the galah

I blame global warming myself. Either that or the russians or kim jong un.Is it just me,or do others think Kim jong un always sound like hes having a bowel movement when he speaks? Instead of betting i read a news story about the trial in auckland of 6 indians trying to murder an indian radio broadcaster in 2020 .I see luke radich was the crown prosecuter in that case. Or maybe the crown pros..akuta is a better way of putting it since hes a racing fan. Talking about internet connections. It reminds me of a joke. Chris luxon and chris hipkins were both looking at ways of cost cutting when they visited a school last week. One chris said to the other,we can save money here as the lunches are too big and they have too many computers.They then went to a pre school. One chris said to the other. The lunches are too big here as well and they have too many toys.They then went to a prison. They both looked on in agreement. We need to increase the size of the meals,get faster broadband and more comfortable beds. One member of their staff who had travelled with them piped up and said,are you crazy,we won't get votes if the public know we are cutting education spending to give it to prisoners. To which the both chris's replied in unison,yes but we may end up in here one day when the public find out about all the false promises we are making. Tab website still not working.

I say keep it up the tab,as i would have lost anyway.Funny thing is while it didn't seem to be working from the start of the races,it actually worked for a few seconds just before race 2 as i managed to get a place bet on Lucky Mum. The $60 to one shot broke when looking likely to run 2nd.Typical.How come the system was working then? funny thing is i have been sending emails to the tab for the last 3 weeks trying to get an answer out of them about something. All i have got back so far is one email from them saying.... "Sorry for the delayed response,we have had a system error stopping us from replying". They somehow managed to send that email to me,but still no answer to my original email.

I can't understand them ignoring the tab terminal when the staff aren't doing anything anyway a lot of the time.. I've noticed the service at the couple i occasionally vist seems to be getting worse in the last year. I've also noticed that the older staff at some bars occasionally try to serve the tab terminal and the younger staff just couldn't care whether you stood at their tab terminal all day gathering dust and cobwebs. Wouldn't you think the the TAB had some sort of system in place to monitor how their product was being handled by those with tab outlets.It seems the TAB couldn't care less how bad the things have gotten . Ring the TAB and complain,then go back to the same bar a month later and i will gaurantee nothing will have changed. It reminds me of my wife going into ballantynes and buying a handbag last year. The store says you can return them within so many days. Well my wife had bought about 7 or 8 handbags there and had returned 2 of them within the time frame allowed. Well when she went in to get another one they told her she wouldn't be able to return it even if the store had a policy that said she could. She was treated so poorly by the ballantynes staff that a customer who was waiting to be served behind her complained to management and management somehow tracked us down and gave her a nice voucher and an apology. Well my wife went in the following week to get that handbag that she had wanted the week before and was firstly ignored by their staff,then again told she couldn't return the handbag,which she wouldn't have anyway.My wife just left and told them to stick it and their voucher. I had spent about $5000 buying clothes,shoes,and a small appliance at ballantynes in the previous 6 months,but now will never ever step foot in any of there stores ever again. Provide poor customer service and customers just won't come back. No I don't use their app much because the reception is normally poor even though i live in a populated area..My wife does a bit and says the app's shit anyway.I think part of that is the poor reception. I have spoken to others who have said the same thing.

The restrictions thing is part of the puzzle,but there are other just as importantreasons as well. The lack of access to tab's that place any emphasis on customer service is a major problem. From my recent experiences,Go to any christchurch tab and its either one of those self service machines and it generally takes about a minute or two for someone in front of you to put on a bet and like brodie has said ,doesn't pay out in cash anyway. I used such a machine a couple of times in the last month and both times had to then work out with a fella ,how much i owed him because he hadn't cashed out. I think the problem there was this fella was the only one in the tab both times and no one else was using the machine and it caught him by surprise that anyone else would come in and have a bet. The customer service at these tab's is a joke. Every time i go into any tab and try and use the terminal where there are operators i am completely ignored by their staff. I just stand there for 5 minutes while the staff just chat to each other,not serving anyone at the bar. Its pathetic customer service. Every time,guaranteed,i have to go to them and ask them to walk 10 steps down the bar to serve me. I either get an apolpogy,which i know is fake as they had already seen me, or i get a grumpy look. Tab customer service at tab outlets is a joke and very frustrating. No wonder theres hardly anyone using them.

John allen once said the top 1.5% pf their customers produce 56% of turnover. Its just logic that the top 1.5% are more likely to be the successful punters given they can afford to create the higher turnover. From that it justs logic to conclude that if you implement policies that make it less attractive for that top 1.5% to spend and return profits,then you will directly impact the overall spend on the tote as well. There are several ways that the tab has made it unattractive for winning punters.Some of it has been fair play and others it has not. So when people say that its as simple as reducing the winning returns of winning punters on the ff....and that will lead to the tab giving larger returns to the harness racing industry,well that is over simplyfying things.That completely ignores the impact that has on tote betting turnovers. In fact,i believe it is a direct cause of reducing tote turnovers. I know people who can point to the amounts that they have reduced their tote turnovers as proof.

Are we allowed to laugh at the comments about drivers laughing pre race? I can understand where they are coming from but i think they are well off the mark if they think punters care at all about that. Over the years i've never heard anyone ever comment about that occuring in a prelimanary. I think someone should actually be saying,hey,this is going a step too far fellas.

O thornley actually drove millwood nike to win its first couple of races. I'm not sure No matter what was a headcase. It always ran like something was bothering it. Somehow it was able to race like that. They actually reported at one stage it was sold for big money which seemed surprising someone would try and buy a horse with a problem that even the all stars with all their skill and vets couldn't fix.Then they reported the sale fell through because it hadn't passed the Vet. It was a horse that o thornley's quiet style seemed to suit better than any other driver.

I agree. All their silence does is lead to speculation. Its counter productive in many ways. Who drives what horses in races with markets open is information they have a duty to research and inform people. I think they most likely do know. i think they knew why last time as well.Maybe last time they thought the reason was none of anyones business and maybe the reason is not something they can discuss. Still,even if that is so,this topic is proof that silence hasn't been the right strategy.

So why didn't they mention it? On one hand those that present that show make out they are out to inform people and ramble on each week about the nz cup,and who's paying what, but they would know that people are interested in who will be driving which horse. Having said that,it doesn't surprise me they haven't said much. They may or may not know,like last time she took a break...

This topic i find interesting because it highlights the different perspectives. Punters like newmarket and brodie have a good understanding of all the effort that goes into having a racehorse but their focus is on how best to get a return from their punting dollar. Thats not to say they don't care about the horse/owner/trainer.Its just thats not their primary focus. Then on the other hand you have k butt. Its obvious from her reply, she has an understanding of all the effort that not over's connections would have put in to have him racing and how running a nice 4th,albeit after getting the perfect run,would be seen in a positive light and would have been enjoyed. i often think maybe the punters perspective probably doesn't factor in the feelings of whoever it may be that is being discussed and on the flipside i think sometimes the people and connections of the horses being discussed are over sensitive to what is actually being said ,especially when no malice has been intended. Thats why this thread sort of sets a nice standard in the communicating of both perspectives.I don't know k butt myself,but a bit like a harrison who sometimes replies,i'm guessing that apart from their skills as drivers,part of the reason they get drives is because they enable the horses connections to enjoy each horse and each race.

I'm not sure whether its the whale,but i mute the tv when he presents as well. At least i leave it on the racing channel with him,as if it was mick guerin i change channels when i see him. Both very knowledgable,but they aren't my cup of tea. My theory is the punters who do the form are the ones who get most frustrated with him.He causes horses to come into unrealistic prices when he selects them. And it is the uninformed punters,who in reality will remain uninformed by using the whale as their sort of robot selector,who like him the most. I honestly don't know whether trackside catering to the people with not much knowledge of form,is a good thing for turnovers.I very much doubt it gets people to follow the sport long term. But the betting focus these days always seems to be about todays picture. Then theres those who watch for the people/horse stories.I can't say trackside would be doing anything to encourage them to keep watching.Theres much more to harness racing that can attract peoples attention,but it somehow doesn't come across that way on trackside when all the focus is on getting the uniformed to bet. i think its as much a trackside focus problem. Although i do prefer their other harness presenters myself and don't mute them much.

So i guess that means you prefer my 10 paragraph replies instead of my 2 paragraph replies. The case being one from the USA didn't really get me over interested this time.

He's like a TABloid version sure of a harness racing site. It sure is entertaining some of his headlines. One of the latest that caught the eye was "zoologist that roots dogs-only in australia".People can give him stick about his accuracy sometimes,but hes on the money there. I must have too much time on my hands as i goggled that story and discovered that the zoologist was originally from britain and was a crocodile expert. Seems he had a thing for dogs was a very sick person.The judge even sent the security staff out of the court for fear of causing too much distress when the facts of the case were read through at his hearing. Anyway another news story that was on that news page site, was about a vietnamese lady,just a week in australia,hitting the accelerator and running into and injuring 2 boys. Seems she thought the accelarator was the brake. From that news page i goggled a story about a gathering hosted by a village chief in thailand ,who invited 31 police to his restaurant for a meal. Seems he was upset one of the policemen,a local police major, hadn't promoted his relation. So he had one of his henchmen shoot him in front of all the police.Then the local police did nothing until the area commander,nicknamed "Big Joke" learnt of the incident and tracked down the henchman and shot him and arrested the village chief.The story referred to how "Big Joke" was doing his best to stop the perception that justice can be bought in thailand. Which reminded me of a bloke i knew. He actually won a bronze at an olympic games as a cyclist and he went to coach in thailand. I used to occasionally run into him. One day i saw him and said to him are you not coming back home as often, to which he replied he was back to stay. Then he told me he had been stuck in a thailand jail for a few weeks because he had been targeted by local police who took away his visa and threw him in jail until he was able to raise enough money to bribe his way back out.Apparently he had told one of the cyclists he was helping coach that he should coach him full time.That cyclist went and sacked his normal coach. The sacked coach then bribed the local police and hence thats how he ended up in jail. It turned out it cost him as much to get out of jail as he had earned there. Obviously there are worse things going on in the world than backing the wrong horse.

I haven't missed anything.Not sure how you get that from my brief reply.. I just repeated the abitrator referring to it as truly an exceptional case.Then i just said it seemed pretty straight forward and made a comment about the pony's name. You posted it and i just repeated it.

So that was in ohio ,usa. The arbitrator described it as a truly exceptional case,although it seemed pretty straight forward reading it. Sounds like it was easy enough to trace the source of the positive to the pony who used the stall prior to the racehorse arriving. Bucky the pony,its a wonder you don't get some harness horses named that,or maybe there are.

If you look at the names of todays sponsors ,they all are with businesses in gore or townships that aren't far away like clinton.Southlanders like to support their local communities so racing in gore must be a help when they sell the sponsorship side of things.

I don't follow galloping as closely but the te akau thing i thought got its share of publicity and i believed them when they said there own investigation revealed it was a result of a senier foreperson making an error treating the horse with an anti inflammatory medicationIn,in other words no intent. Stewarts actions were clearly intended and she even admits that. She had no choice but to admit it anyway. I have never observed anyone ever do anything that i believe was intended to break the rules and cheat and is why i particularly dislike the actions of people that do.I know what those who abide by the rules think about this type of thing.

What do you think if they had been doing more that day they would do them all at once?g You must have heard of retrospective drug testing.Obviously there have been many examples of that. Why even have such a thing if what you say is applicable each time. Thats not correct. To quote anthony butt...."i'm disappointed in the media too. Its been brushed under the carpet by just about everybody" How can you call it speculative when stewart herself issued a press statement saying she did it? This isn't an operation inca type case. Someone was caught red handed.They do treat people differently. In the blue magic case the trainers were tipped off by someone who worked for the industry. Theres many examples i could refer to. I understand the 24 hour rule is 24 hours prior to 12.01am on the day the horse is to race.

Everyone has their own opinions but my answers to my questions would be. 1)she must have known she was doing something illegal. For that reason i think she has lied,which is just more indication of dishonesty.If she didn't she shouldn't have a licence anyway if she doesn't know about the treatment timeframes.. 2)her motive was obvious-to increase performance. No one breaches the treatment rules without an intention to increase performance. 3)breaching the rules like that would be a regular thing. Does anyone really believe that authorities just happened to fluke turning up the first time stewart had ever done that. 4)high avhievers are just as likely to cheat as anyone is. logically more likely because they have more to gain.History is littered with so many examples that indicates that. 5)testing does not pick up the use of all enhancers.for a start if they aren't testing for something,they won't pick it up. How long should it be played out in the media you ask.Simple. Give it the coverage it deserves when it happens,then cover it anytime there is an update and when the case is heard. The most obvious and daming thing about this case,is that the harness racing media would rather cover up the story to protect the stewart stable. The media and some industry leaders are so weak on these matters its stunning. They never promote the message that cheating will not be tolerated and that the integrity enforcement ageany is coming for you.That should be the message,but never is when it comes to anyone high profile.No wonder people like stewart think they are untouchable. Finally,what does it say about the stewart stables employess. Isn't it supposed to be a big stable. Are they all that complicit in the dishonest behavior and have no empathy at all for the other industry owners,trainers,horses who do things honestly?

And one other one gammalite. This topic started by being all about the media giving next to no coverage of the stewart stables rule breaches. You may have already answered it when you said.. you don't expect harness racing journalists to criticise the product...the product you inferred was represented by stewart. The question i have is what level of success does warrant discussion,or is everyone to be treated the same and best not given any media coverage.

i'm just trying understand your thinking. so wondering if you can you answer these simple questions gammalite. I think things that i have asked are black and white,so much information and examples out there for me to say that,but you may or may not agree.Anyway. Emma stewart says in her statement? "i now know this(the iv drip) was inside the permitted time frame". I think they all just require a yes or no answer,but thats up to you. 1)Gammalite do you believe she knew what she was doing was in breach of the rules. 2) did she have an intent to help the horses performances by giving the raceday treatment. 3)do you believe that is the first time she has given raceday treatments? 4) do you believe a trainer or athlete can be great at what they do and also use performance enhancers? 5)do you believe all performance enhancers will be picked up in testing? I won't comment any further as your entitled to your opinions.i've already expressed mine.

You've just written something that unfortunately is in line with the thinking of racing journalists.(apart from brad reid and even peter profit) Watering down integrity issues is a very,very bad strategy. I know you vigorously defended the stewart stable on here recently against any suggestions they were cheating,but reality is you got it wrong. Thats why so many high profile harness meida ignore it,they don't want anyone saying i told you so to them .some in the media are just hypocrites. Now it seems your saying whats the big deal and point to other high profile stables who have returned positives. i don't get that approach nor understand how that helps your argument. Ask yourself this. You seem to think the grimson stable use performance enhancers.Would you be saying the same thing if it was the grimson stable that had been caught in similar circumstances? As to your coomments about it being right for the media to ignore it, because they are supposed to be promoting the sport. Name one other sport that does that? Use your rugby team as an example. I listened to a well known australian rugby identity yesterday commenting on the world cup performances and the coach.Given you think its not for journalists to lampoon the product,you wouldn't have been happy. I think maybe your expressing the views you are is partly because harness racing is a sport dear to your heart and it hurts that people tell truths that are not nice to hear.

So your saying because i have agreed with what brad reid and anthony butt said,i.e. that most high profile media are giving next to no coverage of the story,that therefore means that the media is an example of someone not talking about it. A bit like saying everyone thinks elvis is dead except joe down the road who saw him last week. so therefore no one can say everyone believes elvis is dead Or like me saying i always lie,so if that were the case then i must be lieing when i say that,therefore that means i'm not a liar. I can talk in riddles as well chief. But can't see the point on this topic as its quite a serious topic. That was a quote from brad reid's article. I understand what he meant,as i'm sure you do.its not complicated .I don't see much sense in your reply there.

I have just read the article he wrote on harnesslink(a peter profit headline put me on to it) Titled "when ignorance is no longer bliss." People should read it as he seems the only one in the media with the integrity to actually be honest and open when it comes to that stable. Here are some quotes from his story. "Are the industry participants meant to simply accept stewarts apology as meaning this is the first time the rule has been breached. Or simply the first time stewart has been caught. can you imagine an athlete or high performance coach in another sport being caught red handed breaching a fundamental rule the weekend it had achieved remarakable success,yet only having their highlight reels dished out for 5 days while the media ignore the elephant in the room?It wouldn't happen. The mainstream media,further mars public confidence in harness racing and creates the perception of a coordinated effort to paint australia's leading stable in a favorable light. The same media pushing the mistake narrative are nowhere to be seen when smaller players suffer a similar date." Then he quoted Anthony Butt. Butt said "It was a clear breach and is not a good look and casts a pool of doubt over their success on saturday night....But i'm disappointed in the media too,its been brushed under the carpet by just about everybody.If this had happened in galloping it would be headline news. Its not a good look and it doesn't shine a good light on the stable". So Brad Reid and Anthony Butt have had the guts to actually say what you could virtually gaurantee nearly every honest industry participant is thinking,yet next to no other high profile people have the balls to actually say. As to the nz media. A couple of weeks ago i almost choked on my food when i saw Mick geurin say something along the lines about ,we in the media have to be open and transparent about issues such as integrity matters." What,i thought,mick, the hypocrite, guerin saying something that cleary he doesn't practice.his response to the stewart case is just proof again that he can't be taken seriously when he talks about integrity matters. For mick guerin,raising integrity concerns about stables like the stewart stable is a no go subject. Adam hamilton has the has the same attitude. Just read the last australian news on the hrnz website. Hamilton mentions how great the stewart stable are in 3 different segments of the australian harness news,yet ignores what everyone is talking about. As to the box seat.Here's what they had to say. Greg o'connor said" there was a little bit of an incident". Thats was it. The only message anyone that listens or watches is so obvious.We don't talk about this stuff because it involves people that we like. Sadly,the responses of those who look away is repetitive behavior that we have become accustomed to and is easily predicted.And its such behavior which makes them complicit in their own way to enabling those that do this type of stuff.

Maybe its a psychological thing to make the horse feel more comfortable about having a pee? Some horses(and humans) consider splash back. I've always thought they should have the regulations/rules that apply to swabbing displayed on the wall somewhere in the swabbing box. I say that because of a couple of experiences i had a few years ago..One time our horse being swabbed took an awful long time(hours) to have a pee and i asked at what point they would take blood if he didn't pee. I was told a certain time frame,which i checked out the next day. It turned out i was given misleading/incorrect information. Also i once experienced a time when they swabbed one of our horses after it won the last race one night. The race had been delayed and was not run until 11 o'clock.The horse had won the week before as well and was swabbed then and they had also taken blood earlier in the night off him.The swabbing people told me they would take blood if he didn't pee very quickly. Because of all that and my previous experience, i insisted they wait until the full timeframe allowed was up before they did so,(to annoy them like they seemed to go out of their way to do to me). The swabbing steward was not happy and said he would have to take advice,but then the horse had a pee 2 minutes later anyway. So the rules and rights of those being tested should be properly displayed in the swabbing area in my opinion.