the galah

The replays of the races seems to take a long time to come up on the hrnz website these days. Not sure who does them,but the last couple of meetings have had some races with no replays until the next day.It also seems in some cases the pre start time is deliberately cut short to have 0 seconds. The methven cup being a example of thatWhy's that?The best place to get the replays is to open a nsw tab account,as the nz race replays are always up on their website within 5 minutes of the race being completed. On another subject. i recently opened a betfair account. But looking at yesterdays races,the dividends offered on betfair were always well short of what you get on the nz tab. In most races every starter was paying 2 or 3 $ less a win ,and less a place.In one race as they said go it had only taken $273 in the win pool,but the odds were so small in that race you would wonder why anyone bet on it. If you compare that to australian harness racing the majority of races have better odds on betfair than on offer on the nz tote.

i can't see any comparison with the cameron drive.The drives were complete opposites. It was an over aggressive drive,but thats what he does some times. At least williamson's horse had a bit of pre race form and it kept going whereas C thornley's horse didn't.So thornleys drive didn't pay off either. Thats racing,and sometimes it happens. Better to try too hard,than just follow them around. Would you rather have their drives than say j young who just followed them around on all her well favored horses today.Where has forbury got to anyway.

I looked at nz bankruptcy stats again today.As at september numbers are not up.They don't support the claim bankruptcy numbers are up. Thats not to say its not going to happen.But its obvious the government hand outs have down a good job in preventing the obvious problems from being reflected in the stats. So far that is.Who's to say this government won't keep going with the endless subsidies for a while longer?

Just had a look at that."from travelling chocolates to boiled lollies" is how dan milecki described tornado valley last night. Looked like maybe his lungs aren't in as good a shape as they used to be,but he has had a wonderful racing career. I can remember following him here when he used to be driven by his owner/trainer terry mcmillan.Often a frustrating watch as you always thought the horse kept something up his sleeve,and that showed when gerard o'reilly got significant improvement out of him when he drove him.He's one of those horses that has shown if you don't flog or drug them when they are young,they can have longevity.

Well williams has lots of drives,so i would assume he would have been looking at a 2 or 3 day suspension for his error of judgment. As to penalties. I think they should have some type of system in place where if someone is charged,and there is disputed facts,that the riu and the persons charged can get together and negotiate an agreed set of facts and the riu can offer a plea bargain deal to the person charged .There often seems a waste of money and time involved for both parties when hearing cases,when that could be avoided by negotiation beforehand.

Well that is just another poor decision in my opinion. They charge Negus at timaru for trying too hard,but they don't proceed witha charge when a stinking hot favorite eases up because the driver wants to be kind to it. You only have to look at the horses body language half way down the straight to see it thought the job was done. And when you think about it,while relevant,why give so much weight to the horse having a slow recovery post race. Its clear from the video the main reason it knocked off was driver error. 20 more metres of driving it out to ensure a possible win wasn't going to change its post race recovery rate. The reason R cameron on saginaw was charged was not because he wasn't trying,but was to ensure the perception of integrity was maintained in the minds of the betting public.So why doesn't that apply here? So given the contradictory outcomes, one can unfortunately conclude williams has been shown favoritism, based on his prominence as a driver.

Well my opinion is the horse knocked off half way up the straight because the driver was just sitting there. And that loss of momentum may have cost it the win as it never got going again.So i think to charge him is the right decision. I say may have cost it the win,as i'm not convinced it wouldn't have stopped the last bit anyway,and the vet report after the race may explain why it failed to respond when williams belatedly realised he had made an error,but it transpired that it was too late, as the momentum was lost. But its not reasonable to see a driver just sit there while the horse hes driving knocks off in a tight finish.It shouldn't be left to after the race for everyone to ask well if he had just asked it for a greater effort,would it have won.

The dunn drive is a different situation,and was debated at the time,but the point the poster was making was the stipes accept high profile drivers excuses,no matter whether they have merit or not. While it has nothing to do with todays subject,you cant ignore that sometimes stipes inaction when it actually deserves it has long term serious consequences. They should not base what action they take on the ability of the drivers concerned,. It should be based on what occurred,not who it involves. I don't think you can say the ashburton dunn video that was put up earlier by another posted is a joke,nor was the dunn driven eamon maguire video that got the media attention pre inca.You see,some have always argued that inca was partly a result of the stipes historically basing what action they took on who was involved,not what actually happened.

This "not a great look" is an exaggeration of what happened.Obviously amateurs take pride in how they perform,as do all drivers,so maybe you are your own harshest judges. Reality is people enjoy seeing something different. Thats what gets us talking,this topic being an example of that. Besides ,best to analyse the sectionals.That will come up when they deal with whether there is any merit in negus being charged. If the pace was consistent and not out of the ordinary excessive,then that isn't a speed duel.

The thing that will make a horse stop is if they are driven at an inconsistent or excessive speed.But this didn't happen in the race in question. Fitzgerald maintained a constant speed,and negus did as well,the difference being negus's horse was outside its comfort zone because it was not up to it on the day,and thats why it finished at the back of the field. You have to ask,where would negus have finished had she given up her quest for the lead much earlier. And the answer would still be she would not have placed. To say she failed to give her horse the best opportunity,as she has been charged, is simply inaccurate. It was a horse race. not tiddlywinks. They were both doing what they thought best. Fitzgerald didn't want to trail a horse that would stop on him,and negus knew her best chance was to maintain a constant speed. As unusual aa negus's drive was, It was not the drives which stopped either horse placing,it was they just weren't up to it on the day,and they both pretty much ran up to their recent form. Heres another thing the stipendiary report failed to note. Why was there no mention of the race not starting at its correct start point? Isn't it obvious from the video that the mobile goes almost 50 metres beyond the start point before it lets them go. Shouldn't that get a mention. My main take on the racing at timaru was the consistency of performance of our top drivers. The likes of Orange,dunn and williams still perform at their very best on the run of the mill racing days. It doesn't matter to them where or when,they are out there to win.

So they have charged c negus for her drive today,because she attempted to take the front for too long.Negus made a sustained attempt for the lead,but her horse was just too one paced to get there,and eventually faded out. Now anyone who has watched this horse race knows its best chance is if it ends up in a race where there is a constant fast pace,and even then most wouldn't expect it to win. If you go back to the last time it won,it was driven very similar to today,with the main difference being it kept going the day it won,whereas today it always looked to be laboring. So to sum up,she tried to drive the horse to its strengths, but it simply never looked up to running in the money today. So what's wrong with that. You've got to ask the question. Is Negus being an amateur part of the reason she's been charged. If so then that is not fair. Also,while its obvious negus's tactics didn't work and she looked a bit silly,why not charge others who make poor tactical decisions. For example I watched a couple today.. In race 4 robbie holmes driving miss markle elected not to improve at the 500m when well placed to do so,extinguising its chances. And in the next race you had Gavin smith happy to sit 3 back the fence on shifty ,following the outsider,when he would have known that was a poor tactical move.And then you had the brad williamson drive on tetrick at wyndham on thursday. His pointless attack for the lead was a far poorer tactical drive than negus's,and significantly contributed to tetrick running 200m last,yet there was no thought of charging him. So the point is why penalise a driver who's trying her best,and why pick on that drive when other more prominent drivers make just as poor,if not worse,tactical decisions in races?

But bankruptcy numbers are down,not up as compared with prior to the virus.Isn't the reason given for the reduction in numbers due to the government hand outs of cheap loans and subsidies which have kept many afloat when they would have failed in a pre pandemic world. You would have to wonder whether the governments give aways have created an illusion that will come home to roost in the future.For example I can imagine an easy way out of paying back a government loan would be to file bankruptcy when the subsidies stop coming. As to those wage subsidies. They may have been needed,but the government had very little auditing of them. I know an employer who claimed for a part time employee,then asked the employee if he was available for work,to which the employee texted back no. So the employer kept the subsidy,which was legal to do if his employee wasn't available to work..The issue was that when i asked the employee why he wasn't available for work it was because he was on a part benefit,and winz had told him he was entitled to the wage subsidy,so he claimed for it and they actually paid him out the full subsidy. So in effect the subsidy was paid twice,when it should have been just the once,and the employee got double what he would have had he been working.He couldn't understand why,but wasn't complaining.Both the employee and employer thought it was the system at fault. As to divorces,well those numbers were down as well as at the end of last year,but numbers getting married are always trending down anyway. The double standards of those pushing for the vaccine continues to set new heights.The very same people celebrate the fact when they can go and buy their unhealthy calorie laden fast food and pop down to the local store to buy their ciggarettes, while at the same time many of the very same people preach of how people must not be selfish and must take the vaccine to safeguard everyones health.Safer to be vaccinated and a fat smoker,yet that is exactly the type of person most at risk.Theres no consistency in their argument.

Well thats a good question. I think there was a definite drop off in performance,and combine that with a strange b williamson drive that always had tetrick driven outside its comfort zone,then you have your answer.

Craig ferguson 200 driving wins. Never been a real fan,but thats a very commendable achievement. Also he seems to be able to get the best out of those he trains. Another good win today with the kilkelly owned chuckles.

Well the tetrick form didn't last long. A long last today.Its fruitless attack for the lead seemed to go on forever in todays race,but once the driver gave that strategy away it stopped a walk. I wonder whether it will race again from that stable?

Still means many owners support him. I don't know how accurate the peter profit website is,although it does have quite a following. from what i have read. It does tend to sensationalise some stories.For example a recent headline was lance armstrong and flo jo return to training,with a photo of the nz trainers. And it often has stories on someone known as dodgy turbo Trainor.

I thought i would google ben yole to get more information on what some appear be suggesting. What comes up are several articles on the peter profit website. I'm not a subscriber,so could only read the headlines of the stories,but there are many that have been written on that website,several this year. How true they are ,i don't know. But here is a typical headline from one of the stories "the tasmanian authorities fiddle a tune of screaming horses,gunshots,chainsaws and barking dogs. While all around them harness racing burns." Others refer to yole as chainsaw and refers to how he prepares dogs meals. Sounds like a Four Corners story waiting to happen that could have similar ramifications for the harness industry to that of the live baiting story. Sounds like industry leadership over there are asleep at the wheel. Yet,as i have pointed out ,this fella has many owners,many of them familiar names from other states.

Good to hear as regards yours. Fair enough.Sounds like you think yole may treat his horses like they are just a commodity.Yet,he still gets the most support from owners who race horses in tasmania. So what does that say?

It may be realistic of how some owners/trainers handle things, but of course its not accurate to generalise like that. Is that how you viewed the horses you used to train?

Looking at the ownership he seems to own,or have a share in 15-20 of them. So you could conclude that a large number of outside owners view him as the only trainer worth supporting in tasmania. So why do the bulk of owners support just the one trainer? If you could answer that then you may be able to draw conclusions. But your right when you suggest the betting public will rightly or wrongly have a perception as regards integrity,and that is always a major factor when punter support of support of tasmanian harness racing is considered,which can only lead to a decline. Thats why a few on here used to point the obvious negatives when the all stars had so many in the age group races. Its like the greyhounds here. In the central districts here you have the one kennel which has been the centre of allegations of live baiting,which they failed to prove,often having 3/4 of the field. Who bothers betting on that.its a sign of the beginning of the end.(i sound like brodie,so i must be on the money)

I don't see this as a woke moment. It just seems to be addressing an area that has been lacking previously. As an example. A month or two ago a new poster on here asked a question along the lines of what union should someone go to if they are working in the racing industry and had an employment issue they needed help with,and also asked what union represented those who worked in stables. Yet no one had an answer for that poster. Racing is unique industry,with its own unique issues,and together with the common issues experienced in all other industries it should have someone specialized who people can turn to for advice,or for guidance,or who can liaise with an appropriate person on peoples behalf.Its something that should have been addressed earlier in my opinion. So i see this as a good decision.

Are you commenting on what he said,or just expressing a dislike of him with no current material to use? Can you give some detail of what it was that you see as jekyll and hyde. And by the way,do you think hes wrong to say nz shouldn't look to change its name to aotearoa.

Shame no video available,but in the last race at redcliffe last night they had two false starts. After the first false start the field followed the mobile around,and the starter had them in a perfect line as he let them go at the 2040m start point. However there was a problem,the race was over 1780m,not 2040m. A couple of horses did begin fast,but like the rest of the field were then heavily restrained. Another false start was called as they went past the winning post,with the mobile parked on the outside fence. Unfortunately when the race did finally take place,the earlier exertions took its toll on some horses in the race as it was a spread out finish of tired horses.

Dunn's got class.

So they late scratched a horse who was standing back from the tapes of its own accord ,because the horse beside it had slightly taken its line as they said go. So in the next race,why was shifty not late scratched. Surely if there was some consistency he would have been as Maui clearly was in the process of moving outwards when they said go,which resulted in interference. My point is whether a horse is late scratched seems to lack consistency. You could point out numerous horses that this happens to every race day.Does it only apply to favorites?