the galah

Again,that is not what i have said. If it is to happen, I said it should happen in a consistent, fair and transparent way. Thats laughable for you to suggest people are malcontents because they believe in having level playing fields when it comes to integrity issues.Others may share that view,but they are in the minority. I can say i have never met anyone who has said that. People with opinions like that are what drives people away from the sport. Why would anyone bother supporting an industry that has even a small % who think like that. No wonder harness racing has an uncertain future if anyone who thinks like that has any influence in running it.

well done to those who arranged to have the races tomorow,after the abandonment today at banks peninsula. Looks like they have reinstated the same fields and ballots,with the result just a few different scratchings.11 winners there,just a matter of working out which ones.

I think the focus shouldn't really be on McGrath when it comes to discussing this topic. It should be on the processes and decision makers which lead to him being able to break in horses.I think that was the point of the original article. I also think the other main point was how many,often high profile participants say things which we know not to be true around someone's honesty,just because they want to be seen saying the right things. Just goggle the mcgrath cases and see who supported him.I often wonder how stupid and gullible some of those people actually think everyone is. We shouldn't blame Mcgrath for seeking to again be involved in the harness industry in some way other than the racing side of things. He's just doing what he can to support his family and use the knowledge and skills he has.I don't have any sympathy for him,but you can't blame him for that. Those who make the decisions around penalties in cases like this make a point of being consistent and fair,based on the facts proven.People sometimes still dispute the facts after a case is decided,but penalties are much harder to dispute. Thats because consistency on penalties is something that is a separate component,which those who make the decisions have the background to be called the best experts in. So having said that,what we have seen in this case is industry leaders consider they should be able to over ride penalties given,yet they have done so with no apparent justification and seem in some ways to have personal connections to the person that is benefitting. Thats why its wrong. Maybe in the future the best way to avoid such decisions by industry leaders would for the power of giving someone a pathway back in the industry to be left with those who make the original decisions around penalties.That should be something dealt with at the time and with appropriate timeframes as to when future pathways may apply. All we have had here is industry leaders stoking the fires of dissolution in an industry that can't afford such division.

While i didn't give my party vote to labour,i did vote for one of their candidates in the district i live. Never again will i vote for Labour in any way.I never thought they would discriminate against certain groups who held opinions opposite to theirs,but thats what they did to the unvaccinated. Adern and Labour are fake.How people ever believed "have the shot,stop the spread" or its a pandemic of the unvaccinated" does make me wonder. Anyway i'm still unvaccinated,and still haven't had covid.

Agree its a good site. But don't agree anyone has a crack at the chief without provocation first. And reading previous posts on this topic,i'm not sure why you have posted it on this topic.

Whats any of that got to do with what i said? Beats me.

Bollocks to your bollocks and i raise you a bollocks.

This Brad Reid,sure is a breath of fresh air with his willingness to openly express views that so many have strongly held for so long. The norm has always been participants and punters saying this type of thing to one another,but not being willing to repeat them in other groups within the industry.Its for reasons somewhat hard to define to someone who may be looking in from the outside. Mr Reid stated "our own participants are the greatest threat to our industry and that now includes our own elected officers". He provides the context in his article for saying that. What i would say is when you have historical mindsets and behaviors formulating how many of our current participants think and act,depending on what they witnessed and experienced, combined with a history of those who have policed the rules having double standards and whom have looked the other way depending on who you are,then its no wonder integrity is an issue today. For example. The stipes and the RIU currently are far more pro active in policing the rules around integrity than they were ever in the past. They,whether by design or chance, recognise that the industry has got to the point where without proper and consistent oversight,there will be no viable industry in the future. A consequence of that change in approach in recent years,has upset many within the industry who somehow believe they have every right to breach the rules,knowing what they do is unfair.In some ways that thinking is understandable because of what has happened in the past without consequence. So who's at fault. Its certainly not those currently policing the rules as so many industry participants and even very disappointingly some elected officials would lead you to believe. I believe its the fault of those who used to police the rules and created the history of double standards through inaction and favoritism, and its also to a degree the fault of all previous licence holders who knowingly cheated or did dishonest behavior, knowing they were doing so while operating in an environment of likelihood of little consequence. I'm not referring to everyday stuff like whip rules. When we see drivers given seemingly harsh penalties for an offence the majority can relate to,it does give those who seek to promote the "them and us" approach,a bit of leverage, when that has nothing to do with the more serious integrity issues. It is because of the reasons and context i have stated above,i personally don't have strong views either way around the decision to allow Mcgrath to break in horses.

Just looking at the hrnz business plan for 2021/22 it says the bulk funding covers funding for the minimum stake,and in the case of other races that receive higher funding,its required the clubs pay a stake of at least what they have been funded. So what is the minimum stake all clubs are funded,is it the $10,000 manawatu pay.? If it is $10,000 how come rangiora today had 6 of the 8 races below that stake. How come some of the clubs that have more in the bank and better revenue sources don't seem to pay out more than the clubs that haven't, given clubs don't seem to contribute much of their reserves to pay stakes of most of their races?

So have you just said that stakes are "bulk funded per meeting by hrnz" and that "the clubs don't fund stakes". Is that statement actually true? If it were,then whats the point in clubs receiving money from other sources like sponsorship or poker machine grants or income from farming,or from rental of properites,etc,etc,etc. Where do they spend that if none of it goes towards stakes. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Should southland racing be closed as well,as after all they have abandoned a couple of meetings there recently because of nominations far smaller? Then what,all auckland racing over winter? If Manawatu can attract an average field size of 8 and run 8 races,and have minimum stakes of $10,000, then the ones that would be hurting the most from closure would be the owner/trainer/drivers who support them. For some who race there that would mean it would no longer be economically realistic to continue in the sport,and thus having a flow on effect to other clubs whose numbers will drop. If a club is financial enough to put on races for stakes as good as/ slightly better than say the upcoming meeting at banks peninsula or the previous methven meeting,then why would would it make any sense to close them?

I agree.A dumb as drive from both orange and butcher,which is something you very rarely see from them.It did make for an exciting race. While i'm not a believer in penalising any driver for such things,however given they have penalised others,especially the amateurs for drives nowhere near as bad,then it wouldn't surprise to see some sort pf penalities. Who knows. Was mark purdons drive on oscar bon avena any better. Attacking for the lead in a race run at almost record speed when he was driving a horse with a very short sprint,resulted in his horse walking home.It happensbut like i say adds to the excitement.

Yes i saw that,watched it a few times . It did cause tim williams to be pushed a bit sideways as you say,but was his forward momentum slowed by a push from behind and ever so slightly the side? Theres no doubt watching the video that sinbad came from 4 lengths behind,sinbads forward momentum was slowed when the contact was made,and then after the contact sinbad improved to take the lead just before the finish. Stop the video just prior to the contact and look at the horses positions.Then stop the video at the point of contact and again just after the sulkies separated(sinbad is still behind).Then stop the video again a stride after the sulkies clear,sinbad is still behind. Personally i think for purdon to lose that on a protest meant he put up a less persausive argument that those who argued for the relegation. To me he had the video evidence to have argued a case strong enough to not be relegated.

So the above stable has again made the headlines. Same old same old unfortunately. There was a stable inspection done this morning and the result is the above horse was scratched under the rule that refers to administration of a substance on raceday. Well done to those that uncovered the cheating. Perhaps surprising the stable got to start the remainder of their team on the day.

Personally think she is very good. Really nice personality and knows her stuff.

Nice work gammalite. Yes blair orange is a driver that always seems to get the best out of his horses.He also is a driver that always goes forward. Tim williams another driver like that. One of those drivers that even when they draw wide you know will give your horse a chance. Anyway,great effort gammalite to keep everyone informed with your updates throughout the day.Much appreciated.,

Normally i agree with most of your assessments of races forbury,and yes they did relegate the purdon runner,but personally i was surprised there was even an inquiry. Sinbad came from 4 lengths behind,and i thought he lost his own momentum when he ran in a little and locked wheels. We all see things different,but if you backed sinbad to win i think you would be feeling rather annoyed .I only had a place bet myself so my opinion not influenced by that.

Thats a shocking read and you can see why people question why the sport is allowed to continue. As to the straight track racing. The stats from australia show that injuries are significantly reduced with straight track racing. So if those in the greyhound industry truly care about the welfare of their dogs,why does nz have no straight trcks.

Seems a very sad and unfortunate set of circumstances. Understandable why everyone feels for defilippi, as while so few will ever experience being in the position of having a cup drive,everyone can empathise with how it would make anyone feel should someone be prevented from driving in such circumstances. Also because everyone has the greatest respect for defilipi it has not been well received. Those who made the decision have said the penalty guidelines mean they had little choice other than to suspend, (and were unable to impose instead a fine/lesser suspension as mr defilippi had requested). I guess we assume that is correct,so why do the penalty guidelines not provide that sentencing option? Doesn't that logically mean that its not those who have made the decision,but it is those who made the penalty guidelines that have created this situation.It does seems very reasonable to think a penalty for this charge should include being able to give a combination of a penalty of fine and suspension. So it all seems a bit of a failure by those who were originally involved in setting penalty guidelines to recognise the possible future impact. That would not just be one group,but you would think involve several decision makers in different forms. I do agree with those who made the decision when they say they can't treat people differently. The reference in the appeal hearing to previous leniency shown in the case of rasmussen really could be argued both ways.When rasmussen was viewed by many to be given treatment different from others,there was justified criticism in my opinion of those that made that decision.And so that decision came home to roost in this case. Heza sport is a horse many would have as the horse they would most want to run very well in the cup before all this,and now there will be even more cheering for him.

Wasn't that dog race just run a terrible advertisement for the game. Lure breaks down,the dog Marcus,who i put $5 on for an interest,seemingly breaking a leg and yelping constantly in pain as it had no option but to jump the rail as it went inside dogs pulling up in front of it,the 3 dog also being forced to straddle the rail as well . Commentator mark rosanowski,stating he hoped all dogs are ok. Well very obvious not to anyone watching. I normally watch the dogs,but hard for anyone to watch that type of stuff and think its just part of dog racing. Maybe its time for the change to straight track racing.

The don't stop dreaming race was a bit of a joke as far as a spectacle. A $200,000 race and they just walked around then ran a fast last 400m. Not one driver had pulled out of their position to improve as they swung for home. Its was like no one was trying except the first 3 or 4.Putting such big stakes on for races where the drivers seem resigned to just following them around for practice seems a waste of stakemoney. Even tim williams,normally a great driver,just elected to follow the horse drawn 1 who had little chance,effectively putting his horse in a position where it had no chance to place. Muscle mountain was a wonderful performance. Its unusual to think ben hope would outdrive john dunn,but for whatever reason dunn elected to sit in the running line and Hope chose to move as the pace slackened. Muscle mountain,sundees son and bolt for brilliance are 3 great horses who have a significant advantage over every other open class trotter. Given they are all off the front in the dominion,you would think maybe the connections of other open class trotters would be in for a thrashing if they line up. Last year Mark Purdon made a wise choice with oscar bonevena and ended up with a win on show day in a supporting race,maybe one or two more may do the same this year. I thought the most exciting race was the last,where riveered had dropped back in grade ,but had a wide draw,and with no gate speed was always going to be vulnerable. As matt cross said,it was one of those brilliant tactical c j defilippi drives we used to see in years gone by that pulled off the win for bob butt and happy places connections,,with riveered a very gallant 3rd.

My opinion is it didn't happen last night. The stable won a couple of really good races,and the team all went well in the other races,however there was no boost to performance from the recent racing and the horses ran and were driven in a manner that made no attempt to factor in an advantage of having superior stamina to anyone else. Last year cup day was when the form improved,so will be interesting to see this year. Other things of note last night were again the dominance of horses who got to the fence in the 1980 races.The 2600m races are always the best races for excitement,yet we always get large numbers of these 1980 races dominated by those drawn to lead.Only when you get races like the last race last night,where the couple of horses had a significant advantage on recent form over the others,do you see a horse capable of overcoming a bad draw.

Don't think he left the one /one.The horse in front of him eased to three back the fence.It did go a good race,just its hard if your not on the fence in those 1980 races.

Drivers causing their own horses to choke down has been a subject i have posted about in the past,and last night at cambridge in race 6 we again saw another example of it,and how dangerous such driving can be. Z meredith,a junior who i previously have said i think has much talent, showed no sense whatsoever and it was just luck that the 4 drivers and horses involved in the crash didn't come to more serious injuries. This was not a driver of a horse stuck in the field with no options,it was a driver out in front who decided he had to hand up to the stablemate. by restraining his horse so hard he cut off its air supply.Anyone watching could see that coming,how come he couldn't?

Does seem to be a good top 4 price . Seems to be better value than the top 3 dividend as you say. Hard to work out why its like that sometimes,but there is a good example. I wonder if make my sundon will trot all way. Its one of those horses that you think after its galloped,why did i back that. Could happen again tomorrow.