the galah

its always good to hear some punters are making money,as after all isn't that what we all try and do. my issue is not the prices they set. I think they pretty much get the opening prices about right and if they don't the horses concerned get heavily supported by only a small group of punters who bet soon after markets come out and those horses from that point on are unders. my issue is that harness racing is now becoming an unattractive product to bet on for the bulk of punters. the tote pools are so small they aren't worth betting on if your spending much,because your bet will cut the price too much. The ff's aren't attractive as the better chances are quicly dropped in to unrealistic odds because the small number of clever,winning early bettors have been identified by the tab and they use those punters to help price the markets ,thus providing unrealisrtically short odds for the 95% of punters who bet closer to start time. also,why would the tab have the whale on tv if he was a liabilty to the tab.It makes no sense. They must have him on because he can influence the punters to bet on his selections and the tab know that and price such horses in way that the tab will always ciome out on top in the long run. i've always thought the tab's strategy to dumb down the punters and get others to select for them will ultimately mean less horse,driver ,trainer recognition and ultimately less punter interest in the sport. Thats just a hunch,but the turnover trends induicate its certainly hasn't helped. but its not only that. Harness racing is providing a product where the winning chances are limited due to field size and often race patterns. All these sprint races at tracks like addington and auckland result in fewer moves as they never slow down and even the average punters know they have done their money after 400m and thats not something that makes the average punter, who doesn't mind losing smaller amounts,want to particpate. Thats not much fun.

Yes i knew the horse has its races spaced and that a meeting was transferred to the all weather at riccarton. sounds like your saying they decided to run on a track that was unsuitable at dunedin instead of running on a track that hasn't previously produced results at riccarton. i don't know,that doesn't seem that clever to me,as wouldn't it cost the owners much more to travel to dunedin and wouldn't a run on a really heavy track take more out of a horse that races only once a month,than a run on a synthetic track. personally i don't care where anyone runs their horses,all that matters to me is what you factor in when having a bet.Its their horse and they can run whereever they like. so i've just been saying the ride i highlighted to start this thread, was a ride where the jockey threw away a winning chance by an extremely poor tactical decision with 500m to go,and is a bit different from the bella mio ride,which personally i didn't think was good but the reason for that was not only the jockeys tactical decision,but involved other factors.

i know theres a thread on the galloping chat part of this site,but i thought i would just comment on the harness site,as mr searle was someone who contributed so much to the harness sport. while i didn't know him personally,i felt he took particular pleasure in promoting what i often refer to as, the people who come from the grass roots level of the industry. in his role as a racing reporter,he appeared very well aware that people who are involved in harness racing,do so for the love of the sport,the love of the animal and the interaction of people from different walks of life,but mainly made up of hard working class people. I think the reason he could relate to that so well,was because thats who he was.. every story he wrote would have been valued immensly by those who were the subject matter.Everyone likes reading an article about themselves and he happened to write a couple about our horses .I still occasionally look back in the scrap book that mum used to keep..He actually wrote one about a horse we had running in a couple of days,as his lead racing story one time ,in which he said we were going to win and he gave a few comments from us. i remember going to the local store and buying 2 copies of the southland times as it was so unusal for us to get something like that. Turned out we won and still paid a big dividend.From that day on,he was someone who always seemed to go out of his way to say hullo if passing.On a racecourse you can't be stopping to say hullo to everyone that you may have met a handful of times as you would be stopping all the time,and i could never do that myself but he just seemed an unassuming fella who was wanted you to feel welcomed in the southland province. i think who he got to train or care for the horses he owned was also a reflection of the type of people with whom he felt very comfortable with. for a few years there, i would go down to the local library to fill in my lunch break and read the southland times racing page for which mr searle wrote and also the otago times as they had such good racing reporters. Actaully mr searle was a typical southlander. Theres something about southlanders and how they are so friendly,kind and generous to others,that is not found in the bigger cities. as an aside i've found it interesting how his death has been covered or how people have reacted .The harness racing industry,maybe even just people in general, seem to focus on people that are high profile and which they don't really know that well and just overlook the people that surround them and the impact of their loss on those around them.Like i was talking to someone the other day who said they watched the greg sugars funeral and said he knew many that did.Nothing wrong with that,but why are people who may never have spoken to someone,drawn to that instead of the impact of someone more familiars death.Anyways,i'm getting of subject. But jamie searle was a really nice man and its very sad hes passed on.

but the stats say there is a difference now. we are in may. so if you look up the average rainfall. christchurch is 55mm and dunedin 63mm. not that much difference. but theres a big difference when it comes to sunshine hours. christchurch average is 6.1 per day ,dunedin only 3. christchurch averages 7 days on which rain falls and dunedin 17. so if your a trainer with a horse that doesn't like really deep heavy tracks,why would you target dunedin? . so your commenrt about grandstand trainers is rather silly. dismissing my comments on the basis the trainers can win a premiership, i think thats very flawed logic. I actually backed the horse in question at riccarton when it ran 2nd,but discarded it at wingatui based on not running on a suitable track.turned out i was right.

well , in my opinion,they should be avoiding wingatui ,invercargill and riverton.There seems to be a big differebnce between a heavy 10 at riccarton and a heavy 10 at wingatui.The horse in question stats show its best over 1000m too, so obviously a combination pf a really wet track and 1200m is not where its at its best. The really wet tracks thing also seems to apply to most of the te aku horses. there seems an obvious pattern there.i guess is because they may be training on tracks that are far better than they strike further south,therefore aren't as conditioned for the wetter conditions.

its interesting what you see sold on gavel house and how much they go for. the latest broodmare sales included talk about art.6 y old She is by a mare who left 3 foals,1 being a group 1 and group 2 winner and the other being a winner of 4 races. this mare didn't meet her reserve of $500. ruby rose. 9y oldThis mare has had 3 foals of racing age. 1 has won 3 from 19 starts,another has raced as a 2year old this season. apparently its 4th foal was sold for $90,000 at the latest yearling sales. ruby rose was sold for $600. diamond edition 10 y old this mare was a winner of 1 race and a half sister to 6 foals,5 of them winners. she has had 2 foals,with her oldest being 2. sold for $500. dead cat bounce-a 15 y old group 1 winning mare whos oldest foal is 5 race winner ,bounce and beyond,a 4 y old who raced in most of the gropup 1 races at 2 and 3.. sold for $750. now there were other mares that sold,with the highest being for $15000 being linda lovegrace ,a 13 y old,who has left a group 2 winner and another who ran 2nd in the harness million to millwood nike. so whats the point well firstly it must be really disappointing for all broodmare owners to see horse,whose families that they have nourished,followed and cared for over the years,be sold for next to nothing with some you would think not even guaranteed a retirement given they are seen as of so little value. really that could be viewed as even heartbreaking by many who have really cared for their horses over the years. but the other point i make,is the people at HRNZ are just full of bullshit when they tell you how things are looking positive. the morons who ramble on about next gen are just that,right royal morons, who have no appreciation of just how dire the well being of the industry is and the direction it is heading. You know i read an article on HRNZ about the whitelocks who have 4 family members going into the ownership of a young horse. That story,seemed to somehow be used to justify the success of the next gen. these people who are behind these schemes are fooling only themselves and no one i know believes any of what they say. For a reality check,how about they look at gavelhouse.

I think if it was my horse,i would be conceding it wasn't placed very well by the trainer,(easy to say that in hindsight),running on a heavy wingatui track.And it ran accordingly. When it ran 2nd at riccarton the winner of that race ran its last 600m in 33.85 whereas yesterday the winner ran its last 600m in 38.55. Nearly all the races yesterday were won by swoopers,mostly down the outside,so as pointed out,drawn 1 and racing midfield made it more unlikely it would get the ideal run.. te akau don't seem to excel much on really wet tracks either.All the factors seemed against it before it even started yesterday and so it turned out. But i do agree with you that its no big deal to express an opinion about a ride. Like i did when i started this thread. The opinion i gave i had thought was obvious and was confirmed in the stipes report,but even then some others didn't seem to agree,which is fair enough. Everyone is always expressing opinions about rides or drives. Its through debating suc h things that we learn what others think and vice versa. Not that what others think means much other than awareness of others opinions.

I remmeber the days when the likes of lisa allpress would ride at invercargill and would start improving with 800m to go then really push them along from the 600m .She and one or two other north island jockeys used to win a lot of races that way. for them it all was about forward momentum. but you look at most of those races today,not one jockey is doing that. most of them just sit there,then with about 400m to go ask their horses to go but the track seems too wet to accelerate much and they miss the boat unless they are in the first 2 or 3. i miss having those north island jockeys riding down there as at least you knew if you backed one that lost, it lost because it wasn't good enough. those were the days.

i've been watching the south island gallops and i wonder whether sometimes the apprentice jockeys are just riding to instructions and that trainers are telling whatever you do, don't do this or that. either that or some are as bad as i have ever seen. race 1 at invercargill,friendofthedevil .i guess the apprentice was under instructions to not move until they turned for home. it went from the perfect 1/1 position and travelling great with 600m to gor,then waited till halfway down the straight,some 10 lengths from the leader and finally being asked to go. soemthing seems wrong when they get ridden so bad. I just not sure the reason for it?

yes,and i would say in nz the number of smaller punters is declining at a faster rate on harness racing due to the lower tote dividends of the favorites ,when compared to galloping. i read this week that turnover on british horse sacing was down 1.6 billion pounds in the last 2 years. as to the last 3 months,british racing turnovers for run of the mill meetings is down 14.4%,although the premier meetings have stayed at the same levels. Larger punters are seen as the main drivers of turnover at the run of the mill meetings,but they are not iinvesting like they used to,which is being blamed to a large degree on the rules the government brought in around gambling,with betting agencies having to check peoples credit and profit losses,etc. Apparently 1/3 of larger punters have instead turned to black market betting providers.. Of course you can't do that in nz. but the point being,that whatever the reason punters are being restricted for, either here or in britain,its the larger punters who drive turnover and if the larger punters are being discouraged from betting then turnovers will fall. all pretty much just common sense you would think. i know some people will say here,well the less winning punters you have the better your profit/loss. While there is some logic to that,that seems to be what is trying to be implemented here and of course thats directly related to turnovers going down. we all know its pointless for someone to even put as little as $200 a place on the tote on a horse at a run of the mill harness meeting here. e.g. say you put $200 a place on the biggest turnover race at winton today,which was race 7. Had you backed,closer to start time, the 2nd horse you would have halved its dividend from $5.20 to about $2.50. Or say if you had put that $200 a pl;ace on the 3rd horse you would have dropped its dividend from $2.60 to about $1.60. I mean .lets face it,only i a fool would be putting much on the tote these days because of the low pools. so only the smaller punters are still investing on nz harness on the totes and the bigger,more successful punters are investing on the ff and if successful are being limited. so its inevtitable that racing in areas which have low starter numbers and lots of hot favorites,are going to be a drain on the industry. And the crazy thing about harness racing is that the governing body is viewed as prioritising the people who provide the horses at the meetings that return losses and that the governing body does that at the expense of those who provide the horses for the meetings that run at a profit. i mean,its quite hard to comprehend the stupidity of those who are making these decisions,but they are. the whole industry,whether it be the governing body or those who's job it is to promote turnover, are both heading in the wrong direction. And when you head in the wrong direction,even if you realise and turn around and go in the right direction,you have to travel so much further just to end back at square one w,whcih is where you started.And of course,thats a problem when you only have a finite amount of petrol in the car.

Well the bookies opened claasee at $1.70 today and it drifted to $2.05. The money tracker shows today it was by far the most heavily supported in its race. Really,this horse is the gift that keeps giving for the bookies. Claasee,was unlucky last start for sure,but how many horses back up 4 days after a gut buster like it had on sunday.Then to top things off it was asked to loop the field midrace.Maybe they were the instructions,but it was money for jam for the bookmakers today. One thing i've noticed about southland racing and really most harness meetings,is how ridiculously short some favorites are. So often these days,the bookies open a horse short and then it just gets shorter. today 3 of the first 4 winners paid $1.75 or under. Another 2 paid $2.50 and $2.80. The $2.80 winner wasn't even favorite. if you put a $ e.w on all the favorites on ff prices around closing time,you would have spent $14,backed 4 of the 7 winners but lost money. On tuesday at cambrdge there were some crazy hot favorites. The likes of patrick mahomes,who is a horse i've followed,closed paying only $2 to win.I mean patrick mahomes a $2 favorite was just ridiculous. All these hot favorites really isn't helping turnover. Really you can see why harness is struggling. only the grass tracks with the big even fields provide a betting product which has appeal to the punters. these other meetings with so many hot fasvorites,even when they win,unless you got on really early,you would never back them in the last hour because the prices are so ridiculous. and as i've said,lthe tote prices for favorites thse days mimics the ff closing prices as it appears the bookies off load as the race closes to limit their losses on the favorites,thus dropping the tote prices. anyways,southland has been heading down the same path as auckland racing. Just not as attractive to bet on like it used to be a few years ago.

maybe.but i don't think there are many more obvious things than the one i'm highlighting. It involved a hot favorite and that incident effectively looked to cost it the win. i think the stipes saw it and chose to overlook it because of what i said earlier. the stipe in charge at that meeting,vinny munro is a former international rugby referee . I think he refereed about 3 internationals and quite a few super rugby games and lots of provincial games. i remember reading an article about him when he moved to be a stipe. i just looked it up again. he was quoted as saying "like anything there were highs and lows. There were some wonderful experiences around the world meeting some wonderful people, and then decisions that you make sadly some people hold you accountable and take it personally". so i think hes trying to walk the line,hold people accountable but not upset them.No doubt he interacts a lot with those he polices. well that may be all well and good,but theres another factor at play when it comes to racing.The punters. Punter confidence in the product goes down when they see instances of drivers actions being overlooked when it effects horses they've punted on .Punters are like spectators in a rugby game,but less forgiving as they have some of their hard earned $ riding on outcomes. Anyway,its not as if punters are baying for blood as they recognise drivers make mistakes. All punters want, is to think the stipes are doing their job,which means punters should be able to expect the horse they bet on, can rely on fair play from its opposition drivers.

thats why i guess a kyle thought he could improve on the inside. But even if robyn hustler,who drew 2 is a little bit wider than normal,the drivers in the photo on the inside are not permitted to come off as obviously it would create interference. Its like in any race where the leader may be running more than a carts width off the inside,trailing horses do exactly the same. You don't see drivers improving on the inside because its not the done thing. If drivers did that and they come to a bend and the lead horse moves in a little and dictates that the horses following do the same,then your going to have inteference if someone has improved up the inside in midfield. I think the failure of the stipes to even mention it,indicates southland stipes are happy to overlook such things. possibly a factor is the stipes involved have double standards of enforcement if an inexperienced junior is involved. I say that because its the second case involving a junior driver in just the last week that i've highlighted. The other was in the north island. The stipes have very important jobs to do. two of the most important facets of their job is saftey standards and integrity standards. In the years leading up to operation inca i questioned on this forum why the stipes took no action in investigating what i saw as a handful of very obvious questionable drives.Turned out those drives were part of the catalyst for operation inca.Had the stipes done their job, i believe operation inca would never have happened.The most obvious reason they didn't take any action was because it was simply the easy way for them to deal with such occurences. In other words,lets not upset anyone as they will really moan and the stipes will cop some flak,so lets not upset these people as we have to deal with them each week,so lets just turn a blind eye. And thats what they did. Wel,here we have a different issue,that of safety,but again its something that, if it southland or the north island,they are happy to overlook. i mean,its their job to look at things like we are discussing.There shouldn't have to be an accident before they mention it in their stipes report.

One of the bookmakers favorite horses ,classee again got beaten yesterday as an odds on favorite. These things happen,but the strange thing about its unlucky run yesterday was the run it received and how that got no mention in the stipes report. having looked at the video many times,its seems quite clear that classee had positioned itself behind the horse that drew 2,in the 1/1 posisition. then ,while in the 1/1 position following the number 2 horse,another horse improved inside the horse to classees inside.. In others words,that hose,ask me lou,improved into a position that it really shouldn't have been entitled to or was able to without hindering those outside it.i guess it was one of those races where the horses were racing slightly off the inside as you often see,otherwise he wouldn't have been able to improve,but still he should have known not to do that anyway. but it did happen and everyone could see as a result of that,drivers were turning their heads and obviously drivers would have been voicing their opinions along the lines of,what are you doing,you can't do that. so the upshot of it all was the hot favorite,who most punters would have been watching,went from a good position to a very bad position through no fault of its own. So my question is,given it all seemed pretty obvious,how come the stipes didn't even think it worth a mention. It seemed another inconsistent application of the rules depending on what area something happens.

The concessions for juniors is a good thing if your perceived as a talented up and coming junior,but reality is its doing very little for the drivers in the bottom half of the junior premiership. so far this season,of those in the bottom half of the premiership, only 2 have managed to average more than 2 drives a week. and theres less juniors having driven so far this year then the previous couple of years. And i don't think the concessions has that much to do with the 5 juniors being in the overall top 10. Yes,they would have got more drives when they started off their careers,which would have given their talents greater exposure,but 4 of the top 5 juniors aren't concession drivers anyway and the other one won't be for much longer. To me the junior driver concessions are all a bit smoke and mirrors. On the face of it they give the appearance of prioritising juniors. but as i've said,reality is its doing next to nothing for the bottom half of juniors and its not relevant for the more successful drivers. So in reality only about 1/3 of the juniors are getting any benefit from it. Then theres the,well its not as if theres more drivers driving because you have concession drivers. In other words,if they are getting more drives,then other drivers,most likely those who are not juniors and struggle to maintain much income to continue participation in the sport,well they are losing drives. And then you have HRNZ paying juniors gear and licence renewals. Thats all well and good. But what about the people who struggle to get enough income to keep their horses. They in effect are paying more to hrnz so hrnz can cross subsidize the juniors. Iits just logical to say,that if one group,within a group of either owners/trainers/drivers/rating of horses,etc is getting preferential treatment then other groups are recieving less than fair treatment. Previously i have given my suggestions on here for better and fairer ways to give all juniors,at all levels a fairer go and in a way that doesn't have a negative effect on others who struggle to make a living who are juniors. but like most of what i suggest,don't see the point in going through my thoughts as its nothing like the system currently in place and because i think it would work better,it will never be implemented anyway. people should ask themselves this,are more of the current juniors going to continue their particpation in the industry long term because of the current system?

Unfortunately i'm still able to only view the last 3 stories on your website. I got to see the robertsons,hannah and barron stories. all great clips capturing the moment and providing content that is relateable to the very people the industry should be focussing on trying to retain,but instead are prioritising as the bottom of the pile. as i've expressed before,your videos/stories should appear on the hrnz website. Its an indictment on the thinking of those that run harness racing,that they don't see the value in having your videos available for viewing on their website. but you've been doing your thing for some time now and like the people you interviewed on thursday,they appear to take your significant contribution for granted as well.Its a real head scratcher .

Auckland reactor....theres a coincidence. Do you get that ? "i should get out more.....you've told me that before.......thats recognised as one of the most common pieces of advice given by psychiatrists...hmm... did it work for you??? Makes stuff up....you mean stuff like auckland trotting club members being excited when they came home from a meetimg after being told the land sale had fallen through....huh... And your telling me i have an imagination.....No sunshine,i am closer to the truth than you.

josh dickies a bit of an egnima,as regards to how horses respond to him. I have to admit,i don't like backing horses he drives ,but sometimes i do and sometimes they run really well and sometimes they don't. like he drove debrief to win at cambridge recently and that horse obviously ran for him, which pleased me. and from what i've seen on trackside,he seems to be a good thinker and obviously a hard worker. But,still hes not a favorite of mine. I wouldn't blame his driving for the disappointing results of the telfer horses at manawatu. They do seem to have a lot of horses who go ok,but who need more experience,as nowornever has pointed out.Punters need to factor that in.Really i did think some of their horses that were haeavily backed at manawatu didn't deserve to be so short on form. Iron brigades was a deserving favorite,but his manners were poor,as it usually beings from a stand but broke both times. What i've noticed about the telfer horses is they seem to improve when they come to the south island. but the odd thing is that improvement can come within a short space of time.. Maybe they get a different pre race treatment from a canterbury vet. actually something i always factor in for that stable is if they go to southland they seem to improve even more. Its not the quality of horse they run against,theres a definite improvemnet and you can see it in their body language. They run down there like the cullen horsers do in the bigger races. e.g. general jen for cullen. also the telfer trained horses always give the impression that not much time is spent of standing start practice. Its like they are used to going out onto the track for training,warmed up ,turned aroiund quickly and then come off the track quickly. i guess they would have a lot of horses to work each day and have to get through them all.

Nathan purdons doing the right thing not driving. when he was driving there was a handful of topics on this site about his driving. If i commented ,it was always along the lines of, for some reason horses just don't run for him. personally i've always though b orange is the best,as good as d dunn,but n rasmussen not too far behind and mark purdon tops as well. Actually one thing thats always been true about the all star horses. When they go to the races,even in the lead up races to the bigger races they were always there to win. Compare that to say marketplace.That is why the all stars drivers have always been held in such high regard by all punters. mark purdon is obviously a very cunning driver. Like when marketplace got beaten in its first run at auckland. There was mark purdon on rubira,he drew the outside,but no doubt he would have read the comments from the marketplace connections. So what does he do,he anticipated the possibilty of a the negative drive by c ferguson out of the gate,and quickly took advantage of that to position himself in front. H ewon a $60,000 race when really he shouldn't have,simply by being more cunning that the other drivers.

chief we've discussed the new york cases many times before. i've referred you to the indictments,the evidence presented,the press releases from those prosecuting the cases and the judges comments at sentencing. I've even referred you to the admissions made by many of those charged and the evidence given by some, as to what they knew and how they particpated in ,illustrating the guilt of others. Yet you keep sticking to all those 30 or so trainers,most of who were sentenced to significant jail terms,were gulity of being sold snake oil.. If you followed the cases you would know why most were just charged with the one charge of drug adulteration or misbranding. all that,yet you just ignore the relevance of it all. your views expressed on here have never properly represented the cases,in my opinion.

i'm not disagreeing with anyone who says they are still a very dominant force in the sport. But the general concensus from those who have posted on this topic,apart from chief,is the current stable is not replicating the level of achievements thats were achieved going back 5-10 years. i think what the current stable is achieving really, is results similar to 15-20 years ago. we have been discussing why that is. and i've been saying ,some have been overlooking an obvious factor. Back around 1990,the peter blanchard stable and the kevin townley stable were top trainers,then they went through about 5 years where their achievemnets went to unprecedented heights.Then they introduced the pre race milk shaking testing and those stables chose to operate within those rules and there level of performance returned to the previous levels. I've also referred to the new york/nz connection. i have previously referred to how the trainers who were imprisoned and lost parts of there wealth as a result of those cases,trained at yonkers and were mid table achievers,then when the drug peddling vet came along and they became clients,they went to the top 3 spots on the yonkers training premierships. Thats all documented.It was no coincidence. So the nz owner who regularly went to new york,who was a documented client of the crooked vet,who regularly attacked on his meida webiste anyone who said anything bad about the all stars and who also used his website to heavily criticise jeff gural for insinuating that thiose yonkers trainers were using performance enhancers. It just makes sense to me to consider that theres a link between the increase in level of performance by not only the all stars but the oher stable he used and thatfurther proof of that link has been the subsequent drop off in performance.People can think it coincidental if they want,but personally i don't.

So it seems you and chief and tabforever seem to have settled on natalie rasmussen being the key. The stats tell you,that is the only option you can use. So mark purdon after years of training ,meets natalie rasmussen then goes from great trainer to the greatest trainer ever. then natalie rasmussen no longer is there and mark purdon goes back to being a great trainer,no longer the greatest ever. I mean really,aren't you fellas missing something. mark purdon won the nz cup in 1995 and 1996 with il viccolo. Then he went winless in that race until 2014,the year natalie rasmussen just happened to join him in partnership and then they trained the winners of 6 of the next 7 nz cup winners. sometimes even completely dominating, filling the top 3 placings. Then she leaves and they havent won the nz cup since. Their winning streak ending coniciding with what i have mentioned before. I mean you guys are ignoring the obvious. And the obvious,in my opinion is what i have said all along.

i agree with both the above.

While i accept the argument that mark purdon being hands on every day was significant,i personally don't place as much weight on the views that because he hasn't been there full time,it has equated to what even his most loyal supporters seem to agree,is a slight drop off in results. That,in other words,is implying that his son and his staff,many of whom have worked for that stable for some time,are not as capable. For example they haveb had staff like blair orange working there recently and he of course he had previously worked for mark purdon for a decade. And then you have the horses that the stable is racing in auckland in recent times,,presumably under the surpervision of mark purdon. its not like mark purdon won't be hands on for those horses while they campaign in auckland. The sales purchasers factor makes sense to a degree,but that argumentbeing put forward seems to be,because they haven't been quite as active in the last 3-4 years,that they don't have the numbers to dominate on the same scale. Well if that was applicable then they may not be dominating numbers wise,but they should still have what they have being able to run like they used to wwhen rasmussen was thwere,but they have no horses that have the run forever look to them now. Another aspect being argued is natalie rasmussen was such a great driver. Well thats true. But shes not as good as blair orange and hes been there stable driver recently. So,i think if you stood back and took a fair minded balanced view of where that stable is at,you would say,yes the above mentioned factors do come into play,but no they aren't the complete picture. The complete picture would factor in what i have given as what i think is the main reason. also,i would say if you don't accept what i put forward as the main reason,then perhaps consider the drop off in form associated with another trainer that had the same connections hen the all stars were at that dominant level. Have you seen any of his horses having the run forever look to them,or have you seen any of those come from another stable and win first up at addington by 18 lengths these days? all stables go through runs also. The difference between what we were seeing 5 years ago and what we see today is the all stars don't have the run forever look to them. That doesn't come from training.

i don't get the blair orange reference.not sure whether its got something to do with my having posted before a few times that i believe he is the gold standard for skill and always trying 100% of the time,when it comes to drivers. I always make up my own mind about things based on what i see. as to your other comments,we been over that before a few times,and i don't think currently,we're ever likely to convince the other, anymore than in the past. so,should i debate you this time on your other points. No,as to quote the great philosopher,lord edward blackadder the second,debating you would be like a broken pencil. pointless.