the galah

I guess that to make a profit from betting on horse racing,you have to have other punters invest on horses who you don't consider chances. If there is less % of people investing on horses who aren't chances,and those left doing the investing are the better judges of raceform,then that means the % betting on the better chance will be greater,meaning the horses with the chances will pay less,and therefore the profits will become less,which leads to even less investment. I think that is a factor in dividends today. Just look at the whales selections. He knows his stuff,is a big influencer of prices,but i doubt the whale watch selections would turn a profit as he kills any value. And as to the future,you would think the casual punters discretionary $ that they use to bet with will be reduced,given the way the economy has gone with inflation,rising future mortgage payments because of % rates, ridiculous debt levels because of housing prices and rents. So things aren't that rosey.

I agree that the TAB don't want the business of punters who win more than they lose. 95% of horses i bet on odds drop within seconds(not minutes) of my having a bet and i'm betting $20-$100 and they can be to win as little as $20,but thats how it works.They do take my bets,but they know i bet on a couple of accounts so by dropping the odds i think its their best way of discouraging me from betting.And i've worked out over the years that overall i make about a 15% profit on what i spend,but since in recent months they have developed some sort of computer program to drop the prices,its not that profitable. Some would argue that is good business from the TAB,but it doesn't encourage turnover. And i've been watching for the last 3 months everything i back on the tote,where i do the bulk of my betting,is dropping in prices as well. Its not my imagination,as i've kept a record of it. And i don't consider myself a big spender. Maybe its the pools are small,but something is going on which seems strange to me. Anyway the point is if its happening to me i'm guessing its happening to others,and that will lead to amounts in betting pools reducing,which ultimately will discourage betting even more. You know there are some punters out there who spend a lot of money at the tab. I'm not one in the big boys category myself,but some can spend 2 or 3 million a year just on the tote. But i know thats not going to last when their returns don't justify their investment.

I'm not sure why people in this thread refer to the dunn stable turning stellas delights form around.Am i missing something as its officially shown as g burgess as the trainer. J dunn drove it,but he gets the best out of anything. They did win with mark dunnett at a good price,but if you had watched t nally drive down south you wouldn't have given it much chance. Down there he has never shown any aggression tactically in about 3 years of driving.I often think they have to wake him up when the race finishes,but yesterday he drove the inch perfect race. Maybe he can drive after all. I'm guessing thats why the horse paid so much. I do agree with gammalite about the high flyn harry price. $42 was unreal. I was kicking myself i didn't back it as i had it on top, but thought the draw would stop it and just left that race alone and didn't look at the price pre race.K Newman drive on this horse at westport i thought was terrible and i thought he was lucky not to get a penalty,but one poorly judged drive amongst countless good drives means punters should always have confidence when he drives one.

So you seem to be suggesting that the trainers who gave evidence they sought out the vet, because of his reputation for supplying the best performance enhancers that wouldn't be picked up by testing, were duped.And so many top trainers amongst them and all so gullible. And it went on for years. And what did you make of the taped conversations(e.g. the death camp tape).Was that just bad luck,and the vet saying the formula wasn't right was just another way of keeping up the charade? And the trainers who sought out the vet supplying the performance enhancers. Are you saying they have done nothing wrong and aren't dishonest,just fools.All they did was use what they thought were performance enhancers,but weren't actually performance enhancers. Your obviously a knowledgeable man,but your choosing to ignore a mountain of evidence.

We are on the same side of the argument and i support your expressions of dismay around the consequences of decisions that have been made by racing leadership.. One of the consequences is the decision of trainer Trudy keegan to use a fake passport to continue to be able to operate as a trainer. The stress that woman must have been put under to come to that decision,and the ongoing stress for her and her family is a direct result of racing administrators decisions.Its dispicable that people like that have been forced to give up their job,their lifestyle,their income,their health,their belief structures and everything else that goes with it. Racing leadership just sit there in their offices making decisions and just go home at the end of their working day with little thought or caring for the impact they have on peoples lives.

.

Ok. I have to admit i am a bit confused about what you have said. If as you say the CJC decision to not have small numbers on track for this one meeting "wants to make you throw up and give up",wouldn't you have already felt the same beforehand when you been excluded indefinitely from all nz meetings? Maybe you are just trying to drive home the point that its unfair to exclude anyone ,and i'm with you on that.It was racing and the tab's that made that decision. No law as such saying they had to.

I'm guessing you read the other 2 or 3 sentences in my reply. The point i was making was you have people with vaccine passes going along with racing excluding those who don't,but when the vaccinated get excluded from riccarton,they get upset because they are being treated differently from those at other courses. So wheres the consistency of your argument .It seems people only protest when it effects them. I was making the point that you will now have more empathy for how the unvaccinated racing enthusiasts feel.

So you are being treated like the unvaccinated?"Makes you want to give up,if not throw up" you say. Interesting your reaction.Can't you just accept its being done for the greater good? Are you now more in touch with how an unvaccinated racing enthusiast feels. What about that north island trainer. Fake vaccine pass. 22 horses in work. What penalty do you think she should get. No doubt they will take away her and her families living i suppose,hang her out there for all to ridicule. What a world we live in.

I guess you are going to say that. This case just proves your numerous comments that "modern testing techniques can identify any chemical or at least anomalies" is wrong. The whole case is based on the manufacture and distribution of drugs that would not be detected. The first witness on the first day who gave lengthy evidence and worked for the corrupt vet explained that. And as stated earlier she said if authorities came up with a new test that could pick up the illegal substance then they just changed the formula to something that would not be picked up.

Israel up to number 4 say its the right thing to do. Then the WHO said last week" a strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable" so israel came back and said the WHO were taking a global view when they said that,and that israel was right. Andthen you have other experts who say no one really knows the effects of having 4 shots,because its all new. So who knows.But press on the governments say.

Wandering eyes has posted some interesting articles on the news part of this website and reading them and various other coverage from the trial of the disgraceful Veterinarian at the centre of it all,it makes for some amazing reading. It seems everyone is turning on everyone . Lots of small fish given immunity but 27 or so big fish who have operated in such corrupt and despicable ways for years. An employee of the vet(with immunity)has explained that the main purpose was the supply of performance enhancing products that could not be picked up in testing.If a new test was developed and found the illegal substances,they just created another performance enhancing product that did the same thing that they couldn't test for. Products for endurance,bleeders,hormone therapy,pain suppressors...you name it,it seems they had it. You would think anyone who has read the coverage will finally admit that testing does not keep up with the latest performance enhancers. And it went on for years. Hall of famers,well known trainers and owners in thoroughbred and harness racing all in on the corruption. Some seeking out the products when they realised they couldn't keep up with those already using. Seems some of the arabs were good clients and products shipped to other countries,but the trial focus understandably on what happened in the USA. dead horses seemed of little consequence when the formula not quite right,drivers paid off to not try at tracks like yonkers...so much more just hard to take it all in. Those involved have tainted horse racing in all codes to the point where you would have to ask how could anyone reading the trial coverage not think horse racing is full of crooks?

The media love those models that they can scare people with. Yesterdays predicted 50,000 cases in nz by the end of next week. I turned on the tv today and some queensland health official was actually being honest for a change when he explained the death and in hospital numbers. He said the numbers don't mean that a person has died from covid or is in hospital because of covid,but mean anyone who may have had a positive covid test in recent times that ends up in hospital or dies from something totally unrelated, will be included in the covid death and hospital numbers. He emphasised the numbers produced given daily are not able to determine to what degree,if any,that covid played a part. Yet so many just don't seem to understand that and the sad thing is the government wants it that way.

Why is it you see horses who start off the ur starting from 50 and 60m behind the field? Race 2 tonight you had 3 horses start so far back they had no chance. Is that the drivers or the starters fault? Its not the first time. If its so important for the stipes to penalise drivers in mobiles if they are even half a length behind,why not the stands when they are 60m behind where they are supposed to be?

I agree with what you have said brodie.Its just reality. The TAB slash the odds because they might lose $50.I have only had 2 bets tonight and the same old story. Backed one of the telfer team on the tote with 1 minute to go only to see its price drop by 20%. I only put on $100 on it yet its price drops so much because the pools are so small. It was a flop but i knew pre race i was backing a stable that i regard as one of the most inconsistent performance wise.So i wasn't too disappointed. Then i put $40 on the final field on letsgodancing to run in the top 4.Was paying $2.40 and being my first bet it was accepted as usual,but then logged into the second account and its price had dropped to $2.10 15 seconds latter. It ran its normal nice race but was never driven to be a chance,same as normal.You see it week in,week out. The same horse and drivers get the poor runs. Suppose it lacks gate speed. Just watched south coast arden fall in by a nose in a slowly run race. Was that the same horse that has been racing from the all star team? I have had just one more bet.Thee old bomb in race 7.First stand start so it may go away and it may not.I see the modest bet i had caused the price go from $9 and $2.80 to $8 and $2.50. All a bit ridiculous, but thats the way the TAB operates.

Tonight cambridge has a $20,000 race with only 4 starters,and a $1.25 favorite.That won't attract punter support and help the club financially,yet they still run it and seem happy to take the loss that will result. And the brodsters right about waning interest from established punters. Personally i bet on a couple of accounts.Well in recent months as soon as i bet on a horse on fixed odds on one account,it drops in price by the time i attempt to put a bet on the other account.I'm talking in seconds,not minutes.Its not my imagination as it happens virtually 95% of the time.And i'm not talking large amounts. It can be as little as putting $20 on and it makes the price drop. When you work on the theory of a 10% profit per $ invested,its no longer worthwhile.I would go down to the local tab,but they won't let me in because of my vaccine status.So i have decided to reduce what i spend on both fixed odds and the tote. And is it just me,or are others noticing the ridiculous prices some horses are paying on the tote. You have to back the winners of half the races just to come out ahead. Yesterday at the southland meeting the biggest winning dividend was $6.70. Maybe those left betting are the more knowlegable ones,maybe the TAB limit the losses if they limit the winnings of some Fixed odds betters,but why reduce the odds when only small amounts are invested. Maybe there are a lot of punters who back horses who's Fixed odds drop,as the tote prices always seem to follow. Maybe they TAB think that excluding the unvaccinated won't effect their turnover when a halfwit could work out it will,,Maybe its a combination of all the above. But brodie is on the money when he says interest is waning from established enthusiasts. Maybe a good day on the punt might be the cure,but it just isn't as appealing as it once was. I know from my own perspective that because the industry and the TAB's have said your not allowed in,is a major factor in how i view things and why i don't care as much as i used to and while i still like the horse,i don't care as much as i did about the racing.

Its a given that the numbers competing at the grassroots level will continue to decrease at an increasing rate. The most obvious reason is there is nowhere to train from. Take Canterbury as an example.Some racetracks can cater for only a handful of trainers,and some don't cater for any at all. The numbers at the tracks that do, you could count on one hand. And the reality is if you wanted to buy 10 hectares and build a barn and put in a track you need at least a $1,000,000. What banks going to lend that to someone starting out without a history of a past substantial income,and you don't have that when your starting out,no matter how talented you may be. And what grass roots trainer who has a wife is going to spend a million dollars on a property to continue his hobby. Only those with a substantial income from a source outside the industry are going to be able to do that and obviously they get that income from dedicating their time to their business. People should take a look around and you'll see what i have said is true.Just take a look at whos still training and what type of properties,how long they have been there, and the incomes they have.I have just recently and its so obvious where things are going. Nothing is being done to address it,i assume thats because the industry doesn't have the resources. Its inevitable. Its just reality. Just recently i was asking a fella whether he had a couple of paddocks to keep a couple of horses on his 10 acre property which had stables. He said no,the dairy farmer who was his neighbour leased it.I said to him doesn't that bloke live quite some distance away and he said yes,but that dairy farmer uses all the land from his house to where this fella lived. I asked him about anywhere he may know of ,to which he went on to tell me 30 years ago his properties 5 closest neighbours all trained harness horses,but there were no horses there now.The irony of the conversation was the dairy farmer who leased the small property used to train,and from the outside had a flash looking set of stables and the biggest training track i have seen. But that training track while still visible,it was round down and covered in weeds and obviously hadn't been used for years. You can't help but notice cows seem everywhere these days, and that has been the major influence in driving land values so high. So thats the way it is. Forget trying to come up with solutions to all the other issues,when racing either hasn't or can't fix what i have just referred to.

Maybe your right about folklore not being able to do work and still win,but when a race is unfolding into a sprint home and you are driving the class horse of the field that broke the track record 2 weeks prior, i think most hope the driver would at least make a move early enough to give it a winning chance.How many horses do you see come from 8 lengths off the pace at the end of the back straight like it was and get up and win. Sending it to trainor seems a good suggestion to maximise its earning capacity if that is what they are about. I actually backed one cox drove yesterday and he gave it every chance,making a move when the pace was slow,but it faded late,just not good enough on the day. Good drive though.He does drive a lot of horses that haven't got a high winning chance.

Its always very sad and you feel for the horses connections. During his racing career they must have been frustrated when he continued to hang as badly as he normally did and no doubt they would have done everything they could to discover the cause of that habit. Its not unusual for vets not to pick up a physical problem and sometimes they just give treatment in the hope that they may help. Now whether this was the case with mackenzie lad,i don't know but horses are so willing and eager to please and often very courageous that it can be to there own detriment.

So 2 of the 6 rides i mentioned sat 3 wide,so whats your excuse for the cut throat tactics of the horses inside them.Besides,just look at how they finished off their races to see what works.It also seems you are happier when jockeys press on if caught 3 wide even if their horse is out of its comfort zone and irrespective of the tempo .I would rather see one 3 wide and travelling,than being chased along just because the jockey has a pre determined mindset.

Looked an exciting day to be on course,but didn't the racing produce some cut throat tactics by some of the leading jockeys.V colfan,G grylls M cameron and A goindasamy twice all seemed to think the finish was at the 600m peg in the bigger races.Even O Bosson got in on the act in the last although to be fair to him he can't have expected the 2 roughies to engage in such self destructive deliberate tactics.It seemed the occasion got the better of them .

Never said you make things up.Not sure what that comment is supposed to mean and won't spend any time working that out. Like i said i am no expert on fertilisers but i thought manganese levels can be effected by the use of fertilisers. If you goggle it,it says if the levels are too high you add lime or farmers could try waterlogging.And if they are too low,milk production will be reduced.But i'm not going to tell you whats right or wrong because as i said ,you know more about it than me.

sounds like you are looking at it from your dairying background perspective. I know you know more about it than i,but there is so much dairying down that way now you can see how some could draw the connection to a problem they didn't use to have. Apparently the council is hoping engineering work will 'increase the level of natural filtration by the river bed prior to the water reaching the intake". So sounds like it flows through a river at some stage.

Three waters legislation. I visited timaru last week where they are anti the proposed legislation. Well it seems some of those who live in town may be changing their views after 3 weeks of heavily discoloured water and tankers being trucked in daily with clean water for anyone who wants to collect it. Same town which they said won an award for top quality water a month before.You have to laugh. Apparently it took them quite some time to work out the cause,which they ultimately discovered was too much manganese. I'm not an expert on fertilisers,but isn't that a key element in maximising milk production in dairy cows. Chief may know more about fertilisers and leaching given his background.

I understand why punters get frustrated with cox,he tends to have a go with the flo type approach to his driving and its unusual for him to show much aggression tactically. His natural instinct is to go back,hes consistent that way so you know what you get when you invest on him. Take Folklore at cambridge a couple of nights ago. A red hot favorite who is best saved for one run,but you knew it was a race where because of its superior ability it could be driven more aggressively than normal and still win in the field it was against. But cox never altered his normal driving style and came with a run that was way too late. But didn't punters know he was likely to drive like that so should they complain? Well i think the answer is no they shouldn't,but complaining does ease the frustration they must have with some of his drives.Personally I don't mind backing him if hes paying a good dividend,but believe if hes driving a favorite i would get better value backing something else.