the galah

I agree with you and hunter in that i think Teaz is the commentator that should do the northern trots.We are well served with top commentators in nz of harness racing,but mr Whites calls at the trots just lack a bit of something which is hard to put a finger on.They just seem to lack a bit of oomph.Yet somehow like you say,White seems good at the gallops and tops at the greyhounds. Its just the way it seems to me.

Actually Walt that was meant to read the only "extra." thing..Your reviews of racing whether they be the non win at hawera or the addington ones interest me.

I wasn't having a crack at your personality. I was aware what i posted could be interpreted that way,but left it as it was. The negative thinking as related to aspects of life comment, related to how i view a lot of mikeynz comments.Maybe i should have been more specific.He might wonder why i said that,but then again maybe he already knows how he comes across sometimes. I'm not saying he should change,just thats what i think. Your review of racing on 2 june was a topic that i found interesting because it was an interpretation from a like minded person.The only thing i would have like to have read was your view on the couple of races that you said hadn't taken your interest.Racing at the lower grade meetings can often be more competitive than the higher grade races with small fields in my opinion,which is why all meetings have the same potential to me.

You have a down to earth way that seems to be able to interact with anyone,and from any walk of life.Whats clear as well is you have a love of the animal and that is something which you are able to get those you interview to express as well.I think that is what makes this racing channel such an interesting watch. Jo stevens(if thats how you spell it) is also very good.I like both presenters,they are natural and interact well.While Jason teaz's commentating talents aren't utilised as much as they deserve,it has meant we have been lucky enough to see him end up on this channel. Harness racing isn't just all about getting the last $ out of the punter which is why to me this channel is a real bonus We watched it from start to finish this week.I just hope people become more aware of what it offers.

Tomorrow is a far more attractive betting meeting in my opinion than last nights auckland fileds. Its all very well to reminisce about days gone by,but people must realise at this time of year there are less numbers in work and obviously no grass tracks. Besides,aren't tomorrows fields just the same class of horses that make the bulk of grass track racing that everyone likes? How can they be good one week and crappy the next? I think some posters comments just mirror how they see many things,not just racing. As regards harness racing,it seems now days that the negative is always being accentuated and the positives are being pushed to one side. I think its gotten worse in the last couple of years by having a government that pushed agendas that undermined so many thoughts and values that previous generations still believe in,and has weaponised fear,and that has effected the way people think. But thats a whole different subject. On a positive,mikeynz has been referring to the new harness channel and asking for comment. well i think its very good and reflects well many of the things that makes harness racing fun. One of the most positive things you get to see is the pleasure and satisfaction those lucky enough to have success experience.It captures the moment. It also has given us a connection with the horse. Wall to wall racing on trackside does none of that.

you've come to your conclusions based no doubt on your own observations and experiences.I don't doubt you have grounds for having the strong held views that you express. But as to the jealous argument you put forward as being the basis for an opposing view, as you have done here,i believe its not always an accurate explanation. My own personal experience from about 25 years ago of having a horse i trained,who was a red hot favorite, pulled by a high profile,stoned driver was an experience i won't forget. At the time it was a waste of time referring the matter to officialdom as i didn't have a good opinion of them, besides thats not how i would do things anyway. But the point is being a highly skilled/successful trainer or driver doesn't automatically mean you possess total honesty.That comment doesn't relate to anyone current.

And i agree with that. That must be one of the lessons learnt. If the RIU think a drive is dodgy,they must be seen to have the confidence to be investigating it themselves,whatever the outcome.Appropriate action from them must be a factor in acting as a major deterrent. Go back a few years and the previous approach of the RIU was that of not wishing to rock the boat because of the fear of criticism from within the industry,and simply because it was easier. But importantly there also needs to be a recognition from factions within the industry that if your going to show no respect to those who's job it is to police the rules,then that attitude will have destructive results for themselves and the whole industry. And of course respect must work both ways. If the riu or its investigators are investigating someone or something they need to recognise that many harness racing industry participants have attitudes that have been engrained in their mindset from decades of behaviors of previous generations.Things that at one time was deemed ok and the norm,which are no longer viewed that way. Its complicated,and the RIU investigators need to wrap their heads around that is what they are dealing with, and need to factor that in when they deal with anyone.Somehow do there job but be more aware of how they are effecting peoples lives.In no way should they ever back down from policing integrity,but do it with respect and compassion.

I believe you make some reasonable points there with both those posts chief.

This inca thing has generated the "remaining charges dropped" topic on social media over and over again.For some that is taken literally and immediately is interpreted to mean everything has been dropped.Yet there always seems to be another day to come when the same headline for a topic is dragged out again.Each time it is,its a contradiction of the previous topic.It must come to an end one day,hopefully soon,but in reality it doesn't appear to have yet.. Also every time charges do not proceed, we are told on social media that there was never any evidence of wrong doing, and the norm is we see the ones claiming vindication, are those who said it was all a manipulation of evidence designed to bring down certain targeted individuals. On top of that each time operation inca creates discussion, we are also told that the allegations had involved widespread collusion to fix races,this despite in reality the allegations apparently only involving a very small number of people,and only a limited number of races. The "widespread" claim seemed in an effort to generate more sympathy for those charged,by making that the perception. Ironically all while those charged never claimed anything of the sort. Also,rightly or wrongly,those who support those charged, view of minimal consequence the use of recreational drugs,and believe whether anyone should care or not should be based on who used and who supplied them, and what standing the person had within the industry,either way.The approach being that because said activity is commonplace in society,harness racing is only reflecting that and besides the drug use came to light as an incidental of the investigation,which somehow is a reason to minimise it. And no one seems to have answered yet whether the evidence gathered by the police can be made available to the RIB to use in their prosections.Is that matter still with the high court for a ruling? Isn't it fair to ask,why would you spend a small fortune trying to stop evidence gathered by another investigative authority,unless you thought it was in your best interests to prevent such evidence being available. This topic refers to cran dalgety as no longer having any charges. Thats the first time personally i had heard his name mentioned in relation to operation inca. All the above are perplexing and a little confusing. I still go back to the point i made when this all started. Matt andersons drive on johnny white at nelson and the evidence gathered at the time which was in the relatively early stages of the investigation, in hindsight seems to have been a factor in giving impetus to the investigation. I still believe anyone with any sense must recognise how that contributed to the investigation of others. Why didn't he just try??Was it all worth it?It would have made life so much less complicated....

So someone having an opinion different from yours makes someone an "Abuser". If that is the case then you must owe me an apology.At no stage did i ever abuse you,nor will i do so now. My earlier comment on this thread that people have firm views on the enforcement of rules relating to the possible use of performance enhancers and subsequent penalties is just as applicable to the inca cases you refer to.Thats not a bad thing in some ways as that helps create the balance of where the most just action taken finally sits. Of course whatever enforcement is done,and whatever penalties are set,they will be either too little or too much depending on what side of the argument you have. What is destructive is the them and us attitude. My impression from reading the many comments made over recent years has been many have taken the approach that "if your not defending us then your against us". As a result there has not been the level of self reflection that should have resulted from these cases. I've also had the view that sometimes there has been cases of unnecessary targeting by those who enforce the rules,and which is why i believe there should be some type of industry groups from both sides which can have concerns brought to them and take them to a 3rd party with no bias and whom could foster a more respectful attitude from both sides. Some who read my comments and my previous comments on related topics seem to interpret my words as meaning something else or that i somehow think i know better or that i am anti certain groups or have tall poppy syndrome. I find that irritating, which is what those with opposing views seem to want to achieve,and which is why you don't get as many engaging in discussion as perhaps may want to.But personally i think what i say should just be taken on face value.

Your words are.. at last some traction, closed shop, same old. Funny thing is.... at last some traction,closed shop,same old... thats what many with opposing views to yours think when they read about another trainer caught knowingly breaking a rule which is there to help prevent anyone gaining an unfair advantage. Its been referred to that miss wigg didn't think her actions especially serious. That was probably the most interesting thing of note in the judgment in some ways. Did she ever really think that?Who knows. I found it surprising that on the HRNZ website there is a lead story about her commencing training and driving again,pending the outcome of her high court case. How does giving more coverage to the case help Wigg.It may give her some type of publicity,but inevitably draws more attention to what she did. Reality is those who agree with you long owner will, if they are still around, have the same opinion in 20 years time,and those that don't won't have changed theirs.

personally i thought its run last friday was a massive improvement on its recent runs. Hadn't looked like being competitive in that grade prior in my opinion,but had it been driven with a bit more confidence it could well have won.It finished the race off strongly without being asked for an effort due to no clear run.I don't blame the driver for the cautious drive as she was just driving it the way it looked like it needed to be driven on its prior runs.

The thing is,if the tab are reducing odds on those that receive support,the odds of those that aren't getting supported aren't being lengthened at the corresponding time. They just wait until close to start time before doing the appropriate changes to set a fair market. And as i have said before,the horses who's odds are being reduced on the final field markets,always seem to get support on the tote as well,because that is a big factor as to what horse to back,for many tote who bet on the tote.

It will come with a catch in my opinion. .I would guess that catch would be the price you receive will be reduced before the bet is accepted.. For example, at the moment someone like brodie may want to every race meeting place 4 $400 bets on horses paying $5,working on the basis that he has a record of averaging 1 winner,thus would net himself a profit of $400.( 4 x $400 spent =$1600,collects 1 $400 bet at odds of $5 for $2000. ... $1600 spent ,$2000 returned ,profit $400) .....so what the TAB have currently done is limit what he can get on to $100 bets,thus their loss from taking brodies bets is only $100). All the while the TAB after accepting the bet drops the price to limit future exposure,and using brodies knowledge to help set the odds. So i'm guessing now some bright spark at the tab has said,lets get around this flak we cop for not taking bets with sizeable payouts,by changing the odds in our favour. How would they do that,by simply saying yes we will take brodies 4 x $400 bets,but if we are to do that we will set up an algorithm which will change the odds before the bet can be placed,in this case the $5 dividend will drop to $4,and that is the price brodie can get his bet on at. Thus the tab will now allow brodie to spend the $1600 he wants,but his return will drop to $1600 because of the reduced odds the tab will accept those bets at.... So brodie will now be spending $1600,and getting a return of $1600,so in fact there will be no profit from his investments, remembering of course that the tab had been allowing him to bet at the odds originally displayed but only up to $100,and when he was doing that he was making $100,whereas now by accepting his larger wagers he is getting no profit,thus the tab will actually better off,and brodie worse off.Thats how the TAB works. That is what i believe they will do. Smoke and mirrors. Like i have said they already have algorithms set up to immediately reduce the odds of horses after accepting bets by consistent punters who win, who bet as little as $15 which can involve a loss of as little as $15 for the tab. So if anyone thinks the tab is all of a sudden going to take bigger risks,then they are most likely very mistaken.

I thought the content was good.I hope they keep up the good work. The only negative is the when the race is being run the picture is clearer on trackside channel,so you tend to be switching channels a bit,and that effects the flow.

You watch them fine drivers like ian cameron doing his best without punishing his horse,and then you watch races like the non win first race just run at addington. In that race they ran a sprint race in a slow lead time,then got slower with a half in a tick under 66 seconds. The likes of ricky may(on the 2nd favorite),mathew williamson and devon van all seemingly had no idea of how slow they were going and gave their horses no chance whatsoever to place,by just sitting at the back under strong holds.. What looks worse to the public?

I've no idea what michael house says on facebook.Hes an intelligent man and says things for a reason but without the context of what has been suggested by newmarket,who really knows whether he's serious. Besides transferring to the gallopers would be like transferring from a ship taking on water to get on one that has started to sink in my opinion.Apart from the one day a year crowd that goes on the main racedays,the gallops doesn't have the following harness does in the south island. Maybe he dreams of relocating as well. But if you were to name the Trainer in New zealand who is making the greatest contribution to harness racing in New Zealand then Michael House stands out as the top choice. House trained racehorses operate at the grass roots level of NZ harness racing,and he supplies large numbers which enable races to be run that wouldn't without him. More stakes are paid to owners,more betting turnover is generated for the industry and more income goes to fellow trainers and drivers who can compete in the races that get off the ground because of his support. Hrnz,and for that matter anyone with any thinking capacity,have recognised that because of dwindling numbers being bred,greater use has to be made of the horse population that is here,and House does just that.

I think Walts questions were fair and understandable. And in this case Nina hope answered them from her perspective.I personally think suggesting ricky may had any thought of what would help loyalists chances when he drove bertolinni is way off base,but everyone is entitled to their opinions. Having a discussion about races run is part of what makes harness racing tick. I replied because personally i think the betting plunge theory is a red herring.I have pointed out odds will be slashed even when very little money is invested.Its just as much about who is putting the money on as it is about how much money.Thats a fact. People may struggle to get that into their heads,but it true. I don't agree with those who suggest drivers or trainers in the south island aren't always trying or that the bigger stake races are more competitive. I would say those who say that simply don't follow the form close enough of the lesser grade horses..I agree with brodie in that i would much rather bet on a midweek harness south island meeting than a premier meeting. We say that for a reason. I don't think there is the depth of top quality drivers like there used to be,but i have no doubts everyone is giving it their best shot.Occasionally you will see some poor drives by even the best,but thats not to say they didn't try.Take another from the hope stable in westar lad at addington yesterday driven by John dunn.Now he is a great driver,and i'm sure he was trying,but he drove e very poor tactical race.Maybe the stable may defend his drive and say it is a horse with a sit sprint but that would be ignoring the race video. But its always best just to tell it as it is.All that proves is even the best aren't perfect. As to michael house's team.He is a shining light that everyone should admire in my opinion. And as to boring harness racing. Menagle is just that to me.

While i prefer to just read this forum,i think i have some relevant comments on this topic. I don't think it an unreasonable thought to consider the possibility the big win mover,loyalist was the subject of a betting plunge. And i don't think it unresonable to consider the possibility that the stable would have been confident of a big showing from loyalist and the horse may have received some support from that stables clients. But when considering such thought,sall factors need be taken into account. In this case drivers for the Hope stable are always driving to obtain the best possible result for the horse they drive,and that stable has never had any history of team driving or dishonesty. I think Brodie has put things in perspective,but like it seems for many who get discussed on social media,those involved can get a bit sensitive as indicated by mrs hopes reply.. I personally think a major reason for the drop in price was caused by some relatively small bets by clients of the TAB, who when they bet on any horse,the TAB immediately will slash the odds. Loyalist to me was the horse on the day who was most clearly ranked ahead of his race rivals. The start prior was the same,but a second line draw and being positioned at the back in a sprint home meant the last start form could be ignored. So as a result i know someone who put 2 $25 win bets on the day before which immediately dropped the horse from $8.50 to $7. A bonus $300 bet won in a tab competition was placed on it a place dropping the place odds.Then they again backed it on race day and a couple of $20 bets on 2 different accounts saw its odds immediately drop again to $6.People notice the win movers,and follow the money,which in reality wasn't that much money,merely money coming from people who the TAB recognise make money off them consistently,and therefore have created an algorithm that will immediately slash the odds by 15-20% even for as little as a $10 bet. Its become a bit of a joke for those concerned,but no bullshit,thats how it works. I can bet on 3 different accounts,say putting $15 to win on a horse paying $10,and if i place the bets 5 minutes apart the odds will drop 3 times. The tab think they are limiting their losses by reducing the odds on horses bet on by a selected few,but in reality one of the results of them slashing the odds is it attracts more betting on the horses concerned.And of course the tote odds drop as many punters go by the final field odds when placing their bets.Like i said,i think the tab is a joke,but i guess that will just drive certain punters to tabs where they aren't recognised. Also,people should have a look at the effect a Matt cross 1st selection has on the tote odds of a horse. For example yesterday every top selection he made saw dramatic drops in the tote price. I haven't taken much notice of it before but yesterday he dropped horses by as much as 50%. the tab have a part where you can see the % move in price,and it was surprising how much he could influence a price. All the above is just another of those things where we say things aren't what they used to be.

It was a quote from confucius i remember. No more of those,ever.

I have to admit i don't get where your coming from with that comment. But i gave it some thought for two minutes and my conclusion was i had just wasted two minutes of my time.. So no more words from me for you to twist.

You must be meaning the last race. It was perhaps the most obvious case of a horse not being driven on its merits since the matt anderson drive at nelson that started up operation inca. And believe it or not,the stipes didn't even think it worth a mention.

Her current spell on the sidelines is just part of her harness racing journey, not her final destination.

give me a gemma thornley drive anyday over the craig thornley drive on the $1.45 favorite in the last. At least g thornley was trying,whereas C thornley simply decided he was going to give his horse a quiet run after losing ground at the start. Shame when you see a horse superior to the rest just out for a quiet run.Didn't effect my pocket,but those who did back it must be wondering why they bother.

I agree with a lot of what you say,but don't believe wigg was treated harshly myself. Whats the point of a hard working, good honest trainer playing by the rules if authorities let behavior like wiggs have little or no consequences. The good honest hard working trainers who play by the rules,and thats nearly everyone,may as well give the game away if they don't enforce the rules. And that rule would have the support of nearly every trainer who is trying to play it fair.