the galah

Not necessarily. I get ads related to what my wife searches like womens underwear and crock pots. If your seeing prospective wives huey,it could be your wife has gone off you and you've turned her into batting for the other team.'

It may be hard to believe,but even i can make the odd mistake.

No. last week the conditions of the race allowed him to start in an up to R42 race. He looks a nice horse to own,but this week hes in a far stronger race,an up to R51, given how harshly 1 win horses like him normally get treated ratings wise if they win early in their career. The ratings system treating him as it did,would have played a part in why he was driven like he was in the race discussed.

Good point. He wasn't able to run in this weeks race so i got that bit wrong. He will have to wait until next week for one of those races.

Whatever chief.

changes nothing given the publicity this horse has now had. Connections must be aware of what everyone thinks. Can you just imagine the comments were it to have been entered and even won the junior drivers race? Besides they run one for his grade almost every week.

Also,Sam thornleys drive,lets get tropical, shied away from 8 seagulls standing next to the markers,directly in his path the first time around,then turning for home the same seagulls were there again . Had the horse not shied out,it probably would have run over a couple of the seagulls as they were slow to get out of his way the first time around.Obviously they wanted to get a birds eye view of the action.

I just googled Weirs disciplinary record. Fined or disqualified 15 times since 2001.(12 different years he was fined) Misleading statements,horse at trails when on anti imflammatories,milkshaking,have milkshaking gear on racecourse another time,positive swabs,horses he supposedly trained at other trainers properties,Horses he trains not at the stable that he said they were,horse late scratched because it appeared to have been stomach tubed on the day..... Then he has these new charges of animal cruelty.

So you can think a man who regularly electric shocked his horses with a jigger while they were on a treadmill machine and with blinkers on ,i guess so they could't see what was coming,deserves forgiveness for his actions. Weir isn't a genius,hes an abuser of animals who would have continued doing it until he got caught. He also employed people who were happy to abuse them as well. I suppose you would be all for having your daughter start going out and perhaps marry a man known to regularly bash his wife.No difference,after all,you are the forgiving type. No wonder we disagree that much. you never draw the line .

I dont follow the Darren weir case much. All i know is he was charged with more animal cruelty offences about 3 months ago realting to the time he was a trainer,,involving giving electric shocks to horses while they ran on a treadmill,some with blinkers on all designed to scare them into running faster when hit with the whip. The addiction to winning you refer to is a good way of describing the lengths some may go to win while ignoring the harm they may be doing to the animal and the connections of those they compete against.I actually think it is a real thing. But like any addiction,its always there and often hard for some to keep on top of. Which is why i personally think people like weir should be able to handle educating horses,but never should be able to compete in the racing environment where he has proven he can't keep his addiction under control. Putting someone in the same environment is only tempting fate.

Merry christmas brodie. Maybe we are expected to fill in the blanks.Maybe he was intending to clear his glasses further down the track but never got around to it.Sort of a christmas day quizz from the stipes? The crossing of the reins thing would be confusing until he realised and makes sense.As the horse lugs in slightly he would have tried to correct it and inadvertently pulled on the wrong rein which made the horse run up the inside even more.

Actually if you slow the video down and go frame by frame,it makes you question the accuracy of what the stipes have reported as "clearing his glasses". Mr chins hands do not seem to get anywhere near his face. The face is where most people wear their glasses. Maybe thats a north island thing,eyes on the chest.. clearly looks like hes maybe adjusting how he holds his whip. Turnpike joe,now that. Who do they think they are kidding?

It said he crossed his reins after clearing his glasses I guess that means he has put the reins in one hand while he cleared his glasses with the other,then when he has taken hold of the reins again with that hand,he has mistakenly grabbed the wrong rein,so in effect momentarily he has been thinking steering with the left rein would see his horse move in when in reality it would steer it out ,and vice versa. Obviously it was just a momentary thing but occured when the pace in front slackened and jasinova broke as a consequence. I remember years ago luk chin didn't use to drive on wet tracks. Obviously does these days. Sometimes it must get very hard for drivers to see on some wet tracks and they do a great job keeping racing.

I think thats an exaggeration,but i have always thought theres something dodgy about how emma stewarts horses run. This offence just reinforces my beliefs. Why,because it shows me they think its no big deal to break the rules. I certainly don't think that the stipes just happened to turn up the first time the stewart stable were doing something illegal.I'm sure it would be a regular occurrence and speaks to the culture of that stable. Also,its says they train 150 horses so obviously they need a reasonable size staff,yet it seems those staff are happy working in a stable that would regularly break the rules. As i said,clearly that stable is dodgy in my opinion. C tonkin was the blue magic man. His father was seen as dodgy. So when they get caught ,i certainly have no sympathy for them. So given i think they are dodgy,thats why i think the animal welfare excuse is a load of rubbish. Dodgy stables put animal welfare behind winning. They do what it takes to win,legal or not. So my comments just reflect what i think.

I see the stewards gave this race a mention in todays report. Well at least they asked him,but that should have occured on the night. They accepted his explanation and said no charges were warranted. They completely ignored the video evidence. If anyone doesn't believe me,just go look at the video and make up your own mind. In my opinion it was as blatant as you will see,ever. I can just imagine what anyone who had that horse in the pick 6 or quaddie or had even a $1/ew on the horse would have been thinking on the night. I always argued that the stipes bore a significant degree of responsibility for operation INCA,because they failed to properly penalise obvious questionable drives.

Your argument is that she was looking after the horses health . I'm saying she would know that part of the reason for the 1 clear day treatment rule was to prevent people administering treatments that can be detrimental to a horses health. all this ,she cares about animal welfare is just rubbish in my opinion. She cares about winning first and foremost. She was willing to knowingly break the rules to achieve that.Behavior like that has consequences if you get caught.She was. I've never said its a hanging offence,ive just said she should be treated the same as the next person.

Therefore i guess you think why did s wigg or cameron jones should have got fines as well? Where was the support for cameron jones? Well there was none because he was a small time trainer. Of course other trainers are disadvantaged by comparison with stewart. Haven't you and gammalite been arguing that the treatment stewart gave her horses. was just to keep them in good health. So given other trainers can't do the same because they are honest and play by the rules,they are being disadvantaged.Its the same in any sport. Rules are rules,whether someone agrees with them or not,they have signed a form saying they will abide by them. You know,you and gammalite suggesting its a silly rule is something even stewart hasn't argued publically. And of course the reason for that is she realises the backlash she would get for suggesting she is somehow special compared with the average joe bloggs.She just using her lawyer to do that. mind you ,thats life,double standards and preferential treatment in many things,not just harness racing. Doesn't make it right though.

Have you read the M walker decision. If you had you wouldn't say the facts are the same because they aren't. M walker had his stable foreman treat 2 horses the DAY BEFORE the races for respiratory infections and the stable foreman did so on the assumption that they would be scratched from the races next day.He was surprised to be told to start one of those horses the day of the races ,but said nothing as he was following m walkers instructions. M walkers explanation was he believed the one clear day rule in nz was the same as singapore. He believed he could have the horses treated the morning of the day before because that was what the 24 hour rule in singapore was.The one day rule started at midday,not midnight. As to you thinking e stewart should gain preferential treatment because she trains so many horses. Heres a quote from the adjudicators,jw gendall and b mainwaring(i wonder if pronounced mannering) in the walker case. "no special treatment should be given to owners,syndicators(large and small) whose license trainer requires to be disqualified. There will always be an impact,whether the trainer has a few or many owners.... but it is because of the licencee's breach of the rules.... ..the adjudicative committe repeats that all in the industry understand that syndicators,large or small,prominent or otherwise with one or several trainers can not be expected to be treated diffeent from others." So there you have the high profile NZ adjudicators saying everyone should be treated the same. Just seems common sense to me.There are victims of stewarts actions. They are all the other trainers who abide by the rules,unlike stewart.

I have read the decision you posted.. It does not say that. It says the possibility of the appeal may result in a variation all the way from a fine tom disqualification. The judge does say he felt the consequences of the disqualification being that 150 horses possibly would have to be moved to a different trainer and that he thought that outweighed the actual facts. In the judges own words,it sounds like he believes scale of operation is reason to treat a big trainer like stewart different from the average trainer. Stinks of one rule for one a big trainer and another for a small trainer.I would imagine that would be how nearly all other trainers would view the judges comments.

Again a misrepresentation of like with like. Read the walker case. His breach was because he thought the 24 hour timeframes for treatment in nz were the same as singapore where he previously trained. They are not.

You stick to that chief,i will stick to every one of them admitting they gave performance enahncers. I have continually referred you to their admissions,the evidence and the press statements issued by the prosecuting attorney's. I don;t know how you ignore that. I guess you do because it doesn't fit what you are saying,, so you just ignore the statements of facts presented in each case in court.

A recent example of why your suggestion of relying solely on testing is a failed approach are the New york/usa cases that i have posted multiple times about. All those people(29) either pleaded guilty or were found gulity and jailed for years and stripped of their assets. yet none were picked up in testing. The chief would say,well they were all just mugs who thought they were buying performance enhancers,but because they didn't return positives they were unkowingly being sold snake oil. testing is a tool,but as those that investigated the new york cases said,its the boots on the ground that is the best tool to catch people who act dishonestly. thats just reality.

So you seem to have just said your advocating no rules for raceday treatment. Does that mean your happy for anyone to turn up to the races with their pre mix of hartmans solution and a bucket and tube. Or do you think they should do that in the float or at the stables before they come?Wouldn't want to create the wrong impression. Nothing illegal in my milkshake,just take a blood or urine sample and i'll prove it. Thats funny as,but seriously i think your advocating something that would kill the sport off quicker than happens in a knife fight in a phone booth. Also you seem to have just said that if someone is using performance enhancers then you have every confidence that anything illegal will get picked up in testing.I know the chief says that,but surely your not being serious when you say that. Why can't people just play by the rules of fair play. Is that too much to ask?

What i'm saying is the content of the drip is a red herring. The focus should and is on the raceday treatment People who take chances and get caught just have to deal with it. They have knowingly done something with possible consequences.I can understand her trying to get as light a sentence as possible. Makes sense to me if i was her.Same priciple as the raceday treatment. Doing something that helps her. Just one is legal and reasonable and the other isn't.

I can never understand that you think people knowingly break the raceday treatment rules,believeing they are not helping performance. That she has risked her livelihood and reputation,when believing she was gaining no advantage from such actions. I mean,surely no one thinks anyone even exists that is that thick.