the galah

draws seem to play heavily in the favour of the 4 main chances. Looks like copy that takes the lead off old town road coming down the straight the first time. Self assured may punch through and sit parked as if he allows bd joe to get across he may struggle to pick copy that or old town road up. If he self assured does push through to sit parked then he mat set it up for akuta to get the 1/1 throughout and he becomes a chance of getting up late in the final straight. Every one else looks like they have no realistic winning chance.

Reminds me of a joke. I had decided to marry my lovely girlfriend. There was just the one thing that bothered me.She had a beautiful younger sister who loved wearing figure hugging mini skirts and generally was bra less. Anyway after we got engaged my future sister in law invited me over to go through the wedding plans. When i got there i found she was alone,wearing her pink mini skirt. She invited me in and immediately told me she could no longer control her desires for me. She invited me to the bedroom for one last fling before i married her sister. I was shocked and watched her go upstairs beckoning me to come join her as she unzipped her mini skirt. what to do. Well i gathered my composure and ran to the front door,i immediately opened the door and started running to my car. to my surprise my future in laws were standing outside and began clapping,with my future father in law shaking my hand and telling me he couldn't be happier to have a son in law with such morals and self restraint..... There is a moral to this story. ...Always keep your condoms in your car...

at least he would be the best dressed there.

Totally agree. More than just you and i who watched it and couldn't understand why the driver didn't have the sense to pull it up. Wilson house normally a kind driver,and i'm sure is in person as well,but that drive just didn't meet an acceptable standard of horsemanship in my opinion.

race 1.1 & 10 2.4 & 16 3.12 & 14 4.5 & 6 5.7 & 9 6.2 & 4 7.10 & 12 8.5 & 10 9.10 & 14 10.8 & 9 11.12 & 14

Race 1 kowhai sundown, at wyndham. Drew outside of the unruly yet started in front of the others on the front line.No mention of that either. All a bit strange.

An exciting race,with the all star horses driven kindly with next week in mind,but still driven to win. Self assured a great horse. Rasmussen just seems to end up in right place every time. Driving great horses helps. Of note was the tactics of simply sam and chimichurri. I heard them say on trackside pre race that chimichurri driver was under instructions to look for the lead,but its hard to understand why they would give the driver such aggressive driving instructions in such a field. I've said it before,the telfer stable is very ,very hard to predict in the north island. Especially in the last 4 or 5 months. They still have won their share of races,but tonight,of the 8 horses that have run,4 have ended up dropping out to very long lasts. Its such a noticeable thing. The south island stable much more consistent.

In race 7 at wyndham today,i see this horse totted for 2 strides,then broke at the start,when seemingly in the clear and a good 2 1/2 lengths behind the horse in front of it.The horse in front of it wasn't breaking or losing momentum. So it was interesting to read it didn't get a warning,and in fact the stipes decided its starting manners were so good that it no longer has to race off the unruly. Seems the stipes noted that jimmy carter had moved out slightly as soon as the start took place,and that by doing that,he ran in the part of the track that madrik wanted to,so madrik breaking was in fact jimmy carters fault. My point is ,if the standard to meet the criteria of good starting manners is what we saw madrik do,then how come they have been giving warnings to other horses in similar circumstances who break when they have a horse running in front of them?Makes you wonder sometimes. I'm guessing now madrik is off the unruly,next time he will be advantaged by being given a running start,as the starter won't want to wait, as he knows the horse consistently struggles to stand still and will delay the start if he doesn't give it that running start. Time will tell i suppose.

They were just a bit too clever for the rest tonight. That is how to drive to assist both stablemates.T mitchell always drives for his own horse,which is a change from what you often see s phelan do.Phelan not driving tonight,but hes often quite happy to sacrifice his own chance for the sake of the better stablemate. Phelan is consistent in what he does,so punters can't complain as they should know what to expect.

The judgement said this.. "The applicant brought her application for review on 2 grounds. The first ,which was pressed with the greatest force is that of procedural impropriety. The second is that the penalty imposed on the applicant and upheld by the tribunal was disproportionately severe. As it turns out,i am satisfied as to the second ground and need not determine the first".

You've highlighted only part of the judgment. It needs to be read in totality. Like i said,having read the judgment,in my opinion the period of disqualification needs to and will be reduced.

i think the trackside presenters do a pretty good job. i I personally like it when marc cookson or nicole sims do the presenting, They give informed opinions,while doing it in a way which leaves the punter to make their own informed decisions on who to invest on. Trackside doesn't promote them as expert tipsters like they push the expertise of the whale.Like i have said before,and everybody should already know,the whale tends to dumb down the casual punters as they rely on him to think for them when making punting decisions. Being a trackside tipster is a tricky thing. I'm not so sure your right when you say its easy to make money betting on nz harness.I think its getting harder. The number of punters is dwindling,and its the less successful who are giving it away.Leaving the more successful and knowledgable. Meaning its harder to find value. When households struggle to make ends meet as things have become,then spending is focused on the essentials needed just to survive,and punters who don't return a profit only choice is to cut back on the betting.That must be happening more and more these days.

I read it as well. I guess you mistyped and meant wasn't presented. Anyway,i think its obvious they will reduce her period of disqualification ,even if you don't.

Thats your interpretation,,not mine. Sounds like your saying, the RIB chose not to present evidence proving the original penalty was consistent with what others have received,and if they had then ms wigg wouldn't have had the case sent back to the RIB for reconsideration. Well if the RIB couldn't prove it to the high court,then why would you expect they could prove it to anyone else? Or maybe you are just disagreeing with what i have said ,just because you like to do that.

I agree with a lot of what you say,but its unrealistic and unreasonable to expect the ruling of the high court to be ignored. Wigg had a win of sorts in that respect and therefore deserves to have her disqualification term reduced.

Don't see how you drew that conclusion. My view is,that based on information gathered,they believed someone was committing a serious breaches of the rules,so they used their resources to investigate. As a result of that investigation they uncovered wrongdoing. Thats their job. The penalties and the processes around hearings are what Ms Wigg raised in her case. I always believe it is a positive that the RIB are actively using resources to attempt to create a more level playing for for all participants to compete on. I have always been consistent in my view on that. The licenceholders involved in such things are subject to comment based on what they do,not who they are.

Yes. i realised that. Thanks for clarifying that part of my post.

Not sure i have ever commented about the backgrounds of those who work at the RIB or the likes of the adjudicators. Nor have i commented on the processes of things like appeals,or whether there are possible conflicts of interest. What i have commented on previously is whether the current RIB does a better job in enforcing the rules in a way that treats everyone in a similar manner,in other words not deeming some to be deserving of preferential treatment/protection, based on their level of success. And the opposite,not targeting someone because they are deemed an easy target. As far as that goes i have far more confidence in the current/recent RIB ,than previous administrators of such things. Also,what i occasionally comment on,is what in my opinion,are the right and wrongs of the cases. I don't have set views which have a start point of looking for fault in the way a matter is being policed.

So it seems a given that Wigg's period of disqualification will be reduced and that she proved her point that it was excessive, when comparing it to similar breaches of cases that she brought to the courts attention. Some interesting points the judge made around the penalty guidelines He said the industry participants should have access to the guide which sets out the penalties for such offences,but it wasn't proven that they did. That penalties should be decided by those hearing the cases and not the industry(hrnz),saying it was not for the industry to have the level of input it does in formulating the penalties that are to be imposed. Also he had reservations about whether the penalty guide that changed in 2018 to recognise the severity of certain breaches of similar rules,in fact applied to the rule wigg was charged with. The most obvious thing he didn't rule on,which seemed earlier to be the main thrust of wiggs case,was whether the make up of the panels hearing the appeals of these type of cases were biased,given the members hearing them came from the same pool of people that had heard the case originally. Seems he felt he didn't have to decide that given his decision around the penalty. Seems he kicked for touch on that one. Whether anyone else in the future would pursue a case to that court based solely on that point,would seem unlikely given the cost. I wonder what the ruling is on whether hrnz has to contribute to any of ms wigg's costs of bringing the case. They no doubt would have been quite substantial, so she must be hoping she recovers even a portion of them. It may have been an interesting case,but it wasn't one that effects the every day industry participant, as only those charged with that type of charge has to deal with it. The likes of whether a trainer/driver is being fairly and consistently treated in a knowledgeable way when it comes to the day to day calls around the likes of ordinary occurrences like interference or whip rule breaches,relegations,etc. Those debates will continue every so often.

What are you trying to say hunter? If your trying to say that you believe the horse having the early stages of a respiratory infection/virus, was the reason he performed poorly,then thats for you to think.. I will stick with what the horse did pre start as more of a factor.I thought it was obvious myself..I've given my thoughts on why that happened. Just common sense . Have you heard the saying "pulling themselves into the ground". There is a reason for that saying....you should know that lol

Which just proves my point doesn't it. Obviously they took them off because of what he had done in the preliminary. Any trainer makes gear changes with the best of intentions, but sometimes they get it wrong. Looked pretty obvious from what we saw on tackside pre start that the horse had used an awful lot of energy before the start of the race,when he had the blinds on. As you said,the stipes report said early signs of a respiratory infection,and poor recovery.. Again,the poor recovery would have been a result of the energy expended before it even started,then having to run a race where it burnt very hard early,then he over raced. What horse wouldn't have a poor recovery in those circumstances? As to the early signs of a respiratory infection. The day of the race there was a write up on the HRNZ website in which dalgety was quoted as being very confident in his horse being in the right condition for a top run. Early signs of a respiratory infection, Whats does that mean anyway. Did he cough,which could have another cause,or did he have a runny nose. I posted a couple of months ago that i thought krug's somewhat inconsistent performances over the last 12 months were an indication of the very hard racing hes had earlier in his career.He put up some wonderful runs as a young horse,but as to current expectations,well he should be rated on how he is running recently,and not what he did when he was younger. Thats my opinion. Some no doubt may disagree.

The dalgety stable had been quoted in the media as saying they were hoping to see a statement performance from the horse to ensure he got a spot in the grins race. Therefore you wouldn't be surprised if they had trained him in a way that would mean that he had an aggressive mindset. The horse has been known to over race previously and last night they took the ear plugs off and added the blinds. The vision of him pre race where dalgety couldn't pull him uop in his prelimanary indicated it was as much the trainer not getting it quite right,as much as it was the horses fault. So maybe a bit of that along with what you say about stallions.

Do you think there is an opportunity for a trainer who lives close to palmerston north to step into his shoes. After all they seem to win plenty of stake money and travel costs wouldn't be a factor. Or would it not work as m house is a better trainer?

Hes trains lots of ex nz horses Brodie. For example of his 69 starters tomorrow, 30 are ex nz horses.Many more than those from nz in his stable. A lot of names you would recognise as having been winners,some quite successful. Your right there rangitara.The former all star horse has won 6 races in tasmania for yole. All in races with stakes of around $6,000. Going by the reports you read,it seems horses like him mostly don't get the retirement they deserve if trained by Yole. Yopu can't help but think that when someone operates on such a scale,and they treat the horse as just a commodity ,to be discarded once no longer useful,then the person doing operates on such a scale that they are desensitived to the cruel things they do.

One possible path forward would be for leadership to recognise that centralisation isn't a philosophy that improves the overall well being of the industry. Centralisation doesn't necessarily increase the overall $ wealth of the industry,it just transfers the $ wealth into the hands of a smaller,supposedly wiser group of decision makers and administrators. The down side to centralisaton,is it erodes the main asset the industry has,which is the vast web of industry participants. Its a bit like a spiders web. The threads of the web are held together by relationships forged by the common interest in harness racing and horses. Centralisation in effect cuts away at those threads and the industry weakens with each cut/closure. Leadership are making decisions which are well intentioned. i just think true leadership would be to consider the possibility that decisions made don't always have to be final. There needs to be a fair analysis of the consequences of the changes they made and future decisions based on that analysis. Things don't have to be set in stone,as there is still a small but diminishing window to change tact. As far as timaru goes.Numbers wise they have quire a few gallopers trained there,so its hard to think it makes sense to close.. What is noticeable is the public don't turn up to Timaru like they do to tracks like waimate and geraldine. Obviously part of the reason is because the one day a year clubs put a lot of energy into promoting their own racedays.But if you look at geraldine,probably two thirds of those who attend the november meeting normally come from timaru. But those numbers are never replicated at timaru.Part of the reason for that is Timaru has a good grass track,but for reasons unknown don't race on it.Perhaps that is because the gallopers won't let them,who knows.Also if you looked at their public car park,it always looked unsuitable for the public although that may be changing.