Noodlum

It's called money laundering.

When I read this I kept an eye on the pools before they closed. About $6k in each of the win and place pools. Not much in the exotics. With $12,500 in stakes I'd say they would be way short of paying for them. Not good at all.

What's your rationale for saying that? Or are just popping in to fire some cheap shots around the place?

According to your post elsewhere we are all nutters this site! Does that include yourself?

But in terms of selecting a value winner wind speed is a waste of time. You may as well measure grass blade length.

The Flemington website says it is only available before the races. Doesn't mention during. Plus wind doesn't tend to blow in 4 different directions at once. At the end of the day it's useless information in picking out the best value runner. Just like trying to predict who's not going to get "cover."

You might get Strangles in Christchurch.

I believe CJ was driving "to ensure the best possible finishing outcome" for the horse he was driving. The horse was an inexperienced trotter backing up in less than a week that has a lot to learn and is not an easy drive. It was a 7 horse maiden trotters field with a hot favourite and a clear second favourite. The horse was racing for third at best. As it is when the pressure went on it broke and ended up 50 lengths last! Wasn't too long ago that this type of horse wouldn't have got a start and would have had to have good trial form to do so. Now we have the situation where maiden trotters are learning the game in $9,000 races. The Stipes are inexperienced and wouldn't have a clue. Those of us that are long term harness followers wouldn't have backed it and understand what happened. Other punters who don't understand harness racing wouldn't have even noticed! Maybe they should look at the betting records to make it a complete farce!

Using that argument why wasn't Thornley questioned for not attacking the favourite harder when he had a chance?

No because the driver may think the horse on the outside may be going the same speed or faster. Instead it stops. Lack of practice? Better TV coverage or a new excuse?

How would a horse be facing a breeze if a wind was behind it? Is that apparent breeze? Isn't this information available from local met stations?

Which would depend on wind direction would it not?

As opposed to ending up 3 back behind the favourite. The punters should be happy as the result was what they predicted.

Ask CJ as that was what he said I in his evidence. If the horse was a better proposition then he would have held his position.

How the hell do you work that out if they both move? What if one driver went for a gap where there was room for his horse but not his sulky?

Can you tell us how you use this information in your punting strategy?

It's presumably called "random testing"! The rationale being if you don't know who is going to be tested you are less likely to be tested. I guess HRNZ are trying to save money. It's a farce but I guess the part time CEO will get some new instructions when on the Hutt Golf course next time.

LOL how do you determine which driver is at fault?

So CJ was under instructions to give the stable-mate the trail? Knowing CJ he probably knew his horse had no show. Getting a trail behind his stable-mate was a bonus. I disagree partly with that. The horse wouldn't steer to the inside (rail) and was on one rein. The tap made the horse focus. Going on past performances the chances of his horse would have been enhanced by getting cover on the rail. You don't know that. He may have kept pressing forward and CJ would have ended up in the same position 3 back on the rail.

Didn't change the punter's predicted result. Wasn't steering that well until Colin gave it a tap. Spot the Gamble was backing up and as soon as the pace went on broke. Would CJ have got the same penalty if the horse let in had been from another stable?

What's the point of posting dates without the other information? Are they signalling that they don't really know for example what stakes will be available? Even though we've been promised the same level as last year?

Look on the bright side Brodie. If it was Australia and the owner took a lay bet on the Spit he would be fined! Did you see that? A Thoroughbred owner backed his horse on the Tote to win and then took a lay bet. Obviously hedging. In OZ an owner is not allowed to lay their own horses! In NZ our RIU betting analysts wouldn't know what a lay was!

Yeah na. HRNZ are "holden, holding, Rawhide"!

Actually sorry for quoting my own post but I found with horses the THREAT of being hit was more of an inducement than Actually hitting a horse. Hence hitting the sulky shaft! Horses are no different to the rest of us most are lazy. The really good ones don't need to be hit because they have the will to win and give their best. A good driver/trainer knows that and doesn't hit those horses. BUT now they are likely to be fined for "not driving their horse out" whatever that means. The problem is that the "harness police" and the RIU have never had any hands on experience with horse's.

So every winner is NOT tested. Isn't this against policy? LOL if you cheat just make sure you win!