MarkyMark

you would assume they work closely together? to be running new zealands most successful training operation, you would assume as business partners they would be working very long hours together, is that a unreasonable asumption? if someone is on drugs, their behavior on drugs is in most cases, very different to their behaviour when sober. i would have thought it would have been obvious to mark. i dont think i could believe, that as closely as they would work together, that Mark did not know Natalie was using drugs

no didnt forget mate, i didnt comment because i dont know if the two cases are related. related in terms of if there is any connection between the stable staff using p, and what natalie is being charged for. it sets a terrible precedent though, do as i say but not as i do, but they were class a drugs, and rightfully dismissed. Natalie from what i understand is charged with class b drugs, and i believe from what i have read, she nor the all stars are not implicated in fixing. only going by what i have read. what i will add though, whilst drugs are a demon, and im ok admitting i have also had my troubles with them (long ago, say this as i can relate), its a very difficult addiction, it does not reflect at all well on the industry that its leading trainers are so heavily implicated in this. would a potential new owner of integrity want to invest in an industry which is tainted with drugs, cheating and corruption? I must also add, my opinion of Mark Purdon and the all stars has diminished. Because surely Mark mast have known Natalie is using class b drugs, you would surely think so. he is happy to fire his employees for using p and contaminating his horses (fair enough), but Natalie is ok to use illegal substances? and continue in the operation. and this is meant to be our leading stable in NZ

you are saying that you have not accused the all stars of cheating. i recall on multiple occasions you have. if i cared enough i would go over old posts, but im not that sad, im young enough to remember what i have seen. anyway its a waste of time, i was just calling you out. i know you are passionate about the industry and you are standing up for what you believe is right, i admire that. you just leave your argument short on merit when you contradict yourself.

flagship, you should be carefull what you are suggesting. Natalie according to media reports is charged with possession of class b drugs. p or meth is class a. my reference to cheating was post blue magic and my point was in relation to cheating / fixing the all stars as far as i know have not been charged with team driving. whilst the industry allows stables to enter multiple runners, this will always be a grey area i agree however with your sentiments and understand what you are saying

well you are now lying, or your memory is failing you

Did you not accuse the all stars of cheating, or suggest they have cheated without any factual evidence?

Your post stinks of hypocrisy. You have on multiple occasions on race cafe accused the all stars of potentially cheating with no facts to back up your claims. Yet look were you stand now. While some of these figures may have done some good for the industry, if fixing in anyway shape or form is proved correct, then this outweighs the good. It stuffs the reputation of the industry, and has a negative spin off effect. Such as innocent trainers potentially missing new owners to the game because of the reputation these idiots have made for the industry. The scale of their fu## ups could be felt for a long time and affect every participant. I have agreed with many of your posts and sentiments but you are letting yourself down badly here

I have to agree with you both.

i had a place bet on this horse. but my oh my. i know it was a amateur race but what was he thinking. the best horse in the field, has t be one of the most negative drives on a favourite i have seen. see the race and tell me if im seeing things. drove it like a turkey

There is stable domination in each code, look at c waller is NSW, d weir in Victoria. They are dominating as they have best training methods and best runners. An owner doesn't not buy a horse in fear one stables success, they buy in hope.

but its not apples and apples. in may have been a good 3 track, but race tempo, wind, and track deterioration will all play a part, and you could not directly compare the times to suggest who is faster, If the slowest version of the karaka million was facing a head wind, down the straight, compared to another version were they are facing a tail wind, all on a good 3 track, naturally the times will be different, more so closing sectionals

i think times and comparing times are meaningless (what i mean is comparing times, to another track, or the same track on a different day), the only way they are beneficial, is comparing times for that day alone at that meeting, and seeing how the sectionals compare, or how overall time may compare. but again too many variables. such as track deterioration throughout the day, wind factors, change in wind during day, race tempo.

so presumably, with saying that, you have the advantage of getting information from the trainer directly to assess runners chance? And your way of punting is selecting runners who are dropping back a rating band? or you wait for horses you "believe" have superior class, then wait for them to enter a rating band in which you think they would be competitive? if you dont wish to answer, no worries, just im trying to understand your theory towards punting, and how you determine a percentage in assessing horses chance.

I agree they were alerted in 2017. Its a very sad story and for all of us that love these animals its rather heartbreaking

curious, to be fair, from what was described in the article, and by photo, as sad as it is, i think the vet reached the right decision there,. in saying this, the owner should have been put down first. i can not for the life of me understand why people get animals, but then do not take the time to look after them. how id love 5 minutes with the owner of that horse, because id have the owner down 6 feet under before the horse

not a chance. she will have to much one him id say, even if she is only 85% ready. however, will she be vulnerable in the cox plate? humidor got close last cox plate

for the benefit of my understanding, you suggest that blinkers on first time would increase chances of winning by "x" percentage, when you come to the conclusion of this percentage, how do you consider variables such as whether the horse might over race or not with blinkers on? or how to you factor in these variables when determining your percentage that blinkers would improve horses chances?

That's OK Thom, I feel in this instance we will just need to agree to disagree

the real question about this horse is why he hasnt been enforced by stipes to start from the unruly, i wuld say my gripe would be that he hasnt, and if he breaks, he could be distracting other runners by breaking or potentially causing interference. i hope for the owners they reward his patience. the reality is with the right race and manners, he is capable. he showed this at blenhem running close second. The other thing we know with horses, is sometimes when they can get it right once, they can kick on with it. you could cite worse examples of why owners persist. there was a mare that had a club foot, was in the news, the names escapes me, going back a few years ago, had over a 100 starts, and only a couple of placings. i think my grandma could run faster than that mare in reverse.

hesi for the benefit of this site, one should not automatically assume a new poster is here to "troll" or cause mischief. i do not believe any of my posts since joining this site have been anywere near this. i just immediately joined in the conversation and challenged a posters views here. as im sure others may challenge my views in future discussions and i may do the same. its all part of healthy debate. onwards and upwards for everyone

cheers Brodie, and no worries mate. look forward to conversing with you and others on racing matters in other topics. Cheers Mark

cheers Hesi, quite happy with all that i have said. i joined from the other site, but still like to participate in both. look forward to engaging and discussing all things racing with the participants of this site. What attracted me here is that there seems to be more discussion threads here, and more people being involved in different topics which is why i decided to join, so i could join in too, add my opinion, and to understand the views of others. cheers

hi flagship, no guns blazing, have more time on my hands than i would normally have today, so have had the opportunity to join today and debate. i enjoy sensible debate. i fully respect everyones right to an opinion, im not sure how you could construe anything i have said to brodie or thomas as harrassment? just questioning their logic, or citing examples on why i would disagree. i have seen many of brodies comments here and previously on racecafe, and there have been a number of things i have agreed on. if i have said anything out of line, then please feel free to call me out on that, and if i have said anything un reasonable i would certainly apologize for that

i know what a welt is, i just think you are twisting the meaning here. if you are familiar with a horses hide, it would take an almighty effort to leave welt with a padded whip

i dont appreciate being called a tosser, im genuine and here to discuss matters racing. if you dont agree, thats fine, its part of the discussion. but there is no need to resort to name calling, or abuse. all the best Mark