the galah

The TAB have a deliberate policy of setting his selections at reduced odds,working on the theory that he's pretty good at picking winners. It works for them and i'm sure they love the whale as they know they may take the occasional loss,but that they will come out a fair way ahead in the long run by selling bets at ridiculously short odds.. But i think its a bad thing the TAB promote his selections as if they are doing the punters a favour and are giving punters good advice. If they are to use the whale,what they should be doing is telling people his selections and at the same time telling them what the whale considers is a realistic price for his selections.That should be in brackets beside his selections whenever it features on trackside.

The head of harness racing australia said the slot holders only fund half and harness racing australia come up with the other million. He said a while back that its "unashamedly designed to grow the australian harness racing industry.it is part of our strategy to encourage owners and participants to buy australian born yearlings". Those retention barns only stop treatments in the short timeframe a couple of days before a race.The experts say if someone was using the likes of epo it would be in the weeks leading into a race,not when in the retention barn.Has a retention barn ever caught anyone in australia?

Interesting how they have done the pyramid on the HRNZ website which shows $3.4 million of the extra $5 million in stakes paid next year is going into "base" races.So what is deemed a base race? Well the only way i could get a figure of $3.4 million was to add the provincial low key,provincial standard,the provincial features(excluding the country cups),all the metro meetings and the $750k 2year old bonuses. That came to $3.4 million. So it seems the only races not considered base races are the country cup races,11 or so premier meetings,the 2 nz cup week meetings,and the race(cambridge).So that means all except about 155 races run each are classified as a "base" race by hrnz. It appears the cut off for their description of a base race is any race where the stake is under $20,000(which is the aforementioned 155 races per year). A bit of smoke and mirrors happening? The anomaly of the $20,000 cut off is that when they run a race programmed for 2 year olds,if the winner is having its first 2 year old win,then that would mean that races stake/bonus would be well over $20,000.Strangely, if that occurs in a standard 2 year old race on a metro night,that race would be paying out more money than any standard premier race run all year. The way they did their pyramid diagram seems strange as it doesn't progress in numerical size increases. Good thing they didn't design the actual pyramids.

The only thing that is a little unclear is the wording,mick guerins article says it applies to a 2 year olds first totalisator win,whereas hrnz says its for their first win in a 2yo totalisator race.From guerins article he is working on the assumption that should a non win race be programmed for 2 year olds and above,that it applies.Which seems a fair assumption.

I see a write up on the hrnz website says the connections of any 2year old winning its first race from next year will get $8,000 for its first win and the breeder will get $4,000. Or put it another way. The owners and breeders of every horse aged 3 or over will receive $12,000 less when winning their first race,than the owners/breeders of a 2 year old winner. There is your answer as to who HRNZ prioritize, and who they don't. Once people wake up and realise this is the case, i predict it will cause division and disenchantment amongst those who don't race or win 2 year old races,in other words 95% of the owners and breeders out there. I don't have much idea who it is that makes these decisions,but its pretty obvious whoever these people are,which trainers they are looking after and who they almost certainly would get to train a horse they owned.You don't have to be einstein to work that out.

I've always been a swinging voter and have voted nz first several times,although didn't last time as i thought winston somehow lost himself a bit in what he was saying, leading into the last election. So far this year he seems more like the old winston that i respected. The media coverage of the launch the other day was a little bewildering. They showed a packed room with no vacant seats,then the reporter said the numbers were somewhat disappointing as there were many empty seats. I actually thought i must of heard it wrong so rewound it,but sure enough thats what she said despite showing pictures to the contrary. When the media start disparaging him is when you know he is saying things they don't want to give coverage and is a good sign. His move to throw more support behind those who believed in freedom of choice about the vaccines i believe to be a good move. Its something i think he was surprisingly slow to capitalise on originally,but with one of his candidates being a well known anti mandate doctor,it seems a good move to support the freedom of choice views that a significant part of the population have and that other parties,apart from perhaps act, have ignored. It was only a couple of months ago i was thinking a vote for nz first may be a wasted vote,but given the old winston seems to have re emerged at this stage,NZ first may have a chance after all.

I agree the media is driving a lot of the division,but unfortunately how they operate works.They see division as a tool to promote their views,then complain about the division they actually help create. Also,Many people are happy to think in the majority without giving any logical thought to what it is they are supporting. Respect for opposing views is disappearing and its the media and unfortunately politicians who are driving it. Christopher luxon weakness is a consequence of that,for it seems his first consideration before speaking is ,how will i be judged if i say this,instead of having the confidence to actually just say and do what he thinks is right. That ,in my opinion,is why national is not currently as popular as it should be. The recent shooting in auckland was another example of how the media approach the race subject,which they normally happily use to divide.. The samoans are now talking about the relationships between different pasifika groups,yet that got little coverage from mainsteam media as when it comes to that subject its only newsworthy if the shooter had been white.

Yes,its helping retain some on one hand but on the other hand is driving more away. The horses it helps are those who under the old system would have won 3-5 races and who the connections are happy to run every week to get back down in the ratings. The ones it hinders are those who would have won 1-2 races under the old system,who can win next to no money thereafter as soon as they win their first race because they are now running against better horses who have dropped to their grade or below. Also its now at a point where even the horses who may have won 3-4 races under the old system are needing to be trained by someone who will run them every week for 3 months to get the drop backs,as that initial win is placing them against horses who are better. So the upshot of all that is its unfair on people and their horses who fall into the latter categories and they will simply give up or sell,or sell before they even race. The rating system works well in the non win grade,but thereafter makes so many horses having their dirst win either uncompetitive,or uncompetitive until they have run unplaced for months. Just ask anyone with a horse after their first win ,what they think.Its leading to less of those horses being trained. I personally can''t understand why they can't run more races where stakes won are part of the conditions. One thing that is apparent if you walk around a racetrack and talk to the trainers and drivers. They recognise that its just as important for the industry to have people participating at all levels,top and bottom. Which goes back to the example of Sir Monty.The current system allows horses like rubys a delight or take after me,to drop back to the same grade they have won previously, within 6 starts. So why on earth should they not have some type of provision in the handicapping system for sir monty to drop back to a non win grade say 10 starts latter. lets face it,it took hom 50 starts to win his non win race,so no one with a non win horse is going to complain if they run against him when hes had the inevitable run of unplaced runs in his current grade.They do it in australia,but in nz they simply don't seem to care about his type.

Sir monty ran today. His rating was r40. His record- 50 starts for 1 win and 4 placings.$18,421 in stakes Compare that to the winner,rubys a delight-her record 100 starts for 7 wins and 26 placings and $85,650 in stakes. Yet sir monty was rated above rubys a delight.

Some claimed hrnz have only ever contributed next to nothing to the race. $150,000 seems a bit more than next to nothing. One area of increased funding which i think seems short sighted, is the $2 million one off payment entain have asked hrnz to put into 2yo racing. We all know that only a handful of stables and their connections will benefit. It seems very out of touch with where the industry would most benefit from extra funding. Also,when most had been assuming that hrnz was trying to encourage longevity in a racehorses career to compensate for the lack of numbers being bred,they are sending a contradicting message by prioritizing funding for2 year old racing. I know its easy to pick holes in these type of things,but to me the more you read where the funding has gone,the more you realise they are still trying to please everyone.

If you look at it from the point of view of the person with say a non win horse. Take a club like westport who would be classified as running low key meetings. Last year at christmas their non win races were run for the then required minimum of $10,000. Then they dropped to $9,000 for their march meeting because the stakes funding was cut by 10% just after christmas. Now it says they will be funded for $10,500. So in reality they have gone up $500 since the end of last year. That is assuming the club doesn't put the extra $500 into a higher class race on the day,which it says any club can. Some of the standard provincial meetings will get a $1,500 increase,but again it seems up to the club whether they put that to the non wins or whether they use it to put the stake of the higher class race on the day up.Again the stakes may not increase much,depending on which races they put the increase into. Thats what it says on the hrnz website. So in reality any increase is good,but nothing to get too excited over.

must be a hypothetical question. Has any horse ever won that many in nz ever?

I agree with a lot of that but there needs to be change to the initial rating a non win horse gets. Its a no brainer to me,but for some reason it hasn't been changed. Those who make up the handicapping rules need to be proactive and not 12 months behind the times reactive.

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.