the galah

Actually no chief. as i've said many times. the victorian stipes never ever have claimed that. the victorian stipes say morans foot did not hit his horses hocks. They say for 2 strides it came close to his horses foot. you kindly put up the video previously,just watch it.

good points. The only point i think i would clarify from my perspective,is when you say the queensland case is different,because,you say, moran drove with his foot down when in a race winning position. Actually thats exactly what the queenland driver did,40m from the finish he dropped his foot and it made contact with his horses hock 3 times and hiis horse got up and won by a nose. His horse was relegated to 2nd on the day,but the penalty the driver was given was quashed on appeal.I have previously given the race,the date and the track and the driver concerned, if you wanted to watch it.

you missed some good ideas. I know that,i just said that as well. see,we can agree sometimes.I think we may be on the cusp of a major brealthrough. if that puts you to sleep,then you need to have some of those enegy drinks placed right next to your computer,and have a swig on them everytime you see the name the galah. that should help. or maybe use my posts in a way that is beneficial to you. Like,give up counting sheep or 2 yld bonuses,to fall asleep and bring up bit of a yarn on your phone when you jump in your bed.It works for me ,my head hits the pillow as soon as i read something you've posted. i've always been a tomato man myself.I have at least one a day.They are known to be good for your skin,hair and nails. Given i can just picture you pulling out your hair and bitiing your nails each time you read a post from the galah,i would say to you ,embrace the tomato. Remember the old saying ,a tomato a day keeps the keyboard warriors away...or something like that.

good point,but i would say thats not comparing apples with apples. after all,the HRA rules and penalty guidlines would be the same throughtout australia and not different between states. And i wouldimagine Harness racing australia awould not expect different states to be dishiong out significantly different level of penalties. That would be like saying the hrnz stipes in the auckland province can enforce the rules different to say southland.Thats not how its supposed to work.

That having your leg down at the start is how drivers are taught. ive never heard of that. Not saying its not true,just obviously only a handful of drivers do it that way. if it made sense,then why do 90% of drivers never need to drop a leg to maintain balance.. As to being allowed to have it down until the first bend,then how come i've read many times of drivers being spoken to about the length of time they had it down early in a race. So i don't agree that has been acceptable for years. Actually now you are saying its acceptable,i'm beginning to think whats to stop any nz driver taking advantage of that and thereby gaining an unfair advantage. Thats seems very,very dodgy to me,because,lets face it,everyones arguing a foot down can make a horse run faster if contact is made,so why on earth would the stipes allow some drivers to get such an unfair advantage in the first 200m of a race like yesterday. I'm being serious when i say that. Now you've said that,i think its fair to ask are the likes of john dunn and john morrison being a bit too cunning for the stipes,as they are probably in the top handful of drivers in getting a horse to pick up speed quickly early in a race,and they,along with ben hope did the same in the other mile stand race yesterday.

So your saying victoria and queensland operate under the exact same HRA rules,but that its ok for both states to have a different interpretation of the same rule. Actually ,gamma,pretty sure thats not how it works. Besides,in my specific example of the same rule in queensland and victoria,it was interpreted exactly the same by both authorities(as it should be),but both authorities came to different conclusions as to the penalty on the night. I'm also pretty sure gamma,that when an appeals heard,the judges uses the exact same rules,as after all they are the same,whatever the state,then they make a decsion and that decision sets a precedent which all future cases can use to as a reference to an example of being a fair and just outcome.

your a funny man chief. So,if you have the same rule in nz and australia,and one country enforces it differently than the other,then you can't ask questions why,given both countries have the same punters. Consistency is the whole point. Look at the remits and reasons given for some recent hrnz rule changes..

Like i keep saying,just put up the video of that queensland race ,where the driver got off on appeal,3months ago. I don't know how to,but the proof is there of a precedent . of course what happens in nz is relevant to australia and what happens in australia is relevant to nz. Just look at the rule changes nz has made.And the rule in nz will be the same as australias rule for the matter being discussed. Just common sense i think.

Of course if they operate under the same rules. Why do you think new zealand has changed several rules to fall in line with the australian rules.

I saw that race and thought grant dixon just keeping a bit of petrol in the tank for next week. Yes tact macleod went better. Hes a hard one to follow sometimes,not always at the same level,but i put that down to the type of runs he gets. I believe if leap to fame does the grind it out thing that hes capable of,then tact macleods only chance of placing is to be on theinside somewhere without having done any early work,in other words i think a strong staying contest would find him out more than some.. The again,thats not to say he isn't a very good horse. The connections of tact mcleod took the gamble of going to australia and chasing the big races,knowing they were forsaking winning chances in the 3 big races in the provinces close to where he is owned.lifes a gamble sometimes. That menagle race with don hugo,i thought the first 3 all went well,especially don hugo given the run he had,but they all had a tough run,especially don hugo. who runs in the oplacings behind leap to fame really will depend on the draw.Republican party a place chance with a better draw.

And i agree with that. i assume when they turn in that they have a leg dropped for the balance thing,as they are slightly on an angle when turning,but the rules say drivers should have their feet in the footrest the whole race. Thats my point,the nz stipes have just shown common sense application of the rule. Its so obvious from that methven video that drivers can regularly drop their feet out of the footrest,with no intention of gaining an advantage. I have never said moran should not have been fined. I have said the level of evidence to say moran dropped his leg deliberately or to gain an advantage,wan't enough to justify the victorian stipes actions. In my opinion, its obvious,that if you are to argue a driver can gain an advantage by dropping his foot and making contact to encourage a horse to run faster at the finish,then you can't argue that the same thing can't happen at the start when you do exactly the same thing. In the moran case ,he dropped his foot for 9 strides,with the stipes noting only 2 strides was his foot near his horses feet. At methven j morrison and b hope dropped their feet for 9 strides,but their feet were in a position near their horses feet for all 9 strides.(clearly 7 strides longer than moran) John dunn,18 strides.jim curtin 7 strides,ian cameron 3 strides,wilson house still had his foot out of a foot rest after 300m. I think,if moran does get found guilty,then he will obviously appeal, then if he shows that methven video and shows that methven stipes report,then the odds of him getting off will be shorter than leap to fame went around in that race at melton on saturday where he only paid $1 to win and place. And of course,theres the queensland driver who got off 3 months ago, when he may have put his foot down deliberately,making contact with his horses hocks to get up and win by a nose.

Actually just read the stipes report for race 5. Not mentioned at all. One driver had his foot down for over 300m. I see no problem with the stipes not noting it happened given the numbers that did it. it just makes me have a wee chuckle when thinking about the recent victorian controversy.

Perhaps people who have labelled david moran as obviously guilty,should watch the start of todays race and ask themseves this question. How many of the field do you think the victorian stipes would have disqualified and how many drivers would they be trying to put out for foul driving.? You had 7 drivers driving with a foot out of the foot rest for a start,after 50m about 4 still doing so,then after 100m still about 2,then one driver went like that even longer. Noticeably,none seemed to position there foot like david moran did. Anyone comparing todays video to morans,would have to say moran at least was trying to avoid his horses foot after 2 strides,unlike the drivers today. Noticeably the driver of the first 3 after 100m,were 3 of the 4 to leave their foot down the longest. did they do that to gain an advantge at the start,well i would say obviously not,but if this was victoria well they surely would be in trouble, as gaining a perceived adavntage at the start is just as bad as gaining a perceived advantage at the finish,is it not. Now,personally,i think its obvious from todays race that drivers,do accidentally drop a foot without any intention of gaining an advantage. Perhaps someone should put up the video to show what i mean. David moran should just show that video at his appeal. Case dismissed .

Of course everyone thinks their ideas are good,but some of us,myself included ,have given different ideas hundreds of times,on how to future proof the sport,over the years when posting on here. I know i've put forward so many ideas of how to address and promote specific issues and specific regions,including your favorite region auckland.Did you miss all that,as there was some really good thoughts posted in the past,in my opinion. Reality is,after a while,people actually get tired of posting positive ideas to the level they once did,because they have woken to the reality,that they are only creating social media chatter with no concrete impact on anything,as people in power take little notice,so then they move on to a different phase ,and its in that phase that they analyse not only the impact of what decisions are being made,but also who is making the decsions.Then they start commenting on that.Previous life experiences is a factor in how ones thinking has evolved.Using those steps ,i've found,is the best way to see the big picture. anyway,like i've said before,you start with a vision of where you hope the industry is in 10/15 years from now and you develop a realsitic,believable/sellable,fiscally sustainable plan,then you take the steps to start you on that journey. In my opinion,from my life experiences,what you don't do is cater to special interest groups,you bring everyone on that journey as without everyone,your business is not as strong and you also get division. What you don't do is take a patchwork type approach to problem solving as issues pop up,instead you address the root causes. I'm also a believer in "never let a good crisis go to waste".Thats my thinking around auckland and where next to for them.And of course they have a future,just not in the shape of the future being sold by the atc and hrnz. And also,i'm a believer that administrators can come in more than one category. You have those that will stick around and make plans and decisions which will be based and how they want to be judged in 10 years time,then you have those who come into a job,and see that job as a stepping stone to another in 5 years. They are the ones who apply the patchwork problem solving approach.

probably. but even combining the 2 meetings, they would have only had 75 horses total running anyway(55 tonight and 20 extras on monday),as 18 of the 38 running on monday are running tonight... how about they introduce a golden gait series at cambridge. We were constantly told that was a great success for auckland,so if that was actually true,then why not replicate it for cambridge?lol.

I think trainers who had horses rated 55plus,and were considering starting their horses in otago and southland in december or january,would have looked at the conditions of upcoming races and thought there were more realistic winning options with their horses,than running in a race where high class horses could start as close as 15m. It seemed both a programming and rating issue. I think horses like one change would be suited to having races programmed like they do in western australia at the gallops. They are always running 0 metropolitan win races,or 0 metro wins in last year,or two years or whatever,or use stakes instead of wins. As tabforever has said,its important horses like one change are able to run in races where they can still earn.Horses like him are the type that are needed to get the high class races off the ground.

Yes well done to one change.It was good to see him get a win. Mikenz comments were about small fields,low turnovers you get as a result,the impact the handicapping system has on the progression through the grades and a he expressed a view that money spent rewarding age 2 and 3 year old racing could be better spent on promtoing particiption and retaining 4 year old and older horses who are needed to fill out fields. he gave a specificm example. The fact you have to imply he resented one change winning,when he clearly never said that,indicates how defensive you have become when even common sense views are expressed,in my opinion..

finally some communication from HRNZ on the implementation of some changes recommended in the horse utilisation report. Hrnz,via their website news, saying changes will be made to the current handicapping/ratings/programming in 4 months time,from 26 may. Better late than never i suppose. While the handicapping/ratings/programming was the most significant issue dealt with in that utilisation report,there were recommendations concerning other issues. Given the report seemed to talk common sense,i think they should be adopting all the changes originally recommmended. And if not,for the sake of transparency,perhaps HRNZ could explain why specific recommendations that were made,were not going to be implemented. Anyway,the wheels may turn slowly,but at least they are turning i suppose.

The stipes report makes for interesting reading. According to it,dragonstone,the winner,did not in fact cause the false start the second time. Yes,i know,everyone watching on trackside could see he did cause the false start. Have these people not heard of trackside?. Do they not realise people can record the races and watch them again?And that includes the false starts. so,anyway, the starter blamed the 10m horses(not the 10m tape) for the second false start. Even though the winner went through the front line tape when the starter had not tried to start the race on either occasion. Thats why the 10m tape was still there. The starting regulations i read say this 'in the event a subsequent recall is sounded,any horse involved in the reason for a previous recall shall be declared a late scratching." it also says.... ."if a recall is caused by the failure of any equipment or mechanism then the starter shall order that the barriers be hand held for the restart"..." So the stipes report clearly says the starter blamed the 10m horses,not the 10m tape for the second false start.so why hold the tape? Now the video says that is false,but if it were true,then why the need to hand hold the tape?After all,the stipes are telling us there was no tape problem at the second false start. Then theres this.The stipes report says... Run forest run(number 2) stood on the mark briefly. Well hullo,the video shows his drivers back was almost making contact with the 10m tape>He was slow was because he started behind the other front line horses,he wasn't given a chance to start in his correct position as the starter was too foccussed on the winner getting the perfect start.

So the eventual winner causes 2 false starts and delays the start by over 6 minutes,43 seconds. Then the starter on the 3rd attempt has the tape on the front hand held and the person holding it lets it go about 1/2 a second after the tapes on the 10m,then after 50m we have a horse in front who started off the 10m,presumably it got a running start, as well as the advantage of the tape going slightly earlier. The other thing was the starter waited,then as soon as the winner straightened up, let them go. The starter ,seemingly having no interest in the horse drawn 2 off the front,who clearly was back from the tapes by about 2 1/2 to 3 lengths,also impeding the horse who started behind it off 10m. Compare the winner to the other horses on the front,especially number 2,and you would ask why the preferential treatment?

Yes,the only question is was it accidental. While theres lots of examples,I've given a couple of examples of the same thing happening with both the o'reilly brothers on the same day in the home straight at methven. Why do we assume hes doing it deliberately to give his horse a fright and run faster? And why do we assume, its accidental when other drivers drop a leg and hold it in the same position in the home straight? I'm simply saying,on the video evidence i wouldn't condemn him based on the level of proof. And i've even given an example in australia,where just 3 months ago the driver got off on appeal,when his foot made contact with the horses hock 3 times in a very close finish. If i was a betting man,i would say he will get off this case,most likely on appeal.Then the owners will sue for the stake and reputation impugned ,if possible some punters may as well.

actually i just googled the hrnz rule and while there have been many rule breachs over the years,the first one to pop up to search was a meeting in 2017. That day both Gerard O'reilly and Leo O'reilly both drove "for an extendfed period ",with a leg dropped in the home straight. Both got a $100 fine. I had a quick look at the video and neither was hocking,both i assume just lost their footing and had their foot about where Moran had his.They had it for about 4-5 strides whereas moran had it for 9. I don't remember at the time any outcry as to foul driving or cheating.

i think thats a very fair assessment. The only bit i don't agree with is i don't think anyone should suck it up without a fight if they think they have been unfairly treated. And clearly moran and the owners ,(as well as many punters) think they have been unfairly treated. They have to defend the case. They have to appeal as well. It will be stressful for them,but given their perceived unfair treatment,they will be disillusioned. So who can blame them for,in the moment,saying stuff this i don't want to take the horse to the races this week when i'm feeling like this. Them not starting this week shows thats exactly how they are feeling. Also,i believe that decision will forever taint Morans and his owners,respect for the stipes. Thats what happens when people feel strongly about being wronged. That lack of respect can come from one instant like we are discussing,or it can come from an accumulation of smaller incidents over time. Either way,respect will be gone. sadly whats playing out is all so predictable given the circumstances and in my opinion, shouldn't have happened.

interesting interpretation of what i said. I thought i have been consistently saying that there is a reasonable possibilty that Moran will be found Not Guilty,most likely on appeal,If he is charged with doing what he is alleged to have done. And i say that because of the precedent out of queensland,heard in september 2024 involving hocking. Gatton,race 6 -25 august. Mathew neilsen puts his foot down with 40m to go and it strikes the hocks of the horse he was driving 3 times and it gets up to win by a nose.In that casse the stipes used another rule,which allowed then to relegate(not disqualify) the horse to 2nd and gave neilsen a suspension. neilsen appealed and his case was overturned on appeal and he was found not guilty. One assumes queenslands australian harness rules are the same as victorias australian harness rules. Then i said,the 2 other most high profile cases of this type of incident ,did not result in disqualification on the night. Punteres were paid as they crossed the line,the drivers subsequently charged ,found guilty at a later date and then the horse was disqualified. I noted in all 3 cases,the actions of the drivers were clearly hocking. I suggested someone put the videos up as i don't know how to and then inferred anyone watching the videos would see Morans placement of his foot in the shepparton cup was nothing like what occured in the 3 other cases. and i raised the possiblity of the owners of captain hammerhead trying to get the decision to disqualify overturned,should Moran be found not guilty,which as i said is a possibilty based on the case at gatton. Hop that clarifies that for you.

So those hearing the appeal that overturned the neilsen case in australia,where contact occured over 40m ,didn't know the rules. Funnily enough,the stipes report today at ashburton noted a driver did the same thing briefly,making contact with his horses leg once in the final straight. no action,no warning. Just a note that it was accidental. like with many indiscretions for the same thing,they have many different outcomes depending on the circumstances