the galah

.

I would say running races where there is only a win pool operating and no place pool at the time nominations close,would be the criteria. You would have thought one of the main priorities would be to not programme races that will only get 4 nominations. Why couldn't they foresee they were only going to get 4 starters?. Don't they communicate with the trainers? Maybe they did,knew they would only get 4 starters and thought they could run it at a big loss anyway. What other conclusions can you draw. Hrnz have said the reason for the recently announced spending cuts is because expenditure is greater than income. On one hand they are reducing the incomes of those effected by the cuts and cancellations of meetings programmed,while on the other are saying those cuts don't apply when it comes to races for the high class horses. Why can't leadership give a consistent message and why are some sectors of the industry considered more important than others?

I backed one change and yes it was unlucky. Watching the race,i could understand oranges tactics. With a round to go it looked like the race was setting up nicely,with one change working onto the back of krug at the 1100m. But then in a suprise move j cox pushed krug out. That meant if the cox drive or one change had followed krug they would have had to race 3 wide outside krug from the 800m. That would have been a bit much to expect so orange took the option of saving ground,but unfortunately for him,the gap didn't come soon enough. so a frustrating watch,but don't think it was a bad drive given how the race unfolded.

So you think if he is to remain consistent, races with only 4 nominations will go ahead each time he makes the call..Well that sounds consistently dumb.

So you may actually agree with what we are saying. Hrnz withdrawing funding and forcing the cancellation of 3 entire meetings in may in canterbury where all the horses are ,then in the same week funding a $50,000 4 horse race in auckland. HRNZ can't have it both ways without being open for ridicule. So thats what they get.What else could they have expected people to think.. Yet they did it knowing that. They are out of touch.

i think you are thinking like most of us used to about the ATC. We used to look at how it was managed and think they should be the leaders in new initiatives to keep harness racing viable and relevant in the north island. Unfortunately they have proven they weren't too bright,and no matter how good ideas like you have suggested above are,in reality they can't afford it anymore,and have to make decisions based on reality and not wishful thinking. Perhaps if they had implemented some of your previous ideas to promote harness racing they would not be where they are today.But they didn't,and no longer can.

So So you seem to be saying the atc fully fund the group 2 race,and that hrnz make no contribution? Pretty sure your wrong. So my comments are not false. I would say it is yours that are . Perhaps read the articles during the week about whether hrnz would contribute funds to a 4 horse race and whether they would allow it to be run... Even if we agree that the atc fully fund the race,which i don't,then you would be arguing that a club that is on the brink of not being able to continue because of their finances and are selling most of their assets,that they should run a 4 horse race that gets no betting.if that were the case then most would just shake their heads in disbelief that they never learn.You also have said they shouldn't sell off their land. How could you say they should run that race then say that. Also.Why if they really were that desperate to deplete their bank balance even more,then why not run a $20,000 race. Anyone with any sense would have been able to predict that the connections of horses a couple of levels below copy that would not line up when he was given only a 30m handicap.

You can't but help compare the decision to run that race last nightfor $50,000 and only 4 runnersand next to no turnover,with that of the decision to cancel 3 upcoming meetings in canterbury in may. In one instant you supply the stake for 1 race in which 4 benefit,or in the other you supply the stake for 5 or 6 races in which you would have approxiametly 60 horses connections benefit. The type of connections and trainers and drivers who battle to continue to participate. And of course the turnover from running the 5 or 6 races would far exceed a 4 horse race. So those who made the decision to run last nights race again showed they care more about a handful of owners/trainers/drivers than they do about the grassroots participants. decisions like that are why optimism is at such a low. Those who made the decision to run that race last night simply prioritised those who have the financial resources over those that don't and struggle to keep going. What type of message does that send. And yet they wonder why people are giving up or not breeding. Theres part of your answer.

blair orange. Hes been so consistent and tries his best in every drive he has,no matter what or where the race.

i understood they give away the bonus bets mostly to encourage people to put money in their accounts. no deposit,no bonus bet.They aren't forcing anyone to put money in and obviously think it pays off in that their return will be greater than what they have given away.i can see the logic. Also some of the bonus bets are given away based on turnover. like you have said,if they do what they can to discourage winning clients,then that will come back and bite them in the bum when it comes to tote turnover.and when they end up losing more than they gain from that policy then its a really dumb policy.

That was supposed to say does it help suppress total turnover. i would say yes..( Not help turnover as i first typed)

The tab think they are being clever by restricting certain punters and coming up with their algorithms that reduce the fixed odds prices,depending on who is doing the betting. But if they are that clever, when they reduce the ff dividend by between 15-25% a couple of times on a horse certain punters have placed as little as a couple of $20 bets.the then result of doing so is that leads to the said horse being noticed as a win mover,which then leads to more punters betting on that horse. The exact thing the so called clever bookies are trying to stop. Anyone with any sense you would think would set their markets based on the money they hold for each runner,but thats not how they do it. I know for a fact that they have algorithms set up to react to bets placed on certain peoples tab accounts. Win odds are slashed even when only place bets are placed. Like i have said,all the tab achieve is to attract those that bet based on the win movers,and there are many,and the tab get more bet on the horses they don't want them to bet on. Also if you observe the tote prices,even blind freddy could see people factor in the win movers when betting on the tote and therefore,a horse that has been a win mover on ff nearly always becomes a tote mover as well. So thats not a problem for the tab bookies,but does it help total tote turnover. I would say yes. For example i know for a fact that certain punters no longer bother betting as much on the tote and it significantly impacts the spend of those effected.i know of someone who estimated on one account the revenue the tab had recieved would have dropped by around $100,000 just in 12 months. Thats not spend,thats the tab take of the spend i'm talkng about. And that person is not the only one saying that. So if they the tab is that clever,how come they actively have policies in place which result in significant reduction in turnover from some big spenders. Anyone who doesn't believe what i say simply doesn't know how the tab work.

The fraud was selling or using illegal performance enhancers designed with the intent to deceive the regulators whose job it was to test for them.Also prosecution evidence for those who chose to plead not gulity and went to trial,was the punters betting on races with the cheats in,were deliberately being deceived,as they rely on everything being legal and ok.

I remember going to that meeting when it was on saturday that had the christmas at the races promotion. I think it was about 10years ago.The whole carpark was completely full,and oamaru has one of the bigger carparks. Looking at todays midweek meeting they had 2 cars in the carpark,with what used to be part of the carpark looking like it had grass long enough to cut hay. 10 years ago geraldine was packed on a hot november day with the car park full and people 5 deep all the way up the straight.That too was a christmas at the races meeting.Geraldineshas only got 1 more meeting hasn't it now? Mind you it was only about 15 years ago i remember going to waimate and the place was packed to the top of the straight with people. Now they don't even race there. You just have to look at the videos of races run to see what i mean. Thats not that long ago. Those christmas at the races were a great innovation,but they seemed to lose there appeal,whether it be because they had them at the same places in consecutive years and work firms were looking for something different,or they became a bit expensive as vlubs got a bit greedy with some things,or police put restrictions on alcohol being brought to some of the tracks,it was pre christmas do's and i know that put people and firms off from coming.Then there was the weather. Any harness meeting on a hot day is great,but look at the last few weekends grass track meetings,the weather is too cold so often. Whatever happened to those christmas at the race meetings? Mind you i remember going to ashburton on a hot boxing day about 15 years ago,absolutely packed. I remember having a horse in. There was $53,000 in the win pool on the tote,and it wwasn't a big field.Within 5 years it seemed hardly anyone was there,but the weather always seemed poor. Now days the weather is often poor,covid is a factor,and clubs don't seem as motivated to get people on course. Methven used to have a punter of the year,but they discontinued that. I have said it before. People get into habits and routines. Once you break those habits and they find alternative ways of spending there time,then you are pushing it uphill to get them back. Even though on course attendance was declining quickly beforehand,covid restrictions has gotten people out of the going to the races as well. Then there was the no jab,no entry thing that racing and tab's went along with. I know people who will never support businesses and industries that didn't want them for that reason. there are solutions to getting people back on course,but is there the enthusiasm,drive and industry support to achieve that.Probably not.The one day a year clubs had the most of that,but they are no longer wanted.

So in your view the lab new york racing uses for the bulk of its testing is run by an incompetent or it isn't up to standard. And the trainers who have all been jailed and some stripped of their wealth all were fooled by the distibutor into think they were purchasing things like EPO,when in fact they weren't. The examples given of some of the trainers going to the top of the premierships at tracks like yonkers coinciding with when they started purchasing said products,was all just coincidence,and in fact they were winning based on who knows what,but it wasn't the performance enhancers they were duped into buying and using.....got it. Makes no sense to me but there you go. And examples of significant improvement in race performance aren't applicable if a horse only runs 4th or 5th in a group 1 race. I caste aspersions, yes i agree with something you have said for a change.To join the dots i suppose you have to know where they start. I was talikng to someone the other day about my views of the success of a certain stable the other day. He moves in different circles than me.He said,everyone i talk to says what your saying,but personally i don't think so myself.So there are others out there who have the same opinion as yours,so its not the echo chamber that i normally hear about the subjuct. Then again maybe that man is you chief...nah,probably not.

Also as regards the new york cases. I've often wondered why harnesslink chose to publish an article disclosing many on the client list of the biggest drug distributor. Given harnesslink in nz is associated with the only nz person named,it seemed a bit strange. Anyone who had read harnesslink would have known curtin was not a supporter of jeff gural and had published several articles on harnesslink to that effect,heavily criticising the meadowlands for banning suspected trainers for using performance enhancers,without evidence. Was that the connection that led gural to have a hand in the publishing of the list.Was it some type of payback? who knows. Of course history now shows that gural already knew who was tied up in the use of perfomance enhancers due to his links with the investigation. Did nz racing authorities ever bother to investigate that.Maybe they haven't as after al,l it could open up a can of worms that they wouldn't want to go near. Then again,maybe it would prove there wasn't much to it.Who knows that as well.

Because at that time he got disqualified for 4 positives relating to blue magic. So you came to the conclusion...... the new york lab is archaic,.....and very similar to the one that does nz testing. So i guess that means if you think they are similar,then they have similar abilities to pick up the use of performance enhancers. Based on what the head of the main lab in new york says,he agrees with you. Obviously his "who are you kidding" comment about whether they were picking up the actual use of performance enhancers,indicates that. You say its very unlikely Epo enhances performance. Doesn't seem a realistic stance,but thats the conclusion you seem to have drawn from your research. The new york cases has so many aspects that were so interesting.One was the different stance taken by the likes of those who ran the meadowlands,from the United states trotting assocaition. The conclusion from the different stances they took were those who run the meadowlands were keen to have the use of performance enhancers exposed,whereas the governing body for harness racing in the USA did what they could to discourage whistleblowers. One of the early whistleblowers during an interview discouraged anyone thinking about disclosing illegal activity in the sport,from doing so. She said her life had been hell since coming forward,and it wasn't worth it. What does that say? Also,one of the main drug distributors in a recent interview said there were still lots and lots of his clients training who had sought his performance enhancers,but he wasn't going to name names as they were good people. The rationale of that sounds so familiar doesn't it.

You say ..its a lot to do with the fast work they do with them. So,if that really is the case,you might have thought some other harness trainers would have cottoned on to doing the same thing. . Emma stewarts partner, Clayton tonkin was the blue magic man wasn't he. Things like that are never forgotten are they.

We have had this conversation before. The head of testing for the new york lab,regarded as one of the USA"s premire equine drug testing facilities,earlier this year when asked about all the trainers and vets involved in that huge performance enhancer scandel in horse racing,especially new york harness,was asked why there was enough evidence to jail and fnancially ruin all those caught through extensive evidence gathered which proved drug use without positive results. was quoted He was quoted"heres the problem,the so called performance enhancers drugs,no one,nobody,knows what they are. Nobody has a test for them. He then used the example of EPO. When asked about the 82 kinds of epo worldwide,stated they can only test for 3 of those "they've been synthesized, they're available. So if your testing for epo and your only doing 3 and there are another 70 plus out there,who are you kidding". Remember chief i quoted that when i was started a topic about the high profile NZ harness bloodstock agent that was listed as a cliient of the jailed distributor.

actually its a wonder that emma stewart racing cheat facebook mock page was around so long. Is it still going? I see archie butterfly,loves to write about that stable as well. Do you think the unnamed"respected trainers and veterinarians"who were said to have approached a reporter who wrote a major article in the news last month about high profile trainers using performance enhancers in victoria,were real or were the sources just envious and bitter trainers abd vets or maybe they were just made up.Do you believe that racing victora was correct when it says they can test for epo,and didn't believe the article was accurate.. Who actually believes that they can test for all variations of epo anyway. Seems rather ignorant of victorian officials to say something so obviously inaccurate. Only in aussie i guess.

What punters hope for is consistency in performance so you can make true assessments based on current form. When form varies between big stake days and run of the mill days,then its hard to assess. Emma stewart. I guess the way you think you would see emma stewart as a good comparison. Doesn't she make all other victorian trainers look like mugs. Wins everything,improves anything she gets,they keep running no matter how fast they go.Great trainer that woman.....

My examples compare the difference in performance on the big days(group 1 races) to the run of the mill days.In the examples i gave, the runs came within a short space of time,with the significant drop off in form in the middle of that 3 1/2 week time frame.

That theory makes no sense when you look at individual horses performances. For example take the horses vinke b and final collect. Vinke b on cup day ran a very good second in a 1.54.4 mile rate. Then it drops in class significantly at timaru 11 days later,but runs last of 6,beaten on its merits by 7 lengths..Even a 9 start non win horse went better.Then,2 weeks later on sunday,it runs a very respectable 5th in a 1.53.4 mile rate in the group 1 race,beaten by only 4.5 lengths. Final collect ran an excellent 7th, after doing a lot of work wide in the group 1 race on cup day run in a 1.53.6 mile rate,11 days later at timaru it was understandably a red hot favorite in the 6 horse race at timaru,but managed only 3rd after having every chance. Then 2 weeks later in the group 1 race on sunday it again does a lot of work wide,yet still manages to run 4th in a 1.53 mile rate beaten by just 4.5 lengths. There are so many examples i could use,but they are just a couple from sunday. So anyone,well anyone who doesn't have an all star eye patch on,would look at that and say,how come the significant difference in performance.The difference in performance by both horses is so glaringly obvious. The all stars have very high standards anytime they line up anywhere,but when you break down individual performances,then you start to ask how come the difference? Your theory has them having a big drop off in form in 11 days,then the significant increase in performance 14 days later,all through just training. As i said,that makes little sense.

Unfortunately,al least i think so,the world we live in seems to be headed further down the path where peoples opinions can not be expressed for fear of offending.Isn't it better to know what people think,than to not. At least thats what i think anyway. You mention sundee son. There is a difference how the dunn stable is viewed compared to the all stars. The dunn stable can't lift performance as much as the all stars can on the big days. The dunn horses may improve a bit come the bigger days,but what you get is pretty much what you see all year round. The all stars can lift performance on the group one days beyond what is previously seen by their horses performances during the non group one days. People draw their own conclusions as to how..Thats the reason behind why people often talk about the all stars. Is there not a logic there where you could say the dunn stables are the better trainers as they can get their horses to perform closer to their peak all year round,and not just on a handful of days. Yes sunndees son put in somwe eye popping runs,but on the subject we are discussing,no one judges a stable on just one horses performance.They are judged on the how the whole stble performs. Thats why i would say sundees son deserves to be called a champion trotter.

Yes,if you read my post after the one you quote ,i have clarified my thoughts. Like i said ,everything has to be taken in context of the whole picture,and that includes things like team driving.