and consequently are less inviting as well. They seem to work on the idea that its better to win 20% of $1000,instead of trying to win 11% of $2000 invested. Mathamatically they could be doing better and encouraging betting,but that doesn't seem to be their stategy. they open everything at about 15% under what they assess as a realistic price,then immediately slash the odds if any horse receives support in accounts held by punters who they have tagged to receive alerts on bets placed. Thats why if you observe the whales selections you are betting on them after they have opened at 15% less than they should, then have been immediately slashed another 15% when he places his own bets as soon as the ff markerts are out,so in effect anyone backing the whales selections half an hour after the odds come out are betting on a horse at 30% less than what the bookies asssessed as a fair price. as you point out the tote pools are too small to justify any significant spending.

If that were the case,it doesn't say much about how they look after their horses if they have horses getting dehydrated at their stables so badly they need to put them on a drip on raceday. Do they not provide proper stabling or feed or access to water or electrolytes?Anyway if the horses were that bad,how poor a trainers do you think they are to only recognise the horses were dehydrated on the day of the races and not the days proir. If it walks like a duck,quacks like a duck,then its very likely its a duck.