the galah

peter profit had a headline a couple of weeks ago saying their was interest from 4 buyers and i had thought i read somwhere they had said around the $60 million mark,but i could be wrong there. So down 20-30 million from what they had hoped for from the original contract,but hey whats 20 or 30 million. harness racing has plenty. we all know HRNZ have publicly said they want to ensure racing continues in auckland. Thats seems to be about it. HRNZ never think too far ahead,so at least are consistent. Actually,the fact the financial hole may become so huge ,that even HRNZ could see the writing on the wall,could be a good thing in some ways. Never let a crisis go to waste type thing.

The thing about tonights race,which everyone seems to ignore,is it proves what i have always said about stake money.. Take tonights race. last year the million $ the race,was won by Merlin,whose connections and whose slot holder,were paid out a total of $450,000 for winning. now the point of being a slot holder is obviously to give them a chance of making money. So obviously they would not be putting up theit money unless that applied. we know the slot holders negotiate with the owners of each horse. So if you were a slot holder and had say aquired leap to fame to represent you,just to cover costs of the slot and travel here,you would need around $75,000 to just cover costs,so would use that as a starting point to negotiate more, to get any profit at all. so say that slot holder decided to take just a 10% cut of the winning stake on top of their expenses,that equates to them receiving around $120,000 of that $450,000 stake. So that would leave leap to fames connections a winning stake of around $330,000. so a payout of around $330,000(i actually think in reality its probably less due to the slot holders wanting more) is atrracting leap to fame to nz. So what did the winning horse in the 2021 and 2022 nz cups get when the total stake was only $631,000 . $330,000,exactly around the amount they will get tonight if they win. So tonights race,totally disproves anyone who claims races like the nz cup need to be worth a million $ to attract the best horses in australia. People,like those at hrnz ,who tell you the nz cup needed to have an extra $400,00 taken from stakes funding and put into last years nz cup,to attract the aussies,just are deliberately pulling the wool over peoples eyes. either that or they are stupid.Personally i think a bit of both. So ,there you go,tonights race proves what i have always said. Actually the victoria race ,which attracted by far the best field to have raced in australais in the last year,of course had already proved that, They halved that stake to $250,000 this year due to overspending,that had already been proof of what i say.

Brodie simply pointing out.. If your expenditure exceeds your income,you end up in trouble. so they are pumping money into 2 year old racing,yet we consistently are seeing the smallest fields numbers wise ever,for 2 year olds . they are pumping money into the group 1 races. they have not told anyone what their plans are for auckland ,other than auckland has to continue,because thats where the most people live. That sounds such simplistic thinking. But thats the current position. So what is there to show for those policies.. A significant drop in the number of mares being bred. I read somewhere that the number of licence holders is also decreasing. i started a thread some months ago saying people are looking at where HRNZ are putting the money,and are saying,this sport doesn't value me anymore and i'm out. i predicted the policies of HRNZ would lead to a significant drop in mares being bred and trainers giving the game away. I coud see it,people i talked to could see it ,but those in charge never did. the sport is run by people in a bubble which excludes and is out of touch with significant sectors of the industry. I started a thread recently about tanzania. tanzania is the current leading point scorer in the country cups series after 8 races.hes won 1 country cup and placed 2nd or 3rd in 4 others. So how much has he earnt in the last 4 mionths. $26,000 thats all. Money spent on many of those group 1's would have far more positive impact if they were directed into country cup races.The winners of all those 3-5 horse 2 year old races, get double the payouts that most of those country cup winners get. Thats what a horse just below the highest tier of horses in the sourth island earns if its too consistent to continually drop back in the ratings. i accept that the next gen bonus was a factor in the higher prices at the recent sales helped the commercial breeders with high end horses. But,surely people can see the overall drop in number of mares bred is of more significance to the industry. i can see a couple of positives in the future. They are the redistribution of funds that greyhound nz has been receiving,once they finish up.And entain have that deal where they pay more if the geo blocking eventuates by a certain date. i also think there have been some good decisions made by hrnz. The extra meetings are a good thing,but they have to be careful with the stake levels paid there as well. Anyways,i just looked at that pacers fileld, the nz horses won't beat the aussies,so that money will go to australia. and 5 australian based trotters and 1 ex australian trotter make up 6 of the 9 horses in the trot race.

On another subject. I'm not a facebook person,nor ever will be. But i used to be able to watch your videos by just googling unhinged harness racing. Doing that used to show the videos posted in the last week or at least saw most of them. Nowdays it seems restricted to only the last 3. Was that a deliberate move?

Honestly,i havent looked at any pre race coverage,whether it be any media or hrnz website.. I don't even know who's in the field although i understand the top 3 aussie pacers are coming. Personally i think most people think like me. I've heard no one i know even mention the races,although the wife did say to me this morning,whats queen elida coming for as its out of form. So obviously its a starter. I think the average harness follower thinks like me. Having said that,come friday,i will certainly be watching the races and i think its great leap to fame is in nz. I understand people like tabforever have a differing point of view,so good for them and no doubt they have followed the pre race coverage and will enjoy being there on friday.Harness racing needs people like that,so you have to cater to their needs as well. also i appreciate its always great to experience being on course when the top quality horses run,especially the aussie pacers . i agree,these type of races are good for the industry as a whol,but with the caveat that they not be heavily funded by HRNZ. I have no doubt that HRNZ boosting the last nz cup stake to 1 million got not 1 extra horse,or 1 extra $ invested in the tote than they would have ,had the race been run for half a million less. The same horses would have started.As i pointed out ,the best field to line up in the last year that i saw,was in the hunter cup and that had a huge stake cut to only $250,000. But ,i'm not a party pooper and hope everyone enjoys watching the race,as i will on friday, and i hope everyone on course gets to experience the feeling, that witnessing the very best horses race can give you.

seems you have misinterpreted what i said. Maybe you should read what i have said again. you say i said nothing about the young lady. Well i did,calling her courageous and standing up for doing the right thing and i commented on her mothers comments of the significant emotional harm.her daughter suffered. i even said HRNZ should have already had the riu lay charges against both,the day of their being found guilty,irrespective of the level of involvement,for breach of the code of conduct and hrnz shpuld have announced that,if hrnz intent was to be viewed seriously.. the reason i said that was because its obvious from the mothers comments that she feels her daughter was let down by not only the individuals involved,but also the lack of support she perceived she received from those within the industry, and that obviously reflects poorly on hrnz leadership. I have my own perspective about people who behave like the main offender did,that is if they behave like that when they are 25 then that really will always be prt of who they are.the only way they can avoid repetitive destructive behvior is for thwem to avoid the things that trigger such behavior,e.g. alcohol. offenders like that,from m y observations ,do learn from things like that,but learning and changing is 2 totally different things. They also learn how to avoid or hide such behavior. But all that is not really why i commented. I commented ,because to me,,theres something broken in the industry if the victim feels she can't pursue her dream job and if the perpetrators actions are not properly admonshed by those whose job it is to do so and those its job it is to set ajnd standards. so anyway newmarket,your have your opinion,i have mine,but they aren't that much different.

oops,i obviouly meant to say ... he had NO !!!!! excuse for how he treated the victim.

so the case finally came to an end with the sentencing last week of the trainer/driver concerned. The wheels of justice turn slowly. for the person convicted,its been reported 3 months community detention,1 years supervision and a $5000 payment to the victim. Sounds like the accused person should never drink alcohol . Of course by the time you get to his age ,you would already know how alcohol effects your behavior,so he had real excuse for how he treated the victim. i suppose the light sentence is an indication that the judge doesn't view the case as very serious and has factored in the accused circumstances as much as the victims. Thats despite the victims mother reportedly saying the incidents and the subsequent emotional harm to her daughter had been significant. If your were the accused you may think the sentence fair,if you were the victim you would no doubt lose faith in the abilty of the justice system to make people truly accountable for their actions. i have always understood community detention means you simply have to be somewhere you say you will be and that is approved.Like having a curfew,but still being able to work. Obviously the supervision part really means very little. Most likely all he would have to do is turn up to a meeting with his supervisor, mayber monthly and keep them informed where they will be driving and working. Maybe the supervisor could get a tip or two. Anyways,i'm a no way diminishing what the offender did,simply pointing out the sentence imposed for his actions in the court really are just minor. Its the damage to his reputation which no doubt will be weighing most heavily on his mind. The trainers friend ,who seemingly enabled and helped facilitate the offences got off with a discharge without conviction and a $1500 payment to the victim. It does make you wonder,seemingly from the reporting,2 other males were there when the offences occured and did nothing to help the victim and allowed,someone who they called their friend,to engage in activity that compromised the victim(and also compromised the accused as well). who would ever want friends like that. The victim showed a great deal of courage to stand up for whats right. So what know. how come neither the stuff news article or the harnesslink article even bothered to ask HRNZ for comment. Thats very poor reporting from those people. And HRNZ themselves seem to never front foot things like this. They must have known of the case. Why haven't they commented and why haven't they advised the public of what action they intend to take. If they are to say,well we had to wait until the sentencing,well thats just a cop out as they should have had prepared responses to the possible differing sentencing outcomes,but also obviously the sentencehanded down was entirely predictable you would have thought. so what are HRNZ going to do? the code of conduct must apply. Anyone who bothers to read the peter profit headlines would know who the high profile person convicted is.even the article earlier on this thread gaves a major clue as to who it is. So the interim name suppression seems a bit pointless to me,but thats how the courts processes work i suppose.

That should have read,topaz has earnt $10,000 more in stakes than tanzania has,since mid november.

forbury,i just had a look at the drive you refer to,but somehow i don't think your above post is your best work. Normally i think people read your posts and go,those words are a bit harsh,but i can see what forbury means. But this time,i think you've been a bit hasty pulling the trigger thinking there was ammuntion in the gun,but turned out there wasn't any. Anyways,i watched the waimate cup today and thought what a great field they had. Tanzania ran another top race for 2nd. did you know hes competed in the timaru,akaroa,geraldine,rangiors,motukarara,amberly,ashburton and waimate cups and the rangiora classic,since mid november. hes won one cup,had 3 seconds and 1 third in the other cups. Yet hes only earnt $26,000. compare that to a horse like eagle hanover,a lower grade north island trotter who has raced in 3 races with higher stakes than tanzaniia ever has recently simply because hrnz fund auckland better, and who has started 4 more times in the same time frame and had 1 win,2 seconds and 2 3rds and hes earned only $5000 less at $21,000. Eagle hanover had his win at kapitit and his placings at manawatu and the low grade cambridge meetings. hes also ran a few fourths. a horse like topaz has earnt $10,000 in the same time frame yet is rated 20 points lower than tanzania. so,HRNZ is throwing money at the high class races and the 2 year olds,but taking the country cups horses in canterbury for granted.

southlands problem has been they don't have the numbers to sustain the amount of racing programmed for their region,so you just get a diluted,less profitable profit. And of course the levels of participation is influenced by the returns people get,so if you have a less profitable product then the abilty to sustain levels of returns must drop and subsequently so will partication drop further. Its all just an ever decreasing circle. thats never going to change.so the best approach is to address the issues now,not later. HRNZ are being consistent,.They seem to be taking the same head in the sand approach as they are to the auckland problem. Thats why i often say theres a lack of vision and leadership coming from hrnz. Everyone knows what the problems are,but leadership put off addressing the problems because its simply easier to paint over the cracks,and then move on to postions with greener pastures .Thats how it all seems to work.

looking at last year,the smaller fields and race numbers came in july-september,so maybe no southland harness racing between july and mid september. I'sn't it just common sense to cut out the southland meetings which run at a loss during those months and incentivise redirecting the resources(i.e. the horses) into racing in canterbury or auckland during those same months when their fields are light in numbers,thus increasing the returns from those races.

Actually,the trainer pulled off a feat that would be seldom achieved in harness racing. The gardeners pride won for him at otaki in january,and her daughter,who he also trains,the horse being discussed,senior constble liz,8 years her junior ran 6th in the same race. The trainer would have been smiling that day.

I've previously pointed out southland harness racing is heading in the same direction as auckland . no doubt about it. I've also previously said part of the answer is they should shorten the racing season and have no racing in june/july and august.They simply don't have the numbers to justify racing all year around,its too cold and the small number of southland horses that want to race in those months can be based in canterbury or auckland,maybe with a travelling subsidy,to supplement the field sizes in those areas..Thats what used to happen in years gone by,and thats what they should be doing again. for southland,the age of most trainers and the demise of the number of owner trainers ,who once were so plentiful,are areas of obvious concern. The reasons for the decline is best understood by southlanders. In my opinion,the solution to future proof the sport in southland,is HRNZ should bulk fund,at all current levels provided for stakes and other things,to an organisation comprised solely of southland racing people. I understand currently HRNZ expects clubs in areas like southalnd to set stakes at certain levels.Hrnz need to continue to fund current stake levels,but let southland distribute as they see fit,not as HRNZ see fit. And southland need to come up with their own financially sustainabilty model and get HRNZ to agree to it long term which can future proof that region and avoid any consequences of poor decision making made by HRNZ, having an impact on them. And of course with a more sustainable southland industry as a result of all decision making in the hands of southlanders,they won't be the drain on harness racing in nz that they are becoming.Its a win/win situation.

hrnz press release last month said they paid out 1.15 million last year in bonuses. 1.15 million spent to get more starters and its made no difference to the number of starters. So what have HRNZ done,doubled down on a policy that everyone except them can see doesn't work.Stupid is as stupid does. This week HRNZ will pay out $31,000 in stakes and bonuses for the 4 horse 2yo race at auckland and $24,000 on stakes and bonues for the 3 horse race at addington.

He must just be going around for the experience and the $332 appearance money. After paying the drivers fee i suppose thats about $232 for turning up. The horse actually went well enough last week to have been considered a chance in a non win race,so strange he didn't start in one of those this week where he could have earned much more. you see others do that. Rachmaninov has been around,just for appearance money a few times in races where he had absolutely no chance of placing. I think you started a similar thread about him as well. Brad mowbray has lined up a few 2 year olds in the past,in those bigger races,who seemed just there for appearance money,some of whom predictably broke due to their inexperience when running beyond their capabilities. Its just what some people chose to do. personally i agree with you,whats the point, but its their horse so their decision. And lets be honest. Hrnz,is actively promoting a policy of rewarding trainers of horses bought at this years sales,with appearance money,even if they know they will run a tailed off last, in 2 year old races next year.

yes he did say that,it did sound a bit odd coming from the whale,who has such a thorough knowledge of all things harness.I'm guessing he just confused himself somehow.I'm sure he knows who max hill is and what hes achieved so far.. We can all do that occasionally.

i agree i was good to see the box seat discuss it. The only things i would add are. While i believe r todd was trying to do the right thing by the betting public and warn them pre race of the likely tactics of his driver,both todd and ferguson seem to have doubled down on the assumption there was only one way for the horse to be driven to achieve the least taxing run fresh up. any punter can tell you thats not the case. Fergsuon could have used his well known gate speed and set a slow pace,or used the gate speed and trailed or gone back at the start then moved up when the pace was slow,or etc... There were so many possible scenarios tactically that could have been employed that ensured the horse was put into a position to win and still not had a tough run fresh up. Todd and ferguson seem to be sticking to ,well making the horse run home in 25.3(according to the whale) was easir on their horse, than insread running home a full second slower than if they had been up front and made a tactical forward move on a previous 33 middle quarter. Also,i really think this whole marketplace thing illustrates why bit of yarn had such a long running thread on a horse from the todd stable,mounga,which i started,after it ran over on the coast just on a year ago. The whole point of that thread was to highlight punters displeasure over the questionable tactics employed that day,and specifically the failure of the stipes to even give it a mention in their report. todd may have possibly learnt from that thread and thought he was doing the right thing by the public last week,but judging by last week,the stipes at auckland never learnt anything. so last weeks drive was just history repeating itself and you have to question the sincerity of the motives of the stipes who are now saying they should have at least questioned fergusons drive.

To me,i think the video clearly shows the horse who started in front of tessamae was standing ok at the start,the tape was released and that horse just stood there and then just moved in slightly just after that. so no interference occured prior to the start,so the race had commenced when interference took place. Rough luck for those who backed tessamae,but you would only get a late scratching if interference was happening prior to the start,not once the race had commenced. So i thought the decision to not late scratch tessamae was pretty clear cut correct.

R Todd said in his pre race interview on trackside on the night mouaga would be driven conservatively and would be hoping for luck, so punters were advsied of the tactics.His price reflected those comments. Of course mounga has been a horse we've discussed before on bit of a yarn R todd was previously criticsed for not publicly advising punters at westport of the change in tactics,when a hot favorite. On that occassion the mounga team took punters for a ride when seemingly just there for a quiet run and ended up looking a certainty beaten when a hot favorite.had they advised punters pre race at westport then they would not have received criticism. so,if we are being fair to todd and ferguson as far as mounga goes at auckland,r todd was trying to do the best thing by puinters as regards mounga,so shouldn't be criticised. Still, not a drive by c ferguson that helped his horses chances even under the circumstances. I'm guessing you didn't hear r todds pre race comments around both horses. They are part of why c ferguson is getting criticsed for the marketplace drive and not mounga and those comments are a significant part of the basis for punters trusting those comments and making marketplace,the winner of its last 6 ,including 2 group 1's,the hot favorite and mounga paying about $8.

Me thinks you have taken my inca reference just a tad out of context there gammalite. your doubling down on punters are fools to bet on harness racing. ok,maybe thats what you think. But if thats what you think,then what does that say about an industry when someone with knowledge of it thinks punters are fools to invest on the product they supply.

So you think the punters are fools. i don't think punters are the fools gammalite. the fools are the ones who take their role in sustaining the industry for granted. And,lets be honest gammalite. it wasn't that long ago,there was Operation INCA,remember that. What was the one thing i thought everyone agreed on,,no matter what perspective you had. it was the stipes had the authority to deal with the issues that arose in the inca races,but failed in their duty to uphold integrity matters, which then created an environment and perception that normalised questionable actions whcih ultimately caused considerable harm to those involved and the industry as a whole. so,that race last night, was more of the same and little has been learnt by the stipes,in my opinion. You do realise the stipes are supposed to protect not only the public,but the horsemen from harming themselves by pulling them up and saying be careful to not cross the line.

complartely agree. Like i have said so many times, The stipes in auckland watch the races with the caps on their binoculars. And like i have said before. A significant portion of the blame for operation INCA was the stipes ilack of action in enforcing,or even considring enforcing matters as relates to integrity in races. Last nights stipes report shows they have learnt nothing from operation inca. All they had to do was put in their stipes report that they questioned ferguson about his drive and inform the public why ferguson thought it ok to give his horse absolutely no chance of winning when he could have given it an easy run and won. But no,nothing. They have just green lighted any driver sitting at the back of a field on a red hot favorite and making no attempt to win. Fergusons drive was not a normal drive . What other driver is going to sit at the back on a $1.40 shot when they are going so slow over such and extended distance? how did fergsuon come to have such a mindset, where he knew the stipes would green light his drive as perfectly fine and dandy. . well,the answer is in that races stipes report.

Not sure why your comparing dalgetiy's drive with fergusons drive. You only have to look at the sectionals that the commentator gave out to see they were totally different races. Marketplace: ran a mile rate of 2.02.3 republican party :1.55.9 the 800m between the 1600m and 800m ran in: marketplace: 66.3. republican party:62.0 obviously drivers are expected to be able to assess how a race unfolds and adjust tactics accordingly. i agree Carter dalgety on republican party didn't give his supporters much chance when not moving on a 400 run in 32.2.,but compare that to the 800m run slowly that ferguson just sat there and made no move on a horse who everyone knew could have had he wanted to. you refer to wide draws. Well marketplace drew 5,not 8 like republican party. and of course,your favorite driver won the race from barrier 8. Anyways,i'm not talking through my pocket. Then we had in nz the trackside presenter,virtually saying after the race that the trainer had said pre race he was there for a conditiong run with the aim being for the following week. Mr o'connors comments didn't help,as the trainer said in his pre race interview "the horse is here to win". At least the whale expressed surprise that the driver chose to drive it the way he did,given the race was a group 2. really,there is no fault that should be attached to the trainer on this occasion,its his driver,c fergsuon, who chose to treat the punters with no respect. you know the stupidest thing about mr fergsuons drive,is if you see him driving a $1.40 favorite in a non win race at invercargill,you will see him trying to win every time. But in a group 2 race,he somehow thinks maintaining punters faith in drivers trying,somehow is irrelevant.

But this one didn't get beaten because of either reason you mention.. It got beaten because of lack of intent by the driver.