the galah

Us agreeing ,that can't be right? Thats the thing though,self assured did move in more than south coast arden moved out just prior to when he came alongside rasmussen.If you look at classie brigade,its forced closer in to henry hubert,because self assured has run in. Oh well,at least it wasn't the nz cup, because that would have a bigger audience scratching their heads.

Maybe that was a factor. But you see that type of minimal inward or outward movement all the time in the straight in races. We all know self assured has shown a tendency to lay in as well in several races in the past. Its just unrealistic to expect a driver to maintain an absolute dead straight line.The stipes know that and is why they don't mention every horse that deviates slightly in their reports. As i say this sets a precedent,although i'm guessing other drivers won't bother protesting for something similar,which really sums it up.

I see the stipes did note that south coast arden lay outwards at the same point 2 starts ago. I'm not saying the stipes got last night wrong,it was a jca decision.The stipes report states Mark purdon lodged the inquiry.I am saying the jca base how much weight they put on a drivers evidence on who gives it.

Was that not a ridiculous promotion last night. Think about this. The precedent now is every horse that moves out or in, even a horse width or two in the final 250m, then its a goner.If there is to be any consistency there will be many more inquiries to come,and many that should have been. Of course we know that won't happen,which is why last nights decision was stupid. Lets just tell it how it is. And that is because it was mark purdon lodging the protest,the jca based their decision largely on the fact it was mark purdon saying something. And heres another question. Why was Rasmussen not warned in south coast ardens win 2 starts ago. The horse moved out 1-2 horse widths in that race at exactly the same point in the straight. So if that movement is enough to cost her the win last night,then why didn't the stipes pick that up 2 starts ago and warn her. Well we all know why. Because they realised that would have been bordering on the ridiculous, to warn a driver for such minimal movement. And of course now every time a horse in front comes to the passing lane,if it moves in ever so slightly then going on last nights decision why shouldn't the horse taking the passing lane expect to be promoted if they get close.It has to if there is any consistency, as moving in or out is still movement either way.

Just watched the replay of race 1 today and have realised they will give the ottley drive some attention as she gives the 2nd horse a flat tyre. Just one of those drives thats hard to work out what the driver was thinking,but if you gamble thats part of it i suppose.

The wife just read what i posted and told me i was just a poor loser,and she's probably right. I think i have a point,but probably should have kept it to myself.

Well the video captures what happens,so if you can't accept that as the truth,well i believe you have a problem. But where do start and stop as far as stipe action is also a question. For example. In the first race just run i backed the horse phoebes delight driven by s ottley.. Its sitting in an ideal spot 3 back the outside, With 300m to run the horse behind it pulls out,and almost gets to the point where phoebes delight is boxed in as they enter the straight. Anyway.the horse then gets too close to the horse in front,because it has to come out in cramped quarters and breaks.So what will the stipes report say. I doubt very much any blame will be placed on the driver by the stipes. i would say using the video as the evidence,the stipes should ask ottley what she was thinking when she allowed herself to be put into that position. i would also ask the trainer what his instructions were. You can't get away from reality when it comes to money being spent by punters.If punters are to invest there has to be close scrutiny of drivers,and for those who say there shouldn't be ,then i would say they are more or less advocating for a decline in punter participation and the flow on effects of that. Anyway,i'm away for a drive with the wife.While i only had a modest bet on phoebes delight,it annoyed me so i will not bet again at winton today. Call me what you like,this is how the punter thinks and acts.

Maybe i could practice by coming up with dozens of ways to say i don't care what you think chief.Nah,i already have done that on this forum. Besides,pot calling the kettle black.

While nothing to do with this case,I agree lying is a skill that those who use it develop and perfect as they go through life. When it comes to harness racing,how successful drivers are in getting away with muddying the waters with plausible explanations really does come down to who they are trying to convince. In harness racing the obstacle those not speaking the truth who may be charged/questioned is there is a video,which doesn't lie,which is available for those who make the decisions.Yet unfortunately despite there being a video,we often see the official explanation of what happened has been based on the standing/experience of the person giving the evidence,and ignores the video evidence. So that means the failure to get to truth is not that of the person not telling the exact truth,but that of the officials who accept what they must know not to be a reasonable explanation ,or give more credence to one drivers evidence over another,despite the video showing that to be wrong.

Interesting point. Problem is if people believe something then they can treat it as a fact. Life is littered with examples of people lying,yet being believed,and as a result people make choices around those lies. Also you must factor in people often act and think in certain ways,having based their beliefs on what they want to be true,irrespective of the actual truth which is there for them to see if they wanted.They are the worst.But thats about life and not this case

As you predicted.We might have to start calling you brodie.

I just looked up the definition of keyboard warriors. Its "someone who makes an aggressive or abusive claim on the internet,typically concealing their identity". You don't allow aggressive or abusive posts. And your above definition isn't accurate.

You of course can't know whether this comment is true or not.if you don't know the posters ,how can you have an informed opinion of what,where and to who they would express an opinion?

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.