the galah

spatchcock. I had an idea you like commenting on people so i looked up your last 10 posts.Its not something i have done before,but it confirmed my memory still works to some extent. Heres how you have described other posters in your last 10 posts. whinging, sook, mug, throw computer into the river before they post, chip on shoulder, ludicrous, refrain from smoking drugs before posting. I think theres a pattern there.

i could say..... stop your whinging when it comes to your comments about cookson......... But i'm not here to somehow attempt to undermine your opinion on something.I'll leave that to you. Having said that,this forum is about expressing opinions,so go for it. What does it matter you ask. Well i explained that. Obviously you didn't pick that up. I can say my first thoughts when i read your reply was to have a wee chuckle.

I agree the TAB's treatment of successful punters is contributing to the industries demise. The reality is ,as you have said many times,the TAB's current goal is to use whatever tools they have to discourage successful punter participation in nz. The tab's motto is we want your business, but only if you are a loser. Just ask some of their customers. Bookies jobs are to take an equal proportion of bets on all possible outcomes and to factor in a margin,which is their profit. Sure that means sometimes offering fixed odds at less than realistic prices depending on how much support each horse gets,,but that is what they should be able to do. Having said that,bookies should also have the confidence to back their own judgment at times. But they don't.For example i have been commenting about the whales selections recently. I struggle to believe the pathetic odds the tab offers for his selections are totally based on money bet. The TAB just seem so adverse to any loss that they fail to maximise their returns when the opportunity arises . People out there justify the tab's approach by saying its sensible policy to limit their losses from winning punters. They point to how overseas bookmakers operate.Those who do that fail to acknowledge that nz does not have that huge customer base. Also they fail to take into account how most successful punters in nz reinvest profits from betting back into other aspects of the industry.For example it can be in the form of breeding or as an owner paying training expenses or encouraging others to participate..And of course many successful punters invest substantial amounts on the tote,which the tab takes a cut from.The tab's current policies are and will continue a negative flow on effect to that.

He might be due to return a profit. He hasn't in the 3 meetings so far this week. Its not his fault that the horses he tips always drop about half their opening prices. Thats what this thread is about. Theres no denying his knowledge. i think its a worrying sign when punters know so little about what horses they bet on and follow his tips like sheep. The final dividends of his selections never are an accurate reflection of their chances. And its not like punters are getting on early at the higher prices. If you follow the fixed odds markets you would see that someone,i assume the whale,is punting them as soon as the markets come out the day before,so the sheep punters are always backing at the silly prices,irrespective of whether they win or lose. Ive often wondered if the whales tips are bet on by people who are laundering drug money or something like that. Or is he appealing to the casual punter? Commentator selections always see significant drops in prices,just not to the same extent as the whale. The whale is a great salesman.

The other 2 he has tipped at auckland are currently paying $1.65 to win and one he says to back for a place paying $2.50. his 3 tips at winton are currently paying to win $2.40,$2.70 and $6.

I know i've said it before,by why do punters keep backing the whale tips. I say that not because he doesn't know his stuff,but because every horse he ever tips seems to get huge punter support and they always pay well below their realistic prices.As a result anyone who follows his tips is not likely to make a profit.Just work out a dollar each way on his tips and you will see what i mean. Also,because every selection he ever makes has 3 drops in prices as soon as the tab puts the fixed odd prices up,i am assuming he is one of those punters who the tab have an algorithm on his account and accounts associated that he uses. Having watched him,i think its the confidence he displays and the hype the trackside presenters give him, that sells his selections to the punters. i much prefer the mark cookson approach myself. He gives most horses a mention and while he gives selections he doesb't push as hard and doesn't effect prices like others do. I reminds me a lot of how dave mcdonald did things.

Brodie did you see the mortality rate in nz went up 10% last year. It was 7.5 per 1000,up from 6.8 per 1000 in 2021 and averaged 6.7 per 1000 in the previous 10 years..They blamed it on covid ,yet if you look at the figures even if they included all the covid number(when of course they had officially included deaths of people with covid who had other serious health issues, as covid deaths),they only account for half of the increased death rate. Seems the pattern is the same in other highly vaccinated countries. Brodie on the money again i think.

Like i have said,i think as far as nz harness goes,you aren't being realistic in the supposed $ benefits. Yes the NZ TAB has been hopelesss in its decision making for years. Remember the costly website which we have and that they changed to in recent years was a disaster.It saw a huge drop off turnover in the first few months as they lost customer after customer out of frustration with the tab. It was discussed on here ,and you just had to shake your head at how dumb the TAB decision makers were. I've discussed on here how if you go into a tab and want to place a fixed odds,don't expect the tab staff to be able to help in showing you how its done.I did that last year and the 3 tabs i asked had no employees who knew how to fill in a betslip form to place a fixed odds bet.One telling me,i don't bet so why should i know,before walkng off. Then i rang the tab helpline and asked the. The fella was freindly and tried to help but told me he hadn't been trained in how to fill in a betslip for a fixed odds bet. By chance i discovered how to do it was on the back of the betslip. Then you have the fools at the TAB who slash the FF odds because they have algorithms set up to immediately slash both win and place odds if targeted punters put as little as a $20 place bet with potential loss of $10 to the tab book. I was talking to another punter just a couple of days ago who was moaning about that,I know some punters have reduced their turnover on the tote by close to a couple of million in the last couple of years because of how the tab algorithms impact fixed odds then flow through to tote prices. And if the tab odds setters were so bright,why haven't they worked out that many punters back on horses that are the win movers.Its like the tab is thinkimg,hey,we stand to lose only $20,but because it is from a targeted punters account,then lets slash the odds. Then,oh no,more punters are betting on that win movers,because its a win mover,the exact thing the bookies don't want.Its so dumb,yet they can't even figure that out.Why don't they just base the win movers on how they balance the books? Like i've also said.I personally recently bet on a horse with a $20 win bet 5 times in the space of 10 minutes. Each time the price dropped,each time i cashed out. In the end that horses price dropped 5 times on the ff win because of my 5 bets,yet i had not 1 cent on it because i had cashed out. I did it just to prove the point to someone i was talking to at the time.. I am not a big better,yet they even have algorithms on my account. So yes the nz TAB is doing a poor job . But to me i keep thinking its because they are well intentioned but just dumb.. So maybe they have had there chances,but to me a properly,clever nz tab was and is the better option.

That seems like wishful thinking to me. And this is a harness racing forum. Why would you think nz harness racing would be any better off? If its going to be such a multimillion dollar windfall as you predict for nz harness,then how come we don't see that being reflected in stake levels in australian harness racing.You can't tell me nz harness racing is going to be treated any better than australian harness racing is by an australian betting provider. I can't follow the logic behind your optimism. I do believe that the NZ tab is doing a poor job in encouraging wagering. However to me Its like a business who employ phone operators who are doing a poor job and that is impacting the level of work and income that the shareholders are receiving. Client numbers just aren't there,and the drop off in work load is being exacerbated by the businesses poor phone operator service. So what do the shareholders do. They could get take option a and get their act together and drive change so their current phone operators who they directly employ provide a service which leads to greater levels of work,confidence and greater returns. Or they could take option b,outsource the phones to a call centre. They give it to a call centre ,who have a high workload from similar type businesses.In effect they are relying on others to drive the change required to make their business grow,while at the same time losing input into how their product is sold and perceived.All the while the shareholders recognising their business is small compared with the volume the call centre handles for other more important clients. Well i know how this plays out. Customer service drops even further.Short term the shareholders see the positives,but long term they start to question the logic behind what they did,and regret sets in, but too late, there is no going back. Change has to be for the better,not for changes sake and wishful thinking. Thats what i believe will happen to harness racing with the proposed change.

i've always thought forbury a pretty good judge, but agree he just over does the negativity around some personalities who have diminished his returns from punting. When he goes on about the mark purdon amazing dream drive,he is referring to what many believe was an infamous example of team driving.Not everyone has that opinion,but many do.

History shows Brodie nearly always on the money.No doubt will be here as well. Brodie often calls it first.He was on the money when he predicted the TAB policies discouraging winning punters would have a very negative impact on turnovers. Personally i think thats one of the worst things happening to the industry. The TAB is run by people who have no idea of the consequences of what they do. Their lack of awareness of how they impact in a negative way the spend of some of their higher turnover tote punters is hard to comprehend. I've explained how it works before. But when you have the number crunchers at the TAB slashing ff win odds when they take a $20 place bet,with as little as a $10 liabilty to the TAB,you can see how farcical it all is. And if you don't have punters,that link in the chain is weakened and the strength of the whole chain diminishes. That ultimately effects stakes paid and numbers bred and so on.

Yes,mr chin one of only 2 i can think of who are not white. Gavin hampton a few decades ago now. Didn't he retire in the late 1980's.Was he maroon and blue,or something like that?Anything to do with Hamptons road in prebbleton where if you drive past you can see the remnants of a former harness track or two?I think he was well known, just a bit before my time.I do remember back in the 1980's christchurch used to have a morning and evening paper with well known racing writers,and it seemed everyone had an interest in racing. Krug seems to have gone a long way for a horse who seems past his best. I guess all the hard racing when he was young has taken its toll. I did back him a couple of times last year and he won both times,including the invercargill cup.So hes still a good horse,but even if he did get a start i wouldn't give him any chance from that draw.

As to the floods. I had a vehicle effected by a weather event not that long ago. It was a commercial vehicle and the annual insurance premium doubled thereafter.It went from $40 p.w. to $80 p.w when the policy was renewed a couple of months after the event. Then add to that the no claims bonus and hiring another vehicle while it was away for repair it cost me at least $4000 that year. Some did ok if they had agreed value insurance for their car and they were over insured,but insurance companies will need to recoup their loses with increased future premiums.

Something you can't help but notice is how harness racing is dominated by white skinned participants. Just look around, especially in the south island.Can you think of anyone who isn't. Its something that has been noticeable for years. The north island may have a couple of non whites,but you could still count them on one hand.

I think it is you that is out of touch. You mention inca. I think its reasonable to draw a comparison with the thinking between this topic and the INCA investigation.I will explain why. I believe a significant part of why INCA happened was down to the stipes at the time not doing proper oversight of those who it was easily perceived failed to drive their horses on their merits. .Examples involving high profile people, like the matt anderson drive on johnny white and the dexter dunn drive at forbury had no consequences when they should have. So at the time,before INCA,on forums like this some,including myself,were asking why no action and suggested there would be consequences of inaction. So why was the actions of the riu so weak at the time.Well it was because they factored in how they would be perceived by those who ran HRNZ and how industry participants would view policing of things that stipes from previous decades took no action over and they considered the flak they would take on internet sites like this one where issues are judged by many,not on the merits,but based on the personalities involved. So when it comes to this current topic involving the RIU/RIB. We have the very same people who perpetuated the myth that overlooking something is better than dealing with it,doing it again. I wonder if they will ever realise the consequences of basing thinking on personalities and not the merits of an argument.

Pretty much sums up the reality and significance of what occurred. In other words not a big deal. I had thought that its a no brainer that the industry doesn't want trackside coverage of anyone kicking or punching a horse. Its an issue officialdom deal with very rarely,so obviously drivers/starters attendants, etc are aware of that and also know the consequences. I can't see the justification for criticism of the RIB in these cases.. This thread again highlights the them and us mindset that some have.

I saw the terry chimel punch to the gut of his horse on trackside. It was just a half hearted punch ,as he looked to do something like put the hopple shorteners in. My comment to the wife at the time was they will fine him for that and it was a bit stupid to do it when tv cameras may be on him. I'm sure he meant the horse no harm and probably was just reminding the horse not to kick out or something,but drivers must know they may be on TV and that they get penalised for such things.

The Robert Malone it features (fella with the white beard) is an interesting man. I've seen quite a few of his interviews.He lives on a horse farm and has been a doctor and infectious disease researcher since back in the late 1980's. Hes the one who came up with the idea which ultimately lead to the technology used in making the coronavirus vaccines. In his early research he injected dna and rna into mice and found it produced new proteins/spike protein and was the first to patent it.He has dedicated his life to vaccine development for viruses like ebola. He has consistently said that those with the highest risks from covid 19 should take the vaccine,those with all the co morbidities, but has questioned why others should take it and is dead against anyone under 18 taking it. He has been very critical of the lack of transparency around the tracking and suppressing of information as relates to the side effects of the vaccine.He had covid himself,then later took the moderna vaccine but believes the vaccine actually made his symptoms worse and that his health will never be the same. He has said he believes its a mistake for people to be taking all these boosters and early on suggested if authorities were to be honest, they would admit that,although he didn't expect they would ever own up to it.

great minds think alike they say.

i backed american muscle myself,but it was clear it couldn't go round the bends without hanging in. I thought given the way his horses gait was on the bends,his only chance was to make a move down the straight with a round to go and then have more control of the line he ran on the final 2 bends,but he didn't. You just knew that by waiting and making his move on the final bend at full speed and with horses moving out inside him that he was a good thing to gallop,and thats what he did. Hes not there to help a stablemate though many seem to think they are.Can't blame him for that..

not sure the stipes could be criticised too much on this occasion forbury. i do agree that trainers should notify any change in tactics,as you have referred to for merlin,however there isn't any rule around there to enforce and only the trainers who give great consideration to punters perception tend to do that,and its not very often.Perhaps thats because once they notify the public,they are locked in to tactics that may be better changed as a race develops. As to major perry,crystal hackett actually drove with more aggression than normal from my perspective.She tried to get into the race with a move from the 800m,but just wasn't up to it. I often think North island form is often all over the place when you get the same horses running at auckland and cambridge. For example the wallis /hackett horses always have to be viewed with caution by punters when they run at cambrifge. The odd one goes ok,but more often than not they go much better at auckland. I don't know why,maybe they travel a lot further or they are better right handed,but its quite noticeable. Cambridge is a track with a frontrunning/rails bias,but most are these days.

I think if you have a look at the stipes reports these days,you will find that any driver who doesn't have their horse in position 50 metres prior to the start is either fined or given a warning. The only exceptions seem to be if the horse is being urged along and it is considered the horses fault. If on the rare occasions its the mobile driver going a bit fast ,that gets a mention.

Well you have just said it has a withholding period.. So withholding period means the minimum length of time that needs to expire before its use is legal. So obviously its use is illegal if its used inside that withholding period.

Retrospective testing is not something authorities use as a tool to identify cheats who use performance enhancers. Firstly you would have to have authorities who want to identify cheats,and i think it goes without saying that authorities do not want to and have never wanted to catch anyone high profile. Authorities only want cheating exposed if it is low profile people or someone they want to target who has pissed them off. By far the vast majority of people believe that.Its only in very recent years that the current RIU/RIB seem to have started to try and treat everyone the same,altough its also apparent HRNZ leadership have concerns about that change. I will give a historical nz example. When geoff small was having his run ins with authorities,eventually they got tired of his "i can do whatever i want approach",so one day they had the bright idea of retrospectively testing for dmso all group and listed races going back a few months. They had this light bulb moment because it had been noticed several of his team had a really distinctive body odour,in other words they stunk,and they knew this was likely to be a result of his use of dmso within the previous 3 or so days. So while dmso use was illegal within a certain time frame,authorities for reasons only they knew,didn't test for it.So they did the retrospective testing and lo and behold they got him on some positives. But then they came up with unwanted multiple positives from the high profile rogerson/simpson barn and another well known southland trainer had one. Turned out their vets knew that it was an illegal substance,but had not expected its use to be a problem as HRNZ always seemed to have a policy of telling trainers and vets to stop using products that would return positives ,long before they would test for them. In other words,HRNZ would hear rumours what the latest performance enhancer being used was,and then to avoid catching anyone high profile would go public and tell them they would in the future start testing for said product ,so stop using it as we don't want to catch you.Thats a fact,there was several examples of mr gobder from the riu pre warning those who used performance enhancers. So the upshot of the Geoff small case was,yes they got him,but they had better be careful in the future with retrospective testing as they didn't want to catch the wrong person. At the time of the retrospective DMSO testing,you would have had to wonder why on earth the vets,racecourse inspectors and the swabbing stewards completely ignored the likely cause of the horses body odours. I mean ask yourself,it was very well known the smell associated with dmso use,and it was known to be illegal. Obviously they were all just ignorant of something they should have known about ,or they just ignored it. Anyway the point is don't ever expect retrospective testing here as hrnz would only allow that if they could target someone.

i actually was saying it hasn't made any difference. All the horses she has been driving recently,she had been driving prior to any half penalties. She appears to work for mark jones and he has been giving her plenty of opportunities prior,and she has been doing a good job. The rate she is going she will only have another few months and the half penalities will no longer apply. She did drive a couple of m house horses on friday,but they again had been driven by a junior in their previous starts anyway. The main point i make though is hypothetically you could have a horse like lizzie richter winning 6 races in a row,yet because of the penalty concessions it would be given the same rating as a 1 start,1 win horse. How is that fair ?