the galah

Do you follow harness racing. I had thought so ,but maybe not if your suggesting that on track horse deaths are a common occurence. You do realise that a horse that dies on track gets a mention in the stipes report.People also see it. But to give you a chance to prove your point,and to prove that it is not you that is really talking BS,name a couple. I can think of a couple of others in the last 2 years. Its a very,very rare occurence,but hey prove me wrong and supply me some names. Maybe gammalite or chief could help you out with some names?

Your a funny man chief. Did you really think anyone thought an official investigation would openly conclude anything different. Of course they should have investigated,but an investigation was only ever going achieve "we will be watching you more closely in the future". You can go on sticking your head who knows where,but like i said at the time... In a 4 month period,between may and september last year,they lined up just the 34 horses,and 3 died. Also one was supposed to have pulled up with a hock fracture. So you do the maths. 1 in every 10 they took to the races in that 4 month timeframe died,3 in identical collapsing circumstances. As to archie butterfly,i'm not a subscriber to his website,although i believe he also referenced the death of another horse that went to aussie. One last thing. Can you give me the name of any vet who thinks that the stats i have referred to are a sign of "nothing to see".Vets i thought are there to care for the horses in times of need.

Believe what you want to believe chief.I can't work out why some people can't believe what i say. To prove the point I had thought you could give me a name of any horse running at any up coming nz harness meeting,and you could watch how it works. But then i already did that about 6 months ago when discussing this topic previously. At the time i posted the algorithms also effected me,and i was going to back 3 horses, watch the dividends drop. I did so,they dropped immediately as i predicted. And what was the response i got from you chief and a couple of other posters,well the same as what you have suggested above.So i'm not going to do that again. Oh well,i know whats true and what isn't as far as this goes. You may find it hard to believe chief,,i'm not sure why though.

Heres an example of one of the tab's policies. The other day i spoke to someone who had got annoyed at how placing $20 bets on ff on an account was impacting the ff dividends ,and as always subsequently the tote dividends. So in one race they placed every minute for 5 minutes,1 $20 win bet on a horse that they did not give any chance but was 3rd favorite. Each time after the bet was placed,it was then cashed out the bet prior to placing the next bet. The ff dividend of that horse dropped from $7 to $6 to $5.50 to $5 to $4.50. All within the 5 minutes which was about quarter of an hour before start time. This is because of the algorithms they have set up on the account which monitor its bets,and slashes the odds on any bet placed.. So there was no money whatsoever placed on the horse,because each bet was cashed out. Yet the price dropped. The horse i believe started around $5 ff,and $5 on the tote because people had assumed it was a real win mover. Of note the commentator said that the money had really come for that runner,which while understandable, is a comment often made by trackside presenters and commentators,but in reality it was all an illusion.

No horse fell over at the start. One did pre start and was scr..I thought it goes without saying that a horse that doesn't start, does not have a driver that participates in the race.So no sure what you mean and besides there was no connection whatsoever anyway. i meant the driver who i see said he felt the favorite,and obvious horse to beat, would not take him to the passing lane and also said his horse was pacing roughly,which is hard to pick up if you watch the video.

Actually just looked at the race again and there was an unusual drive in the race from the horse trained at the same stable,which really set virillo up for the win.Interesting to watch who he was focused on most of the home straight. Don't think anything in it myself,but an interesting watch.

i like the fact you stuck your head out pre race,and it winning does make one smile. I didn't see that coming and personally had it rated to run a clear last myself,so can see why you started the thread. As to the track. Its the same as every other year,so we know what to expect beforehand. Blair orange driving his 2500 winner was good to see,just a shame boudica just got nutted late in the cup.

I thought you were on the money pre race,as i couldn't see why vrillo would open paying only $3 given its form. But in hindsight i guess it never pays to write off anything the wigg sisters drive in the amateur races. Horses just seem to go better when they drive them.

I ofren wonder why ,if the crowds don't come to see the top horses race,then why aren't the top horses taken to the christmas crowds. I'm not talking about racing. Wouldn't it be great to have christmas crowds experience watching the likes of Muscle Mountain or sundee's muscle parading and having a quiet run around,then sprinting up the straight on the grass track say 5 minutes before start time of the main trot race at the latest rangiora meeting. Or have Self assured do the same at the latest motukararai meeting.Then the horses could walk back up the straight close to the crowd before leaving the track. The horses connections could also be driven up the straight in some type of flash car with the top down while Matt cross gives a run down of their achievements and earnings. These horses only live 20 minutes down the road from these tracks and their connections no doubt like to show off their champ. Never seems to happen,not sure why. I remember derek jones doing a tour of pubs with blossom lady after she retired. One pub patron told me the horse even went into the local bar,although never saw that in person.

I don't have facebook but can get some of their content if i google their name. The thing i can't work out is why is it not part of whats available on the HRNZ website. Its unique and provides content that's interesting and accentuates all the positives harness racing to offer. Its a bit like all those reality tv programmes that my wife watches,but about something i really enjoy. I do hope HRNZ make it available through their website as so many don't get facebook or are aware of what they are missing.

I think miss wigg may live down in canterbury these days brodie. She has an association with the n edge stable i think.A welcome edition to canterbury training ranks and a very good amateur driver.

We will have to agree to disagree. But people numbers that turn up to aucklands christmas meeting to watch the races which cater for the good horses are just a drop in the ocean when compared to christmas race meetings like oamakau,motukara,westport,nelson,gore,etc. And what do these christmas race meetings all have in common... They all cater for the lower grade horses ,with a country cup race. And its turnover from these very meetings that provides some of the income to provide the bigger stakes for the higher grade,low number horse races. So if your going to hit the incomes of those that provide the horses for these lower grade meetings at this time of year,by cancelling their bread and butter meetings where they earn the money to keep going ,as they have in may and as they have in southland, then don't have the bean counters at hrnz patronise those people with their double standards of what justifies races to be run or not.

True,it always helps to have context of how things have come to be,and where you are heading. But decisions need to be based not only on good intentions,but reality.

.

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.