the galah

You make some good points,but communication is a 2 way thing, For the good of the industry enforcement needs to work with industry participants to achieve a common goal. And in my view that is where people with similar views to yours let themselves down. Correct me if i'm wrong,but i've read what you and many others have commented for some time now,and i have formed the opinion based on what you have said,that you consider anyone subject to enforcement action to be the subject of a ''vendetta' as you describe it. Never once have you commented in a positive way on the RIU censoring those who seek to gain an advantage by way of cheating over the hard working honest trainers. To you and those that agree with you,the victim is the offender,not those who have no level playing field. You are just as responsible for creating an environment of distrust as the RIU is.Yet you can't see it. Tell me,how about you name a handful of trainers who you were unhappy with their actions,and deserved attention from the RIU because of their cheating? i'm waiting. Your out of touch with what many of the grass roots participants of the industry think. Have you ever wondered why those that have been charged in recent years just happen to be breaking the rules when the RIU turn up. Its pretty obvious if you don't know. Its because what they are doing would be regular behavior. I'm sure you don't credit the RIU to have such accurate intelligence or to be so clever to know the exact day those transgressing are going to do something. How about you have a rethink and consider both sides of the argument. Then when you start talking with more balance,justified criticism of the RIU that you may have will mean more and have more impact.

Card holder for the RIU-funny,but i don't think so. My point has always been-irrespective of the merit of her (and your) argument,and i accept there is some,the reason she is having to deal with it is because of her own actions. Instead of me telling you about what you suggest,how about you tell me how anyone who does something similar meets the accepted standards of a harness trainer? Its not about who.its about what. Interesting you see a story headlined "harness racing trainer appeals against disqualification,claims racing integrity board is biased" as positive publicity. Thats what you said. What about the bit where it says the case relates to "Wigg administered 3 horses a substance in july last year". Is that positive publicity for wigg?. We both seem to comment on this type of thing.We have differing points of view. Sometimes its like groundhog day. But i feel strongly that if the industry is to continue,you need strong enforcement.Thats why i comment. My impression from speaking to others is its almost past that point now.Its as if they just accept proper enforcement has come too late and even now its here,it doesn't change the attitudes of those who transgress,and of those that support them .Just read forums like a bit of a yarn and you can see why many think that?

Not 100% sure what you are meaning. But i understand wigg has a point when she has argued the appeal committee that would hear her appeal against sentence,should not be made up of people associated with those who made the original decision. That of course leaves an inference that she believes she may not get a fair hearing.Whether that is what she really believes or not,who knows,but that of course is an argument based on perception,and is not a given reality. Everyone should be entitled to pick what battles they fight,and wigg has chosen this one. But with it comes a great deal of financial cost and publicity.

Secondary. The meaning if you google it "coming after less important than,or resulting from someone or something else that is primary". So in my opinion, industry participants understanding they have an obligation to play by the rules,and to not cheat ,would be of primary importance. So i believe it is secondary.

So she has a degree of merit in her argument around the make up of personnel hearing her case.I take it that is a major thrust of her case,but i could be wrong. And she is saying the racing integrity board is biased. Well how about that,the entity set up to police the rules actually looks at it from an enforcement perspective. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. That is however nothing new to anyone.That goes without saying. So on one hand she deserves credit for that. Industry figures packed the gallery. So what. Sounds like some don't have anything better to do to me. No doubt those with a legal background may find it interesting,but what would the rest have to gain from personally attending the hearing. Is it somehow going to give them a greater understanding of the judges ruling. I assume the reserved decision will be a detailed written one outlining the reasons for the ruling. But lets put some perspective on this. To me it just seems a waste of money to both parties. I don't know what world Wigg lives in, probably the part of harness racing where those in it have views that everyone the subject of enforcement is seen as the victim of unfair treatment. Except of course if its someone with a low profile.Then no one really cares.Besides,there is hardly anyone with a low profile anymore anyway.Ironically,if anyone had bothered to ask many of them before they left,they would have found many wanted greater enforcement to create a level playing field. To me,this case is just another example of how there is a power struggle for the control of the narrative around enforcement. This case need not have become a complicated legal stoush. The make up of the panel hearing her case is secondary. You can't go giving your horses treatment on the day of the race,because other trainers who abide by the rules think you are cheating.Its simple as that. Is there anyone out there who actually bothers to say what they think when they interact with those who work outside the rules. Or do they just say it on social media,and to other like minded trainers who they know agree with them.Saying what you think about an issue,need not involve personalities. Unfortunately one side always makes it about the personalities involved. Those most vocal say they care about those involved,but then they create an environment where those very same people they support are placed under extreme pressure.And then that is used by that side as some sort of justification for saying they were right. Yet they can't ever see they were part of the cause. So ignorant and all rather pathetic in many ways.It keeps happening,so it seems they never learn that there are far better strategies to achieve their goals.It is what it is.

$33 a bag for oaten chaff .

Tuned in to see how robyns playboy went tonight.Another awful performance and dropped out to a walk finishing a long last. This horse has been racing like that for a long time now. The trainer seems very successful with his other horses,but hard to phathom why they keep racing a horse that runs so poorly. Don't think its going well enough to even win a non win race down south. Shame really as it once was a good horse.

I believe its between $12 to $15 per bale,depending on who you buy from and the quality. I was going to get some earlier in the year for $10,but wasn't happy with the quality so got very nice meadow hay instead for the $8 price quoted earlier. I believe you can pay around $10 for good quality meadow hay sometimes.Thats the prices in the area i live anyway..

Would that be for 9 months? Its $30 per week for good grass paddocks,shelters and feed and tack room included where i am.Costs $8 per bale of very good quality meadow hay if you have to supplement food. .

As i have said ,the figure i have said is what it costs an owner /trainer to do his or her horses. I have said it doesn't factor in time.I know what i have said is accurate. All stables may need vets if they are to "get the best" out of the horse,but not all trainers use vets.In fact i don't know anyone in the area i keep my horses that would use a vet.The trainer with the biggest team has only the one worker. Just works hard to keep the costs down for his owners. Of note,young trainers have little chance of ever buying their own properties anymore due to the cost of land increasing so much,so if they were to do so,there is little chance their incomes from harness racing would service the costs of paying off the property as well as general everyday living costs,no matter how much they charge. Dairying was the major reason for that.And i believe the costs of setting up a training establishment is part of what sometimes drives some young trainers to operate outside the rules. I assume when you say its not worth the effort unless you get a group winner relates to the financial side. But i don't agree with that either.But of course your right if your suggesting most people race horses with the hope of financial reward,not the expectation. I think we would both agree anyone who races a horse needs to either be an optimist or have a love of what they do,or probably both.I know you love your horses and you seem an optimist.

The figure your talking about may be the cost of what the higher end trainers charge,but those type of trainers would have costs for all sorts of extra things like vets,but the average run of the mill trainer wouldn't be charging that. If you were an owner tainer and doing it yourself and had all the gear,then the costs you would be paying out would be around $130 a week. per horse. That doesn't include time,but would include the best of feed,shoeing if you were doing it yourself,transport and track fees.If you were paying a farrier it would be $120 every 4 weeks or so.So while significant,when suggesting the cost to house ,then the only extras i could see would be the cost of employees and vets. And isn't his wife a vet so that would help that cost ? Every trainer has their own circumstances,and for the likes of trainers not charging at the high end,then their hourly rates would be poor,but in houses case your figures would significantly over estimate his actual costs.

Is there some type of rule which says you can only push out when you have an advantage over the horse you are doing it too,or at the very least are on level terms? While the current case obviously involves contact on the back end of the horse,how is bumping into a horse that you may be a neck or so behind conducive to human and horse safety.You see it every raceday many times,and every time i wonder what that will do to the horses body and confidence,and how it effects the mindset of the jockey on the end of it. So often it seems well,if your going to do that to me,watch out next time i'm going to do that to you.The penalties for such riding often seem non existent as you have pointed. What happened seemed inevitable to happen at some stage if you watch nz thoroughbred racing,as tragic as it is.

No doubt weatherly will struggle to wrap his head around what he has done. Probably never will fully come to grips with it. But the facts are he was suspended earlier in the day for 7 days for causing interference. So for him,knowing he had ridden in a way that caused bad interference earlier in the day,he went out and then deliberately made the split second decision to do ride dangerously again.How does anyone with one of the most dangerous occupations around have such a mindset? No other jockey does that?Thats not normal surely? Reality is riding standards may not be what they used to be,and some dangerous split second decisions may have no consequences leading to apathy,but each case must be judged on its merits. As to penalties. I see the earlier race i mentioned where sam spratt did a similar thing,but not in a way anywhere as dangerous,simply got a warning.Doesn't that indicate that even the judicial control of careless riding places not enough weight on safety?

i don't know how to post articles. It was "spring bloom campaign replaces NZ cup and show week branding". Its a rather long article about the marketing side of what i suppose you and i always had thought was always called cup week,but when you read the article it turns out it hadn't always been branded that. Apparently in the 1990's it was called Showtime Canterbury,then after 2005 was rebranded to Cup and show week".Then in 2019 came the change to the current name. Another quote from the article was... Karena finnie,head of major and business events for christchurchnz,said they wanted a brand that represented all that happens during spring,rather than a select few . Bloom was launched by the city council owned tourism and economic development agency christchurch. Maybe the racing clubs had little say in the decision,but the reported comments expressed their support. It had a couple of photo's in the article,one of lazarus winning the cup,and the other of apparently a drunken punter lying across a footpath. The article is what the woke media does best,highlighting the successful agendas of the likes of those who made that decision,and pointing out that those commenting for the racing club were happy to look weak and compliant.

Yes i remember reading about that decision a couple of years ago. I just re read the article and it stated the decision was to help people enjoy the regular events and shift away from the booze and gambling focus. It seems it had the support of the two racing clubs. Riccarton racecourse commercial manager said"cup and show week had not really resonated and wasn't well recognised". Addington business and marketing manager said "they were extremely excited" about Bloom being the new branding. So can't just blame the council,seems those commenting on it for the racing clubs thought it a good idea. It was one of those articles where you think is it april the 1st,but it was real.

No fines if they go slow. At least she gave it a chance i suppose.Either some of those drivers behind her had no idea they were going so slow,or if they did,then showed no judgment in not moving up.You don't see that in the south island thank goodness. Just the way it is up there. Sad really.

In the last race,they ran the second last 800m in over 70 seconds,and still no one moved up. Was anyone apart from the winner trying? Watching paint dry would have provided more excitement.

That coming from someone who turns a blind eye to any wrongdoing of those you support. Tell me hunter,who is the most reliable judge of race analysis. Is it someone who makes a living out of punting,or someone whose job it is to analyse and critique what happens in a race like a stipe,or is it someone who has driven a 1000 winners and has a personal connection to most of the drivers. I'm guessing you would go with the latter. But for me i definitely would not agree with that. The reason people use the",You haven't been a highly successful driver,so you can't judge me", is just an excuse to deflect from any wrongdoing. its just not true.

Fair enough.You make a good case. There is a clear inference in the stipes report that the flat tyre sustained by john wayne,driven by abernethy, was a result of contact from your horse. You would assume abernethy became aware of the time his tyre deflated,and the stipes report states abernethy reported it happened near the 500m,the point you came out,and the point he turned his head. Sounds like the stipes went with their instinct that your horse had made contact in the wording of the report,but given they had no evidence of contact they should have worded their report so as to not infer there was a connection . While unrelated to what we are discussing,there seems to be some type of code among prominent drivers in the north island to have a "nothing to see attitude". As i have said in a previous post.The head of the northern branch of the trainers and drivers association,jay abernethy is on record as saying 9 out of 10 drivers would have made the decision maurice mckendry did,the night he chose to steer onto the fence behind a wall of horses,instead of just pulling off the back and into the clear when driving simply sam. The stipes in that case came under criticism from many industry participants for charging mckendry. Given punters like myself read such rubbish and clearly untrue comments from the likes of abernethy and others,it shapes ones opinion. In some ways i can see why the stipes are seemingly weaker up there as they don't always get a true picture of what happens by asking some drivers.

Just watched race 5 at auckland last week. A harrison not blamed for hitting the sulky wheel of john wayne,when she pulled off its back,because the stipes said manhattan sunshine,the horse improving outside harrison was hanging in. But she hit the wheel when she pulled out,and manhattan sunshine only hung badly after that. Just another example of the stipes not willing to do anything.They really are weak as there.

I prefer the harness horses myself,but did watch a couple of races at cambridge today,and thought it was like a demolition derby.The races i watched were race 6,where initially it looked like the the horse outside the leader was desperate to keep the eventual winner in,but upon watching the replay it was evident the reason it turned sideways a couple of times was because the winner was pushing into the clear and hitting the back end of the horse outside the leader,and as a result turning it a bit sideways. Well that was nothing when it came to race 10,the other race i watched.There the horse in the trail deliberately bulldozed into the horse half a length in front of it,which turned that horse sideways into the horse outside it with it falling and another ploughing over the top. I am left wondering,are jockeys that desperate to win that they forget totally about horse and human safety?

Seems a simple one to answer. Punters prefer betting in races where there is no dominant,stand out favorite.You may be happy betting in a race with a $1.30 standout winner,but every punter i know is turned off by them. Also larger field sizes mean larger turnovers.I don'tknow where you have been,but hrnz have always said the aforementioned are major factors in turnover. I don't know who you are,but i hope your not someone running things as you don't seem to have an understanding of even the basics.

Four years ago the census said 4% of the population could have a very basic conversation, with a 1/4 of that 4% knowing how to hold a conversation in maori. But again, its government policy to fund and promote the goal of having one million new zealanders understand maori language by the year 2040. Government policy will continue to force it down your throat,irrespective of whether you or i want to hear it or not.Its a given. Like i have said before,its the same with the likes NZ rugby,who actively have a policy of promoting a welcome,inclusive and safe environment for the rainbow community. Thats why several provincial rugby teams have the pride logo on their jerseys ,with all unions being encouraged. Its the world we live in.......... Thats why in years to come there will be an explosion in people with mental health issues. Just look at the data on what they say drives the transgender issue.

The decision announced today was pretty much what most expected. On one side was the vocal big owners and trainers and the same know all media types,on the other side were the majority of owners and trainers and the punters..

Look at what the government are doing now to attract and fund overseas doctors and nurses to come to nz. Yet they refuse to let unvaccinated nz nurses and doctors work,instead spending a fortune on getting them from overseas. The level of lunacy this government continues to display is hard for any sane person to comprehend.