the galah

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.

i've read your comments over the years and realise you don't condone cheating and believe a horses physical welfare is of great importance and horses should be treated with respect. Having said that,in this case i think you are being far too charitable and in looking for a best case scenario to paint the stewart stable in a better light,you are ignoring the obvious. Just google I.V. drips in athletes and horses and read what they say it can be used for and why they are illegal within the time frame that applied in this case. It says on many sites "I.V. drips are banned because they can increase performance by increasing plasma volume levels,mask the use of prohibited substances and distort blood test results and other physiological measurements obtained and used to check for descrepiancies that might indicate doping." I think its pretty obvious what they were doing and they should be disqualified for a long time.

Yes and to become the best they obviously have been cheating. How can anyone have respect for their achievements knowing that? Its guaranteed that this won't be a 1 off. Like who would believe they don't cheat in the high stake races when they do it at a country meeting. What a bunch of weak-kneed people the administators over there are. Why haven't they immediately announced they will be suspending the payout of any stakes that stable has won that has not already been paid out. That includes the $2 million dollar race. Why haven't they announced that depending on the results of their investigations,they may be doing retrospective testing on all group races won by the stable in the last 12 months. Why don't they have a rule whereby any stable that has a horse return a positive,has to comply with a rule where by they are required to install cameras and monitoring equipment on the training properties, which the Intefrity Unit can view at any time. And why is there not a requirement that the cost of installation must be covered by the offending trainer or whoever it is that wishes to train from the offending property. Why have they not come out and condemned the trainers actions? What about the other trainers. Surely they must have a trainers/drivers association over there. Why haven't they immeduately issued a statement. You know,it reminds me of those cases in the USA a year or so ago, where 29 people,mostly trainers but also vets and their staff,who manufactured,distrubuted and used what they accepted were perfromance enhancers at tracks like yonkers.The one where they mostly got around 3-5 years jail after mostly pleading guilty and were ordered to pay huge costs despite no positives. What did the the main Trotting association do over there. They hit hardest those that came forward and admitted their wrong doing early and provided information to authorites about others. The likes of jeff gural who ran the meadowlands was on record as saying he felt the U.S.trotting association were deliberately sending a message to people not to come forward,not to do the right thing and say something about the cheats. He said the US trotting association were undermining his efforts to stop cheating.Many over felt there that was due to the self interests of the administrators and influential backers of some adminsitrators,wishing to try and cover up dishonest behavior due to their links with some of the accused. The point being,no matter where you are,people cheat and the turning of a blind eye makes anyone who does that an enabler.

So for all those people who hold this stable as the gold standard,best of the best,why the silence?Wheres the condemnation of what this stable has been caught doing. Just silence. last week they won the richest harness race in the world,then this week dominated in the group one meeting at melton. Everyone happy to say how great they are. Well thats how you do it. You break the rules and you cheat. I'm referring to the media and industry leaders,who just brush over this type of stuff. They are complicit and actively promote a stable that they must know most think are cheats.Even worse,you even get people in the media and industry leaders,who simply have no credibility ,who will actively defend their integrity. We will have people saying,its a one off,they haven't returned positives,the testing system works,people are just jealous,white is actually black,blah,blah,blah,yada, yada,yada. Then there are some who prefer to believe the stable has always been honest,and have given them the benefit of the doubt.I can understand that thinking,but they must realise after weekend,that was just unrealistic wishful thinking. So who are the winners out of this. Firstly the employees of the integrity unit in victoria who were able to catch them in the act.That can't have been easy and they deserve full credit for that. All owners,traines,drivers,breeders who have had to race against a stable that nearly everyone must have believed were cheating. the punters. The horses. And what will be the outcome. Well probably they will get a relation,the farrier,the milkman ....someone who will carry on,beef up security even more to stop prying eyes and nothing much will in reality change and in a year or two the media sychophants will ramble on about how great and honest the relation is.

I think of the some really top australian trainers from not that many years gone by. They could get horses to race at the top for several seasons. So many,the mighty quinn,gammalite,smoken up,popular alm,scoth notch,westburn grant ,sir vancelot,paleface adios and many more.Maybe leap to fame can be the next.All had different trainers and all became household names. Thats the problem now.Top horses just don't last as long as they used to. I think part of the problem is the treatments horses get given nowdays,while they don't return positives,enables them to run faster then their bodies are made to cope with and very few last past 4 or 5 years old... Thats one thing that you have to credit and say the all stars have also been able to do,get some to race 3 or 4 seasons at the top,even if they have a lot that don't last that long.

fair enough. we just see things differently as far as the stewart stable goes. He was a blue magic man wasn't he.I once knew a nz trainer who had trained in aussie who knew the father. One day he was talking about a good horse he had trained over there. He said the key was when he spoke to tonkins father who then sent him a product with no label each time.. He said it made a really big difference,even though he never knew what it was.

its a bit sad seeing that.They had 23 more starters last week. Don't know where some of those have got to. Maybe some racing at oamaru on sunday ,maybe the time of year and the cost pf petrol.Taking a horse from canterbury would cost a lot i would imagine.. For years i backed on every harness race run in nz every year but some of the betting fields these days just aren't appealing enough to warrant investing.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Dropping stakes,turnovers,breeding numbers in victoria. Obviously the stewart stable domination isn't helping any of those. Owners may be queing to join the stable like you say.The reason for that is they know the trainers that trained their horses in the past simply can't get results anymore.And their former trainers would know it.The proof is in the results.That will be the mindset....In my opinion that is even more proof of what i say.

Those races with so many Emma stewart runners surely is a really bad thing for victorian harness racing.In fields where there will be only 12 starters they have 8,7,4x3.They dominate the pacing fields. Last week they had 9 winners at melton on saturday. I can't understand why in tasmania they complain about how bad things are because the yole team dominates numbers wise so many races. Yet when it comes to victoria the media sell it as being a great thing and people seem to go along with that. I really don't get why people are being told something that obviously is untrue. Any stable dominating anywhere is not a good thing. Just look at breeding figures in australia. The 2 states with one stable dominating,victoria and tasmania ,were the 2 states with the biggest decline in breeding numbers last season. Victora was a 23% decline and tasmania was 17%. In tasmania the media blame the yole stable, yet in victoria they go on and on about what a great thing the emma stewart stable is doing. It just makes no sense to me. In victoria they cut prizemoney this coming season by $3.9 million due to wagering falling 8% and they are making a further $6 million operational cuts. The media tryed to blame the reduction in breeding numbers on Harness racing australia for introducing a levy for shuttle stallions which meant in effect breeders were funding the $2 million slot race for 10 owners that started in that race. Funnily enough won by an emma stewart runner. Now that may have been part of the cause,but why did that impact victoria and tasmania more than other states. Well the most logical answer was there were other factors in play. The worst thing that happens in harness racing anywhere is when you have grass roots owners and breeders seeing races dominated by one or two stables and seeing the horses from those stables run in a way that people think they are on something. Also the biggest turn off for the average punter is races dominated by one or two stables where you know for sure there will be team driving. Punters who love the $1.60 favorites are not the majority of punters. I know that for certain. personally i understand they are out there as social media seems to have people say that. But i can't ever recall meeting a single punter who likes those type of races to bet on. Harness racing in victoria is on the slide downhill that they won't get off. Of course there are other factors,but not as significant.