the galah

Maybe he has been in recent years. Robalan has referred to that as well. Personally i would still give him an "A-" for talent,but an "f" for desire. You earlier refer to him driving over 3000 winners. I would argue your comment actually is proof what i am saying is accurate.You don't drive that many winners without knowing what you are doing.

I get what your saying about my wording. I think gammalite has read my mind(which isn't always easy) as far as interpreting what i meant to say.I should have really said "not trying'.. as hard as punters would expect from someone of his capabilities. I had said earlier that "i don't think hes not trying,just lacks the desire he once had".

So because someone has driven 3000 winners means they are beyond reproach or don't drive like they aren't trying? Got it. Like i said,just watch the races i refer to.

The videos tell the story. Just put them up and anyone can watch them and make up there own mind.

Well its a forum where we give our opinions, so mine is Mossdale Mac-i've backed it a handful of times but have come to the view its a horse that doesn't seem to give 100% in a finish and its level of performance in some better races isn't replicated when it runs in fields of not as well performed horses. Of note it was driven by blair orange just the once and won well. Enghein-Well that performance last night was a bit puzzling because it seemed to be travelling so well in front,but ran out of puff.Maybe they gave it an easy time in training since its previous run or maybe that 1st up run for so long took the edge off it or maybe its not 100% like you suggest. King of love-Another horse i have followed-A couple of times i have felt Ben hope may taken the wrong option a few runs ago,but recently he has been giving it every chance in what i thought were winnable race but not quite delivering. I actually thought it pretty much ran up to its most recent form last night and was just beaten by better horses on the night.Its a horse that should win if it drops back a grade or so,and with the confidence it would get from that may be competitive in its current grade again. Of note Ben hope drove the perfect race on all 3 last night. I do think some of the hope pacers become too familiar with the driver and seem to not always put in. However i think when he drives the trotters for some reason he becomes one of the best in nz and any perceived under performance by the trotters is more due to the horse.

Yes,i've invested on 3 of his drives in the last week.All to me had clearly the better formlines. All were non trying drives. Toodalouloo at cambridge-went back from wide draw,made no attempt to improve from last on slow pace,3 lengths last turning in,puts in a very quick finish,eventually running over several markers and the horse lucky not to have an accident near the finish as it ran out of room. Riverboy ben at auckland.Heavily restrained at start from handy draw and settles last. Made no attempt to improve on slow mid race speed-last by a length turning in,switches to rail where it finishes fast but another to run out of room and locked wheels at the 100m. My copy-gets off rail when horse in front of him goes rough at start,sits at back on average speed,makes no attempt whatsoever to improve until about the 400m by which point it had no chance,checked,goes to fence and runs up the straight untried and with earplugs not pulled. Another good form analyst has told me he prefers to avoid backing any Mckendry driven runners because he too thinks he just is there to follow them around half the time,and you can never be sure he is trying. Both of us think he can still drive ok and that its more he just doesn't worry where he finishes a lot of the time.

Another interesting observation of racing last night was the lack of moves by drivers. Of the 10 races,in only 2 were there moves from drivers to improve their position between the 1000m and 400m.. It highlights the importance of draws.If your horse doesn't go forward at the start,then unless there is excess tempo or excess pressure from the horse racing parked,then the reality is your not going to get a good result. A lot has to do with so many races being run over 1980. Thats why racing over 2600m is a better watch as those races generally have a drop off in tempo at some point and the good drivers take advantage of that. Thats why,unless you back the winner,a lot of punters are left with the feeling they didn't get a run for their money. I'm sure its part of the reason why its hard to attract new punters. If seasoned punters with an understanding of race patterns get frustrated, what must new punters think? As to Brodie and i talking about negative driving,i'm sure he is like me ,referring to horses with the capabilities of making a move to get a result,but driven by drivers who don't have a positive mindset. And there are some of those in most races.

I think W house has an alarm clock which he sets when he goes out for each drive.He sets it for a couple of minutes after each race is finished so he's awake for when he returns to the stables. To be fair. He is the most consistent driver to have driven for some time. You know what you are going to get when he drives,so punters shouldn't complain,but we still do of course. There are positives of course for the connections of his drives. They have an easy run and drop back in the ratings. I think that is the plan with the house horses a lot of the time. I've always been a fan of the House stable,and W house plays his part in their success if you look at the big picture.They pay the bills anyway,and when you look at the success the house stable has, it obviously works very well for them.

I see matt cross keeps going on about franco hoffman needing a draw at addington. It got me thinking about bob negus.I wonder if W house will drive a NZ cup winner?

Letters on keyboard didn't quite line up with the brain.Doesb't help when half of them seem to have worn off. "Missed by that much" as maxwell smart ,my favorite tv character used to say.

The drivers i like following up there who always give their horse a chance are the likes of todd mitchell,peter ferfyson,tony herlihy,james stormont,benjamin butcher and zev meridith.

I have been watching him drive recently,and i have formed the opinion he often goes out there to just follow them around.I could give several examples,but not much point. I don't think hes not trying,just lacks the desire he once had. I don't know how he will drive copy that,i'm guessing in advance he won't bother trying too hard.I keep saying racing at auckland is not very competitive. Just a shame they can't run more south island meetings instead..

So your working on the assumption that none of the "hapless bunch" ... have no racing knowledge,nor that backgrounds in uncovering rule breakers and with life long knowledge of passing fair judgment in other jurisdictions has any relevance to whether they can do a decent job. Instead your suggesting people with strong connections ,whether it be former workmates,extended family members or friends of those they are to investigate and pass judgment on,should instead have those jobs. Is that what you are saying? If not please clarify,because to me you don't make much sense. So wigg has made the point,and i accept it a fair one,that for justice to be done,and for it perceived to be done,it must have no potential conflict of interest and must be impartial. Well your suggesting instead another group with the very same problem take over. You,and others are just looking for scapegoats. It doesn't surprise me you saying de lore speaks for 99% of the harness industry at the moment,i don't believe it ,but one of the most obvious observations anyone can make about the harness racing industry is its an echo chamber. People say what they know others want to hear,or the say nothing.Thats why whenever anyone gets charged they take it badly,and it often effects their mental health.Haven't you noticed the pattern,its so out there no one can not have seen it. Have you ever actually analysed why that happens. I'm guessing not. And what about the punter. You do realise that your industry is based on wagering. What punters think matters. It is the difference between losing their support or retaining their participation.

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

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

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

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

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

$33 a bag for oaten chaff .

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

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

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

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

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

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