the galah

Just read the post from nz racing. He makes some valid points,but why just focus on the tab. He points out people were aware of his problems,so why not blame them more than the tab. He's supposedly been bailed out before,so why not blame those who bailed him out without having future systems in place. Can he name one person who approached the Nz tab with their concerns about having him banned from betting. If he can,then why didn't they approach the aussie agencies? It could go on and on. Maybe this looking to blame everyone else is the reason Kerr was able to keep doing what he did for so long. Who knows,all rather sad.

One thing that has been noticeable about nearly every horse that has gone from the Kerr stable to another trainer is how poorly they run for the new trainers.They all lose a leg.I have pointed out previously that you would have to be cautious if you were buying one.

Well i'm no expert,but why haven't they looked into introducing some straight track racing. Just refreshed my memory by reading a report into straight track racing in australia.. Amongst other things,it concluded that 80% of all catastrpohic and major injuries was caused by congestion,with most obviously occurring on bends. At many of the tracks studied it showed about half the number of injuries occurred on straight tracks as compared to oval. Murray bridge actually had 5 times the amount on their oval track compared to their straight track for the period studied. They could reduce field size numbers from 8 to 7 on oval tracks. Redesign track shape to make the bends easier to get around. Theres many rabbits the greyhound industry can pull out of the hat if they really needed to,and they just have to spin it properly to get the government to help fund it,and to get all the public thinking positively. It shouldn't be that hard.

Rather pessimistic outlook you have for the greyhounds there chief. I think the reality is much more positive. You do have to wonder why the industry leadership is so slow to put in places the required changes that ultimately protects its participants. Is it because they actually are uncomfortable with many current practices,and theirs not the push from those on the coal face for change.What else could it be? If thats the case then maybe the chief is right. But surely those within the industry will wake up before its too late. Personally i only bet on the auckland dogs,as they at least seem to have fields with more than a couple of trainers.Personally i don't think its a good look when a couple of trainers breed so many and often supply 75% of the runners. How is that right?

Why the lack of progress? Is the industry just playing into their detractors hands with their lack of progress and transparency.

Imagine the headlines had the nz tab accepted his bets knowing how much he was losing. They don't want punters like kerr. I wonder if he had bet on the nz tab,would they have brought the extent of his loses to harness authorities to investigate. You would hope so given he lost $1 million in 2 years.

Not saying it won't work,but don't some of the bigger syndicates have hundreds of owners,and aren't the members in many syndicates often coming and going. The record keeping around what you are suggesting would be rather time consuming,and wouldn't it be a case of user pays,making it all the more complicated and costly. What about people like kerr saying they are training a horse when he wasn't.How are you going to solve that.If you were kerr,and you knew you couldn't deceive and rip off people in one way,you would just take another route for your deception. I credit you for coming up with reasonable suggestions,but its not an easy fix.

So you completely failed to address what i have said. I was commenting on one specific moment of one drive,but its obvious you think Mr williamson is great. Never heard of the harness owners federation,don't do facebook,but sounds like they could learn that everyone has a point of view,and everyone is entitled to express it where ever they want.And they need to learn they should not to take offence.

Same old,same old. I posted "like" in response to one of your and long owners replies which offered positive suggestions as to how syndicate oversight should be improved. I have not posted any thoughts on that side of things,as i know little of how syndicates work or are adimistrated. So i'm an ex cop. Thats funny. When it comes to INCA, your focus is always on the negative,and you completely ignore the positives to come from it. If you were to argue that the positives had been outweighed by the negatives,then i could understand where you came from. But no,thats not your agenda. So its mr woodhams fault that the average trainer "can barely scrape a living from the game". Its Mr woodham that you find fault with when you read these articles on wrongdoing by former trainers. Same old,same old.

Well you need to watch the video .The video i watched show he caused his own horse to trot rough and slow up by steering it in slightly. No doubt his intention was not for that to happen,but it did. The horse was not travelling well,but certainly was not going to slow up like it did prior to his move.Their was never any safety issue. And here we are with many blaming the horse, when the drive was a factor in its performance.

People should not be discouraged when wrong doing is uncovered ,they should be discouraged when it is not.Like i have said,unfortunately the harness industry is not spinning the news cycle in a positive way for itself. Personally I view most of the recent news in a positive way,although the jimmy cannon being put down after it was illegally pre race treated, is a negative story only. But newmarket hit the nail on the head when he says many owners are loyal to those who do illegal things to gain an advantage. The reason for that loyalty is mostly for personal gain.Many owners are hypocrites when it comes to some of the illegal activity.They want the rules enforced,but just not against their trainers. Many owners even expect and pressure their trainers to do so. Remember the blue magic saga. The best answer is effective and consistent enforcement of the rules.

Really the point should not be how old the horse is,not what some people think of mr kennett,but should be whether the horse is still competitive. If you look at todays performance you would say no, but then you have to factor in did M Williamsons decision to shift inwards contribute to valmagne stopping so quick,and i think that it did.So really it was probably a reasonable decision not to warn the horse because of that. But whatever the horse,you have to ask why is it ok for some drivers to pull in or out of the way of others sometimes. I know i have pointed out Zac butcher doing that in the past,depending on who he is driving against,but why don't they just keep their horses going if they aren't causing interference.

I've often wondered, is there a different rule for stands and mobiles when it comes to drivers having their horses in the correct starting positions. In mobiles drivers are always warned or fined if they don't have their horses up on the mobile gate,yet we never see that in stands. There could be no better example of that than race 6 at forbury today where it seemed the J cox driven sundons flyer was having a snooze and quite happy to start with the drivers back next to the 10m starting tape,yet that didn't even get a mention.Why do stipes thinks its ok to do that in stands,but not mobiles. If manners are a factor then fair enough,but not when its clearly just because the driver is having a snooze.

Is he able to currently drive?what did he get for that drive on petes dash that you started a thread on dash last year?

If you have no problem with racehorses being sent to the dog tuckers as soon as they have finished racing,well thats up to you. Many have similar views as to what should happen to a racehorse after its finished racing. Its a topic that their is no easy answer to. But not everyone agrees with that. Each to their own.But many view that as a poor reflection of how the industry views the horse,and thats what the article is all about.Given the apparent circumstances,those involved have given the writers all the ammunition they need to ram home that point.Thats why those involved are not too clever,and why their actions have subjected the industry as a whole to more criticism.

Some of these trainers don't seem too bright. Maybe it could be a record keeping mistake by hrnz,maybe something happened to the horse in the last week,or maybe jimmy cannons former trainers are amongst those trainers who discard their horses once they are no longer of any use to them.The inference in the article seems to be the latter,but whatever happended,hrnz and the former trainers both come across as not too clever. i think the article seems well written and whether you follow harness racing or not,anyone should get the points made in the article.

Suppositon i think best describes what i have said. It makes perfect sense to me,thats why i have no problem saying it. And of course i have also expressed,much to your annoyance,the opinion that from my observations,the cullen stable no longer has the "run forever" asset. Each of those hand in hand. Sounds like you want me to second guess what everyone else is thinking. It was you that suggested i may be referring to p,despite myself,or no one else previously having ever mentioned it as far as inca goes. How can i deny i said something if i don't know what it is i am denying, because i've never said or thought it.Theres a riddle for you.

Are you and the chief stipe brothers? You make up i said something that i never did,then criticize me for it. You need to realize that occasionally the chief will get annoyed with my opinion and starts grossly exaggerating what i have said. You have been quiet on this site recently,nice to see you posting again.

Exaggerating what i have said there chief. "Painting Rasmussen as some mega drug baron pushing drugs to every teenager in canterbury is a bit of a stretch'. ..pretty sure i have said nothing like that,but your response to me makes me chuckle.

Holier than thou. Well its just common sense to me to suggest there is a strong possibility anyone who thinks its o.k. to supply illegal performance enhancing drugs to people may think they could do the same to a horse if they didn't think they would get caught. You calling me naive about people using mdma is a bit strange. I don't know who you've interacted with,but over the years i've spoken to hundreds who use mdma,cannabis or p. The difference i found was most are quite happy to talk about their use of mdma or cannabis,but people don't like others knowing if they are on p.

Didn't craig cross take over when belinda mccarthy was disqualified for 1 year in 2016/2017. Then didn't she take back over this year because cross was struggling with a leg injury. More to it than you say although i don't really follow australia much. Vicki rasmussen. Didn't she get disqualified as the result of her 2nd positive in 7 months in 2015 for having arsenic in the horses system,but then like several trainers there and here,including dixon, got the arsenic charges squashed as they decided there was a possibility they had got it from eating fence posts or wood chips. Seemed at the time all the good trainers horses ate fence posts,but the less successful didn't. Tim butt was left lamenting the eating fence post defence not flying in 2012.

Interesting the way you describe the reason for the change of trainers at the mccarthy stables.At one point did they not transfer their horses to others when they ran out of family members who had not had positives,or was that just my imagination? Is that what you call a sabitical? Lets be honest. The reason their was a negative perception from some as relates to purdon/rasmussen run all star stable,was because many thought they had an unfair advantage over everyone,and weren't competing on a level playing field. Thats it,thats the reason. lets be honest about it. Depends which side of the fence you see it from,but peoples opinions won't change. People on both sides of the fence admire their skills and abilities,but that doesn't change the former. History shows authorities have not shown they were doing anything illegal,but opinions are opinions. As i have said. I am of the opinion that if you have a mindset that thinks it ok to give humans performance enhancers,why would you consider it wrong to give horses them. Your arguing that horses are more sacrosanct in the mind of a supplier than humans. Is that the mindset you use to rationalise your argument.

I liked that we had several 2600m races to watch. I always think they are more interesting and exciting than the 1980m races.

That last race at auckland where they had a hot favorite sit at the back quite content to let the stablemate dictate a walking race,and sprint home in a 26.6 last quarter is not competitive racing. They can't expect punters to bet on 5 horse races with the hot favorite not trying. Didn't effect my pocket,but that race was not a good look.

Must have forgotten what he had planned. Having said that you had to wonder what todd mitchell was thinking as well. Instead of getting the perfect trail he decided to engage in a speed duel knowing his chances of winning would be extinguished by doing so. Does make for interesting viewing.