the galah

You consistently never say anything positive when they catch someone trying to cheat. All you do is criticise those who enforce the rules and those that report it.

.

Well the obvious answer to them saying it was a result of artisan hanging in is they should have stood that horse down,but of course they didn't because they never believed it was its fault. You seem to be arguing mangos would not squeeze up his mates. Well you pointed out last month you thought A herlihy should have been dealt with when he came across on krug,checking those inside him. Using the "drivers wouldn't check their mates" as a reason for justifying the decision is a weak argument. Drivers make errors of judgment,whether they be mates driving other horses is only relevant when it comes to giving evidence against mates. Like i said,those making these decisions take everyone who watched that race for being a mug,and that is why ones faith in those involved is undermined.

I agree with what you are saying in this post. The current perception problem,being perpetuated by mainstream media,is that because there have been more recent instances of dishonesty uncovered than in the past, then that must mean the industry has more dishonesty now than previously. But of course that perception is totally wrong if you accept that the reason for the recent uncovering of dishonesty is because we have more pro active enforcement. Thats the message that industry leaders are failing to get mainstream media to deliver. So currently instead of being perceived as a positive, it is being perceived as a negative. Its as simple as that. And so should the messaging around it be.

We are in agreement i think,just i would use different words to express it. Of course what people believe to be the truth,isn't always the truth. And people often believe what they want to be true,not what is actually true. But you can't alter the truth,Its about altering the inferences as to how it should be perceived,by the way you deliver it. And of course if you are constantly getting the same message reinforced as to how you should think on a certain subject,then thats how most people end up thinking.

So the conclusion of the inquiry was the purdon trained horse artisan ran in and locked wheels. Well a half wit would have realised that the reason it ran in was because the horse outside it was boring in badly on it,but somehow this seemed to have slipped past the stipes and those hearing this case. So what we have here is yet another bungled inquiry into driving tactics where the video evidence is ignored and they base their decision on what the drivers say. And the said drivers protect their mates. Do all those invoved in this decision really think those who follow harness racing are that stupid. Well obviously they do. To me its stinks of dishonesty.

The thing about this article is it appears nearly everybody who has commented, have expressed views that the revelations of rule breaking is a bad thing. I just don't get why industry leaders,and well known respected participants can't sell the message that catching rule breakers,those being dishonest is a good thing,and that it shows those who have the job of enforcing the rules are helping clean up the industry to make it fairer and stronger. Its not rocket science. I followed american politics over the last 4 years. And one thing that has become blatantly obvious to me,which applies to any issue,is you can change the way people think by the way you tell the story. Isn't it obvious from all the recent articles written that the tactic of lamenting the uncovering of illegal activity is only perpetuating the negative news cycle. Why can't people see that? About time everyone got on the same page and put a positive spin on things.

I think McCaffery said to whittaker as he snuck past "like the moustache,i was right under your nose all the time"

Well she wasn't the "fella" who was the vet,who was holding the tape at the christmas meeting. May have had a moustache and wore a big hat. Who the vet was at the xmas harness meeting was discussed on the galloping forum regarding a late scratching at the reefton gallops,and a contributor to that topic actually confirmed the vet(man) was the one holding the tape that day by asking them ,then posted it on the galloping topic. They did so,because they were originally sceptical the vet was helping start a harness races. As i have said,it was someone different yesterday, a man with no yellow vest or helmet.

Looked like they got rid of the vet to hold the 40m tape after the last debacle at westport,but the new fella seemed to want a false start. Instead of not releasing the tape,looked like he let it go early? Who was the fella holding the 40m tape anyway this time. Didn't look to be part of the starting crew. Perhaps they grabbed someone out of the bar.Maybe they might put him in charge next time they start the last race at westport, as those doing the starts don't seem to have learnt much from the last debacle. You've got to laugh really.

D ferguson given a 4 day suspension for the drive. Good to see the stipes up there being pro active in policing such drives.

I just thought p wakelin's case was clear cut,thats why she admitted it. And with j young-grant it looked like it made little difference,but we will never know as she didn't drive it out the last 25m. And thats why she admitted it. I get that it is a rule where there seems there may be a bit of inconsistency around penalties. Is this topic about personalities or the whip rule.

The whip rule does seem a tricky one to enforce, whichever side of the argument you are on. Both the cases you referred to noodlum admitted the charges,so they must have accepted they had infringed.

Shes in very good form.

So why all of a sudden are more people talking about security camera. Whats changed?

And there you go. Suggesting some stables need protection against possible RIU visits. Maybe you need to think what you are saying means.

Not necessary if you have nothing to hide though. I would think everyone wanting a level playing field would be happy authorities are doing their job.

Well i guessed you would be referring to needing to be in a dividend bearing placing before you could protest. What is truly ridiculous about the stipes report is they noted the 3rd and 4th horses suffered interference,yet didn't even bother to ask their drivers. The stipes report noted 5th placed artisan lost 6 lengths. It also lost position and obviously took a knock,and only got beaten less than a length at the finish. Who was in charge,the stipes or B purdon and s phelan,who as i have stated are great mates of mangos. They just ignored all the video evidence. The point is it undermines the confidence connections and punters can have in the stipes who officiated and highlights inconsistency based on who you are.

How many harness trainers have cameras set up at their properties to observe who comes and goes?

Thats where you are wrong. The horse placed 5th could have been promoted to 4th,which is a dividend bearing placing.And what about the 3rd and 4th placed horses who lost significant ground because of the interference. The stipes report says after speaking to S.phelan and B purdon they took the inquiry no further. This stipes report is a total farce. An absolute joke. It states they are to speak to B mangos about the interference he caused. So the stipes say B mangos caused two thirds of the field to have their chances effected,including the 3rd,4th and 5th placed runners yet they only speak to brent mangos's good mates in scott phelan and barry purdon,who surprise ,surprise say don't worry about it. Mickey Mouse would do a better job running the stipes up there.

The whale has a lot to do with the prices of these horses as well. The keast horse is a nice horse,and hes trains well,just it was a big ask to expect it to beat horses with better records and more race experience.

But it was so obvious that the horses interfered with lost so much ground,and all 3 were within 1 length of the dunn horse at the finish. I think its more likely to be a case of either an incompetent jca or drivers saying the opposite of what the video evidence clearly shows. Thats generally how it works.

Did that not look like a clear case of the horse that ran 2nd knocking over two thirds of the field. An inquiry,yet no change of placings,yet the 3rd,4th,and 5th horses all suffered bad interference. Now,if the the dunn horse was not at fault, they must stand down and make the purdon runner trial before racing again,as that was a very bad incident. Of course we all know that won't happen,because there is no way anyone could say it wasn't the dunn runners fault.

Just realised i have my sky on delay,Bugga.so i think i should stick to watching the races.