the galah

Just read the penalty decisions. Now i don't really care what the penalties given to waretini are,maybe they were appropriate,but if they only deserve $400 fines for shoulder barging another trainer and throwing her dogs around,why do harness drivers often get more, simply because their whip action for a couple of flicks wasn't deemed appropriate. Its hard to follow sometimes.

Your right in that you will never keep everyone happy. But the reality is its no where near fair currently. i gave the example recently on another thread,of a meeting held at addington a couple of weeks ago It had approximately 120 horses that started. 7 of the top 10 rated horses for the whole day were first starters. Thats just ludicrous.

cinamod junior? If it is him,i once met the fella that broke him in,i think the horse had a bit of age on him from memory. The fella invited me to a party at the stratford pub,didn't go and was glad i didn't as the two who went came back with shaved heads the next day. Maybe thats a taranaki thing?

Clearly the system has become unfair to non win horses,especially the rating a horse gets if it wins early in its career. Over time,more and more horses have dropped back to levels which place them at a huge advantage rating wise in comparison with the rating a non win horse starts on.Its just the way the current rating system has evolved.. Its simply discouraging many people.Just ask someone who has a horse who's won early in their career. Everyone will tell you the same thing.Why hasn't it already been changed? I think the answer is rather simple. Drop the non win horses to start with a rating 40. Any horse winning a non win race should remain a r40.A non win horses rating should not be reduced until they have had 3 unplaced starts. There should be a scale which ensures each subsequent win to the first by a non win horse should not generate more than a 5 point penalty.e.g.2 win horse never rated higher than r45,3 win r50,4 win r 55 etc. The reduced penalty points for younger horses should only kick in once they have reached a rating 50. i.e.No longer such exaggerated preferential treatment for 2 and 3 year olds. The half point junior wins should be limited to 1 per season per horse.The penalty free junior drivers races that they run should also be limited to 1 per horse each 2 seasons. Races programmed for non win horses should not only be based on ratings,but also based on stakes won in last 6 starts. Currently those who decide the make up of fields are not using the stakes won in recent starts as they should. Its a criteria thats should be used much more than it is when compiling the fields for all the races.

One of the nicest people you could ever meet,as is his wife.

I enjoyed it. Top job. The video you put together was great.The music does add something. Just another dimension to a great product. Trackside occasionally has mainstream music on some of their clips,which is good to watch.Not sure how they access it.I believe some of what you produce is even more suited to music than the ones trackside does. That video you put up today an example. Theres almost something haunting about what you capture sometimes(not sure whether thats the right word). Thats the type of thing i think the right music can bring out. Anyway,i have a daily routine of goggling unhinged now,just to see the latest on your website. A bit like i do with bit of a yarn.That and the news.

The decision raises the question, when is "inexperience" to be considered a factor when setting penalties. The answer is,when you are a junior driver.. And it seems when you are an amateur, its not. Monika Ranger had a similar charge last month and the adjudicators made a point of referring to her being an inexperienced junior driver and gave her an extra days reduction in penalty for that reason. No such luck for buckland stevens who has had less drives. Seems reasonable to consider inexperience,so why not consider it every time if its applicable.

Buckland-stevens recognised she made an error and pleaded guilty in the end. She was given a 7 day suspension,but given they said she only drives once every 2 weeks,they suspended her for over 3 months. Like if it were blair orange who did that(not that he would),but he would only get a 1 day suspension compared to buckland-stevens 14 weeks. Does that mean a driver who drives once a year will be suspended 7 years when another more experienced driver would get a one day suspension? sounds like it. To base the term of suspension solely on the criteria they do seems to be unfair. And what about junior drivers. Does that mean someone starting off who gets very few drives would effectively have a career ending suspension. Or do the powers that be that came up with the criteria, treat a junior who doesn't get many drives,different from other drivers who don't drive many. One assumes they do,so it appears they would be practicing discrimination based on age.

saturdays not a good night for tv thats for sure on mainstream tv. I just tend to watch the channel 73,the history channel on sky or channel 71 with all the real murder stories. That always cheers me up if the horses haven't been going too good.At least im still alive.What about you paleface.

Another paul. One thing i remember about the ted lowe trained,paul young driven horses. They always seemed to want to go as soon as they got on the track. They certainly had some good ones. A successful partnership. From memory they published ted lowes obituary in one of the papers one day,then the next day apoligised because he was still alive,then the next day he was dead. I wonder if he ever read his own obituary and wonder what he thought of it if he did.

Sherlock still on the case paleface. He hasn't closed the case yet.I just got to know paul at one stage,he has his own unique style of holding a conversation but i think a knowledgeable man when talking about horses. He must be getting on a bit now.I think hes moved into town these days,not that i come form there..

Another thiought.You mention yarns.At one point you interviewed paul gallagher.I enjoyed that one. If you ever see him again ask him about him training a horse that was first past the post with its cover still on. Thats a good yarn. He used to have the photo of it they published in the paper at the time.

I always thoroughly enjoy your productions. Earlier today the chief posted some barry white music on the thread about barry white. Got me thinking, thats the type of thing mr unhinged may do on some of his productions. I've no idea whether its practical.or whether you have the appropriate software or whether its too complicated to register to get access to use music clips,or if it costs anything or if you have the time. But having said all that,you produce stuff that would go well to music,e.g.those beach reports you do are great as they are,but also seem ideal to have a bit of nice music placed on the end part of them for a minute or two. So many great songs that would be ideal for them. As i said,maybe too complicated to do,but my 2 cents worth as to some good tracks if you ever did add music. Songs that come to mind like, one of these mornings(patti labelle),wildfire(michael murphy),somewhere over the rainbow(israel kamakawiwo'ole),slave to love(bryan ferry,)don't dream its over(crowded house),song for guy (elton john). Or you could go the themed type ones like say the one on sam ottley you did,you could do a second one exactly the same,and play Without a woman(zucchero and paul young). Some of the clips on facebook that appear to get so many views,your stuff would be better.then again sometimes i think maybe i should keep my ideas to myself. Who knows.

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.