MarkyMark

most professional athletes and sportsmen are required to be free of drugs, and have no alcohol in their system. In my view a driver should be required to present at raceday free of drugs with no alcohol in the system. It protects the integrity of the sport, and stops doubt. Doubt in relation to any concern over tha drivers ability to drive, and provide confidence to all participants that "alcohol and drugs" have no bearing on any outcome. It would also help with the reputation of the industry. Harness has a poor reputation, there shouldnt be any discretion for alcohol. If you have a zero tolerance, then there can be no confusion for drivers. If I was betting on a race, or was an owner of a horse in the race, and knew that any driver had a reading above zero i would want out. its not hard, nor rocket science. If you want it to be a proffesional sport, with integrity, and helping give confidence to all participants, then no brainer, zero tolerance.

yes i observed this too. This is why it would seem only logical that the BGP was a late introduction to the pool. And note, there was no dramatic change to the win and place pool. Dont you think aswell, if someone was unloading a quantum bet into the quinella pool it would have been mentioned via trackside, not necessarily but most probably. No other race either on the card had such a increase to the pool towards close of rae, quinella pools were relatively consistent through the day, i dont think any of the pools bar the last surpassed 55k off memory. no, the pretend expert is JJ flash, just a muppet. I just cant understand the stupidity of some people. I personally dont really care. But as reefton points out, if you took that quinella on the tote, you got robbed by the tab, and your return was used to subsidize the return BGP got, that plan and simple is fucked and not fair

id give up chief, he clearly doesnt get it. i agree, but not so much a fail, more a disservice to its punters. The marketing of the promo, and fixed odds option has worked well, they have got alot of attention, alot of talk. I think because it is for BGP, he is or most are excusing it. regardless for all the good bgp do, the point is, it is not fair on your customers to subsidize those wagers for a book containing 1 punter, and for their benefit only. That is wrong. plain and simple

you should see this bloke on another site, and still just not getting it i dont even think a uppercut and a few hail marys is going to help this joker out. i hate it when people try and appear as though they are a know all, regualrly diminish other posters views, come across like somehow you are in the know, and you have made an absolute arse of yourself. an absolute fuckwit of yourself. you just dont seem to see the bigger picture. jesus wept.... FFS....i could get this through to my 7 year old son.

and sorry, i keep forgetting to point this out, why its evident that the liability for the BGP bet was against the tote, look at the quinella pool in the last race at ellerslie. Was approximately 45k or thereabout higher than any other race for that day, but for that same race the win and place pool consistent with other races. all you have to do is compare the pools, and you can clearly see that this is what they did. It would seem otherwise very very strange that the last race attracted immense, 40 to 45k worth of additional betting revenue to the quinella pool, but no change in the win and place pools, consistent card. If you still disagree JJ, and with you wealth of knowledge, and being an expert on all subjects, explain how there was such a difference in wagering to the quinella tote on the last verse other races on the same card. i look forward to your answer

no, you do yourself no favors, and show yourself up to be a bit of a novice in this subject, and its consequences. And it is easy to see why others would feel aggrieved. It seems you are really struggling, and i dont think I can make it any more simple for you. Initiative, experiment, rewards customers, offer exclusive options, yes offer these, they are great. All the other competition offers this, bet365, tabcorp, ladbrokes to name a few, its nothing new. But they arent doing this at the expense of another pool. This is obvious, otherwise what you, you JJ are implying is that if you say they didnt offset this, they took on board the liability of the bet in a 1 man pool, which would never happen. And none of the other agencies would operate this way, however in saying this most other outlets already offer fixed odds on quinellas. It affects others and the industry, how?? ill try and make it simple for you again, FFS im trying. you are using a pool of money, to pay for an exclusive option to 1 customer, and reduce the offering to the punters who played into that pool, the only pool they could choose from via betting with the TAB. This does not encourage punters to come back, as it is uncompetitive. The TAB would further to this sent money in advertising begging patrons to bet exclusively with them. Being competitive, and not taking silly takeouts will in turn generate greater betting revenue, which in turn will lead to more funds via distributions to the codes to prop up each area of racing, most importantly stakes, and making the industry self funded. Very simple terms, but trying to break this down for you so you can see why it is important that the TAB be competitive and look after all it customers (except brodie)in the way of not further disadvantaging their wager via the tote they bet into by god though you have copped a spanking today.

common sense JJ, surely with your expert knowledge on most things it would be rather simple. If it wasnt this race, it would be another. how else would they possibly cover this. If this is not the case, then the tab exposed themself in a 1 person betting market to a loss, if you believe this, you need to give yourself an uppercut buddy, and your not all that clued up you make yourself out to be. we all know, the tab cover themselves via their take out of the pool, which on the tote is around 136% off memory, someone more in the know im sure can correct me. If you compare market results for that race across various competition the tab posted a uncompetitive result. This i can only see would have been done by offsetting punter funds from the tote via a higher take out rate

and further to that JJ, what about all those winning tote punters, who only got $1.70 for that quinella. Did they get 90 cents or a doller less per unit because their take out was higher to subsidise BGP bet, then if so i would feel aggrieved wth that aswell

i would still ask he queston and take issue, regardless of win or loss, because unless they can otherwise clarify, and they havent, it appears to be at the expense of every other punter. that was unfair, and is a matter of principle, even more so given the tabs recent efforts to ask for their customers support and loyalty

there are 2 issues here. lets dismiss the first of those, brodie being restricted. He has raved on about this first via Channel X, and here for over 5 years, longer. There are ample opportunities elsewhere, i gather from his postings regarding his intelligence levels and being on the money he is capable of operating a computer therefore he can bet with others that will trade with him. The TAB is a business, customer is trading, TAB as providor has choice to whether accept or decline trade, this is the right of any business. FFS can we now dismiss brodie. The key and biggest point here is the fact the TAB offered a option exclusively to one punter, at what i believe is a unfair price. They are advetising punters to remain loyal with the tab, in the main, obviously in their ads they should have a disclaimer excluding "always on the money brodster: (jesus chrust who calls them self this, its like that idiot jason derulo who sings his own name) i digress... anyway, they must surely have offset this faourable offer to bgp against every other punter via the tote pool for quinella punters. This is a slap in the face to its customers, its shitting on them. This is what i take issue with. Whilst i am all for special promos, VIP for customers, especially for large losing customers, dont do this at the expense of your backbone of customers, and giving everyone else the majority, a clear fuck you in return.

it can sometimes be six of one, and half a dozen of the other. we had a slow big stayer by pyrus, big bloke. had opie one day on a industry day at avondale over 2000, rated him perfectly in front, kicked on the turn, run down by a whisker paying 80 to 1. the 18s for a place was nice, but my stomach was sore, if he won we would have collected more then the winning stake... went to te aroha next start 2200 maiden, had a senior jockey, instruction was he likes to go forward but let him find his rythym. Cameron Lammas tried riding him like he was vo rogue, we were gone at the 600, said he wasnt fit. i can tell you we were fuming. thats a understatement he didnt handle cut in the ground but we couldnt give him such soace in between runs so had to line him up, couldnt get opie, or any great senior jockey, got a young apprentice, again said let him roll, but he will do it on his own, dont hunt him up, and in a 2000 race,jumped well we were last at the 800, but fighting him trying to retrain him, fuck knows why, finished 5th. im sure freda you have had similar hair pulling experiences. but this is is a loose example of why i rate him so highly. opie gives the horse every chance, he lets them find his rythm, and gets the best out of them if its there. this is the value to me of the best jockeys like opie. we had another tough mare, in gold cloud. you had to let her jump and run, not fight her in the running. because we were a small stable we couldnt always get who we wanted but we had a great relationship with peter johnson and matthew williamson, they always listened, and rode her a treat. we used others, they think they know best, or try rating her, and then you could see she was having a meltdown. my point, great jockeys will take on board your advice, and give them every chance, and give you constructive feedback afterwards. for me Peter Johnson one of the best in doing this. and this is why opie is one of the best. i dont care about value, or value against runner, against previous jockeys on same runner or sectional difference. Mardi cites slower sectionals, but is that because he rates the horse better?, i know from getting a jockey in the echelons of opie, you will get your chance, he will follow your instructions in most caes to the best of his ability, and you will get a great line on your horse afterwards. lets says i had opie on, then afterwards callum jones on. would you read into a sectional difference on the same horse? not withstanding track difference in rating, bias, rail. if callum jones rode the horse 0.2 seconds faster, does that mean anything? long winded post, trying to cite examples of how ludicrous i find the argument on another page trying to say opie and tina would be in the same boat. give tina time. i remember a young michael walker riding for us, there is a big difference in him now, to when he was a young bloke riding in NZ. Tina could still get there, but shes not in the same bracket as opie yet.

and given this, they ran the telegraph in 1.06 and some change. is anyone else buying this? how can one personally verify this? its like when riccarton maidens were running 1.07 on a dead track over the sprint, i couldnt adam and eve it

i have read it too, and freda is right, the discussion piece was on whether opie was value versus his rides, and previous riders on his mounts quoting sectional differences on his mounts against other jockeys, allbeit mardi could only cite 2 examples. heres my view. Opie is the best premier day rider in the country by far. When the money is up, Opie is always the best. Agressive, and most of the time give them every chance, and he wont beat them to death if he doesnt have to. tina is still learning her craft but she has very soft hands, and seems much kinder. Some horses respond much better to this approach. Horses too, different strokes.. Still there is only one Opie Bosson, he is the best premier day rider we have. On a industry day, i dont place as much emphasis. however from the odd time i we have been able to get opies agent on, opie is the best judge to give you a good opinion of your horses ability and what he thinks versus some others. try getting after mount advice from cameron lammas......

you really are a loser, its like you are only ever here to stir shit, or looking for an opportunity to be a dick. what a sad pathetic life you must have. your all over the place on different race sites acting like a know it all, but really, your a sad little man that doesnt even have an opinion, just posts to be a dick. this site is better without your input

were do SAFE say they have no problem with this? i was curious and tried finding were they condone this but cant fnd this anywere. were did you see or find that? i do however agree with your sentiments on whip use. whips nowadays are so heavily padded. i am more involved with thoroughbreds however the use of a whip, ofcourse not to bash the horse, but for safety and education is paramount. however many horses are different. i have raced horses were i have told the jockey not to be overzealous whith the whip, some horses you can get the best out of by being kind. and ofcourse we have had others that try and cheat their way out of a race and need a reminder and ofcourse respond. different strokes....

i cant believe someone would have put 20k on it. i was gutted the 4th horse missed a place, was a lovely price

let us please stick to facts, and better yet, use normal english. Alors...Im coming from a very solid knowledge base after years in the Industry...proven beyond doubt from any person who claims to be able to read... ive read plenty of your commentary, however most of your rhetoric on here suggest your involvement has been more punting related. i dont know why you suggest im involved in Harness, i have no involvement in the code, apart from the very occasional bet, very occasional, so i dont know why you suggest otherwise. i know myself better than you, as does Clayton, and what he does with Catalyst, will know better than you, lets not dispute this please.comments like this i do not understand " Alors...you're a thieves on wheels purveyor...your namesake and obvious hero is a TRUE BLUE dinky Di magic drug cheat who lives with a drug dealer... Id go back to the Harness section if I was you...where some other Harness Type called you a "tosser" if im missing something, enlighten me with facts please, because im incredibly lost and have absolutely no idea at all in what you are trying to say or referring to. i didnt see the interview, was that said by owner or clayton, or both? because whats interesting about that comment, is even with blinkers on, he was not flash at beginning anyway. He raced with blinkers on at Ruakaka got back and rattled home, and at hawkes bay raced near speed, i love his versatility, but with blinkers on anyway was not flash at beginning in most of his previous starts, watch his replays if you try and suggest otherwise. Sectional wise, and without use of blinkers, and first up so not 100% tuned, he arguably went his best race yet at ellerslie? would you dispute this? my argument for saying his best race, is by sectionals, and comparative time versus that of open handicap field. those sectionals were amazing. and he had more up his sleeve. so for mine, and in my opinion he doesnt need blinkers, but being sharper out of gaits would most certainly help him, he cant afford to be slow or tardy out of gates against some of aussies best. so given in most of his career starts to date, and that he has in alot of his races, not been a great starter even with the use of blinkers, and that he has raced in different positions during the run previously i.e. ruakaka and hawkes bay, i do not believe you could say blinkers would have improved him, for his win at ellerslie. to me, sectionally, versus that of other runs, he was actually comparatively alot quicker. if you disagree, id be intrigued to your argument, in english and ideally with substance. you suggest Clayton was moving away from a tried and true formula, but i disagree, because with the blinkers on in his previous starts, whilst he hasnt been a good jumper anyway, has raced in various positions in the running, and hasnt always been handy. see your quote below, " You see Blinkered horses GENERALLY Jump handy...it concentrates the mind...and it's what will be required to match the likes of AB's tactical Speed where it'll race handy... ..out of trouble and where most races are won.. Changing a tried and true formula just because he thinks C doesn't need them anymore is balmy army stuff....." and lastly, you suggest Clayton has made an error, and shown somehow a lack of experience, how is it so that as a successfull jumps jockey, with plenty of experience in pre training, working and being a trainer in his own right for quite a few years now, how is it so that Clayton in your own words is "very inexperienced". I think this shows a complete lack of respect for him, and whilst i do not know Clayton very well at all despite runing into him a few times at races before, for you to say this i believe is rather poor. He has won how many on the bounce, and one of nzs most exciting horses, i think Clayton has done extremely well, and i struggle to see were inexperience from clayton has been detrimental in anyway shape or form. if anything, i really like how the horse is not a one trick pony, and can be versatile in his running position, i think this will help the horse very much in tougher assignments in the future. thomas please stick to facts, and engage in reasonable discussion as i will try to. i apologize to you for my disrespectful comments to you in my first message and take that back, with name calling, that was poor form on my behalf. cheers

i have never been involved in harness. I helped with training race horses for over 15 years with 2 family member stables, with both group success north and south, and biggest feat, 1 group 1 win in avondale cup when it was a group 1. have also had plenty of experience with application of blinkers for some horses, so know very fine and well what it "can" do. I do not say any of this to blow my own trumpet, but to merely point out I have had experience in this game, as both in training and as an owner. so stick to facts. i dont know were you have come up with this. Clayton Chipperfield has had significant experience as both a jockey, and for quite a few years now as a trainer. I have no doubt he in some capacity is still learning, however that is only a good thing, but to suggest he has very little training experience goes to show how little you actually know, and just proves what a complete imbocile you are. Without use of the blinkers, at Ellerslie, Catalyst was arguably atleast 4 lenghts faster than our open handicappers, and won. So please explain how Claytons inexperience shone through here, i thought it was an excellent training first, and first up, and not fully tuned as he obviously has bigger fish to fry, what an amazing horse. you should also realise, that applying blinkers can cause some effects such as overracing, being unkind during the run, racing ungenerously all of which can bring a horse undone, and continuous use of blinkers, were a horse is being unkind can lead to a horse not wanting to put in the same and continuous amount of effort, all factors which i have previously experienced. It is possible that Catalyst relaxes better without blinkers, and with aussie being his target, perhaps he wants the horse to settle better, all possibilities, only Clayton will know. Unless you are affiliated with the stable, Clayton will know the horse and whether the application of blinkers is best, as opposed to you. you have shown yourself to be an absolute muppet who knows fu## all about fu## all. I apologise to others for my use of language, but to suggest you know better than the trainer, to suggest he is very inexperienced when infact despite being relatively young is not inexperienced, and in some way made an error with how he raced the horse without blinkers i just find utterly absurd and completely stupid.

how so? he won his last start without the hood, and went significantly faster than the open handicap sprinters over the same journey. Clayton has been training for some time, Clayton is not a trainer that would typically get the types like you see Te Akau have, or Bakers. However, he has done superbly with Catalyst, and appears to have struck an amazing horse. Whom he has had in great nick. So how is it so that you deem a very experienced trainer a rookie? and explain how he made an error? ive read some of your garbish, and you truly are a total fuckwit and why i hold back from joining in discussions on this site because of absolute morons like you

not a chance mate, can only assess the runner to the field. Thoroughbreds are very temperamental, then with all the race, tempo, etc etc my way is going by balance of probability and comparing tab price to my own expectation of price.

there are so many variables.

it shows your lack of understanding with horses. As others will be able to tell you here, and ive had plenty of experience with helping with training horses, and racing, and blinkers on dont always work. we were also a punting stable, it can be very hit and miss. have also experienced many a time jockeys suggesting blinkers on, different jockey will suggest blinkers off, then vice versa. it can be hit and miss, blinkers first time you cant possibly tell from a punting perspective if that will increase chances, complete unknown. but without question for some horses, they react better in their races and have also experienced were we always used blinkers for some particular horses, from a punting perspective for me, the only way you can really identify without knowing the horse is to compare race starts both with and without blinkers, assess overall performance based on those 2 groups and if their is a clear bias, then you have an identifiable trend to follow. i also agree with others your punting theories are very very questionable and without trying to sound harsh, you beat your own drum so loudly, but have no substance to support your solo

no, but over 90% of them would id say. especially dealing class b substance. class a, yes you hear supply but not using. but i have never heard of a dealer supplying class b not using.

i recall that being the case, i knew she was at least in possession. and if you deal in a substance, you are also likely to be using it aswell

and the question must also be asked, with drugs now being so prevalent in this industry, and already Natalie, and other drivers accused of being in possession of drugs, you would naturally think they would be using. how rigorous is drug testing on drivers? are drivers in races competing under the influence? whilst this is not fixing, its a real shame as it only reflects poorly on the industry. its an industry that is reliant on investment (owners and punters) and this will do nothing for their confidence.