the galah

Well going by those commenting on this thread it is newmarket and myself who possess the punting nous.After all,we were the ones who said they would underperform last night. So i would have thought being accurate would add credibility to ones argument,but not so if you don't want to see it. Like i said ,we have not been saying anything others on here haven't said either,so there are a lot of punters with the nous as you put it. Also,the handful of other punters i know all say the same thing.For example last year i got a call on cup day from someone who is classed as a big punter,and they said to me they gave up betting after about race 3 or 4 as it was clear the all star runners had improved significantly and that he thought it unwise to invest as the improvement was throwing all the recent form books out the window. I agreed with him. I too limited my betting on cup daylast year for that reason.

Like blackie has said,i don't think blood spinning is legal anymore.Everything moves with the times. Millwood nike. Well, obviously they would have set it for that group 1 race with the big stake last week if thatswhat you are asking. Still getting over the telfer stuff? I'm was amazed that anyone couldn't see how bad that looked.Thats my honest opinion,i would have thought it a no brainer,but not everyone shares it by what you say.And I guess if you can't see that as being an issue,then you won't see the all stars were underperforming. I don't think the telfer barn has caught up to the all stars. I don't think they ever will. I can understand you having that opinion as its based on current results. You know ,what i never understand is how anyone can argue that the likes of the All stars and the telfers,are the best trainers because they have the best training skills,have the best horses,have the best facilities, use all the up to date equipment,etc,etc,etc yada yada yada......yet when it comes to how to peak them through blood work and treatments,they know more no more than anyone else. Its such a joke of an argument when people say you can't suggest that is a big part of how a couple of stables peak their horses for the big days.

Anyone reading that post from newmarket would agree with you that it was over the top and not his best work. I'm sure he knows that as well. I guess he got over frustrated and felt you were ignoring the point he was trying to make. Maybe the best way to put it is to ask yourself... 1)why were so many of the all stars horses so heavily backed?. 2) did their performances meet those expectations And the answer is they were so heavily backed because of their previous raceday performances and the ability they had shown. Those that set the odds at the tab,and punters as well,know how to assess form. They aren't stupid.Thats the whole thing about punting isn't it,assessing the form. So when you ask above if the all stars underperformed last night,i would say yes,and it was pretty obvious they did.When you see a large team of horses nearly all perform below the level seen previously its just logical to ask why? I think newmarket assessment of the all stars was accurate,and while he made an early call,what he said happened. And like nearly everyone i know,thinks we will see the all stars performances increase significantly on cup day and the bigger stake days.And the reason for that prediction is because thats what happened in recent years. Its not... Insulting,bagging,tall poppy syndrome,disrespectful,ignoring past achievements,you do better...Your words on this thread about about those who have posted opinions.I don't have a problem with you saying that,just don't agree

So by the end of the night the all stars had 8 very well backed favorites. Of the favorites,one of the eight won,although they did get a second win with a second favorite,who just got up to beat a roughie after getting the trail. The final event probably summed up the confidence the stable had in their runners ablility to do any work,with the favorite final collect sitting last for the last round,no attempt being made to move at any stage,and it battled on ok late. So while newmarket made his call early,the results show he was pretty accurate in the end.

You know hes taking the mickey gammalite. Maybe we are better changing the subject and talking about how many winners the all stars will get on cup day.I would guess at least 5 given the really nice team they have. We will all be nodding in agreement come cup day on how great they are at training and driving .We all know how good they are,we all admire them,just that wasn't the original topic.

My last comment would be anyone can read into anyones comments on here what they want.That is what you have done. Thats up to you. I would say to you when replying to me to just stick to commenting on what i actually said. Paleface adios is obviously just taking the piss.Thats up to him.

I gave a reason why i thought the all stars horses were not performing at their peak at this time of year.. I said "they are still going great,they always do". Again i would say to you,your making comments about something i have never said. What others say is up them. I give my own thoughts.

This reply has no connection to what i have said.

Seems you don't think someone who is a punter is able to give an opinion. If you think they are "primed" to go then you aren't watching the same races i am. Personally i have backed just the 2 all star runners tonight,the 2 that have won.Still what type of judge am i. You may not want to see it with your all star eye patch on,but horses that are primed to go,are able to handle hard runs better than when they are not.Just an observation that makes sense.

They are pretty much following the same pattern as last year. They are still going great,always do,but just they don't have the run forever look about them yet. Last year every horse improved significantly on cup day. My wives theory is because they haven't been primed to go just yet,they are subject to feeling the effects of a hard run like every other horse,especially early in their preparations.. I like that theory as it makes sense to me,but everyone will have there own thoughts.

I also take with a grain of salt anything around issues like this,but given the official actions and procedures taken,maybe there was reason for concern.No one can say just how serious anything like this really is without knowing all the facts and circumstances. We all know animal welfare is a serious issue. I think its a good thing that officials have been upfront and named the property concerned. Had they not named the property concerned, there would have been much speculation and people with no connection would have unnecessarily been blamed for something they had not done. Also,like it or not,people with ulterior motives can sometimes involve authorities without cause,just to further their own agenda.

If you have a look at that or other crossings they are just compacted dirt.I have never seen any gravel on one. The horses go from a surface with give in it to a very hard surface for a stride back to the grass in the next stride.I don't think it seems to worry them much,but where you can see them lose rhythm or confidence is if they may drop slightly in that stride they take on the crossing due to the crossing being slightly lower,or if the driver of the horse in front of them seems to bounce a bit as the sulky then rises again over the bump as it goes back to grass.Thats how it works i think.

But the report on their website doesn't say that. it says the stipes said the horse was not in a gallop prior to its last stumble,that the stipes said it may or may not have galloped over 50m,but that it was difficult to be precise going by the track markings. It also said that the stipes agreed it broke just inside the 200m,but because that was a gallop under 50m it meant nothing. So the people making the decision said it may or may not have galloped for 50m,but that they couldn't be sure,so let placings stand. One thing of note is the rule says it must be a continuous gallop. So in theory,within the last 200m you could have a horse gallop 40m then pace 20m then gallop the next 40m then pace 20m then gallop the next 40m then pace the last 40m and it would still be within the rules as there was no continuous gallop of 50m.

If the is article correct,it clearly infers coleman thought weatherley was entitled to "go for the run" as coleman put it. Surely that is a very disturbing assessment by coleman. Doesn't that just sum up the mindset of some jockeys and in effect highlight why this incident happened. How else could you interpret what coleman has said.

Do you think they need to smooth it out a bit? What did your stables driver have to say about it?I have often wondered why they don't put on it, a small layer of whats on the inside track,level it out with the level they have,then put the grass clippings over the top. I guess when you have had a bit of rain like canterbury did over the winter,that it pools in the low spots of areas like a crossing,and when it dries out the slight dip is accentuated. You just have to look after it rains a bit to see whether crossings on any track are smooth or not. The rest of the track looked to be in great order?

Back to the topic that started this thread. I have just read the decision and it seems because of what the stipes said,those hearing it dismissed the protest. Well in my opinion what the stipes said is clearly not backed up by the video evidence. They say his gallop commenced from its last stumble,yet the horse stumbled 3 times in the prior 50m. The video shows the horse had a similar action for about 15m prior to the final stumble,as it did for a couple of strides after the last stumble.So if its action for a couple of strides after its last stumble is included,then why not include the distance when the action is exactly the same immediately prior.. They also say yes it did gallop just inside the 200m mark,but that gallop had no significance to the distance being counted as it wasn't continuous for 50m.. They also say they couldn't establish whether the distance was 50m or just less,but even going from the point they counted it from,if you stop the video and count the number of posts holding the running rail up from where they say the gallop started,there are a couple more than when you count them when the horse returns to a pace,therefore thats more than 50m. I think this was a very poor decision.

Trainor used to work for cran dalgety at the same time as dexter dunn i think.He was always a nice driver but does seem to have gone to another level over there with his driving. I have noticed trainor always seems to have his horse in the right position in races,whether it be coming from the front or the back.In my opinion the other drivers trainor sometimes puts on his horses all seem top drivers,but sometimes to me i wonder if they have some sort of team thing going on. They never take each other on and if one ends up in front and the other in the trail they always make room for the trailer.It works for them i suppose,but i think its noticeable. That happens over here in my opinion with s phelan sacrificing his own horses chances all the time to benefit the other stable runner,but the difference at menangle is they underdrive the lesser chances.Thats just my opinion. I never bet there because of that and the mile racing . As to trainors success as a trainer. Well he is like the fella jason grimson.They make other good trainers look like they can't train all the time. They may be better trainers than the likes of geoff webster,but are they that much better? i find it hard to believe that the gap between trainers like that is so great.But look at the results of majestic cruiser and stingray tara and you would think webster just not in the same ballpark.

I was just pointing out that if you go by the normal definition of heritage,maori heritage doesn't apply to most new zealanders.And no i don't think changing names means much. I still call mt cook,mt cook. Everyone i know still does. I'm no expert on maori language,but i have watched a few documentaries on it,and isn't there different dialects of te reo maori based around what tribe and what region they come from. I realise that going to just the one maori language means anyone new speaking it could understand it,but there are many maori saying that they are still losing their heritage and identity by doing that,and having just the one maori language interpretation is another example of pakeha imposing their way of doing things? So isn't that rather patronising. The answer i would have thought would be to give maori enough resources to educate their people,and anyone else who chooses to learn it instead of mandating it for everyone in schools,businesses,government departments,etc.So much about mandating the language is just fake to me.

Thats one understandable way to look at it.That was original reaction as well.But i suppose we could also look at it from another perspective. Hamish Hunter has been a very successful trainer /driver over several decades. One of those trainers that always seemed to have a good team of handy horses and would occasionally come up with a very good horse. One of those old school trainers who if you met you would think what a lovely fella he is.I guess that is why he has had the respect and admiration of his many owners and fellow southland trainers over the years. But i guess no one can't stop getting old and Hunter seems to have scaled back on his numbers and seems quite happy doing what he has always loved doing on a small scale and it just happens to be with horses who are no stars,more your bread and butter type horses. Hunter probably got as much of a shock as punters in the improvement of teddy baker,but on the other hand would have been happy that he had provided a horse that was dewe first winner. Its always good to see a trainer willing to pass on a horse to someone else and let them have a go with it. maybe teddy baker is one of those high energy horses that runs best if they can take that high energy onto the track. Certainly seemed to be the case. Not many horses like that,but you do see that occasionally. Maybe dewe has found the key. I wonder if he can keep reproducing something similar in the future racing..

I see he said he thought putting blinds on helped. Previous trainer A hunter had been racing the horse with some type of blinds on,maybe pull downs?,but dewe put a different type by the looks of it.

You say kiwis embrace Te Reo,i say the given the choice, the vast majority of kiwis do not willingly or enthusiastically embrace it. And when you refer to maori heritage i say you actually have the reason why i say that is.Reality is the vast majority of new zealanders have no descendants or predecessors who were maori.That is the definition of heritage isn't it. Just look at the stats. In 2021 they say 16.5% of new zealanders identified as having maori ethnicity. Of course even i,with no maori heritage, could do that as for census purposes you don't have to have any maori heritage whatsoever. Just have to identify as being maori. Just as i could identify myself as being female when i'm not.15% of kiwis say they are asian,9% say they are polynesian and of course the other 70% say they have european descendants. Isn't auckland known as the polynesian capitol of the world.Do you really think they embrace te reo over their own languages? Like i have said earlier,also look at who is driving the push for the maori language, then have a look at what other issues are of importance to those people. Interesting wagon to hitch yourself too. No ones denying the significance or importance of te reo for to those who identify as maori,just be honest and recognise that te reo is not important to the vast majority. That is why the only way for the labour government to make it so,is to indoctrinate future genreations by way of the education system. If it was as important to non maori as you make out,then they would not have had to do that would they.

Can anyone tell me how that horse held 3rd in the last race. Anyone could see it galloped for at least 100m. I defy anyone to watch the race and tell me they couldn't see that.I did not mix its gait,it galloped.I've watched it a dozen times. The rule is you can't gallop more than 50m in the last 200m isn't it. Well that horse galloped over 100m,more like 120m.. No wonder people don't have much faith in the rules being applied consistently when they see stuff like that happen. Do the people who make these decisions just look at who trains them,in this case the all stars,and base their decisions on that. Probably the most biased decision ever seen.Either that or the dumbest decision ever made by those officiating. Just watch the video.

No idea how i got to have the teddy baker thread repeated and come up under the yonkers thread i just started. Don't know how that works. Who knows? must have pushed a button somewhere. Good thing i'm not in charge of activating a nuclear bomb.

What an amazing turnaround in form. The first ever runner from the T Dewe stable after moving there in the last couple of weeks. 17 prior starts for the A Hunter barn,for 3 minor placings in the lower grade of the non win races. Always very one paced. Today it seemed off its tree pre start,then comes out and runs 2.54 for 2400,and as the trackside presenter noted,looked like it wanted to do another lap as it took off again after the finish.

Thats a good point. He did have it looking very healthy. Normally when you see a horse so hyped before the start like it was, you think its using up all its energy before they race,but this one amazingly looked as the trackside presenter described,like it could do another round.It was still running fast 400m after the post when the trackside camera cut away from it. it went 2 seconds faster than in any other race all day. It had run 4 times over the distance and the fastest it had run was 4 weeks ago where it ran 3.01,so its improved 7 seconds today.