the galah

I think it was looking to gallop as soon as they said go,and may have been drifting out slightly. No doubt she would have felt in through the reins just before it happened,but realistically she wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. But all that was a direct result of what the horse would have been thinking after the way it was driven the week before.As we have both said,you can't blame the horse for being confused about what its supposed to do. One of coxs assets is her ability to get her horses to run,but sometimes when you let them run out of the gate from day one, they will think that is what they are supposed to do each time,and they then over race during the running . If you look at the horses she has had racing recently like tide and tide,backburn and watch me,they all do the same thing. I'm just pointing out what they do, some out there will say i'm knocking her. I don't know her from a bar of soap,but like brodie think she does a good job with her horses and sometimes invest on them. She reminds me a bit of the very successful queensland driver in narissa mcmullen.But of course they race over a mile most of the time there.

Personally i don't think she did anything wrong today,the damage was done to the horse psychologically the week before. Horses are very intellegent,and i just think its confidence was shattered.You would guess K cox would be seeing signs of that at home,but i guess she hoped for better. In my opinion it would be a good time to give it a freshen up and you would think if she does it would bounce back. Its no champ but its better than it showed today.

.

We all understand your point. Calling a horse winning a nz cup a bunny because they had a 10m start from a previous dual cup winner just highlights how much you are overstating your argument. As to the level of aucklands stakes.Actually,to me its just common sense they should reduce stake levels,assuming their financial position is as has been reported. It just depends on what their expenditure/income is.Auckland has no realistic future,given the quality of betting product,or lack of,that it serves up each week

So by that comment you understand your earlier comments highlighted the views of just a handful of connections of the higher assessed horses. So why should the views of an elite minority take precedence over the majority view? There is of course more connections who would benefit than wouldn't after all.. Also using your argument that the handful of horses you mention won't race here,then why not use the argument that those who would benefit from such a move are more likely to stay here? Also given you think these races should continue to be run as free for alls then if they are,wouldn't it make sense to base the stakes of said races on turnover as much as prestige. If its viewed that having a horse like sundees son stifle betting is better than having a larger turnover,then cut the stakes of the nz cup,the dominion and the other races involved. Why should 95% of the industry have to prop up the major races when the decision makers are happy to continue to set conditions where only the very elite have realistic winning chances?

You have just pointed out why it should change. All the above only focus on the one interest when it comes to the current topic,that is self interest. You see it time and time again. The same people moaned when they changed the handicapping system because they could no longer win a 1 win race with their 7 win 3yo. I don't blame them. Who wouldn't promote whats best for their clients. But who believes that they wouldn't start because of a 10m handicap. Who's kidding who. As to that lincoln farms website.Ifind so self serving. It is their website,so they can promote what they like,but have you ever read some of the stuff they write,when it comes to self interest. I don't normally read it because of that,but i took a look at it last week to see if much had changed,and it hadn't. One of its key stories was how the head of the North island trainers associationJay abernethy said trainers and drivers were in full support of Maurice mckendry receiving no penalty for his drive on simply sam,the one where instead of angling one horse wider to get a clear run,he instead angled in to get trapped 3 back the fence turning in. Jay abernethy stating 9 out of 10 drivers would have done the same. What kind of fool writes or believes that type of stuff.The only reason abernethy was saying that,and others were supporting what he said, was because they wanted to be able to get away with the same thing. People have to make up their own minds.

Spoken from the perspective of both the punter and the connections of those who may be weighing up whether to compete in a race where they previously realistically had little chance of beating the likes of sundees son or bolt for brilliance or self assured. Bolt for brilliance won an 8 horse rowe cup where a couple of loose class horses seemed to be in there for no other reason than to make up the numbers.Those couple of horses who just were making up the numbers ran over 100m behind the others,so in reality the same horses will probably still dominate even from 10 -15m handicaps.Handicaps will be harder for a pacer than the totters.The good trotters probably need a 20m handicap to give the others any chance.

No doubt you recognise that potential turnover is a significant factor when it comes to harness racings viability. Using the example of an athlete who no one would bet against being beaten doesn't seem to have factored in turnover as being relevant. In the last paragraph you even seem to admit turnover would increase,but i'm not sure the sigificance of"the independent directors fees" you mention has to the current subject.

If it is to be the case, then refunding any bets already taken makes sense,as you suggest.. It makes no sense to not make a decision simply because markets have already been open,as the amount of money already bet must be next to nothing you would think. The mares handicap suggestion is interesting.i'm not sure how that would work though given the horses who they would be giving handicaps,would have already won one of the big races which would have been run as free for alls. So any handicap would have been earned,whether they be a mare or not.

Seems just a matter of common sense to me. As gammalite has pointed out,putting the best horses on handicaps won't stop them winning. History clearly shows that. What having handicaps used to do is make the race much more of a spectacle. Seeing horses clearly superior step to the front early in the race,has been making the recent editions of the big races races just a procession, not an actual competitive affair fit for the showcasing of the best of nz harness horses. Only the likes of M Guerin or A Hamilton think its fantastic that a horse like sundees son kicks the heads in of the rest of the field in record time.Also when a stable has the best 3 or 4 pacers,they just dominate through team tactics from the front,and everyone knows who they are going to give the best runs. Also an obvious observation is that hot favorites discourage punters.

I've never been a fan of watching a driver put all their strength into restraining a horse over some distance as k cox did with watch me today.K cox is a trainer /driver who does a very good job with her horses normally. Can anyone explain what the point is of having a battle with your own horse?. As anyone watching could see was going to happen,the horse either choked down or thought it was being pulled up or simply resented its driver that much that it just went rough and stopped.. Seen she trains it,wouldn't a trainer be better to take a horse to the trials if they are trying to teach it something,whatever that may have been. Its something you don't see very often,but when it does happen i can never figure out why.

i see mr dalgety went all the way to cambridge for just the two drives.One battled on for 4th but never a winning chance and the other went back to last and just followed them around.What a long way to travel to drive a couple with not much winning chance.Seems a bit of a waste of time.

Gill seems to be one of those owner/trainer types who trains their own horses and therefore doesn't pay out training fees to another trainer. Obviously there is still a significant cost involved in even training your own,but i would guess it would only be about 1/3 if you were doing them yourself instead of paying someone.It just comes down to whether someone can commit the time and energy to do them themselves,as its obviously unpaid. Doesn't his daughter do that anyway and earns driving fees when she drives. Gotta ticket has earned $36,000 from only the 1 win and a dozen or so placings.This season he has earned $2800 from 1 3rd and 11 unplaced runs.Obviously a significant portion of all those earnings is from appearance money. If a horse races on sunday they seem to get about $157 and on friday $227. The drivers fee comes out of that.I am not sure the exact amount that is,but i think it used to be around $85.Maybe gill has an arrangement with smith around training fees. Look at steve lock. He lines up a handful each week and in reality after paying all his costs,he should be making a small profit even when he regularly runs outside the dividend bearing places. The point is if you are training your own horses and lining them up regularly and driving them yourself the appearance money should more than cover costs. If your not driving them ,but have 3 or 4 in,and are using the same vehicle to transport them,then the appearance money should cover costs.

Well if hes one of the richest men in marlborough then it sounds like hes made many wise financial choices along the way. Unlike many,it sounds like he is in the position of choosing the level of horse or breeding of what said horse may be. For him its obviously where hes happy. Better to be happy and well off,than just well off and seeing everything in life through the lens of the $. Also,ask yourself, would you get more satisfaction out of winning a race with a horse whose family you had bred and raised,or would you get more satisfaction out of winning double the amount of races with one you had bought from the sales. The answer for many would be the former,and actually used to be part of the reason why harness racing used to be so strong. Just depends how people see things and where each in person feels they get the most satisfaction and joy.And obviously peoples views of such things can change along the way based on their own experiences of what they find rewarding and worthwhile.

As you and brodie already realise,owners only have a hope,not an expectation that the horse they race will return a profit. There would be no racing if only the horses that may return a profit were persevered with. Suggesting people should give up based on profit fails to recognise the possible non financial rewards that go with racing a horse.There are many. Obviously they may not always come to fruition. Its a bit like hope,its better to have it in life than not,and its better to spend your time trying to achieve at something you value,than to not attempt at all. I'm sure brodie and davis would acknowledge there was a sense of achievement associated with those involved in the ownership and training of lizzie richter. Thats how i think we should view lizzie richters win.I'm sure its how her connections would have viewed it,and after all it is them who paid the bills ro persevere when most wouldn't have.So its their feelings around the win which matter most anyway.

Who can forget the herlihy drive where his horse hung in and ran inside the markers,then was steered back out into the middle of the field causing several horses to be interfered with. No penalty. Or what about mangos causing carnage in that 2yo race,no penalty.All supposedly inconclusive evidence due to drivers saying the opposite of what the video showed.Just protecting their mate,instead of just telling how it happened.. All those races in auckland have the same drivers in them.There is no depth whatsoever to the driving ranks in the north island and many are related. Auckland racing is often boring racing and extremely poor from a betting perspective,with little or no consequences for some driving,depending on who you are. Its a shame,but it is what it is as they say.

I know your a fan ,however the post is about the double standards when it comes to enforcing the rules.I agree he is a great driver. If it was a lesser known driver who started from the inside when drawn unruly,or zigzagged his way up the final straight then would you expect them to get off with a warning? Tell a lesser known driver who gets treated differently for the same thing how that is fair. Herlihy,butchers ,mangos,etc all get the lenient treatment simply because the north island stipes give them preferential treatment. The stipe report for that race appears to have been written by someone who was out the back having a coffee instead of watching the race. It states kings landing stood on the mark,yet the video clearly confirms the horse was going backwards before the start. There was only 6 in the race,yet the starter let them go without seemingly realising one horse was in the wrong starting position and another had backed away prior to the start. Maybe time to send peter lamb up their to give the starter some advice.

Again we saw the North island stipes give herlihy a free pass when any other driver in the south island would have been fined twice. I have said it before,there is different standards of enforcement depending on what area you come from and who you are in those areas. In this case Herlihy started from the inside of the track when on the u/r.He ran 4th. He started much closer than james stormont did when he won on kelvinz luck at cambridge, yet herlihy got no fine compared to stormont who was fined $400. Then in the final straight he drifts wide,then changes direction and steers it significantly back inwards,totally confusing the driver following who had started to angle wider,then changed direction to go inside,then had to again change direction as herlihy cut her off.

I've watched it a few times and can't tell exactly whether Butcher strikes the back leg of Chins horse or whether chins horse breaks as a result of trying to maintain his position when the rules say he should have conceded it. Either way,Butcher drove within the rules and chin should have conceded given the rule . But my point is ,is the rule helping avoid interference or actually resulting in driving which causes interference. There have been many examples of interference being caused by horses breaking as a result of their drivers thinking they shouldn't have to concede their position to the outside horse. Gammalite,can they push down in australia at any stage,or do they not have that rule because they deem it safer?

Isn't this rule one of the most obvious causes of interference in harness racing.Why have it? Time after time we see horses hard on the back of the horse in front of it,then a horse wider on the track comes across,pushing it down ,the driver of the horse being pushed down tries to maintain his position,and as a result the driver on the outside continues his inward movement knowing when he contacts the horse inside him that he won't be fined and he won't be the one who suffers the inevitable interference to trailing horses as the horse inside him breaks. Last night we saw Zac butcher,push luk chin in. Now butcher was doing everything within the rules when he directed his sulky into the legs of the luk chin horse.But you have to ask,is it safe to have a rule where its accepted the driver in the right is the one who has changed direction to make contact. They don't seem to allow this in australia or drivers don't seem to do it.

Leap to fame paid a nice place dividend. A very good run.Good tipping. Beyond delight bit unlucky. The horse you talked about last year,jeradas delight went ok as well in an earlier race.

Last night at addington. I had the one bet the day before ,bondi lustre,the odds immediately shortened from $8.50 to $6. Only $40 did that. I would have backed one other,tasman tempest,but by the time i got around to it the day before,its odds had dropped from $9 to $5. I contacted an associate who they do the same when he puts a bet on,and sure enough he had put a couple of $35 bets on ,it being the only one he backed the day before. Tomorrow the one horse he has backed with just over $50 has had its odds slashed 25%. Last night he had a $200 bonus bet. I said to him the best bet was heaven on high for a place. He put that on and it immediately dropped from $1.85 to $1.50. Now i could keep giving examples,,but its not for me to tell people who i think may be worth backing.But anyone who thinks what i say isn't true,simply has no idea how it works.

so the latest is russia is shelling ukraine with 10X the amount ukraine are firing at them. ukraine is running out of resources to do so.Ukraine soldiers are currently being killed at an estimated 6000 per month,which is the amount of US soldiers killed on average per year in vietnam.This month the casualty numbers for ukraine have increased significantly.Putin is still very popular in russia.Economic sanctions seem to have failed with russia this year having a trade surplus double the previous year and the ruble stronger than before the war.In russia inflation has peaked at 15% and is expected to drop from now on.Because of europe reduced russian energy supplies the coming winter is expected to be very difficult,and many european countries suddenly spending more on defence means more economic pressure.Even some nato officials are saying aloud ukraine needs to negotiate a peace agreement before things get worse. But rest assured, because none of the above deserves much attention from local and most international media ,it can't be too bad,and besides,the media keep reporting ukraine will launch fresh attacks and retake areas they have lost.

You and the chief are saying win movers are based on how much money is bet on each horse.And your saying you don't believe when i place a bet it is a factor in whether the odds changed ,and as a result the tote price then changes.. You say "how you think you manipulate the tote price is quite funny". Thats your interpretation of what i have been discussing. Mine is i have been discussing how the TAB has algorithms in place to change the odds based on Who is placing the bets,and how those changes influence the eventual prices. So i think i have been discussing who,not how much,which i view as 2 different things. To prove my point, i posted that people who read my posts should watch the influence my placing a $20 on emmas boy in the last race yesterday would have on the eventual price.I made that post 30 minutes before the start of that race,straight after i backed it. I backed it at $16 ff,it immediately dropped to $12 on the fixed odds as i expected because of my $20 bet,and i stated i expected it to start a lot shorter because people follow the win movers. So what happened,it won,it paid $6 on fixed odds and $6 on the tote. It was not selected by matt cross,while the whale selected it 3rd ,saying he thought it had every chance the week before but thought it was worth including.He made a very strong push for his 1st selection. So I made that prediction because i believe i knew what would happen and it did. I knew what would happen because i know how it works. Now you don't appear to believe what i say. We can't agree all the time.

Like the chief, you seem to have a preconceived idea of how it works. What you have said has no connection with what i have said. In this post you say the tab bookies/odds setters know who it is putting the bets on (because people have things they call TAB accounts),yet somehow you still deny that has any relevance when it comes to the prices they set. Besides it not them reducing the odds straight away,its done by a computer programme. Have you heard of those? Have you ever had a look at one of the promotional videos on betfair. Its about a fella who has set up a computer programme which places bets for him based on the algorithms around win movers. He has been very successful.So believe it or not,some punters do follow the win movers. Ask yourself this. Why do the TAB restrict the amounts certain punters can win. Using your logic you must think they just treat those punters money the same as yours.And using your logic they don't have any computer programmes in place to to limit the amounts because thats not what they do.Its all a myth. Like i said ,sometimes whatever someone will say won't change someones opinion,and thats fair enough,,each to their own.