the galah

I think brodie its about time everyone,from administrators/licence holders/owners just become realists and admit that stake levels need to reflect what the industries income dictates they can realistically provide. It beats me what good it does for everyone to go on about stake levels. Its not going to change,so every should stop the moaning and focus on the many,many facets of the industry that makes it so great and attractive. Thats the only way you move forward. The industry should have a 10/20 year plan.Where is the vision. It must be realistic. Harness racing has the ingredients to have a future if packaged and sold correctly. Unfortunately the glory days are gone,but we have to accept that and carry on keep harness racing relevant and accessible.It starts with being realistic, honest and positive.

Maybe its time to recognise that allowing clubs to continue to operate, if they can provide their own funding of stakes through turnover/sponsorship/their own forms....,is the best thing to do for the overall good of the industry. Is it not just a matter of saying to them, you have to provide minimum stakes of ....and that hrnz will do everything to help run the meetings but your on your own as far as receiving funding for upkeep of racetracks and facilities.Also they have to meet a mutually agreed formula to show the clubs wealth is not being significantly eroded through the running of their meetings. So the destiny of the clubs if back in their own hands ,even if it may be on terms which make it harder to continue and prosper. If they can still keep going then why stop them? If the bigger clubs are banking on using the money of the clubs they close then maybe its time they were realistic and operate within a realistic budget themselves. I also think these type of clubs need to race between december and february. They are weather dependant and its seems so cold in the likes of november these days.They should gbe a circuit of sirts.

Fair enough,as with any subject,everyone has their own take on whether driver tactics during races are the most beneficial to getting the best result. I think the wet track thing is only a very minor factor myself as far as whether a driver should make a move or not.The most important are things like tempo and how the horse is best driven(is it a sit sprinter or a better stayer). In this case he made a move when the pace slackened.

Where he was positioned,4 back the outside was too far back to get anywhere anyway,so i suppose he went down trying.The first 4 home all came from inside positions on the pylons.From a betting perspective he gave punters a run for their money.

Fields today weren't attractive betting wise,unless you like backing favorites. Part of the reason is races over 1980 always dominated by horses that go forward and get to the rail.Not much point backing anything that you think will go back. Those couple of 2 year old races dominated by the telfers in one and the all stars in the other,personally i find a turn off to investing. Geraldine far better betting fields. Shame about the weather. I think geraldine has had cold weather more often than not in recent years. The ardern horses you mentioned today went ok. Sarah o'reilly a very good driver. Horses run for her,but she tends to drive with patience more often than not. Maybe its the horses she drives,but over 1980 you have little chance if coming from the back.

Who's dave? I have no stipe friends. Personally i think its ok if in the future he were to be granted permission to break in horses prior to his disqualification ending.As long as there was proper oversight to ensure thats all it was. I'm sure he would be compliant with any provisions as related to that.Just a bit soon at the moment. Thats my opinion. You probably have more idea of how he would do it without being seen to be given any favors.

Whether anyone wants to wear a mask is a matter of choice .Peoples health is something unique to them. Just as you believed people should respect everyones right to make their own choices as to whether they get vaccinated or not,the same principal applies to wearing a mask wouldn't it.You can't argue both sides of the argument.Peoples choice to wear a mask should be respected.It has nothing to do with their work.

You never seem to read what i say do you. Can you just ignore my posts as whenever you reply it puts an interpretation of my posts that was never there. Just for you, I never said breaking in yearlings was training again. I said if there is to be a pathway prior to the end of the disqualification period,then anyone who was granted that pathway ,would be in a better position when they started actual training again.

Its a bit concerning and even surprising the decision makers in this case were so out of touch with how their actions would be received.As you have said,the failure to comment and admit they should have handled it differently just makes it worse. The perception of having connections to decision makers and gaining preferential treatment because of that,was concerning,but in reality is how so much works in most walks of life and it has been common place in some areas harness racing for decades.Still doesn't mean it should happen though. If we put that all to one side,we still should ask questions.for example... 1)Should anyone who has received a disqualification, be given a pathway back into the industry prior to their disqualification expiring. 2)what form should that pathway take and how could it be done in a fair and consistent way. 3)who should have input into the decision making and what terms and conditions would apply to those concerned. 4)who would oversee compliance and how would that be done. Personally i think,if handled correctly,there should be a pathway for whoever it may be. If at the time of the original penalty,the pathway is not considered or there is no rule allowing it to be considered then,then perhaps its as simple as making a rule, saying for example,after completion of say 75% or whatever,of the disqualification then application can be made for that pathway to commence and it could be in the form of breaking in(only) of horses. While most unfortunate that it has been handled as it has been,the matter still seems to lack clarity and needs to be addressed. Maybe there shouldn't be a pathway,but is it realistic to expect someone after a lengthy disqualification, to overnight be in a position to start training again?Should that even be a consideration? The best way to deal with the questions i raise is to be transparent and have consultative leadership. Mcgrath in some ways has become a bit of a victim of the decision makers who were supposed to be trying to help him.The decision makers not only failed the industry ,they also failed mcgrath.

I suggest you apply for a job there,as sounds like your well qualified.

Would the car park be able to handle a decent crowd like they get at orari. Normally they have lots of piles of dirt and machinery from some sort of business there that i guess rents it.

Yes i did mean king curtis. Didn't realise i had typed king kong until now....Loved that show....Those were the days.

The Wrestler from texas? Probably not the same one you are referring to. Does remind me of On the mat with steve rickard and ernie leonard. Used to watch them when i was a kid. Remember king kong would get them to foam at the mouth,then there was the fella who did the sleeper hold,and samoan joe. Great entertainment. Not much to do with harness racing but still a nice trip down memory lane.

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.