the galah

Those were the days. But i was reading an article just this week on how many sports were struggling with participation levels. In particular the article focused more on rugby,but noted many sports have similar problems to racing.

that just means they probably have a budget as relates to how much they can spend/lose. Their thinking is the same as what you really have been expressing.Why lose it midweek on races they have little knowledge of,when they can invest on horses they know something about at the weekend.their thinking being they are more likely to make money there because of their increased knowledge,which makes some sense. Its like betting on a provincial sports team. If your local team is playing your going to bet on them if you think they can win,not on a higher grade of the same sport you have no knowledge of. People also like to follow those they can relate to. Every sport/competition/race is an event with winners and losers. The quality doesn't have to be always at the highest level. they can all be entertaining.

Isn't that the norm on 90% of nz harness on those aussie tabs.A lot comes down to how much pre race exposure they get,no matter what the class of horse racing.

Your words. I know you weren't referring to betfair and backing a horse to lose as you have suggested i may have thought. The point is you have been saying people are more likely to make money betting on premier nights than a low grade mid week meeting.And thats what i have said is not true. The tab payout exactly the same % of every dollar invested on the tote at both meetings.there is no difference. Then if betting with the bookies.Your suggesting that punters are more knowledgeable about the horses running at premier meetings,well thats true. But so are the bookies.They still set the same % when framing markets . The reality is being a successful punter on either meeting is based on your knowledge of the form. You are more likely to get horses over the odds on the lower grade meetings,because the overall knowledge of punters on the horses running is not as great as the premier meetings. saying the fields were pitiful,as you did, really just meant you had little knowledge around those that were running.

Well we approach our betting differently. Are you successful? Deciding whether to bet/invest based on the average ability of the horses in a field, as you suggest, is not the basis for a successful betting strategy. If you are saying you bet on the higher quality because you are exposed to them more,therefore know the form better, then that would make a certain degree of sense,and maybe thats what you mean,but that isn't what you have said. i base my betting on assessing the abilities of each horse in comparison to the others in the same field. If i assess a slower horse(your words) is in a field that he is likely to win after comparing his form to others in the field,then surely you must see it makes more sense to back it,than back the good horse you would rather back, thats form is not as good as the other horses in the field its in.. There is no satisfaction in backing a good horse to lose as you suggest,there is only satisfaction in backing winners/placegetters whatever their natural ability. Also its silly for a punter to say i don't like betting on horses that don't win much. Whats relevant is how they go when you do bet on them,not their overall record.

Pitiful is a very derogatory word to describe the grass roots of harness racing. Those fields yesterday were little different from the quality you normally see in many of those races held at grass tracks in the south island,just they didn't have as many starters. if you think you can only have a worthwhile meeting if the all stars,dunn or dalgety are there, then your mistaken.Surely you must know that. Our top drivers were there anyway. I'm sure those who were successful had just as good a background stories to how achieving the win came to be,and in all likelihood the wins meant just as much ,if not more to connections than many premier night victories do. If you wonder who bets on them,well i can tell you those who know the form do. I would much rather spend more on those races than on many of the fields they have on premier night. in fact i do.I believe brodie has a similar view. Also if you know the form it makes sense to invest on the midweek meetings,as there is often a greater difference in the abilities of the horses in some of those races, than there is in those even races on premier night where you have to factor in team driving. If you believe quality is the only factor which drives punter support then you are wrong. For example,if you ran the premier meeting on a tuesday afternoon,and ran yesterdays meeting in a premier night time slot,then the prime time would receive the best punter support,irrespective of the horses ability levels that were competing..

Your always on about someone snitching and just post stuff to divert attention. I've no comment to make about the sharrock case,he seems to talk like an innocent man,but your focus on the press again is just ridiculous.

I have always wondered if thats the case.It doesn't show that runners late scratched in that race got paid the $450 starters fee. So given that,isn't there an incentive for some drivers to say their chances weren't effected. Is that not what happened here anyway? We are lead to believe that john dunn,robbie close,blair orange and jessica grant- young who were in the middle of the field were aware a false start had been called,and then we had John morrison who was well clear early easing his horse up after 100m because he knew the false start had been called and obviously there would have been communication between all drivers. Lets face it,that race start was an absolute debacle,and connections of those who were late scratched should be compensated.For the starter to change his mind after half the field started to pull up would have to be the worst start seen for many a year.The fact that so few have commented on here shows that many were playing the man and not the ball when it came to peter lamb.

How about i end this by saying i agree purdon,rasmussen or cullen or whoever the all stars may be at the time get their horses to perform to the best of their ability. I don't accept what the likes of m guerin says when he says purdon or rasmussen spending a few days with the horses leading into the big races improves their performance. Guerin makes it out to be a big thing,but i don't believe just their presence changes anything. Maybe guerin actually thinks that,or has convinved himself that,but i don't believe that driving a couple of fast works makes much difference,when you already had the likes of tim williams driving them in work.

Its not sinking in what i have said. The horses that ran last night are not the same ones that ran2,3,4,5 years ago. Rasmussen has not been driving until recently. How about you go ask her why?? One thing that i know,punters can rate the horses on ablilty,but drivers are a factor.N rasmussen is much better than m purdon and heaps better than say o thornley.Another example is b hope seems to have great success with trotters,but several pacers he gets off improve when the likes of john dunn drives them. Another example was a race just run at winton. Some of those horses had won 3-8 races,yet they only ran the mile in 1.59.8. I could have run faster until the 400m.Only s tomlinson moved up where as the likes of s ottley(who is driving very negatively in recent weeks) and t nally(who seems to lack any judgment of pace, sat at the back. Had n rasmussen driven them they run 2nd,instead of 2nd last. So drivers are a factor,but i've been comparing how the horses run now,to how they ran forever 2-5 years ago. I think we are going in circles. Same thing,different day.

Like i've said ,if you cant see the drop off in how they run in comparison from a couple of years ago then in my opinion that makes you are poor judge. Last night changed nothing in my opinion.They still will be using and paying top dollars for their vets. Don't underestimate how much that can help a horse "peak",but thats available to everyone else if they have the money. I personally didn't see them grow a leg last night on recent performances.There was improvement,but i put that down to the driving ability of rasmussen.Her ability to rate her horses at a consistent speed and make the moves at the right time is exceptional,and if anything i think the other drivers seem to almost concede their tactical positions almost as if its inevitable,which sometimes is rather meek. I've said,and still believe that Cullen has shown he is not far behind purdon/rasmussen,just doesn't use all the tools in the tool box that were being used a couple of years ago.

Starter briefly called a false start,but then changed his mind with apparently 5 drivers easing their horses up,so we are told,but who really knows. In an earlier race a start was declared but only briefly,then it was changed to a false start,this time the blame going on the mobile driver who did not initially hear the starter apparently. Where's peter lamb when you need him?

That race just run had some strange drives. Mark jones interview went on about how this was the race majestic lavros had been set for,yet it looked like he forgot to tell sam ottley.Ben hope really does drive those trotters well though,and natalie rasmussen again gave her horse every chance.

Your right. Just looked it up. Somehow he had his 7 day suspension given to him last week deferred until after tonight. Not sure why he gets that preferential treatment and has a suspension start a week later. To be honest,rasmussen is outdriving the others tonight. She always makes her move at the right time and has ended up in the right position compared to her main opposition.

Mangos got suspended again for whip use,so thats why he didn't drive it. Does that aussie owner who was mangos's big owner still race many in aussie? He had 2 or 3 mangos trained horses in the jewels 2 or 3 years ago,but said they would be the last because it was not worth having them in nz racing against the all stars? I think he was from western australia.

It was the deliberately running wide about 100 metres before the passing lane to let his stablemate through that was the dishonest bit.

Thats the way he always drives those inexperienced trotters.The horse actually showed a bit of improvement tonight.Balle is one of those handful of drivers that deserves closer scrutiny going on past drives,but i don't think tonight was one of those occasions. I thought the stipes took action against the right driver when they opened an inquiry into d ferguson team driving. I can't understand why ferguson thinks he can get away with his drive tonight. When you see team driving like that it puts doubt into punters minds as to whether ferguson will drive his horses on their merits,or will he drive to advantage a stablemate in the same race.I used to think he was pretty honest,but thats the second time in a couple of months that he has done a dodgy drive.

Maybe in hindsight he should have moved up a bit earlier,but thats the way its always driven and those tactics have got good results in the past. I thought its problem was it was not handicapped to run anywhere myself,and thats pretty much how it turned out.

If you think the all star horses have the same stamina they did a couple of years ago then your dreaming.True fantasy went the run of the race,and looks the top 2yo filly.I thought she drove it well from the wide draw,but they are beatable.

Obviously the way the labour/nz first government had handled covid was the major part. But National was a weak opposition and had 3 different leaders leading into the election. I have always been a winston fan myself. I've always thought his values and take on things reflected the way i think nz should be run,and he had a couple of very capable mp's with him. Just a shame he lost his way with some of his comments in the run up to the last election. He was never into the political correctness that we have in todays society.

I think you have to acknowledge that many supported Labour because they were tired of National having no social conscience , prioritising money over the environment and sucking up to china, amongst other things. But i just change channels whenever i have to listen to the media focus on calling everything by its maori name. Some of these government department names are just ridiculous. Its like they want to fix something thats not broken. But thats where the worlds headed and the youth of today is being indoctrinated with this thinking. And all these sports seem to follow suit.So it won't get any better.

So you post like on the chiefs original post suggesting the RIU has someone feeding the press about the story of anderson assisting another trainer,then in this post on the same subject you say "an RIU steward may have given Mr Anderson approval to do so". To be honest its hard to take anything you say seriously.

Every once in a while i have a look at the other channel.They mostly just talk about the same as on here,but one topic which was raised was a story currently on Stuff about the work being done by those who try and re home ex racehorses. In particular it had comments from those who operate the "racehorse rehoming charity". In this case they had talked to carl markham and rebecca nairn. These people,and others who do similar things in other parts of nz,are people the industry should be proud to have represent them. They showcase the love of the horse that so many have within the industry. And they go further by giving back with their time and efforts put into retraining and finding homes,and always treating the horse with respect. As they say,the demand for their services far exceeds what they alone can do,but its about time they received some industry funding in some way, as its unfair to expect them to shoulder the burden of something which portrays the industry in a very favorable light.

Pretty much what i expect from you.

.