the galah

sorry gamma ,read all the post except the bit where you had nat and sam. As you said,first in ,so they belong to you. Should have known as your huge fan of them. I'll have instead team 3,blair orange,my favorite driver.

team nat and sam. Go the ladies

The one he got put out for improper driving. I think it was pocket baileyship,or something like that that he drove. The final of a sales stakes race,that from memory they covered on mainstream tv. Did involve changeover i think,So many good things he could have been remembered for ,but the thing i thought he is most remembered for.At least thats what i thought.

I get that maybe it could be said that i focus too much on a certain aspect of a great sport,but thats just part of how i feel sometimes. And i understand you must have reasons for your focus and how you feel as well about certain things. But this thing you keep raising above,i just think you are somehow going somewhere where it just doesn't seem appropriate. If that is what you have to refer to,to make a point,then maybe the merit of your overall argument isn't as strong as you think.That would be my comment to you.

So much is a witch hunt to you.When and if there was actually such a thing,no one would take any notice of the witch hunt claims, as they would have heard it so many times before. Like the girl who cried wolf. You have no understanding of what drives my comments if you think jealousy is a factor in anything i say. What drives my comments is a sense of being taken for a mug. Well i'm not and i will tell you i'm not. Retaining punter confidence is a critical factor when it comes to the prosperity of the industry,and everyone who makes a living from it. All the punter expects is for each horse to be driven on its merits. In this case we are talking about a very talented trainer who when it came to the crunch,delivered one of the most obvious cases of improper driving seen,all to assist another horse from his stable to win.That to me defined his career and what he thought he was entitled to do to achieve victory. In effect he gave every punter,and rival trainers in that race the middle finger. Sometimes i wonder whether being on a chat site like this is a good thing for me,as its like groundhog day so often. There are those who believe certain things are acceptable to achieve victory,then there are others like myself who believe there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. I look at this thread and to me,if you are going to remember the good about someone,and there was no doubting Small was talented,then you should also be honest and have perspective about all his contribution to harness racing.That includes what he did to cause joe public and other licenceholders to think harness racing had an element of dishonesty.

The facts are the facts. He got a heap of publicity around it. Did you have your head in the sand back then as well and miss it?

Channeling the chiefs thoughts there ranga?

No doubt he could train and had an eye for a good horse,but he had many controversies. Multiple positives...team driving charges...scratching his team just before the races were due to start supposedly on advice from his vet,poor behavior in the judicial setting. You can't rewrite history.

The only time i have mentioned blood spinning was on this thread where i had earlier said i didn't think it was legal anymore.Now i have clarified that. No idea what you mean when you say you told me something 10 days ago about blood spinning.I have not been thinking of blood spinning nor mentioned it..Maybe you thought when i referred to blood work and treatments i was referring to blood spinning. If you think i thought blood spinning may have caused the telfer horse deaths then you are way off what i have been thinking. Who knows what you mean or what you are referring to.

Seems you were right about the blood spinning still being legal and available newmarket. HRNZ rule 1004 k seems to cover it,which says they can do it if done by a vet and at least 8 days prior to racing.Also trainers can't store it,not sure whether setting up company at another address had anything to do with that. An example of one legal purpose, is for the vet to give it via a nebulizer and say it is for the treatment of respiratory bleeding. Just an example of how stables with owners happy to pay vet bills, can use treatments legally to increase performance. All done while operating within the rules.

I read each stipe report and think its worthwhile reading the entire report. Doesn't matter how long it is to me.. Betting on amateurs you need to factor in the drivers a bit more,but punters don't have to bet on them if they don't want to.When they hand out penalties,the amateurs do seem to get the wrong end of the stick and personally i think the length of penalties given to them and other not as busy professional drivers, is a bit unfair. But number of drives is how they currently do it,so they are stuck with it at the moment. Assessment of form is based on opinions and recent form of horses mentioned in the stipes report may not always be given the same assessment as you or i.You seeing sweet belles performance yesterday as no surprise is why you are a successful punter. I still think the more information available the better.Of course the vast majority of the stipes reports should and is made up of facts and detail around what actually happened on the day,and therefore if something happens that requires mentiioning,then it should be in there.

It was a long report,but i have always been a believer in the more information available to the public,the better. Also sometimes you can have a day when you get a few more things which deserve a mention. Its much better to think the stipes are treating everyone the same. Where you get dissatisfaction,or the perception of favoritism is where one trainer/driver is scrutinised or given a mention,and someone else or there horse has done the same thing and doesn't get a mention.Its a good thing if the stipes report is lengthy and shows consistency in the application of the rules. As to sweet belle. I think that falls into the better to have more information than less category.

Well going by those commenting on this thread it is newmarket and myself who possess the punting nous.After all,we were the ones who said they would underperform last night. So i would have thought being accurate would add credibility to ones argument,but not so if you don't want to see it. Like i said ,we have not been saying anything others on here haven't said either,so there are a lot of punters with the nous as you put it. Also,the handful of other punters i know all say the same thing.For example last year i got a call on cup day from someone who is classed as a big punter,and they said to me they gave up betting after about race 3 or 4 as it was clear the all star runners had improved significantly and that he thought it unwise to invest as the improvement was throwing all the recent form books out the window. I agreed with him. I too limited my betting on cup daylast year for that reason.

Like blackie has said,i don't think blood spinning is legal anymore.Everything moves with the times. Millwood nike. Well, obviously they would have set it for that group 1 race with the big stake last week if thatswhat you are asking. Still getting over the telfer stuff? I'm was amazed that anyone couldn't see how bad that looked.Thats my honest opinion,i would have thought it a no brainer,but not everyone shares it by what you say.And I guess if you can't see that as being an issue,then you won't see the all stars were underperforming. I don't think the telfer barn has caught up to the all stars. I don't think they ever will. I can understand you having that opinion as its based on current results. You know ,what i never understand is how anyone can argue that the likes of the All stars and the telfers,are the best trainers because they have the best training skills,have the best horses,have the best facilities, use all the up to date equipment,etc,etc,etc yada yada yada......yet when it comes to how to peak them through blood work and treatments,they know more no more than anyone else. Its such a joke of an argument when people say you can't suggest that is a big part of how a couple of stables peak their horses for the big days.

Anyone reading that post from newmarket would agree with you that it was over the top and not his best work. I'm sure he knows that as well. I guess he got over frustrated and felt you were ignoring the point he was trying to make. Maybe the best way to put it is to ask yourself... 1)why were so many of the all stars horses so heavily backed?. 2) did their performances meet those expectations And the answer is they were so heavily backed because of their previous raceday performances and the ability they had shown. Those that set the odds at the tab,and punters as well,know how to assess form. They aren't stupid.Thats the whole thing about punting isn't it,assessing the form. So when you ask above if the all stars underperformed last night,i would say yes,and it was pretty obvious they did.When you see a large team of horses nearly all perform below the level seen previously its just logical to ask why? I think newmarket assessment of the all stars was accurate,and while he made an early call,what he said happened. And like nearly everyone i know,thinks we will see the all stars performances increase significantly on cup day and the bigger stake days.And the reason for that prediction is because thats what happened in recent years. Its not... Insulting,bagging,tall poppy syndrome,disrespectful,ignoring past achievements,you do better...Your words on this thread about about those who have posted opinions.I don't have a problem with you saying that,just don't agree

So by the end of the night the all stars had 8 very well backed favorites. Of the favorites,one of the eight won,although they did get a second win with a second favorite,who just got up to beat a roughie after getting the trail. The final event probably summed up the confidence the stable had in their runners ablility to do any work,with the favorite final collect sitting last for the last round,no attempt being made to move at any stage,and it battled on ok late. So while newmarket made his call early,the results show he was pretty accurate in the end.

You know hes taking the mickey gammalite. Maybe we are better changing the subject and talking about how many winners the all stars will get on cup day.I would guess at least 5 given the really nice team they have. We will all be nodding in agreement come cup day on how great they are at training and driving .We all know how good they are,we all admire them,just that wasn't the original topic.

My last comment would be anyone can read into anyones comments on here what they want.That is what you have done. Thats up to you. I would say to you when replying to me to just stick to commenting on what i actually said. Paleface adios is obviously just taking the piss.Thats up to him.

I gave a reason why i thought the all stars horses were not performing at their peak at this time of year.. I said "they are still going great,they always do". Again i would say to you,your making comments about something i have never said. What others say is up them. I give my own thoughts.

This reply has no connection to what i have said.

Seems you don't think someone who is a punter is able to give an opinion. If you think they are "primed" to go then you aren't watching the same races i am. Personally i have backed just the 2 all star runners tonight,the 2 that have won.Still what type of judge am i. You may not want to see it with your all star eye patch on,but horses that are primed to go,are able to handle hard runs better than when they are not.Just an observation that makes sense.

They are pretty much following the same pattern as last year. They are still going great,always do,but just they don't have the run forever look about them yet. Last year every horse improved significantly on cup day. My wives theory is because they haven't been primed to go just yet,they are subject to feeling the effects of a hard run like every other horse,especially early in their preparations.. I like that theory as it makes sense to me,but everyone will have there own thoughts.

I also take with a grain of salt anything around issues like this,but given the official actions and procedures taken,maybe there was reason for concern.No one can say just how serious anything like this really is without knowing all the facts and circumstances. We all know animal welfare is a serious issue. I think its a good thing that officials have been upfront and named the property concerned. Had they not named the property concerned, there would have been much speculation and people with no connection would have unnecessarily been blamed for something they had not done. Also,like it or not,people with ulterior motives can sometimes involve authorities without cause,just to further their own agenda.

If you have a look at that or other crossings they are just compacted dirt.I have never seen any gravel on one. The horses go from a surface with give in it to a very hard surface for a stride back to the grass in the next stride.I don't think it seems to worry them much,but where you can see them lose rhythm or confidence is if they may drop slightly in that stride they take on the crossing due to the crossing being slightly lower,or if the driver of the horse in front of them seems to bounce a bit as the sulky then rises again over the bump as it goes back to grass.Thats how it works i think.

But the report on their website doesn't say that. it says the stipes said the horse was not in a gallop prior to its last stumble,that the stipes said it may or may not have galloped over 50m,but that it was difficult to be precise going by the track markings. It also said that the stipes agreed it broke just inside the 200m,but because that was a gallop under 50m it meant nothing. So the people making the decision said it may or may not have galloped for 50m,but that they couldn't be sure,so let placings stand. One thing of note is the rule says it must be a continuous gallop. So in theory,within the last 200m you could have a horse gallop 40m then pace 20m then gallop the next 40m then pace 20m then gallop the next 40m then pace the last 40m and it would still be within the rules as there was no continuous gallop of 50m.