the galah

just read that decision and i found some of the stuff in there,well,a bit amusing. the decision wasn't a long one but it included these colourful snippets. when paying an appeal filing fee he labelled the payee details as yesberg corruption. then thereafter consistently referred to the proceedings as corrupt. told RIB representatives to go and get stuffed,that they were a dishonest bunch of henchmen,little henchmen,couldn't lie straight in bed,even sending emails to some media outlets. Then he seems to think"theres a fat porn star working for the RIB". All i would say about that comment is,whats wrong with having a second job. and then they were also doing a bit of money laundering. And to top it off,he thinks the RIB are antisemetic. and to think he put that all in writing. now theres a bloke whos upfront about what hes thinking,even you could say, one of a kind. i think its fair to say,there won't be many dull moments when hes around.

i've nothing against the methven club,but simply are pointing out they really aren't doing the owners of horses who support their club any favours with the poor stakes they often pay out.. why does a club that is so asset rich run such poor stakes. 3 x $10,000 non win races and 9 $8000 races. Would it not be better for clubs like oamaru and timaru to run more meetings and give those clubs extra days,as they pay out much higher stakes for mid week meetings, and take a day or 2 off the methven club who often pay the poor stakes. Owners would be better off or is methven simply taking for granted the support anyway because the horses won't have to travel as far. its bizzare. And how come cambridge are running a meeting with only $8000 stakes on a thursday as well.At least cambridge have the awful financial state as an excure,what is methven'ss.

so i didn't think the harness 5000 was a bright idea from the start and its proved worse than even i had anticipated. A 4 horse field running in the 3 year old fillies race with one of the starters not having run any better than 10th in non win races in recent starts. a race where a couple of horses that ran in the trotting derby can race against maidens. A race where a rating 82 horse takes on a 10 horse field which includes a totally out of form non win southland horse. the idea of including 3 year olds was dumb,,but not even i realised just how comical it would turn out. anyone with any brains would have realised that you would get full fields in the 5 year old and older,because that was for horses aged .5,6,7,8,9,10,11 plus . So all those grouped into one. But the 3 year olds, who already are getting preferential treatment with their penalty free wins and age group races they can run in,supposedly considered to deserve their own race .. there was many things that this series of races had wrong with it concept wise and they have just played out pretty much as expected,if not worse. So you've had this harness 5000, the 2 year old bonuses and the harness plus schemes and the promoting bonuses that you knew would be cancelled in the future like the nz bred based sire bonuses. everyone of them anyone with much sense could have told you beforehand, there were major flaws in the concepts. this is yet another,i told you so moment. why should people have any conficedence in the decision makers when they get it wrong all the time.Beats me.

No. The example i used was the punter was breaking even with their betting and the rebates were the profit they used to justify the time they spent betting. I'll give you an example that related to myself that i have used previously to illustrate the point i make.. When covid hit and nz harness was temporarily suspended and the job i was doing was not paying as well due to covid,,i thought well i need to generate some more income from betting so i thought why not expand into doing it on queensland harness racing,who at the time were still racing through covid. so i spent 3 months analysing the queensland form every harness race run in queensland.then started betting. The plan was to generate a profit in the betting or at the very least break even and get rebates.So i decided to do that for myself and had 2 accounts and contacted the tab and said,how much do i have to spend to get rebates. They said over $90,000 in 12 months. I said so if i do that in a couple of mionths you will give me rebates. They said yes. So i did. it took me 3 months to reach the $90,000 level on each account,about $1000 a day spent on queensalnd harness on 2 different accounts($2000 a day total). well the profit i had hoped for from the betting was not as good as i hoped,it was only around 2%profit, but i thought once i get the otherr 2%from the rebates it would make it worthwhile. so what happened. I rung up the tab and said to them,when are you going to put me on the elite punter rebate thing like you promised and they said maybe next time when they look at who new they invite into the elite punters thing. Well when i still got nothing the following month and was still spending my $1000 a day on both accounts($2000) on queensland harness racing i rung them up again. There response was words to the effect,go away,we aren't interested in you as an elite customer even though you have reached the spend threshold to qualify. also the % rebate for betting in australia i had been told by the nz tab would not have been as high as betting on nz racing. But anyway i said to them,,if i were to qualify for the rebates it would make it worthwhile for me to spend the time i do on betting on queensland,but if i don't it won't. i said that to them,wouldn't it make sense for you to give me the rebates you promised of about $400 on each account per omth and you keep receiving the few thousand amonth in take ou %.The take out % would have been about $12,000 per moth for them,but i don't know for sure how the aussie and nz tab broke down who got what of that. Anyways they rung me back and said,words to the effect we don't care . so what did i do,of course i stopped betting. so for the sake of paying me about $800 a month like they promised,they lost out $12,000 in profit. the moral of my story is people who bet,especially who bet larger amounts than i used to,factor in the rebates into how much they spend in total and very obviously how much it effects their profit/ loss figure. thats why i call people who work at the tab and make the ddecisions like they are on rebates dumb. they seem to want to treat every customer the same,where as in reality every customer is unique and has their own betting habits. A clever business would factor that in and operate in a way that generates the most profit for that business,a dumb business would do what entain and the tab before them have been doing. like i have also said of others and just how much the recent dcsions will impact turnover from the punters i know. the only logical explanation for the sheer stupidity of it all is maybe there is different departments/divisions(whatever the word may be) within the tab where you get people getting bonuses based on their department. And those in one department only care about the bottom line for their department because thats what effects their bonuses and couldn't care less about the overall bottom line of the business.

haven't you just said they are making dumb decisions,without actually using the word dumb.

obviously not,but if you do the maths ,its easy to understand how entain is run by people who are just dumb as. i cant remember the exact rebate rates, as i never got any,but from memory if you were getting a 3 % rebate per $1000 spend on tote betting and you spent $100,000 a month,then your getting $3000 a month in rebates. and if that punter was say breaking even on his or her punting,they would be getting a $3000 a month profit due to the rebates. now obviously,the rebate rates varied depending on the type of bet.E.g. you got higher rebates for the bets in exoctic pools like trifectas first 4's,quaddies than say the win/place bets. and it depended on your overall spend,hence the level you fell into. but the example i've used of someone getting a $3000 rebate each month is the type of thing that was happening. the point is,the tab is receiving % take out on each $ spent through the tote,about $20,000 in the example i used and they are paying the customer $3000 back in rebates. So in the example i've used the tab is getting $17,000 profit from that punter every month in take out %, so what happens when the tab take away the rebates they are paying the punter. That punter now is spending their $100,000 a month for no profit. So whats the point in spending so much time doing that,if theres nothing in it for them. so what that punter do,well thats easy,they will reduce their betting significantly or just stop totally. So the tab in effect,will be cutting their nose off to spite their face by around $17,000 a month in profits they will no longer get,in the exampkle i have used. how does that make any sense. i knew a bloke who at one point was getting rebates of up to $10,000 some months.,over $100,00 a year in rebates. Now why they would want to spend so much time betting i don't know,but they did and it was their choice.You can work out how much they had to spend to get that. Then you factor in that these same people who they are taking the rebates off,they also have stopped linking accounts. In other words ,until recenetly ,some of the elite punters had dual accounts they operated and the combined spend was what the rebate payout was based on. The dual accounts were say if they had a syndicate and bet fior that syndicate.So they have hit that big punter with a double whammy in the reduction of rebates already.then add in the tab ff bookmakers already restricting or putting algorythms on punters accounts to further linit their profit.So really its all been a triple whammy to some punters in just the last few years. so whats the upshot,the punter who in my example may be spending 1.2m a year in turnover,generating the $17000 x 12 profit($204,000p.a.) for the tab in $ tote take outs,well they will have to stop betting because without the rebates they can't afford to as they will be losing too much money. now as i say,i know what the result will be. Turnover from those people will completely dry up.so the tab will be losing tens of millions in lost turnover and several million in profit from the % take out from betting on the tote that they got. So how does make sense. Only if you worked at entain could you think that makes any sense. Entain obviously are full of really dumb as people,. They have to be to shoot themselves in the foot so bad.

i agree with brodie in that the tab should accept larger bets from him. I believe,the tab/entain/betcha should be able to adjust their fixed prices,to reflect the support each runner has recieved from larger bets and therefore balance their books and not fear anyone. Of course they should have some limites,but not as small as they do. Of course they should have a time limit on when a larger bet can be accepted up to pre race,e.g. 15 minutes,so they can adjust their markets accordingly and limit any risk. i also believe they should reward people who put money through the tote pools by allowing them to get on more on ff.But they haven't,because they are dumb.I've explained many times how they actually cost themselves tens of thousands in profit from some punters because of there stupidity. people must understand that a winning punter on the ff,can still be a punter who's overall turnover on ff and tote,generates a profit for the tab. if people can't understand that,then they should apply for a job at the tab ,as that lack of understanding will fit in nicely at the tab. people who say the out the gate crew should not get preferential treatment,i don't agree with that. betcha giving bonus bets and accepting of the larger bets by the out the gate makes perfect sense to me. and the reason is simple. Its all about the big picture. Just as i have pointed out the tab are dumb as sometimes,the betcha out the gate model is smart and business savvy in my opinion. dividend (or payouts) from participation in each weeks out the gate show,are paid into peoples betcha accounts. betcha would recognise that the out the gate promotion is all about promoting punter participation,getting punters money in their betcha acounts ,knowing the punters will then themselves spend any payouts they receive from their weekly out the gate payout,and will very likely lose that over the following week or two.And its model that gets that punter particapiation at levels people can afford to lose,in other words a reasonable model for responsible gambling,making punting about what it is supposed to be for most,a bit of fun. at the end of the day,entain/tab/betcha should all be about promting sustainable turnover so as to generate profits and give returns to the industry so the industry can maintain the likes of stakes. in my opinion,some of what betcha does is smart and some of what the tab does is stupid. Theres an inconsistency in how they do things which highlights they can be clever,but they aren't as clever as they could be.

yes. I think they do it every 2nd year and the sulky would have been inspected at the start of this year.

hasn't been working for me for over an hour at the moment.Often the way on sundays.

I've been following the south island gallops closely for a year or so now and personally i think the overall standard of riding is better than it was a year or two ago.From a betting perspective i think the tactical decisions of the jockeys is easy enough to follow and your not left disappointed like you used to so often be in a riders decsions. all the riders seem to be more consistent. The apprentices seem to be showing a bit more initaitive and the older riders seem to ride the same each week. There are some of the older riders that do seem over cautious in what they think may be going to happen in front of them and seem to ride like they are worried a bit about their safety. B Murray in particular. You can tell the horses he rides get the message to switch off mostly when he gets amongst the field,but also the likes of T mosely and even the souths best jockey k williams i think does if she gets amongst the field.She of course is so good in getting handy early or positioned on the outer that you don't see it as much.And when the gallopers are getting that message,they tend to run accordingly.Both mosely and williams rode winners yesterday and rode them well,just the one i backed that mosely rode you could just ignore it went around. Hopefully he gets them next time.Its very obvious too that the better riders are the ones who like to race handy and show a touch more aggression early. K bakker and f moerman both went from being quite average to being the better riders recently. And it simply seemed to come down to them having gained enough confidence to trust in their own abilty to judge a race and i think not worry about a trainer having a moan about not getting the perfect run sometimes.Their recent results cleary show that. and i think invercargill is a track where they have too many in some races. Its a track that ii think should only have 12 starters at most. Run another race instead of having 14 starters. having said all that,yesterday i had just the 4 bets,all 4 missed the start and settled last,3 chose to go on the inside and simply never got a run or got out far too late and the other resented being restrained when on the outside,but at least the jockey tried to give it a chance and made a move,unlike the other 3 who early on you could tell had put themselves in a position where they couldn't. actually the jockey,y yeatchamach,no idea whether i spelt that correctly,i had commented about a year ago how poor he rode and how poor the a carston horses were ridden tactically and that i thought that was because they maty have been getting instructions that were making the riders more worried about doing nothing wrong than doing things right. Well, y yatchamah has improved in a big way and seems to be thinking for himself since not riding as many for carston.. And a carston has gone more into putting jockeys on who ride to win than wait for next month and his results have improved again. He is a very good trainer. anyway,thats my thoughts for a sunday morning.

i'm sure everyone who watched it ,whether it be owners.trainers,drivers, punters and officials ,all would have had the same awful feeling watching williamson fall from his sulky. Its not like if you watch or pass a car accident ,where you can soon enough detach yourself from feelings of concern and relatabilty. Seeing a harness driver go through what williamson and his family is going through somehow seems more relateable,mostly because you sort of know the people concerned,even if your relationship is just through the tv screen. But everyone who follows harness racing closely ,across the whole spectrum of people who do,will have williamsons well being in their thoughts. As to how it happened. Without knowing the exact damage the sulky suffered,it seems on the face of it reasonable to assume, that what happened was consistent with some catasthropic failure in the structure of what holds the sulky seat in place. and i think its reasonable to point out that when that occurs,because of the design of modern harness racing carts,the consequences will be so much worse than they were,had the racecart been an older design. These days if you walk around a racetrack or you look at the racecarts for sale on the internet,you ill see the modern day seat for the driver is positioned,extending beyond the solid framework of the racecart. In other words, it sticks out the back with nothing underneath,held on by i assume strong welding. Theres a difference between the race carts most trainers use these days and what some of the more old school trainers and those smaller trainers who have had their carts for years use. look at them and i'm sure you would conclude,the older style racecarts,when it comes to the position of the seat, are built placing safety of much greater importance than the modern racecart. The modern racecarts are simply built with the focus more on speed. Thats always been my opinion anyway. And thats how it plays out on the very rare occasions like what happened on friday. The older style racecarts seat is positioned directly over the solid framework of the back of the sulky structure,so if their was a breakdown in the seat structure,or the seat comes off,or moves due to not quite being tightened enough when put on,the driver had the large structure underneath the seat to sit on,albeit uncomfortably,should something happen. And of just as great an importance,theolder style races is designed so the weight of the driver is distributed over a surface where he or she is far less likely to lose their balance in a way that will lead to a fall from the cart. with the modern carts the bulk of the drivers body weight is weight is above nothing but the seat structure and if ,in the unlikely event the structure or welding hold it in place crumbles,its virtually impossible for any driver to hang on as they simply are sitting above thin air,and they have to tumble onto the track. thats what it appeared to happen,it wasn't anything williamson did ,nor was there anything he could do when it happened. also,the footrests where the drivers position their feet for balance are far more substantial in an older type designed cart than a modern one,again leading to greater stability for the driver for their feet,should something go wrong and the older style carts also have straps attached to the main framework of the cart as a back up should welding fail. anyway,thats just the way the modern racecart is built.Obviously it shouldn't fail ,but when it does,the helpless driver can't do anything about it and would be totally unaware of what was going to happen and it happens so quickly. as to the trackside not showing what happened. It may just be me,but i think it doesn't help by them not doing that. Everyone ,including his family,would have been trying to wrap their heads around what had just happened and would have better understood things had they got to see it again,but instead trackside just left everyone wondering. To me,that just makes things worse for those wathcing.. i know they have mentioned williamson being worried about the knocks to his head, but the rest of his body would have suffered badly as well. from such a fall As i said earlier,i know we are all hoping he heals andrecovers quickly.

just watched race 4 and noticed the locals around at the start seemed a bit kinky. maybe thats an invercargill thing.

you seem confused, as haven't you just said 2 contradictory things. bedsides,Isn't the most relevant thing whether race meetings are generating profits or losses. Turnovers are a good indicator,but turnovers can be down but still generating profits and turnovers can be up but still generating losses.And doesn't it matter most these days just how profitable,or not,the ff betting is per meeting.. Obviously its all a big picture thing in the end,but their doesn't seem much transparency about the big picture.Thats the point i try to make,when i talk about the need for context.

i just watched a bit of the box seat and at one point greg o'connor was asked about turnovers. he said to a question about turnovers for the most recent weeks- "turnovers are looking really strong.Turnovers are $600,000 ahead on the equivalent last year,particularly derby night" so when he says turnovers are $600,000 ahead on the equivalent to last year. is it as good as he makes out. The previous year,in the 3 weeks after show day the club had 2 friday and 1 low key, 8 race wednesday meeting.(29 races in total) This year they had racing every friday night,in other words 3 friday meetings.(32 races in total) so is he giving figures comparing the turnovers from those 3 meetings,i guess thats what he meant. but if he is,which it sounded like,then hasn't he created a misleading perception,as there were 3 more races run this year, low key wednesday meetings don't generate the turnover of a friday night normally and we also know they pay higher stakes on a friday than they would have for the wednesday meeting last year. again,isn't it another statement where the context is lacking. maybe he had context but simply chose not to go into detail for some reason. there needs to be more detail befoe people can be convinced they aren't being given spin.I don't think mr o'connor is into deliberately giving spin,but he didn't appear to compare apples with apples.

i haven't heard the whinging pom words for some time over here. i think its petered out due to the changing demographics of who lives in nz these days. these days people migrating to nz from the uk are less than half the likes of china or india. Where i live theres lots of indians in particular. i have seen bits of that news coverage on the english cricket supporters reaction to how their cricket team is going.i agree that from what i saw,they do seem hard to please and unrealistic.But i always treat any news story with a degree of skepticism these days so i'm not sure whether i believe the news stories is a true relection of how the average pom feels about their team.

of course spathcock,i'm not saying theres anything wrong with you feeling irritated. Its just personally i have always thought people use the word when they should just say,you irritate me sometimes,and leave it at that.

i haven't had any problems myself. i sometimes do,but not this week.

Whinge is an interesting word. Brodie to me has repetitively expressed a consistent opinion,opposite to yours, while giving the solution to that problem. you define that as a whinge,because you get irritated a tad when you read it a lot. So really,its the irritation aspect which makes you define some of his comments as a whinge. so really,your post is a good example that the word whinge is subjective and based on the irritation factor and you've given us an example that it can be used to try and create a negative perception about the person you have used it against.But can't we see through that.. of course you don't say your irritated because you know that would reflect more on you,than brodie,and you want to reflect on brodie in a negative way. thats my thoughts on the word whinge.

i'd never heard of the ai thing doing the pricing,but i've just googled what you said and am surprised just how common it already is becomming around the world and how common it is for people to use ai programmes to do their betting.. i suppose its a bit like what the tab already does with its algorythms on certain peoples accounts.They have for a few years now been immediately reducing the odds of any runner that receives support from punters who are identified as winning punters.i can imagine it wouldn't be hard for the tab to identify all the winning punters,have all the betting information from those peoples accounts input into some sort of programme and the odds be set accordingly from there. Really thats why they have tried to push everyone into betting over the internet,so as to identify the winning punters ,so the tab can reduce the amounts that they will potentially lose. its a bit like all those punters who have computer programmes which trigger betting for them on the win movers. thats been around for some time. People that don't follow racing,but are computer smart,making their living out of having a computer programme which analyses win movers and how the computer would make the decisions of when to bet. Theres was lots of people who use betfair that seem to be doing that and i'm sure it would be happening in australasia,especially australia. i also had a theory that the best way to make money was simply identify who the winning punters are,hack into their accounts and have a computer programme replicate their betting. SImple as,your in the money. Actually when i was making money not that many years ago i actually complained to the tab that i believed that was what someone was doing. There was a consistent pattern of every horse i backed dropping in price and i had concluded it had to be that.I actually complained to the tab and asked them to investigate whether anyone else was accessing my account other than me,but they just seemed to think i was paranoid,but thats i believed.. If i was smart in how to hack and a little dishonest,thats what i would do.Simple as.. anyways,back to the ai thing. I can imagine what nowornever says about having an advantage of betting as soon as the markets come out,but of course not many can be bothered to do that,i never ould be bothered when i used to bet, even though i knew that was a way of increasing profit.I suppose those that do will make a bit of more money and those who have the same selections ,but bet after the prices have dropped will win a bit less. thats why the whales are such dumb bets,Of course people are going to say,well he turns a profit,because he would based on getting on early,but because he ruins the odds with his early bets,those that follow are never going to make much.Then again,maybe they are happy almost breaking even. so it sounds like its not going to be ai that will make it harder for punters to make money from racing,its the fact ai will use the information they gain from winning punters that will give ai the winning edge.

i agree that weavers horses have always gone ok and are consistent enough.No champs,but good enough to keep going and earn a few dollars and have a bit of fun type horses.Hes had the odd nice horse,i remember ultimate desire was a nice mare for him not that many years ago. i just had a look and hes trained 121 winners so he knows what hes doing. your right about grass tracks being a levelller,i think part of that is getting onto the inside and handy seems to help some horses more on grass. it was an improvement in form,no doubt about it,and its natural to be curious about what house had done with the horse in the couple of weeks he had it. It should be able to win again once it gets to run in similar fields.Yesterdays race wasn't an over strong form race and jumping 5 rating points means it will be in tougher races in the short term.

i agree with gamm on this one. i do accept what brodie has said, in that yesterday there was an improvement in the performance of The mandelorian, on past efforts,but i don't think it was as significant as suggested. i have my own way of doing the form and i had The mandelorian rated to run 7th of the 13 starters ,based on its form from the weaver stable. I had thought logan rock had the superior form for that race ,but it underperformed a tad and you could also tell with 600m to run that r close,logan rocks driver, had simply left his run far too late, as the race had developed into a sprint home. Horses never ever come from too far back on a sprint home on a fast grass track.They just never do. so the race evolved in a way where you had to be in the first 4 turning in to be a chance and the mandelorian had received the ideal 1/1 sit early and was still in that ideal position when the sprint went on, due to the other drivers not making moves. so what i'm saying is the way the race played out was in the mandelorains favour. i've actually followed the manderlorain a bit and i have formed the opinion he's not the toughest mentally and doesn't have the greatest self belief in his own ablity to win. And you get that from horses who race a lot and only win occassionally or never quite do. I think that was again evident yesterday,it was like he went up to win the race and was going well enough to win by half a length,but he simply took longer to get to the front because the horse was as surprised as anyone that he may have been going to win and was having a think instead of being totally focussed on winning. W house just sort of kidded to him,sort of as if to say to him,go on son,you can do it,without ever resorting to much whip use. as to the m house stable improving horses. Yes they do improve horses and it doesn't take long before they can do that.The amount they improve their horses can be around 5 lengths in my opinion. My theory on how they do that is they work them a bit harder and a bit differently ,where they vary their work to switch them on a bit more when they first get them.I also think sometimes they get the vet to treat their horses in a way that helps any slight soreness issues or something,or they do it themselves. Doesn't m house have shares in a vet clinic,so wouldn't he be able to have his horses treated much cheaper than other trainers.I'm only guessing,but thats my informed guess.. But i'm realistic enough to realise people can see they improve horses and will wonder how they do it.It thinks its not over complicated,they've just worked out what works for them.I don't think they've ever tried to gain any unfair advantage the way one or two stables used to in the past.I would be nice if there were more stables like the houses.. The house horses have never had the run forever look and they get tired when they should if they have a hard run. so i don't think the mandelorians run was any big deal myself. I think the bookies shouldn't have had the mandelorian at 41's given the overall form of the horses in that race and the fact it was having its first start from the house barn.Really it should have opened around $20. Star on the rocks was an amazing opening price of $41. it was backed into $12. Personally i wasn't betting yesterday,but was just amazed at the price the bookeis opened that horse,given its recent form. ITs shown its very fast but seems to struggle a bit getting around tracks with tighter bends.But to open at $41 was an early christmas gift to the punters who got on as its price tumbled in .

so the nsw minister for gaming and racing has just released a range of measures and requirements to address concerns raised in the drake report. poeple should read the drake report findings. Its now available for reading just some of the key recommendations from the drake report included a cap on the number of greyhounds bred in nsw to levels that allow greyhounds numbers being bred to come closer into line with numbers that can be adopted. the changing of the definition of rehoming...In other words,rehomed onto a couch,not kennelling. ending exports to the usa. lots about track safety and reporting of injuries. anyways,lots,lots more in there. Now at this point it seems unclear of the specifics of how far the nsw government has gone to implement drakes recommendations. i haven't had time to read the full rteport just yet,but from what i have read,it sets out the way the industry can continue into the future over there. if greyhound new zealand was to adapt all the recommendations in that report then they would snuff out a major oart of the anti greyhound racings ammunition. why don't they try and buy a bit more time from the nz government,on the understanding that they would be willing to do so. remember this is an election year so they need to use any lever they can pull to hang in there. personally i think part of new zealands problem is greyhound people think too much about trying to retain whats best for themselves,not whats best for the nz greyhound industry long term. Greyhound people aren't alone in putting their self interests first,it applies in all the racing codes in nz and to people in general.But theres always a cost to be paid in the end for that type of thinking. maybe its all too late and people within new zealand greyhound racing industry don't want to change anyway,as theres things in there they happens in new zealand which people could have changed already,but they chose not to. But personally i think had new zealand been using something like the drake report as a blueprint for how they operate,they wouldn't be where they are today. one thing i personally have found sad about the greyhound industry is what some submitted in the nsw hearings,were the number of greyhounds who were never going to be suitable for rehoming.It seemed to vary based on who was saying what,but it was very significant either way and that is going to be one of the saddest things about what will happen to the greyhounds who are around today in nz.

What about that race. Brother Rob runs 2nd after being about 6 lengths behind the others at start,then sat parked all way and may have won but for going rough early in the home straight. If you watched that horses last 3 trial/workout runs in the last month,it had dropped out by 200m each time,couldn't leep warm.A bit of an improvement shown today.

personally i prefer b orange,but dalgety and dunn always give you a run for your money. S thornley,s ottley are like that. Lots of good canterbury drivers. Thats why the racing in canterbury is a better product,because the races are more competitive and they to win.

actually i just posted the same gamma without seeing your post about the next n williamson drive in race 3. i get what your saying about putting $5000 on a non win trotter.That person will never get their money back as they will make it a $1.80 favorite next time and it may not win. But having watched the race today,the punter did actually get it right.It really only had to be let run and it would have won,but that happens sometimes and its just part of gambling on the trots. No ill intent,just the drivers and trainers sometimes are thinking of their horses long term earning potential and getting their confidence up.Of course if it was the anyone connected with the horse who put the $5000 on then they would be feeling a bit sick after the race.