the galah

So why is that. I would guess that some are trying harder today than the 1st day. As a couple of posters have pointed out,these 1850 races are like the 1980 races at addington,if they run them at a consistent speed without overdoing it,horses up front nearly always dominate.Its only when they run over a further distance that horses up front tend to have to take a breather at some stage,and its at that point that those at the back have an opportunity t make a move,. Just as if they the leaders maintain the fast speed over the longer distances then they can get tired near the finish ,again giving the back runners a chance. If you want people watching and betting to consider they have had a run for their money or have understood drivers tactics,then races run over a further distance are clearly the better option. Why is it ,if sprint racing is so good,then why don't they run the cup races over a mobile 1850 pbd sprint?

Watching todays racing the pattern is you have to be in front. But the race just run was the 3rd in a row where the leader dictated the pace,and yet not one driver made a move until after they turned for home.It was about the 5th race so far today thats been like that.Not one horse pulled 3 wide prior to the final straight each time. Sam ottley is an exception,driving well,but really anyone who j has been watching would wonder how hard some are trying,or are they happy to go all that way to drop rating points. Seems a long way to go for that.

Looks a nice horse for sure,but really that race today was just a sprint from the 800m. With style looked like they had decided it couldn't win before the race started,and was driven accordingly . With style is a nice horse,but has only had 2 wins in 13 starts so far. Brad williamson has always been the stables no 1 driver,so i guess he must have had one of his own in the race for nathan to drive previously. Isn't the hole in the murphy blind there so the horse can see the other horses and therefore concentrates better?

i think what robalans comments show is some people see how people dress as a reflection of how seriously they take their job and an indication of leadership. Its all about creating that perception,but i guess the CEO doesn't place the same importance on that perception. i hold similar views to yours ludwig,but can see why robalan thinks it could be considered relevant.

I can see your point because how someone dresses gives the perception of how competent they may be,but in reality how someone dresses is unrelated to how competent they may actually be. Also his dress code i guess changes based on who he is meeting and where. I think this type of thing people will judge him based on their own standards,some will consider it relevant, but what % will consider what you have said as important?

What must you think about all the christmas racing?If you are to apply your logic, you will be calling for a reduction in racing over the christmas period,where trainers and drivers participate all over the south island in consecutive days. Seems quite a few trainers and drivers never got the memo about it being expected they had to travel from nelson to ashburton a couple of days latter. Contrary to what you seem to believe,it seems some decided they had a choice and stayed in marlborough and are having a working holiday up there.

They did,but that ended not long after i was legally able to bet. I remember when there was a couple of roughies win the first 2 legs,those with the remaining handful of tickets sometimes used to get together and if they could agree,they took the same horse in the last leg,that way they all got a nice collect whether it won or not.

oh golly gosh yes.

I was actually when i was younger.I guess you were too?They used to have those thicker tickets that could stand a bit of the weather back then. Seemed every meeting i could come across one or two.Dad also used to drop us off at the local racetrack the day after the races and we would wander around picking them up. The key was you had to know the results of the races,and back then my memory was very good.We would either be picking up tickets or playing soccer or rugby or cricket in the car park with the cousins on race day. I remember my biggest find was after a galloping meeting. I found $10 win and $10 place on a horse called jane again. Dad later collected it for me,and i got $65 . Five years later i could fill up my mini for $5,so $65 was a good score. I also remember throwing away some tickets at addington one night. I had 5 $1 units of the on course treble worth a couple of months wages. I spent a couple of races finding them,and luckily i came across them. Good, times.

Was that in the stand they pulled down because of the earthquake? There used to be so many great viewing points of that stand.You could be at one end close to the 2600 start where you would watch them pre start ,then wander along the top of the stand as they completed the final round and you would end up closer to the finish line. Before the horses went on the track they would come from the wrights road end stabling block and you could wonder down and get close enough to touch them and view their trainers/drivers and often stable employees or helpers who were responsible for taking the horses down the laneway,past the grandstand and into the birdcage. Or you could sit in the front of the stand,about 40m away as they passed on their way there. There was a connection between the public and the horses and those in charge of them back then. It was a concrete jungle,as it is now,but the difference was back then the horse/driver had a connection.. Also back then,if you wanted you could wander down into the stabling area and get up close enough to hear conversations of trainers/drivers who had no idea who you were,but mostly just carried on as if you weren't there as they accepted that was part of what attracted people to the races and future participation/ownership. Also there was so many regulars who used to go to the races that that grandstand was the place to catch up with people you used to know well,people like mums best friends husband,his wife had died and he had since moved to another city,but we still saw him 3 or 4 times a year at addington.Actually quite a few people like that.Generally the cobveration would end with"great to se you,i better go if i want to get my bet on". Then there were the people who you knew through them running busnisses,like the man from the chung wah restaurant,or the little fella who walked so fast you could never keep up with him,or the owner that occasionally you would see on track,and on the odd occasion you would also see him being chased by the racecourse inspector because he wasn't allowed on track for some reason. So many things to observe and occupy your time. I remember my auntie ,who was one of the few in the family who didn't have much interest in the racing,used to enjoy going and observing all the people.One thing she always seemed to comment on was what great heads of hair the le leivre men had and how she thought they were good looking.They tended to sit not far from where she used .Then there was all the sons and daughters of the licence holders who used to sit in the same spots in the grandstand. The likes of all the butts.Then there were all the mothers who used to hog the public phones in the back part of the grandstand while they rung home and talked to the baby sitter to check everything was ok while they were out, or checked with what i think was some sort of creche or something that was in part of the grandstand. Anyway,the point is there was a connection between the public that the grandstand provided. I used to travel to addington maybe 25 times a year to watch the races,and while numbers were dwindling,that grandstand and what it provided was why i went. Then one day the club decided to close the main part of the grandstand where you bet and chated and redirect people to a downstairs bar. From that day on,the faces you saw regularly,you no longer did,and it wasn't long before i gave up going to addington. I don't go at all now,as personally i found the current main grandstand is too far away from the action and has no atmosphere or characters within.

i think the turnover is so good on the grass tracks partly because the fields are bigger. part of the reason for that is because there are far more horses in work in the warmer months than winter..Also attendance is always better on fine days that you get in summer. But i do agree addington is more mundane than the grass track venues and personally i lament so many of the racecourses no longer having public stands prior to the winning post.I would gop more if they did,but at many tracks they seem to have pulled them down and not replaced them.Better to watch them on tv.

I sure what you say are important factors and you know your stuff,but also some trainers are known to have a lot of horses with the same gear on and other trainers are known not to. You can get that with trainers who train on the same track.I'm not talking spreaders or the like,im talking gear like boring poles and prickers. There must be a reason for that,and i think what the chief has said can be a factor. I haven't had many broken in by other trainers,but what i have found on the whole is those who broke in the horses in a short period of time,didn't do as good a job as those who took their time. I may have been cheaper to get it done quicker,but you are better to pay someone who does a good job,because bad habits picked up when a horse is broken in can be a factor in what gear,if any they use later on.

Its the same rating and type of horse that goes to a sunday addington meeting that goes to a sunday grass track meeting. So it must be the grass tracks you prefer over the all weather,but of course they can't race on grass during winter. Yours must be the same type of thinking. On one hand you always say you want more race meetings at the provincial tracks,then on the other you are always saying you don't like the meetings at addington that cater to the low grade horses. But they are the very same type of horses. Maybe the venue is what you mean,but thats not what you say.What you say always seems a contradiction to me.

I liked evangalist in that race and i thought it ran up to its form. Miss o'reilly went back early and as a result the zac butcher driven jazelle,who drew outside her and who hadn't gone forward either,but hadn't gone back to the same extent,ended up getting in front of her.As a result of that,Evangalist never looked close enough to win.In hindsight,the difference between winning and running 4th was what happened in the first 100m.

I think trainers often put gear on to solve an issue that could be solved with more time and patience.In the short term may be better,but long term maybe not.I suppose trainers that do that are mindful of how much an owner is paying them,and want quick results. Ken barron is a trainer who has little gear on his horses most of the time and they are very well behaved.

But the numbers from nelson and ashburton don't support your comments. nelson had 11 races with good size fields and ashburton has the same. And as i have said before,turnovers are high at this time of year,especially on the average meetings you refer to.Its also the meetings which mostly have the lower class horses at this time of year that get the big crowds.

So whats stopping anyone having a holiday in nelson or blenheim? No ones forcing anyone to come back to ashburton. Its the only meeting in canterbury in a 3 week period.

But in this case no one has picked on Tim Williams. Everyone knows hes a very talented driver,but hes not infallible. His drive in this case is just one of those that was an error in judgment and was to a degree that deserved a penalty. 3 days suspension is nothing major,but if anything this case does tend to highlight how harsh some of the whip rules penalties are. Both type of rules are based on perception and it could be argued that the rule williams transgressed, creates a worse perception than those being charged under the whip rule.Did his penalty reflect that or are the whip rules penalties too harsh.

To be fair to the trio,at least they could see that had williams just pulled out and given his horse a clear run,it probably wins. Just an obvious tactical error that he admitted and was dealt with fairly.I'm sure if williams felt he should be defending the charge he would have,but he didn't because he knew he got it wrong.Thats the way things should work.

that should read "doesn't change what any person posting...is thinking at the time they make a post. I guess sometimes,after posting something,then reading the subsequent replies,a posters view or knowledge around the subject may change a little. probably not that often,but sometimes.

I pretty much agree with what you have said on this thread,and he does appear to have played the man a bit and not the ball,but to say 'its people like you who take pot shots at people you don't like for no reason that actually drive the young people we have in the game out the door". Well i think thats a bit over the top. In this day and age of social media and everything that goes with it in as far as everyone commenting on whatever or whoever they like or dislike,then surely by the time someone has reached the status of being a junior driver,they must know they will be exposed to comments that could be viewed both positive and negative,and which they may not agree with or like. Surely dealing with social media would be part of what junior drivers are taught when they do their in classroom learning before they get a licence. Besides life experiences, even if they are younger ,must have exposed them to that. Someone commenting as forbury has in reality has opened discussion around a subject that some may have been unaware of the reasons for the change. You and another junior driver have given explanations which have expanded the knowledge of those reading this thread around this topic. I guess the point i make is how much should it really matter what forbury or i or anyone else who comments thinks. Its your life,you making the most of any opportunity that presents itself. Besides i always think its does no harm to know what people may be thinking,irrespective of whether it is positive or not or whether they need enlightening so as to further understand a topic that may be discussed.To me it matters not whether people use a non de plume or a real name. Obviously using your real name when you post places more weight to a topic like this,but using a real name or not doesn't change what any person posting thinks.

Don't know why you ask that. The number of race starts was the total combined number for every horse that started in those countries over the 6 year time frame. So on average those countries had that type of race death per 27202 starts. Even if you were to include the whole 506 starts the telfer horses had last year,the telfer stable had 53 times higher rate of race deaths than the whole of norway and sweden averaged.. Someone asked for the stats. Well they just prove what some of us have been saying.

I have done a bit of goggling.Theres many studies that you can read the results of. First you had to define what it was. -sudden athletic death-defined as comprising all fatalities in which there is acute collapse and death in a healthy horse during or immediately after exercise.. That seems to fit what happened to the telfers. As relates to racetrack incidences of sudden athletic death. an australian study last year found there was 1-3 deaths per 10,000 starts. A californian study found 1 per 9,000 starts or 1 per 160,000 training days. in norway and sweden in 6 years from 2014-1019 they had a total of 30 sudden athletic horse deaths from pulmonary or cardiac causes. That was from 816,085 race starts. And here in NZ we had the telfer stable have 3 deaths from not much over 100 starts in the mentioned timeframe. How anyone could say what happened with the telfer stable is not unusual defies common sense. As to the RIB's findings. One study of sudden athletic horse deaths involving 6 countries and different racing jurisdictions found that pathologists were only able to make a definitive diagnosis in 53% of cases.25% were presumed and 22% unknown. As to treatments being to blame,one study concluded no one can say for certain as yet. Some drugs were believed to be factors,as evidenced by certain trainers having a run of deaths, and treating their horses the same,but their was no definitive proof as yet. Just suggestions their is a link. So,why should we believe the RIB's vets,when other expert equine pathologists and researchers have found what i have mentioned above.

Well what was that stable known to do.I aren't suggesting it was anything illegal, as it wasn't at the time.

thats fair enough although you did say what i was saying was subjective BS. I am very,very confident that if someone was to produce the data,if they kept it,what i am saying about the circumstances being a very rare occurrence(prior to telfers) would be correct. I think you already knew that when you said it was BS. I can remember being on course when inky lord dropped dead at the end of the cup trial. He died of a ruptured aorta. We know what the most likely contributory factor to that was,but it was legal within a certain timeframe at the time. Still was that fair on the horse? I also recall watching a horse have a heart attack about 30 years ago in track work. But i have no recollection of ever being on track and witnessing a horse collapse and die during a race. No doubt it may have happened,but it tends to be something that you don't forget seeing and i used to go to the races most weeks. I'm not talking about horse deaths as a result of injury.That is not related to how these horses die. Anyway,i hope the spotlight being shone on these deaths leads to greater thought being given to any horses health and well being. The telfer stable was our leading stable last year,and well done to them for that. They have very high standards,but they must already realise this type of thing was not a good look for them or harness racing.