the galah

But they already have on occasions. They have races for south of the bombay,south of the waitaki,several other races where a condition is group one winners are excluded,races where clearly the programmers target getting larger numbers by having conditions excluding the higher performers,etc. It wouldn't cause division if you are only excluding the handful of trainers who have won group one races the previouse seaso. Quite the opposite i would have thought. Catering to 99.9% of the other industry participants would unite those people . Causing real division is in fact what you got on sunday. In other words races where only 2 trainers had any chance of training a group one winner for pacers. Everyone knew that beforehand. Don't all sports have different divisions.Take rugby for example. We have the NPC and the heartland championships.They do that because they understand there are different levels of talent and resources,and the best way to encourage participation is to have realistic championships for teams to aim at.You could guarantee if the top npc team,with all their resources kept playing the heartland teams there would be on outcry over it being unfair and pointless. I would expect the elite stables like the all stars recognise that,and want only what is best for the industry? Its not as if yesterdays race day would be taken away. They would still have the highest stakes and the group one status. Your suggestion,the money earnt in the last few starts thing is something i agree could be used more in nz, just i think is more applicable to every day racing than a higher stake day that i suggested. At the end of the day,would my suggestion be something that the 99.9 % of the industry i refer to support. Would it be something which encourages them,instead of discourages,I would expect so.

Some good and relevant observations made above. I know the average industry grass roots participant would see yesterdays meeting as proof they have no chance of ever competing with the big players like the all stars and the telfers,when it comes to the pacers. You can ignore the point,but reality is ignoring it won't make it irrelevant nor will it make it go away. It has to be addressed in some way. It looks like they paid out over $150,000 in stakes to the horses who didn't finish in the top 4. i don't know whether they still charge nomination fees for such races,but it sure seems a lot of money they elect to pay,just so they get enough starters to make up a field.Why are the also rans entitled to so much appearance money? I think one solution would be to run a similar type of meeting,with all the races programmed to include a condition that any horse trained by a trainer who has won a group one race for that gait(e.g.pacer) in the previous season,is excluded from being nominated.The condition of the races would also make it clear that horses would not be eligible for nomination if trained by an excluded trainer within the previous 3 months.Obviously the races would have to include a wider spread of horse ages,and not just the young age groups. If you want the industry to maintain participation levels,thats part of the solution. Either you want the grass roots participants to continue,or you don't.

No one is saying they aren't very very good horses. Nor are they denying their trainers aren't very very good. But you must know how watching those races today effects how people think. And i can guarantee you this,that when people think about breeding or training or owning a horse in the future,these thoughts will be part of what makes them decide to or not. Anyone who doesn't recognise that,simply is ignoring what people say and think. Its not just here. Look at victoria. One stable completely dominates harness racing there. 5 in the interdominions pacing final,including the clear top 3 qualifiers. Just look how that is perceived in that state.That stable even has a special facebook page dedicated to it,and not for good reasons.Look at some of the media coverage racing has gotten in the last month there. It all points to one thing. As much as people should try and think positive,its hard to ignore.

Thats sad as hes a great horse. . In my opinion he often has warmed up nodding a bit,but never seems to race that way.Its always been noticeable on trackside for quite some time now..As we know,horses nod for a reason,but often its nothing major. I had guessed they sometimes treat him to remove the pain,as occasionally its not there,like the night he won the rowe cup. i watched his race last night and going up to the mobile in the score up it was very noticeable. Yet he seemed to forget about it when he raced.One tough horse. Hope its nothing serious.

Well done to olivia thornley. Rated it well. But as the whale said" he hasn't seen one pull like that and still keep going". It did look to be the 2nd best of the all stars pre race,so given the way the rest of the team has been going today,it all was no surprise.. Top run by true fantasy as well.Should have stopped given it sat parked the whole way on such a fast speed.

Well there you go,wins by 6 lengths in nz record time.Could have won by double that if he had wanted. I didn't bother to have a bet,but $2.20 seemed money for jam as they say.

Looks an entertaining days racing,high quality. But you can't but help think the results so far just reinforce in the minds of the ever reducing number of owners/trainers/breeders still left in the sport,that they are wasting there time if they want to have a horse good enough to win on days like this. Reality is their is no hope for them. Its a day where they are running record times,and when it comes to the pacers the all stars are simply way better than the telfers who are way better than the dunns. The rest are just there to get their heads kicked in . Don't understand why some bother myself. Each to their own i suppose. At least the trotters have don't have such dominance,but really only p nairn stopping that. Still the 2 year old of the all starts just sat 3 wide the first round,then 5 wide down the back ,then won with a leg in the air in a nz record. So,while you must applaud the winners and their performances,anyone watching would have to have their head in the sand to not realise such dominance is definitely a very bad thing for overall future participation. As to the favorites. Well you could say their have been a couple of upsets today.But,then you could also say you are right in that favorites tend to dominate tracks like addington. I just had a look at the last 26 races won at addington,and half of them have been won by horses paying $3 or under. As to crowd size,you could say it looks ok,but in reality pre covid you would have got as many on a fibe day at a grass track meeting in canterbury. I did notice motukarara had a very small crowd by their normal standards yesterday. I'm off,i will now watch how akuta goes. Must win based on how the rest of stable is going.

Anyone else notice how the two brothers often seem intent on driving to beat the other,always at their own expense. The race just run was yet another example. The 1 horse, hesashorething,driven by j abernethy looked the perfect horse for his brother to trail,having drawn alongside him at 2. At its last start the 2 horse had worked very hard early to lead and dropped out badly. Well as if to prove the point i make,again tonight s abernethy was absolutely desperate to head his brother as they went way too hard for the lead. Then ,low and behold,he immediately eased up and his brother came round and took the lead. As you would expect after such ab early burn,J abernethy then opted to trail at the 1000m,when no doubt he wouldn't had he not been forced to burn so hard early. S abernethy finished a very long last again. S abernethy could have had the perfect trail without any exertion.

I agree with you brodie that some decisions made by the tab actually stop people betting. Personally my turnover through the tote would only be about 10% of what it was say a year ago.Thats a direct consequence of some of the tabs policies and how it impacts tote prices.

I think brodie its about time everyone,from administrators/licence holders/owners just become realists and admit that stake levels need to reflect what the industries income dictates they can realistically provide. It beats me what good it does for everyone to go on about stake levels. Its not going to change,so every should stop the moaning and focus on the many,many facets of the industry that makes it so great and attractive. Thats the only way you move forward. The industry should have a 10/20 year plan.Where is the vision. It must be realistic. Harness racing has the ingredients to have a future if packaged and sold correctly. Unfortunately the glory days are gone,but we have to accept that and carry on keep harness racing relevant and accessible.It starts with being realistic, honest and positive.

Maybe its time to recognise that allowing clubs to continue to operate, if they can provide their own funding of stakes through turnover/sponsorship/their own forms....,is the best thing to do for the overall good of the industry. Is it not just a matter of saying to them, you have to provide minimum stakes of ....and that hrnz will do everything to help run the meetings but your on your own as far as receiving funding for upkeep of racetracks and facilities.Also they have to meet a mutually agreed formula to show the clubs wealth is not being significantly eroded through the running of their meetings. So the destiny of the clubs if back in their own hands ,even if it may be on terms which make it harder to continue and prosper. If they can still keep going then why stop them? If the bigger clubs are banking on using the money of the clubs they close then maybe its time they were realistic and operate within a realistic budget themselves. I also think these type of clubs need to race between december and february. They are weather dependant and its seems so cold in the likes of november these days.They should gbe a circuit of sirts.

Fair enough,as with any subject,everyone has their own take on whether driver tactics during races are the most beneficial to getting the best result. I think the wet track thing is only a very minor factor myself as far as whether a driver should make a move or not.The most important are things like tempo and how the horse is best driven(is it a sit sprinter or a better stayer). In this case he made a move when the pace slackened.

Where he was positioned,4 back the outside was too far back to get anywhere anyway,so i suppose he went down trying.The first 4 home all came from inside positions on the pylons.From a betting perspective he gave punters a run for their money.

Fields today weren't attractive betting wise,unless you like backing favorites. Part of the reason is races over 1980 always dominated by horses that go forward and get to the rail.Not much point backing anything that you think will go back. Those couple of 2 year old races dominated by the telfers in one and the all stars in the other,personally i find a turn off to investing. Geraldine far better betting fields. Shame about the weather. I think geraldine has had cold weather more often than not in recent years. The ardern horses you mentioned today went ok. Sarah o'reilly a very good driver. Horses run for her,but she tends to drive with patience more often than not. Maybe its the horses she drives,but over 1980 you have little chance if coming from the back.

Who's dave? I have no stipe friends. Personally i think its ok if in the future he were to be granted permission to break in horses prior to his disqualification ending.As long as there was proper oversight to ensure thats all it was. I'm sure he would be compliant with any provisions as related to that.Just a bit soon at the moment. Thats my opinion. You probably have more idea of how he would do it without being seen to be given any favors.

Whether anyone wants to wear a mask is a matter of choice .Peoples health is something unique to them. Just as you believed people should respect everyones right to make their own choices as to whether they get vaccinated or not,the same principal applies to wearing a mask wouldn't it.You can't argue both sides of the argument.Peoples choice to wear a mask should be respected.It has nothing to do with their work.

You never seem to read what i say do you. Can you just ignore my posts as whenever you reply it puts an interpretation of my posts that was never there. Just for you, I never said breaking in yearlings was training again. I said if there is to be a pathway prior to the end of the disqualification period,then anyone who was granted that pathway ,would be in a better position when they started actual training again.

Its a bit concerning and even surprising the decision makers in this case were so out of touch with how their actions would be received.As you have said,the failure to comment and admit they should have handled it differently just makes it worse. The perception of having connections to decision makers and gaining preferential treatment because of that,was concerning,but in reality is how so much works in most walks of life and it has been common place in some areas harness racing for decades.Still doesn't mean it should happen though. If we put that all to one side,we still should ask questions.for example... 1)Should anyone who has received a disqualification, be given a pathway back into the industry prior to their disqualification expiring. 2)what form should that pathway take and how could it be done in a fair and consistent way. 3)who should have input into the decision making and what terms and conditions would apply to those concerned. 4)who would oversee compliance and how would that be done. Personally i think,if handled correctly,there should be a pathway for whoever it may be. If at the time of the original penalty,the pathway is not considered or there is no rule allowing it to be considered then,then perhaps its as simple as making a rule, saying for example,after completion of say 75% or whatever,of the disqualification then application can be made for that pathway to commence and it could be in the form of breaking in(only) of horses. While most unfortunate that it has been handled as it has been,the matter still seems to lack clarity and needs to be addressed. Maybe there shouldn't be a pathway,but is it realistic to expect someone after a lengthy disqualification, to overnight be in a position to start training again?Should that even be a consideration? The best way to deal with the questions i raise is to be transparent and have consultative leadership. Mcgrath in some ways has become a bit of a victim of the decision makers who were supposed to be trying to help him.The decision makers not only failed the industry ,they also failed mcgrath.

I suggest you apply for a job there,as sounds like your well qualified.

Would the car park be able to handle a decent crowd like they get at orari. Normally they have lots of piles of dirt and machinery from some sort of business there that i guess rents it.

Yes i did mean king curtis. Didn't realise i had typed king kong until now....Loved that show....Those were the days.

The Wrestler from texas? Probably not the same one you are referring to. Does remind me of On the mat with steve rickard and ernie leonard. Used to watch them when i was a kid. Remember king kong would get them to foam at the mouth,then there was the fella who did the sleeper hold,and samoan joe. Great entertainment. Not much to do with harness racing but still a nice trip down memory lane.

Again,that is not what i have said. If it is to happen, I said it should happen in a consistent, fair and transparent way. Thats laughable for you to suggest people are malcontents because they believe in having level playing fields when it comes to integrity issues.Others may share that view,but they are in the minority. I can say i have never met anyone who has said that. People with opinions like that are what drives people away from the sport. Why would anyone bother supporting an industry that has even a small % who think like that. No wonder harness racing has an uncertain future if anyone who thinks like that has any influence in running it.

well done to those who arranged to have the races tomorow,after the abandonment today at banks peninsula. Looks like they have reinstated the same fields and ballots,with the result just a few different scratchings.11 winners there,just a matter of working out which ones.

I think the focus shouldn't really be on McGrath when it comes to discussing this topic. It should be on the processes and decision makers which lead to him being able to break in horses.I think that was the point of the original article. I also think the other main point was how many,often high profile participants say things which we know not to be true around someone's honesty,just because they want to be seen saying the right things. Just goggle the mcgrath cases and see who supported him.I often wonder how stupid and gullible some of those people actually think everyone is. We shouldn't blame Mcgrath for seeking to again be involved in the harness industry in some way other than the racing side of things. He's just doing what he can to support his family and use the knowledge and skills he has.I don't have any sympathy for him,but you can't blame him for that. Those who make the decisions around penalties in cases like this make a point of being consistent and fair,based on the facts proven.People sometimes still dispute the facts after a case is decided,but penalties are much harder to dispute. Thats because consistency on penalties is something that is a separate component,which those who make the decisions have the background to be called the best experts in. So having said that,what we have seen in this case is industry leaders consider they should be able to over ride penalties given,yet they have done so with no apparent justification and seem in some ways to have personal connections to the person that is benefitting. Thats why its wrong. Maybe in the future the best way to avoid such decisions by industry leaders would for the power of giving someone a pathway back in the industry to be left with those who make the original decisions around penalties.That should be something dealt with at the time and with appropriate timeframes as to when future pathways may apply. All we have had here is industry leaders stoking the fires of dissolution in an industry that can't afford such division.