the galah

Adam White certainly used to add a bit of colour(excuse the pun) when he celebrated after he had a win. His father seems more reserved.

Top effort by mr white to become nz harness racing champion amateur driver. Always a driver that seems to drive well judged races and gives the punters the confidence to invest. Given his consistency throughout the year his success was well deserved..

to me,where unruly horses start from appears a bit inconsistent. There seems several factors involved.Like if they have a 10m tape up,If so,obviously the ur front line horses would be in front of that ,although sometimes you see a starters assistant holding the tape halfway across the track.I think a big factor is the drivers. The better drivers seem to start as close as possible most of the time,whereas some drivers seem to think it may help there horse if they have a bit more space and are further back. also it seems to be dictated by the first horse to turn in and how much time the starters give the ur horses to get closer. Then you have the mobile races.Some seem to start from the ur near the outside of the track,and others start from behind the number 5 horse.Then you get the races where there are a couple of horses on the unruly.If you have one thats drawn 2 on the unruly,then it makes a big difference where the ur1 horse starts,as if its wider ,then youve virtually got to go back to last,whereas if its behind the 5 horse then you would normally end up in front of 3 or 4 after 200m. at least they seem to have a consistent policy everywhere as to where a horse sent to the ur for playing up pre start,is placed if there are already ur horses. That used to be different in the north and south islands a few years back. So,i can see why its not very clear cut for the punter.

Thats the irony doomed. They moan about not enough horses progressing to higher ratings to increase the field size in races rated 55 and over,yet they have a policy of programming more and more penalty free races. I mean ask yourself,who makes these dumb as decisions. Its beyond stupid. Heres a couple of observations that proves just how farcical the whole handicapping system has become. Theres 3 meetings in the south island In the next 3 days. Addington tonight have- 100 horses running. 92 are rated under 55,only 8 above. Addington on sunday-all 123 horses are rated under 55.In fact only 1 is rated over 50 (arizonawildcat0 r54) Invercargill on saturday-105 starters-95 under 55, 10 rated over 55(7 trotters and 3 pacers) And to top off just how farciacal the whole rating system has become. Addington on sunday-do you know who 7 of the top 10 rated horses running all day are......Well the answer is 7 first starters. Thats right 7 first starters are rated in the top 10 for the day. Its all become a bit of a joke when you look at the figures. Just say one of those first starters who is aged 4 or over,happens to win and then wins its second start as well.Where will that place that 2 start horse.It would be in the top 19 rated horses. It would be rated above 310 horses running this weekend. Thats just after its second start. Unbelievable,but its a fact.

So the decision is out and it all turned out pretty much as expected. Wigg's disqualification has been reduced when compared to the original length of disqualification given at the first hearing. shes now disqualified for 9 months,but given she'd already served 3 months,in reality she has a 6 month disqualification to serve.

Junior drivers can now be juniors well in to their 30's.As long as they became a junior before they turned 30 and haven't driven over 100 winners. So you could be 35 years old and have driven 99 winners and still be eligible to get a penalty free win in any of those 4 races in southland on saturday.And that junior could get that penalty free win with a horse who has had a penalty free junior win for the previous 5 years and who has also had say 10 junior half rating wins previously. meanwhile joe bloggs horse,a 4year old 1 win horse will get a full rating penalty if he uses the local non junior driver. That non junior driver most likely no longer receives enough income to work full time in the industry and works part time somewhere else, as he only gets a couple of drives a meeting and is becoming disillusioned. so what does joe bloggs do,well next time he gets the junior driver and says to his regular driver,sorry mate,but given the way the system favors the juniors,you would do the same. But don't worry,we can line up against the very same horses who we thrashed this week and you can drive him then. As to juniors. What type of advice are they given around things like tax returns. Does the industry provide them the advice of a good accountant who knows how to exploit the tax system and claim on anything and everything possible. There must be ways that can use income in a way that isn't taxable,which could benefit both the junior drivers and those giving the assistance.For example how is sponsorship handled. thats just one example.Why is the focus not on things that will help all juniors,not just the high achieving few.

I disagree. In my opinion its no more important to have a junior earn income from driving fees than it is for someone over 30. In fact i would say its more important once you reach 30 because you are more likely to be in a serious relationship and have financial commitments than you are when you are at 20. It goes without saying that there is only so many drives per race based on the number of starters. If one group is getting more income from drives,another group is having the income they use to meet financial commitments reduced. Also,cast your mind back to the days when junior drivers did not get many opportunities and then ask yourself were there more young people in the sport then than now. The point being the expectation that juniors seeing just a handful of other juniors getting an extra drive or two a week,will lead to increased junior participation is not a reality. Also,lets focus on the drivers who are getting all the penalty free wins. They are the ones who with higher profiles are already getting ample opportunities.So the need to tip the scales even further in their favour opportunity wise is totally unneccessary. So obviously the scales are being tipped in the junior drivers favour to increase the opportunities of those at the bottom of the premiership.Well if you look at the 12 juniors at that end,in the first half of the year they have only had a total of 170 drives,an average of 14 in 6 months. And 90% of those 12,drove horses they trained or owned anyway.Also factor in that this group only other drives would have been in junior drivers races,not the penalty free if driven by a junior race,open to all drivers. So the point is,its so obvious giving more and more penalty free wins to the horses driven by the alrready successful juniors does NOTHING for those its supposed to help most.just look at the stats. Like i have said,theres got to be a better way than they do it now. Not only is it making a mockery of the handicapping system that already is failing,it doesn't help who its intended to. Heres my suggestion.Implement a system that actually helps those its suppose to. Its just common sense,which to me seems lacking at the moment. Those that are benefitting should be contributing,i.e. the owners and trainer s of the horses who are benefitting. like i said earlier,take a mandatory 10% of any stake won by owners and trainers who receive a penalty free win and place it in a pool held by hrnz ,then at the end of each season pay an even share to all registered junior drivers. For example should sarah o'reilly win a penalty free race with an $7000 winning stake,she receives her normal driving fee,but the owner contibutes $700 to the pool for juniors and the traniner contributes 10% of his share,i.e. $70. So in reality,the 37 current juniors,would each be receiving $20 every time that O'reilly drove that penalty free winner.I'm not advocating for that,but it makes much more sense than the current system which does more harm than good.

your thinking outside the square,which is what is needed. Personally i don't understand why junior drivers are more important than someone over 30.Someone needs to point out to those who approved these extra penalty free wins,that once you hit 31 its not any easier to make a living in the industry than it was when you were 30. It makes just as much sense to have races restricted to drivers who have not won many races that season. Same principle,so why not. These increasing number of penalty free junior drivers races are being targeted by a small number of stables and the handicappers also seem to be programming them to suit certain stables,especially in southland. Why is that? Good on the stables and owners concerned for using the system for their advantage,but why are they not contributing more to the junior drivers. Surely say 10% of the stakes earned by owners should be taken and held in trust for the junior drivers who drive the horses that earn stakemoney,whether it be win or top 4. The connections of these horses are benefitting big time,so if they really are about helping the juniors as much as themselves,then why not do it that way. Hrnz could hold that money in trust and pay it out when they reach 30. so much seems superficial about it as it currently operates in my opinion..

Why do they run so many races in southland where the winner ,if driven by a junior driver,gets a penalty free win as long as it hasn't had a free win that season. For example,on saturday they have a r35-50 trot ,there are 3 horses who have junior drivers on. The 2 highest rated horses will get a penalty free win should they win,which seems likely given on recent form they look the main chances in a field where realistically only 3 have winning chances.Its already a race where the rating band seems unfair on the many r35 horses,but hey for good measure lets give the r35 horses a penalty,but if either of the two r50 horses do,they won't. Why are the handicappers deliberately targeting preferential treatment for these horses. Its very,very obvious that with so many concessions and penalty free wins these days,that horses aren't progressing in the ratings to enable them to run like against like,if they use solely the horses ratings as the criteria for the fields. You are getting this big pool of horses in the 40's. And can anyone explain why southland runs these type of races more than say canterbury.If southlands model really is the way to go,why not run them in canterbury and have even more horses stuck in the r40"s.

The stipes report on the night referred to the injury. it was the adjudicators decision that said they believed the injury didn't occur prior to the driver attempting to pull him up at the 500m. The 1000m that he nodded badly prior to the 500m is where they said he had a gear issue. the decision on the website at the moment doesn't seem to enforce the message that its imperative drivers should pull their horses up if they think the horse has a possible injury,irrespective of the outcome.Maybe they think it goes without saying. Hopefully as a result of this case gaining the attention it has,it will prevent anything similar happening to horse or connections in the future. It would have been a very distressing and stressful case for the horse,the Houses,the Vet and all those involved..

"given there is no evidence that the horse was suffering from an injury,causing it to appear uncomfortable in its action throughout the running prior to the 500m,and given that the response of the driver as explained was neither unreasonable nor, in the adjudicative committees view, incompetent... Thats in the last paragraph of the decision they released. The video of the race,posted earlier in this thread,is there for anyone to watch. Of course what happened after is relevant and probably on its own was justification for dismissing the charge. But when it comes to that video,its like "don't believe your lying eyes".

the gear issues were supposedly to do with the spreaders annoying the horse leading to a possible injury. I think at the end of the day,it was not following proper procedures transporting mogul off the track,which lead to a lack of clarity around the exact nature and extent of his injuries when he was running.They didn't sedate,stabalise or support bandage his injury,like they are supposed to before transport. As a result of those failures,which W House had no control over,the horse went off while being transported from the track which lead to even more injuries and possibly increasing the extent of its original injuries. However while the decision sort of mentioned that,they seemed to feel the need to make findings which supported the W House case,based on how he said the horse had travelled in the running. So they did feel they had enough evidence to make findings in houses's favour,despite all the aforementioned. Thats why some people will remain unconvinced the findings clarified anything.

Does set an interesting precedent. The whip rules make a big deal of the importance of public perception,but in this case it didn't seem to be a factor. What was the standard of proof they applied? Those who made the decision said it wasn't balance of probabilities like other cases but unlike other decisions you read,it did not clarify that aspect.

Well the decision was made that there was not sufficient proof to say House did anything wrong. Reading the decision it seems the whole episode was a bit keystone cops like. No doubt everyone was trying to do the right thing by the horse,but it sounds like things only went from bad to worse after he pulled up. For example ,the regular driver of the horse ambulance was away and while the vet said the horse was "all good' to be transported by the horse ambulance off the track,she seems to have meant after she had sedated it and was surprised that they loaded the horse on the horse ambulance before she had a chance to sedate Mogul. Mogul then got very upset in the horse ambulance and ended up apparently getting cast.Injuring himself even further. The vet(dr corser) was upset she had not been allowed to direct the treatment. . It was because of all that stuff up that it left the possibility of the horse having severely aggravated the leg injury in the float and that it may not have been as serious as that initially.. Those hearing the case decided. The vet diagnosed a much less serious injury on the horse pulling up-Although that seems a bit of a stretch to interpret it that way given their decision said the vet said initial diagnosis was that mogul had damage to a weight bearing structure..... They said (point 2) they accepted the horse had "gear issues" and believed that is why mogul looked lame on the track for the first 1000m of him pacing so badly................ They found because proper procedures weren't followed prior to loading the horse on the horse ambulance, they believed it most likely the injury it came out of the horse ambulance with, was far worse than it was when loaded on . So it seems they thought it was most likely a gear issue that caused it to pace so badly prior to the 500m,which is the point it at which w house tried to pull it up. They said the burden of proof for the incompetent driving charge should be greater than the balance of probabilities and decided the charge wasn't proved..... House did make a point that there have been other examples of horses that have gone just as rough andno action is taken and the horses continue to race that way.He used the example of mucho macho man. Well hes right there. That horse continues to run around the southland tracks,when seemingly looking very lame. It was vet inspected again today but passed the vet check. I guess at the end of the day ,because some horses are so tough and willing,they keep going when they have injuries that should be stopping them. Personally i think it was an error of judgment for those hearing the case to infer that if a horse becomes very lame from the point the driver starts easing it up,that because it wasn't as lame prior to that point,its injury was not already as serious.I think the opposite is the most likely in normal circumstances. Mogul was a warrior who was so competitive he ran despite the pain and it was only when he was asked to stop that he foccused on his pain. all very sad for all involved and of course most of all mogul.

team d for me thanks

I was wondering what the KC meant until it dawned on me it meant king and was no longer QC. I suppose he sounds like a high court judge because he was one i think. Also at one point chairman of the parole board and drug free sport nz. You would think he might be a hard man to win against if appealing one of his decisions.

I see mangos got suspended for 6 days. Seems they didn't believe his defence that it was caused by gear failure.He also claimed chilcott drove dangerously by not letting him push her out wider. They didn't believe that and found chilcott was allowed to maintain a straight line as she was ahead of mangos as he tried to push her out. Apparently it was also observed that he had "words" with n chilcott, who said his comments to her just before they went off the track indicated he was a bit angry about something,a bit abusive and upset". The adjudicators who heard the case said they would have been given mangos another couple of days suspension but because j cox only got 7 days,they felt cox's was the more serious and therefore only suspended mangos for the 6 days. I think the surprising thing about that case was that Mangos is still maintaining he did nothing wrong throughout the whole episode.

The problem gambling they say is mainly from things that can be reinvested in pretty quickly. Like casinos,scratchies,horse and sports betting and of course the big one,the gaming machines,especially the fast growing on line gaming. I agree that horse racing need to be pro active on this subject.Why let government agencies and advertising agencies unfairly put the boot in. I read a couple of years ago that racing accounted for about 11 % of problem gambling and it was reducing all the time. Yet it gest about 75% of the blame when it comes to tv adds. Also what about government policies. They said when the lock downs were in place the average weekly spend on on line gaming went up 50%.

I'm not talking about discounts.I'm talking about current realistic pricing to maintain the long term viability of the aspect of the industry you work in.

I know its a little off topic,but theres a nz government add on tv at the moment referring to elder abuse and it shows a picture of horse racing,the only form of gambling it shows,inferring that its associated with bad things. Why does the racing industry continue to allow itself to be painted in such a negative light. It was the same when they had the problem gambling add on tv not that long ago with the race broadcasts in the background. Why do government agencies continue to feature horse racing when it comes to problem gambling,when we all know the stats say there are other far more significant contributors to problem gambling that these adds never feature. Its a sign of weakness that we have people who run our industry and allow it to be continually painted in an unfair way.

From my observations over the years,long term it is better to start off(or maintain) a larger customer number base,than it is to have reducing numbers paying higher rates. I've also seen the "thats ok that our customer numbers are shrinking because if theres less of us to provide the product,we will still earn just as much". Hindsight tends to prove that short sighted approach doesn't end well long term. And that is how i see the stud side of things to a degree.

Cant see much wrong with the article. Thats the world we live in. Media love being the moral police and we all know how 2 faced and hypocritical they are.Doesn't stop them though, so just a matter of limiting the public perception damage. Thats why theres a need for official censuring of behavior that in all reality is often harmless. The b Barclay drive of don't ask at invercargill last week sort of highlighted how fending off a horse with one hand can lead to a degree of loss of control. In his case the horse he was driving veered out a couple of horse widths while he did tried to sort of protect himself.

Well i did inquire a couple of years ago with a couple of the bigger studs and they didn't want to negotiate as you put it. They wouldn't even have known who they were talking to or what our mares are. I guess they are mostly interested in regulars.not those who used to breed but haven't recently. And no,i would not buy a yearling/weanling from a sale,but yes if the stud fees were reduced by say 30% i probably would breed one each year. But i have an attachment to our mares. So our interest is with them. I think a lot of people see it that way.

So you appear to be saying stallion owners reducing fees would lead to greater numbers being bred,but given the quality of mares that would be bred to said stallions,the reputation of the stallion would be diminished. Is that accurate interpretation of what i have read?. So assuming it is,doesn't that focus more on the needs of the studs than the industry? And given that,even if you look at it from the studs point of view,should you not ask yourself,what will impact the studs incomes the most in say 10-20 years. Their current $ bottom line or an industry that no longer has as many owners/breeders/trainers,mares,etc...the very things they will be needing to keep there stud viable in 10-20 years.

It think you seem to agree that there was no intent not to try,it was just a very poor tactical decision In the last couple of years we've seen examples that even the best drivers can make bad tactical decisions and have been suspended under the same rule. But this particular case does seem to have been particularly poor decision making given she had no pressure to make a split second decision.Come out and get a clear run or go in and run the risk of being held up.Seems a no brainer,but hey,she made that error.I agree that there appears to be no reasonable defence that she could offer to mitigate the level of error. They do seem to suspend people based on each case warranting a certain number of drives penalty and given she doesn't get too many drives it could well end up a lengthy suspension.That approach sometimes leads to penalties which seem excessive for drivers who drive less than others.