the galah

if you read the reports from even the media outlets that hate anything trump does,well they are suggesting a cup of coffee will go up about 50c. articles quote coffee shops, saying they expect to put the average $5.20 cup ,up to $5.70. 50c a time,thats going to break the bank for some. As to you saying he put tariffs on an uninhabitle island. i saw that TV one news story and thought,TV one, just taking more cheap shots with a story that anyone,if they had the inclination,would realise was full of holes. Sad,but thats tv news media in nz these days. The Trump administration put the blanket 10% tariff on every country/terrirtory except a handful like russia and north korea. The countries exempted trump obviously is currently wanting something from and they view that of more significance than what they would get $ wise from tariffs. So what the trump administration did,was say everyones getting this blanket 10% tariff,because it was simpler for people to understand that. Some smart arse in the media in the usa of course thought they can mock the trump administration by finding some obscure territory with only a few penguins and make out,hey look at how ridiculous the trump adminstration is.And news outlets around the world,the likes of tv one,ran with the story,again showing they think their viewers are gullible. You know ,it was a bit like that clip they had on tv one last night,where they asked some man in china at a trade fair,what do you think of trump. That man described trump as crazy.I saw that,rewinded it and the woman asking the question from the bbc was shaking her head and mockingly smiling at the man as she asked the question,clearly inviting such an answer. as far as the tariffs effecting usa harness racing ,i read a week or two ago that yes ,work needed to be done on negotiating a way around the tariffs as the effect on horses coming and going from countries like canda would be impacted. But,as winston peters keeps saying,they need to let the dust settle and the negotiations take place and peiople shouldn't get too carried away just yet.

perhaps i should have added,that was about 20 years ago when the auckland warriors were having a really bad run of losses and were at the bottom of the table. But their supporters always kept predicting,their form slump was going to end the following week.

I've decided to take a fresh approach and i encourage everyone to watch that race with the volume up a little,a few more times.. i'm guessing the more you watch iit the more you smile. You know, it made me think about a group of about 10 mates who played in the same rugby team. After a few beers,some of them could get rather argumentative when discussing rugby,including their club matches,often the arguments could get quite heated. Amongst the group was one very laid back character ,who seemed to be able to put other goings on, within the group, in perspective.. well one night,when one of these regular arguments flared up,the laid back character stood up and said,"what about those warriors". One of the blokes arguing turned to him angrily and said "what are you on about" to which he again said "what about those warriors". And the whole group cracked up laughing. And from that day on,they still argued,but every time the laid back bloke thought they were losing perspective he brought out the one liner and everytime the argument would stop. anyways,most of those reading this are probably thinking ,whats that got to do with an amateur drivers race. well,to me,anytime you here someone getting a bit upset and criticising some for a poorly judged drive,just use the one liner. .....yes,but .what about that amteur race at addington when they went that 72.8 half. anyways,thats my thoughts on that race after watching it a few times. oh,and what was it m house said to the d roberts ,when he was parked. Maybe he was telling him to pull back. i wonder?

yes i agree with what you say regarding the cambridge race. It was an interesting spectacle as well. i agree the driver of the leader showed little skill in rating his horse to its ability, through the early stages of that race. only thing is the lead time in that cambridge race,while fast,wasn't that unusual and was similar to that of the non win race later in the night. Whereas at addington the speed of the race was that slow,that the commentator,trackside presenters and i'm sure anyone watching, were left scratching their heads as to whether they had ever seen anything like it before,and those on tackside made comments to that effect.I mean,what else could they say.If you listen to the commentary again,you can here the commentator trying to stop himself from having a chuckle during the running and to be honest,who could blame him. i see the stipes have charged c negus at addington. the opportunity to improve into a good position ,when the pace was so slow,existed for around 150m,(thats a good 10 seconds),yet it never seemed to be her intent to do so. my final comment is,C negus makes a wonderful contribution to the sport in the south island,,but like anyone else,will just have to deal with the consequences of the lack of level of skill/or perceived intent,that she showed.Thats life.

yes,i get what you mean by that comment and hes not a driver i would place much blame on as he ended up getting that 1/1 position and he was driving a sit sprint horse.. But the reason he was able to position his horse in the 1/1 ,was because the horse behind him,foveaux gambler,didn't want that position and preferred to sit further back,for some inexplicable reason.

it was hard to work out whether everyone was trying or they simply had no idea they were going so slow. the fact it was an amateur drivers race should not diminish in any way the expectation that any race that is provided as a betting product,should expect better standards of driving.

has there ever been a race ever run where you have to question the competence of every driver except the leading driver. Surely the most ridiculous display of driving ever seen by all those involved. I've often defended comments about amateur drivers,but that display was embarassing to watch. even when they were running slower than a snail could move,there were drivers refusing to take up the 1/1,instead preferring to sit on the fence. i wonder what the stipes will do?

yes,but knowing the state of play and implementing policies that are maximising funds received, for the betterment of harness racing, are two totally different things. You know,they should have one of those surveys or polls,where they ask specific things of industry participants. And i mean participants at all levels,not just those that have the ear of hrnz leadership. Like,do you have confidence in leaderships decision making ,to help you maintain your level of participation,,do you see yourself having a greater or lower level of participation in 2,5,10 years,do you believe hrnz funds are being distributed in a way that is helping or hurting participation numbers,do you feel worried about the future ability of people to make a living from the sport,do you believe industry participants over 30 get the same amount of support from HRNZ as those under 30, do you believe HRNZ funds should be used to prop up auckland racing,a multiple choice question where they ask,rank in order,where you think hrnz should be distributing stake money,etc,etc,etc I think we all know,if that survey was done today,the results would paint a very bleak of how most currently view the state of the industry. I'm sure it would also paint a picture of disconnect between certain industry sectors and regions.

everything about the experience of using a tab outlet these days,leaves you reminiscing about better times when customers were valued,instead of the current day experience where you feel you are an unwanted interuption to someones day or you are someone to be tracked or your investments are taken for granted and that they would much rather re direct you to on line services. Its like the gambling providers have often enabled the product to be eaten from the core . They focus on saving $,ignoring the long term consequences of their decisions. Better to cut services than provide better services that would maintain punter participation. so many dumb, short sighted decisions. It would take all night to list them. But examples are reducing pubs % of the turnovers,shutting down terminals in working mens clubs because the turnovers fall just below supposed acceptable levels,outlets not putting up the fields or even having a tv with the nz meeting on a screen,emplyees at these pub tabs that have no idea how to navigate the machines if your unsure of something,etc,etc,etc Cost cutting to increase short term returns but at the expense of long term returns. i've always maintained,and i'm sure i'm right when i say,once people change their habits and once they change how they spend their leisure dollar,whether it be betting onhorse racing or going to the pub or whatever,once you lose them ,they just find something else to do and are lost for good.

the 2 meetings on a tuesday is an interesting concept. Maybe it has something to do with easter,but on the face of it,it would appear to make more sense to run one of those meetings on a wednesday. looking at the sky racing schedule,its indicates neither meeting will get any sky racing 1 coverage. Just sky racing 2. Some nz midweek harness meetings do get some races covered by sky racing 1,but the tuesday meetings don't,going by this months schedule. So that means the turnovers are going to be small. HRNZ never talk about sky 1 being a consideration in their allocation of dates.Given it has such significant impact on turnovers,you wonder why. another couple of things about the 2 meetings races being run 10 minutes apart,of course means lots of people who do happen to follow the 2 meetings,will only be financial enough to go from race to race and given it seems to take the current tab so long to confirm races or post results,turnover will be impacted to a degree because of that If they think people put double in their accounts to spend, because theres 2 meetings on. or those who would normally bet on every race,will do so when 2 meetings are run on the same day,simply don't understand punters. but i do think,big picture, these type of meetings are good for the industry. The only thing about them that i don't agree with is the allocation of more of them to areas which have the least horses and the running of so many more races with penalty free conditions in the north island. Why the preferential treatment for them in that respect,when compared to canterbury.

No is the answer to your second question.

you've previously suggested the field size needs reduced and i've come around to your way of thinking. 15 horse fields in stands and 14 in mobiles over 1980 simply give those who draw poor and settle back,niot much chance. back in the day they always had horses on the ballot ,so were always trying to give as many a start as possible,but thats not a factor these days. But i do think space is a factor. The more space a horse gets at the start the more likely they are to begin safely and the less likely they are to suffer interference.

HRNZ announced this week io intends t keep funding these metro races,which are $20,000 heats and $35,000 finals for the pacers and trotters. HRNZ have said they will continue to fund more of these races throughout the winter. i know i've asked this before,but still no one has given me an answer. Can anyone tell me why the preferential treatment for auckland at the expense of canterbury and southland. Southland is clearly declining numbers wise,similar to auckland,but HRNZ are doing nothing to help the southland participants,apart from run big stake 2 year old races for horses trained in canterbury that come down. And canterbury,who generate the racing that makes a profit are still being taken for granted as there are no heat and finals for good stakes there. Another thing i can't unerstand is why people in canterbury and southland let themselves be treated like tthis by there governing body. Really,they deserve to be in decline as well if they can't even publically voice opposition to preferential treatment tio other regions.

Theres a solution,that would reduce the problems in standing starts, which result in interference, horses breaking,horses getting unfair starts due to not being able to take their positions or being disadvantaged by being the horses drawn in the middle that are the last to turn in. simple. Just give the horses more space.To do that you would have to reduce the number on the front line. if you want proof of what i mean. go have a look at the standing starts at the recent timaru meeting run on the grass. That grass track is wider at the point the stands started,than any other track. The races there were started by the same starter,had the same divers,had less exoperienced horses...yet in the 5 stands only 1 breaker within the first 100m and no interference early. its the same logic that you apply when backing risky beginners who start on the ur.Many horses that start on the unruly are there because they don't like the congestion that exists when off the front. Horses like that,especially trotters, will have a far higher strike rate of going away if they start from the outside of the ur,than other positions on the unruly.The reason is,they have more space.

Her tactical decision to press for the lead for such an extended period of time after 400m seemed odd,when you would have thought she would know the horse in front was driven by a driver who normally doesn't like handing up ,when driving a strong winning chance. And thats how it played out.She had to drive her horse very hard for that 400m to get the front before the leader decided,well this is all getting a bit silly and diminishing both our horses chances. Especially,when the alternative run for green was the 1/1 and an ideal run. But hey,thats what happens sometimes and i suppose she took the "you have to crack a few eggs to make an omlet" type approach. In other words i may stuff this horse this time,but in the fututre i will be given the lead many more times without such resistance. And thats all well and good . my main issue with the drive was how she just kept at her horse when it was never going to run in the money.she did that,only for it to predicatably stop badly the last 100m. why didn't she just let it fade away,instead of busting a gut fior nothing?I thought that odd. One of the most important things i've learnt from analysing races,is always be very very wary of investing on a horse next up,who is over driven and who's driver continues to drive it out when its beaten. in horse racing,theres always tomorrow if you don't happen to get the ideal run and you just accept that and don't bust a gut if the best you can do is run 7th or 8th. But the "theres always tomorrow goes out the window as one gut buster can take an emotional and physical toll. Sure,horses can bounce back,normally with a freshen up ,but their long term earning capacity is normally diminshed. if you want an example of what i'm talking about. when dreams are free won,early in its career, in 2.55 after losing a heap of ground early in the race,social media sites like this one were abuzz that that horse was the next superstar. I commented a couple of times,that don't get too carried away,and predicted dreams are free would not last, would have the occasional good run,but most likely have ongoing issues that would see it not reach its potential. And i said ,the reason for that,was it was given that gut buster when it need not have had it. i've also commented many times,how often do you see horses break,goes huge races to finish not far away,then go poor thereafter all because the drivers made them bust a gut. so,thats why i commented on k greens drive. I didn't expect gammalite to say she drove it well. i just thought everyone would be thinking like myself and nowornever are. but everyone see things different i suppose and bit of a yarn reminds me of that. and no,i didn't back k green or p hunter so aren't talking through my pocket. and having said all that,i think k greens a very successful driver and from a punters perspective,overall punters have good confidence in her abilities and tactical nous.

i hope forbury wasn't watching that last race. would have burst a blood vessel for sure if he had any money on miki cohen.

the original plan was to lease the complex back for a time from the original buyers, while they built a new training complex,with auckland suggesting HRNZ would chip in a few million for that new complex. Which HRNZ never denied. But with that sale falling through, you would think auckland would want the next buyer to just sit on their 60 million dollar investment for a couple of years ,so auckland trainers can still train. that pukekohe complex ,according to some reports, was supposed to need a lot of money spent in remedial work to keep it going until it closed down. Bub of course,where was that money supposed to come from. So,reality that work won't be done either ,which makes sense, although some are complaining about that... so,it all seems pretty obvious to the casual observer whats going to happen. But currently auckland are publicly still saying ,it will all work out in the end.nothing to see here. In fact auckland even spun it to say they had exciting news.. And hrnz are saying,onwards and upwards. really you have to laugh.Theres an obvious lack of communicating a vision for a viable/realistic future is non existent and just undermines the inability of those in charge at hrnz to grasp reality. That may seem harsh,but its blatantly true. if you want proof of that comment,just look at the number of topics started on this forum and other harness racing forums about auckland. the only ones who agree with HRNZ's public comments and plans, are those from auckland,or ex aucklanders or those in the media. previously i refered to mr wonderfuls comments about restructering the business he has taken over. And the smart people in charge of DOGE,in the usa say the same thing. Eion MUsk said the same thing this week in an interview. You go in hard and you do it only once. tjhe worst thing you can possibly do,is make small changes time after time. Its a receipe for failure . why that hasn't happened already? it smells a bit to me of self interest groups again having the ear of those in charge. Again.. What other reason could there be. Maybe,just bnot too clever perhaps.

On the rib website they have the recent decsion as to the costs, bruce negus has to pay,in relation a positive he had for one of his horses . the positive occured 7 years ago. Yes,thats right,7 years. He was found guilty of being in control of a horse who returned a positive, to a man made synthetic compound that does what testosterone does. anyways,he was fined $5300,but heres the kicker,mr negus has to pay costs of $105,000. who knows what he would have paid for his own legal fees on top of that. now ,i read the decision,but wish i had read War and Peace instead, as it went on and on . Obviously over 7 years ,evidence was gathered ,witness briefs obtained and scrutinised,research done,countless lawyer work undertaken,etc ,etc ,etc, over those years..The actual hearing took 4 days when they finally got around to it. Now my very brief summary of the decision obviously is just that, brief. But it seems mr negus had 2 horses tested in "out of competition testing" in 2017. analysis of the blood taken showed one horse was positive to a synthetic steroid.The other horse had very small traces,but not worth pursuing due to the low levels. now,apparently the detectable levels in blood last about 8 weeks although they quickly reduce in that time frame. So,seems pretty straight forward you would think. but no it wasn't and because of the circumstances mr negus obviously thought he had a defence. His defence seemed to be based partly on the reducing levels in the subsequent tests,but that was rejected as a defence as the panel agreed on the balance of probabilities,with what the rib experts said,which was,thats what happens over time. e.g. test it 7 days after the sample is drawn from the horse,and the level will be...,test the reserve sample...a couple of weeks later and the level will be much lower. Thing is,because this is the case,those in charge made the decision to send the reserve sample away for testing to be sure(,given detectable levels reduce that quick),whereas normally that is only done at the request of the person who is being charged. i.e. mr negus. Mr negus when originally interviewed by the rib was obviously a bit shocked and actually said at that point he wasn't going to get the reserve sample tested,but then thought about it a bit more,only to find it had already been done without his prior knowledge. So the defence believed that was one of the grounds for defence. seemingly a procedural defence. another was hair samples showed nothing. But turned out experts said thats not unusual for that synthetic compound. Also clearly there were several other procedural issues that the defence raised and sounds like they did score many points in that respect. Every little thing seemed to have been gone over with a fine tooth comb. as was mr negus's rites to do so. thats a really short summary of something very complicated. but at the end of the day,the panel who heard the case found,mr negus was the person in charge of the horse. They don't have to prove he injected the horse himself.. They never do,as thats almost impossible unless they catch someone in the act. The $105,000 costs awarded against negus were 50% of the costs,normally they award 60 %. but gee,what a financial hit.

if that happened ,who would be left? its a bit like saying,if a member of a sports team you follow makes a bad tactical play,you can't express an opinion to that effect and if you do, you should really stop following that sport. Are people that thin skinned they can't handle comments,irrespective of whether they are justified or not? Besides,people can work out whether criticism is over the top or coming from someone who gets a bit carried away sometimes.

pace bias,i just try and bet on ones that will go forward at some stage. I think most of the drivers who feel they are in with a chance try and work there way forward in the first round. Then,when that happens,you have the best horses up front combined with the bias favoring those up front,so they hardly ever come from the back. There was one race ,high energy ,who came from the back,but it only managed a close 3rd. I thought that one should have made a move with a lap to go. More driver being too negative that time rather than the track. i was surprised Beside me got beaten . tI had been so dominant the start before against the same horses but these things happen. The big trotters race was an odd race,with 3 of the 8 breaking and queen elida hanging like there was something bothering it,yet it still ran 2nd. Muscle mountain making it to the Million $ earnings was great to see. Hes been a great horse and hes carried the burden of being a hot favorite a lot in recent years. I think the Hopes and especially his driver ,Ben hope deserve great credit for never taking the punters for granted and always trying to put him in a position to win,knowing that punters are trusting him to do that. Sometimes its meant hes hasd harder races than they would have liked,but everything the horse and they have done has been a crdit to them and they have been a credit to the industry. People should appreciate that aspect. the only thing now,hes had a lot of hard racing and its starting to show when they go hard. He just can't finish the final 100m like he used to. But hes still a great horse and now a million dollar earner. i also thought trackside need to use nicole sims as much as they used brittany graham. Brittany graham is a class act,but nicole sims does a great job as well and they could have combined the two a bit better in my opinion.

we enjoyed all the racing and wondeful to see leap to fame win. What a horse. the aussie trotters connections interview was also a good watch. The only thing i thought a bit odd,was brittany graham and nicole sims weren't supplied with an umbrella. i've seen presenters in aussie walk around with someone holding an umbrella for them,doing pre race interviews. i think both those presnters do a great job and both have good fashion for my wife to look at. But someobne,get them an umbrella if it rains next time.

slot 1 for me thanks. Shortest way home.

they use those funds "for the betterment of harness racing." So,while it would all be smoke and mirrors,reality is if they are dipping into their reserve funds to provide stake money and bonuses,then theres part of your answer.

I think your working your way, to my way of thinking.possibly.

the atc still would have alexandra park,so you wouldn't think they needed bailed out. just keep going and getting the bank to do one of those interest only loans with alexandra park as security. then don't think about the future,as many on here have pointed out ,thats being ever so grumpy and negative,let aucklanders just live in the present and keep smiling. Then in 10 years time,when those at the helm have moved on and when the bank says you have little security left and we are going to sell you up,if your an administrator whos just started in the job,just blame it on the lot that were in charge at the moment,but have since moved on. And if you are one of those who was in charge,(i.e. our current administrators) and that subsequently moved on,i'm guessing you will just order another margaretta,lay back on your deck chair and admire the sunset a little,before closing your eyes and starting to dream about the good old days when you were in charge. meanwhile back in nz,the new hrnz board can have one of their meetings and work out how to get their hands on the auckland money. one bloke sitting in the corner,gathering cobwebs,will pipe up and say well i've been here a few years and we have a precedent for this. Back in the day,he would say with a cheeky smile,we sold up forbury and put all the money in a reserve fund. To which,one of the newer board members will pipe up and say,forbury,isn't he that grumpy poster on bit of a yarn who's been around for years. No,the old man in the corner with the cobwebs will reply,forbury used to be a racetrack in dunedin.Then he would go on to explain what happened to forbury and where the money went.With a twinkle in his eyes,he would explain how the money went on group ones and bonuses and proping up the stakes for auckland. He would say,you see,auckland really owe us that money anyway. He too,then closes his eyes and mutters,those were the days before saying wake me up before you turn out the lights,joking he means the lights in this room,not the ribbon of lights. The chair will then comment,how about that,i thought that man was just an ornament.