the galah

No doubt weatherly will struggle to wrap his head around what he has done. Probably never will fully come to grips with it. But the facts are he was suspended earlier in the day for 7 days for causing interference. So for him,knowing he had ridden in a way that caused bad interference earlier in the day,he went out and then deliberately made the split second decision to do ride dangerously again.How does anyone with one of the most dangerous occupations around have such a mindset? No other jockey does that?Thats not normal surely? Reality is riding standards may not be what they used to be,and some dangerous split second decisions may have no consequences leading to apathy,but each case must be judged on its merits. As to penalties. I see the earlier race i mentioned where sam spratt did a similar thing,but not in a way anywhere as dangerous,simply got a warning.Doesn't that indicate that even the judicial control of careless riding places not enough weight on safety?

i don't know how to post articles. It was "spring bloom campaign replaces NZ cup and show week branding". Its a rather long article about the marketing side of what i suppose you and i always had thought was always called cup week,but when you read the article it turns out it hadn't always been branded that. Apparently in the 1990's it was called Showtime Canterbury,then after 2005 was rebranded to Cup and show week".Then in 2019 came the change to the current name. Another quote from the article was... Karena finnie,head of major and business events for christchurchnz,said they wanted a brand that represented all that happens during spring,rather than a select few . Bloom was launched by the city council owned tourism and economic development agency christchurch. Maybe the racing clubs had little say in the decision,but the reported comments expressed their support. It had a couple of photo's in the article,one of lazarus winning the cup,and the other of apparently a drunken punter lying across a footpath. The article is what the woke media does best,highlighting the successful agendas of the likes of those who made that decision,and pointing out that those commenting for the racing club were happy to look weak and compliant.

Yes i remember reading about that decision a couple of years ago. I just re read the article and it stated the decision was to help people enjoy the regular events and shift away from the booze and gambling focus. It seems it had the support of the two racing clubs. Riccarton racecourse commercial manager said"cup and show week had not really resonated and wasn't well recognised". Addington business and marketing manager said "they were extremely excited" about Bloom being the new branding. So can't just blame the council,seems those commenting on it for the racing clubs thought it a good idea. It was one of those articles where you think is it april the 1st,but it was real.

No fines if they go slow. At least she gave it a chance i suppose.Either some of those drivers behind her had no idea they were going so slow,or if they did,then showed no judgment in not moving up.You don't see that in the south island thank goodness. Just the way it is up there. Sad really.

In the last race,they ran the second last 800m in over 70 seconds,and still no one moved up. Was anyone apart from the winner trying? Watching paint dry would have provided more excitement.

That coming from someone who turns a blind eye to any wrongdoing of those you support. Tell me hunter,who is the most reliable judge of race analysis. Is it someone who makes a living out of punting,or someone whose job it is to analyse and critique what happens in a race like a stipe,or is it someone who has driven a 1000 winners and has a personal connection to most of the drivers. I'm guessing you would go with the latter. But for me i definitely would not agree with that. The reason people use the",You haven't been a highly successful driver,so you can't judge me", is just an excuse to deflect from any wrongdoing. its just not true.

Fair enough.You make a good case. There is a clear inference in the stipes report that the flat tyre sustained by john wayne,driven by abernethy, was a result of contact from your horse. You would assume abernethy became aware of the time his tyre deflated,and the stipes report states abernethy reported it happened near the 500m,the point you came out,and the point he turned his head. Sounds like the stipes went with their instinct that your horse had made contact in the wording of the report,but given they had no evidence of contact they should have worded their report so as to not infer there was a connection . While unrelated to what we are discussing,there seems to be some type of code among prominent drivers in the north island to have a "nothing to see attitude". As i have said in a previous post.The head of the northern branch of the trainers and drivers association,jay abernethy is on record as saying 9 out of 10 drivers would have made the decision maurice mckendry did,the night he chose to steer onto the fence behind a wall of horses,instead of just pulling off the back and into the clear when driving simply sam. The stipes in that case came under criticism from many industry participants for charging mckendry. Given punters like myself read such rubbish and clearly untrue comments from the likes of abernethy and others,it shapes ones opinion. In some ways i can see why the stipes are seemingly weaker up there as they don't always get a true picture of what happens by asking some drivers.

Just watched race 5 at auckland last week. A harrison not blamed for hitting the sulky wheel of john wayne,when she pulled off its back,because the stipes said manhattan sunshine,the horse improving outside harrison was hanging in. But she hit the wheel when she pulled out,and manhattan sunshine only hung badly after that. Just another example of the stipes not willing to do anything.They really are weak as there.

I prefer the harness horses myself,but did watch a couple of races at cambridge today,and thought it was like a demolition derby.The races i watched were race 6,where initially it looked like the the horse outside the leader was desperate to keep the eventual winner in,but upon watching the replay it was evident the reason it turned sideways a couple of times was because the winner was pushing into the clear and hitting the back end of the horse outside the leader,and as a result turning it a bit sideways. Well that was nothing when it came to race 10,the other race i watched.There the horse in the trail deliberately bulldozed into the horse half a length in front of it,which turned that horse sideways into the horse outside it with it falling and another ploughing over the top. I am left wondering,are jockeys that desperate to win that they forget totally about horse and human safety?

Seems a simple one to answer. Punters prefer betting in races where there is no dominant,stand out favorite.You may be happy betting in a race with a $1.30 standout winner,but every punter i know is turned off by them. Also larger field sizes mean larger turnovers.I don'tknow where you have been,but hrnz have always said the aforementioned are major factors in turnover. I don't know who you are,but i hope your not someone running things as you don't seem to have an understanding of even the basics.

Four years ago the census said 4% of the population could have a very basic conversation, with a 1/4 of that 4% knowing how to hold a conversation in maori. But again, its government policy to fund and promote the goal of having one million new zealanders understand maori language by the year 2040. Government policy will continue to force it down your throat,irrespective of whether you or i want to hear it or not.Its a given. Like i have said before,its the same with the likes NZ rugby,who actively have a policy of promoting a welcome,inclusive and safe environment for the rainbow community. Thats why several provincial rugby teams have the pride logo on their jerseys ,with all unions being encouraged. Its the world we live in.......... Thats why in years to come there will be an explosion in people with mental health issues. Just look at the data on what they say drives the transgender issue.

The decision announced today was pretty much what most expected. On one side was the vocal big owners and trainers and the same know all media types,on the other side were the majority of owners and trainers and the punters..

Look at what the government are doing now to attract and fund overseas doctors and nurses to come to nz. Yet they refuse to let unvaccinated nz nurses and doctors work,instead spending a fortune on getting them from overseas. The level of lunacy this government continues to display is hard for any sane person to comprehend.

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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