the galah

I was just reading an article unrelated to this subject,but it made me think,i wonder where they are at in that huge USA racing doping scandel.It came to prominence last year involving the use and global distribution by 31 trainers,vets and drug distributors.A handful of galloping hall of famers and several leading harness trainers, all initially denied any knowledge. Well it turns out ,despite protesting his innocence, one of the key players,trainer Jorge Navarro,has plead guilty and copped to everything and agreed to pay over $25 million in restitution. You would have to wonder whether he could pay that,but he is due for sentence in december and is expected to get a lengthy prison sentence.

no idea what you are on about(as is often the case). But would you rather have a tomlinson or negus type drive,or say an A drake drive on ardens horizon at auckland in race 3 run earlier tonight.Tomlinson and negus gave their horse a chance whereas A Drake seemed to have no idea of pace and gave his horse no chance whatsoever when equal favorite. Reality is both type of drives are ok. All drivers were trying,just an A Drake type drive shows far less judgment than the other 2 being discussed.

I agree it highlights an inconsistency in their rulings,but i believe the decision made by yesterdays stipes was the correct one. Tomlinsons drive yesterday may have been rather aggressive,but she was attempting to drive to her horses strengths, and it just didn't work out. As i have said previously,surely that is better than watching drivers who show no aggression whatsoever tactically and don't give their horses a chance. Black ops,like dreaminsover have similar styles of racing,and require similar racing patterns to get their best results. So yesterday the stipes said its ok to drive to your horses strengths,but we will question you if the public may form the impression you over did it. Thats how it should work.

thats one aspect that does make you wonder. Its easy enough to understand someone arguing that the data so far shows if you've had the vaccine then your significantly less likely to have the same serious health issues as someone unvaccinated may be. Of course the length of time protection levels last after having the vaccine still seems to be being analysed. So to your question.From what i've read, until recently studies indicated the transmissibility of the virus by the vaccinated and unvaccinated was not much difference. But a couple of weeks ago i read a study involving over 139,000 people had concluded that the vaccines in use in the uk reduced virus transmission to 57%,but that after 3 months of having the 2nd vaccine,the transmissibility was back to that of an unvaccinated person at 67%.The same study showed the pfizer vaccine initially reduced transmissibility to 42 % and was 58% after 3 months,and one would assume back to similar to the unvaccinated a month or two later. So my conclusions from all that i have read is those people going on and on about the unvaccinated being a greater risk to them is not accurate. In fact it seems that due to protection waning after only limited months,the vaccinated pose just as much risk. Thats why in the USA they are currently talking about whether fully vaccinated should be defined to not include those who have 2 shots,but should in fact be defined as those who had the 3rd booster shot.

The trainer of the favorite meetmeinsorrento,rogerson/ferguson,were fined $100 because the hopples that broke weren't of an acceptable standard. That fine seems too small given having proper quality gear seems a no brainer. And ohoka achilles. Looks like you can drive aggressively into non existent gaps and not expect any questions from auckland stipes.It sure looked like he ran into the back and contacted the 2 sulkies of a couple of horses.At least it looked like the horse was quick on its feet. Maybe its used to that type of driving?

He certainly said it. Its on the box seat show at about the 58th minute. He obviously believes in freedom of choice to express an opinion, and that should be his right,but in doing that he has shown he doesn't believe in freedom of choice by individuals when it comes to making decisions as regards their health.His deliberate divisive comments are not something that people will forget.People don't watch racing shows to get insulted. Peter moody made reference to his staff after winning the Caufield cup with incentivise last saturday.Part of his comments referred to the win being a team effort from all of his staff,and he made reference to having just lost 3 employees due to their decision not to get the mandatory for attendance,vaccination. He commented he supported their decision to do what they believed was best,and said he was sure they would be watching and cheering the win as loud as anyone at home. He showed respect for others views. Guerin showed none. But as others have said. Not watching shows that he appears on is the best way to avoid getting a condescending guerin lecture.

Well i watched the box seat,and at that end i get to see mick guerin lecture everyone on how bad the unvaccinated are. According to guerin the unvaccinated don't get to have an opinion,people are sick of them,and as far as the races go,should not get to go to the races ever again if they want to remain unvaccinated. This bloke just comes across as a smug,pompous prat. Why he feels he has the right to condemn others without knowing their circumstances or reasons is beyond me. I will tell you this though. I am not against vaccinations or getting a covid vaccine,but i would rather end any participation in the racing industry, than have to continue to listen to racing people like guerin lecture and discriminate against others based solely on whether they had taken a vaccine.

Well we got to look at part of the head on,on the box seat,with the key word being part of. No ones arguing south coast arden didn't move out 1-1 1/2 horse widths at one point,but they are arguing that self assured ducked in prior to the incident and that contributed to the incident. Now showing the head on from the point AFTER self assured ducked in is not addressing the argument that self assured moved in. You can only be left with the one take from that, and that is the footage shown on the box seat has been edited to fit the official narrative they wanted to portray. Now mick guerin goes on about the punters being important,but here we had the driver of the horse first past the post giving evidence that supported her horse being relegated in what was a marginal call. Is that what punters of a $1.30 win shot in the main race of the night should expect. And again i would say,we all know if the exact same thing happened in the nz cup and it wasn't her stablemate that ran 2nd,she would not have given the same evidence. Relegation,or no relegation.Punters should expect the drivers of those they back to argue a case that would make arguments in their favour,not against.And punters should have been shown the full straight coverage,not edited portions thereof.

I read this,and just think its a joke. Natalie rasmussen effectively giving evidence that her horse should be relegated.Would she have said the same thing if it wasn't her training partner. Of course not . Just a joke really.

You would assume the trainer would point out the poor decisions he made in that race and hopefully he drives better next time.If he can retain the drive he should be getting his first winner soon.Maybe he is feeling the pressure or lacking confidence in himself. Who knows. Drivers like that should just focus on moving forward at the right time in races instead of trying to drive too clever. You see experienced drivers making similar mistakes. I referred to one in the first race at winton on thursday. It happens.

The key to john dunns success in my opinion is firstly,hes always trying to drive tactically so as to give each drive its best chance,and then he is able to judge pace so well no matter what horse he drives,and he is a driver who is able to keep the horse in its comfort zone even while improving.

The bublitz driven horse looks to have some promise,but someone needs to tell him that having an inexperienced trotters head on an angle as you come off the back of a horse, and pulling the ear plugs at the same time is likely to cause your own horse to break. And of course that is what happened. His tactics in the first part of the race looked like he wasn't trying as well. Having said that he looks like once he finally gets his first win,that he may get a few more a bit quicker.

Us agreeing ,that can't be right? Thats the thing though,self assured did move in more than south coast arden moved out just prior to when he came alongside rasmussen.If you look at classie brigade,its forced closer in to henry hubert,because self assured has run in. Oh well,at least it wasn't the nz cup, because that would have a bigger audience scratching their heads.

Maybe that was a factor. But you see that type of minimal inward or outward movement all the time in the straight in races. We all know self assured has shown a tendency to lay in as well in several races in the past. Its just unrealistic to expect a driver to maintain an absolute dead straight line.The stipes know that and is why they don't mention every horse that deviates slightly in their reports. As i say this sets a precedent,although i'm guessing other drivers won't bother protesting for something similar,which really sums it up.

I see the stipes did note that south coast arden lay outwards at the same point 2 starts ago. I'm not saying the stipes got last night wrong,it was a jca decision.The stipes report states Mark purdon lodged the inquiry.I am saying the jca base how much weight they put on a drivers evidence on who gives it.

Was that not a ridiculous promotion last night. Think about this. The precedent now is every horse that moves out or in, even a horse width or two in the final 250m, then its a goner.If there is to be any consistency there will be many more inquiries to come,and many that should have been. Of course we know that won't happen,which is why last nights decision was stupid. Lets just tell it how it is. And that is because it was mark purdon lodging the protest,the jca based their decision largely on the fact it was mark purdon saying something. And heres another question. Why was Rasmussen not warned in south coast ardens win 2 starts ago. The horse moved out 1-2 horse widths in that race at exactly the same point in the straight. So if that movement is enough to cost her the win last night,then why didn't the stipes pick that up 2 starts ago and warn her. Well we all know why. Because they realised that would have been bordering on the ridiculous, to warn a driver for such minimal movement. And of course now every time a horse in front comes to the passing lane,if it moves in ever so slightly then going on last nights decision why shouldn't the horse taking the passing lane expect to be promoted if they get close.It has to if there is any consistency, as moving in or out is still movement either way.

Just watched the replay of race 1 today and have realised they will give the ottley drive some attention as she gives the 2nd horse a flat tyre. Just one of those drives thats hard to work out what the driver was thinking,but if you gamble thats part of it i suppose.

The wife just read what i posted and told me i was just a poor loser,and she's probably right. I think i have a point,but probably should have kept it to myself.

Well the video captures what happens,so if you can't accept that as the truth,well i believe you have a problem. But where do start and stop as far as stipe action is also a question. For example. In the first race just run i backed the horse phoebes delight driven by s ottley.. Its sitting in an ideal spot 3 back the outside, With 300m to run the horse behind it pulls out,and almost gets to the point where phoebes delight is boxed in as they enter the straight. Anyway.the horse then gets too close to the horse in front,because it has to come out in cramped quarters and breaks.So what will the stipes report say. I doubt very much any blame will be placed on the driver by the stipes. i would say using the video as the evidence,the stipes should ask ottley what she was thinking when she allowed herself to be put into that position. i would also ask the trainer what his instructions were. You can't get away from reality when it comes to money being spent by punters.If punters are to invest there has to be close scrutiny of drivers,and for those who say there shouldn't be ,then i would say they are more or less advocating for a decline in punter participation and the flow on effects of that. Anyway,i'm away for a drive with the wife.While i only had a modest bet on phoebes delight,it annoyed me so i will not bet again at winton today. Call me what you like,this is how the punter thinks and acts.

Maybe i could practice by coming up with dozens of ways to say i don't care what you think chief.Nah,i already have done that on this forum. Besides,pot calling the kettle black.

While nothing to do with this case,I agree lying is a skill that those who use it develop and perfect as they go through life. When it comes to harness racing,how successful drivers are in getting away with muddying the waters with plausible explanations really does come down to who they are trying to convince. In harness racing the obstacle those not speaking the truth who may be charged/questioned is there is a video,which doesn't lie,which is available for those who make the decisions.Yet unfortunately despite there being a video,we often see the official explanation of what happened has been based on the standing/experience of the person giving the evidence,and ignores the video evidence. So that means the failure to get to truth is not that of the person not telling the exact truth,but that of the officials who accept what they must know not to be a reasonable explanation ,or give more credence to one drivers evidence over another,despite the video showing that to be wrong.

Interesting point. Problem is if people believe something then they can treat it as a fact. Life is littered with examples of people lying,yet being believed,and as a result people make choices around those lies. Also you must factor in people often act and think in certain ways,having based their beliefs on what they want to be true,irrespective of the actual truth which is there for them to see if they wanted.They are the worst.But thats about life and not this case

As you predicted.We might have to start calling you brodie.

I just looked up the definition of keyboard warriors. Its "someone who makes an aggressive or abusive claim on the internet,typically concealing their identity". You don't allow aggressive or abusive posts. And your above definition isn't accurate.

You of course can't know whether this comment is true or not.if you don't know the posters ,how can you have an informed opinion of what,where and to who they would express an opinion?