the galah

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.

I think anyone who watched that race would think a long suspension is inevitable. Its says she defended the charge. I find it hard to believe she would continue with that approach. Nothing wrong with taking time to gather your thoughts on such a charge,but she no doubt will face up to the realities of it all you would think. its quite unfortunate for her,as it is for anyone who makes an error of judgment like that. But these things happen sometimes.As to her intent,i think it was a big error in judgment and she would have been trying.

Manhattan on the latest list of horses exported to australia.

Yes there are many reasons racing is declining. Its not a cheap hobby as you point out. But each aspect of the industries decline has to be analysed. The breeding aspect for many is influenced by that initial service fee/stud fees cost. Just accepting things as they are will not change the direction in breeding numbers. Reduced breeding fees will,but it would have to be a significant reduction to make an impact. Do i think it will happen . Well no. reality is you either continue the status quo and continue seeing a decline,or you think outside the box. Besides,having 150 mares bred at $5000 would generate the same income for stallion owners as having 100 bred at $7,500. Same could apply to the studs.

I believe it would. Doesn't the Royal Aspirations example show that. You have to remember there used to be a lot of breeders who also had a licence to train or had a family member who did, and the cost of the service fee and costs associated with breeding was viewed as the most significant cost in the horses early life/career. Then you had those that bred and were happy to have a 50/50 deal with a trainer where they supplied the horse and the trainer trained it for the 50% share. Then you had those who bred with the intent of leasing there horses out to other connections. etc,etc.

That seems to be the approach they take. Basing their service fee on the returns they wish to receive and as gammalite and paleface have pointed out,factoring in not wishing to possibly devalue the brand. In other words,keep the service fee at a level which discourages those with supposedly less credentialed mares to consider it viable to breed to them. Gammalite actually highlighted what nz harness desperately need,but don't have. That is an owner/studmaster, of a top line stallion willing to consider the good of the industry as much as they do their own interests. One of the best examples was mentioned by gammalite when he referred to Vance hanover. His owner,dave jessop factored in his belief that all owners of a standardbred mare should have the opportunity to breed to the leading nz harness sire at an affordable fee. Vance hanover was leading sire 10 times. Just imagine if that were to happen today. Rival stud fees would be reduced so as to compete,and the numbers being bred would increase big time. If you want an example of whether there are broodmare owners out there wanting to breed to a stallion, but doing so only if they consider the service fee affordable and reasonable, then just look at the response Royal Aspirations received last year. Now you can't tell me those who bred to him are expecting top liners,maybe hope but not expect. But they think they are giving themselves a chance to possibly breed a nice horse who they could have a lot of fun with. Last year he got 107 mares and his service fee was at a realistic and affordable $2500,with some discounts and the hrnz rebate. So,possible solutions are there to increase foal numbers,but while stallion owners factor in only their own interests,then the numbers bred will continue to decline and the whole industry,including the owners of the better mares and stallions will ultimately pay a price for such short sightedness.

Maybe your right about that. I can only go bu what those i see tell me. and that is the cost of breeding is no longer affordable for them. Thats a factor.Studs don't factor that in when setting their fees. For the good of the industry they should,but most of the stallions owned overseas anyway aren't they?So why would overseas stallion owners care much if their prices are leading to less numbers being bred?l

There you have identified why there are not many left breeding horses anymore. Spend $20,000 to get progeny of what is perceived as a great value sire,captain treacherous. I don't know too many trainers/breeders,but the people i know still involved in the game don't have $20,000 to breed a horse. Its fantasy to think the average person who still potters around with a horse will spend that much. Lazarus hasn't many foals which has lead to some speculation as to why he has had fertility issues.

I agree. When you talk to people who breed to race and train them or who use trainers other than the top 3 or 4 stables,in other words those that focus not on the monetary side but the enjoyment side of racing,they will tell you for them the costs of the stud fees,vet fees and grazing associated with breeding and the subsequent costs to get a horse that may not race until it was 4,is not worth the effort when you factor in how they perceive the type of horse they have is not treated as well as others in the handicapping system. The handicapping system rewards the owners/breeders/trainers who race and win with their 2 and 3 year olds,and with the junior driver concessions. In other words it clearly incentivises,through concessions, people to push their horses early. So the irony is,on one hand HRNZ are trying to promote breeding by have some sort of rebate system for breeders,while on the other hand operating a handicapping system that incentivises people to have there horses prepared in a way that focuses on short term goals,and if those short term goals aren't met,then the product(horse) is cast aside. So breeders who used to focus most on enjoyment and longevity,and supplied the industry with type of horse,now look at the cost and decide its unrealistic.

You've pointed out that he has been penalised as per the handicapping system rules.So in that respect,yes he has been treated as he should be. However thats not the point i'm making. I'm saying if the rules were fair,anyone should be able to look at adesanya's record in comparison to the others he is running against,and easily see why he is rated so much higher. But you can't. The horse with the lowest number of wins,the 2nd lowest in stakes is the clear top rated. If he were to win that race, he would then have to run in the highest ranked race on the night and would theoretically be rated above warloch,evangalist,tom martin,jack tar and casino action. Thats just not fair. You point out that he should be looking to get point concessions.Well of course he can't change his age,because once you reach 4 the handicapping system thinks you should get double the points penalty compared to a 3yo. And as to using a concession driver. Like who?Theres only been a couple of concession drivers recently who look to come close to matching the skills of his regular driver,and they are about to lose their concession status anyway.So in reality you are suggesting he put a driver on to lessen his chances,so he runs nowhere for a few times. The way i see the handicapping rules have to a degree always been written so as to advantage those who have had the input into what they actually are. Its like some group complains and to placate them they give that groups horses a discount. Adesanya has all the wrong credentials to be treated fairly. He has reached the age of 4 years and is a horse that comes from a stable that considers he performs best with a top driver on. Any sensible owner/trainer out there should look at him and ask themselves. Will my horse be able to win races before he turns 4. If the answer is no or he is late to mature and they want some longevity out of him by not pushing him early, then those owner and trainers must seriously consider why they should bother paying training fees to a trainer when he is going to be so harshly treated in comparison to others.

This horse is in race 5 at addington on friday. Its the highest rating horse at r56,yet its It's only won 2 races,the least in the field along with one other who is rated r50. The other 10 starters have won 51 races between them. How is it that the rating system seems to unfairly punish the likes of adesanya,simply because he is a 4 year old. I see the owners of adesanya are mostly the same owners of dance till dawn,a 4 win,11 placing group 1 placed horse from 35 starts whose won over $110,000 more. Yet adesanya is rated 5 points higher. The handicapping system seems flawed.It is supposed to treat all horses and their connections fairly, But clearly when you look at horses like adesanya,it doesn't.Obviously being a 4yo hes too old to get any concessions,so if his owners weren't so wealthy ,he would most likely be sold.

Thats just what he can do when he puts his mind to it. Had a small wager on him myself. It was his 3rd run back from a bit of a let up and his previous run wasn't too bad. For me the key was having sam thornley driving. He needs an aggressive driver and seems to give his best for him if driven at a constant speed as opposed to a stop start speed. Then again,most horses are. The close in draw another part of his success.I personally think he just is happy to plod around for the other drivers hes had recently.Hes one of those horses that on his day and in the right grade can deliver a big run and on other days you just have to say,well ill wait to all the positive factors are in play. Mind you i only came out just ahead on the punt for the day, so i was pleased he won .

I have her rated more a top 4 chance. Hard to see it beating maren franco or classie linc myself but is n great form. I see the horses drawn 3-7 are all rated 50 & 51,yet have won 38 races between them. Yet if you had a 1 start,1 win horse in the field,it would also be rated 50. The worst thing any horse 4years old or more could do would be to win in its first couple of starts because its then thrown in against horses like superstar legend who have won over $100,000. Hard to make sense of things like that. Thats part of the reason many sell overseas. Those who programme races really don't seem to factor that in and its all becoming unfair again.The handicapping system really does need revamped as does the programming I don't undersatnd why there doesn't seemto be a grasp of the reality that whenever you giver one group,whether it be young horse concessions,junior driver 3 point concessions or drop back concessions...you do so by penalising those that don't get any concessions. Its like the 3 point junior driver. Personally i get tired of hearing the whale or matt cross go on and on about what a great thing they are. Great why? If your going to say something at least base it on fact. Its like if they repeat it enough they think people will believe them. Well Its been obvious that the handful of stables benefitting were using those drivers before anyway. So whats changed? Nothing as far as i can see and i've been following it. When gemma thornley wins another race with lizzie richter or bella button ,the result is with the concessions and a penalty free win,they can win 3 races to every one elses 1 for the same rating penalty.I defy anyone to show evidence that those drivers would not have gotten those drives anyway. Mark jones used her just as much beforehand,michael house the same with his son,dalgety the same. Good luck to those drivers for taking advantage of a rule designed to give them special treatment,but really.