Robalan

Brodie, I had been led to understand by posts from yourself and others on this site, that you were an expert on racing. If that is the case then you must have been suffering from an intense bout of brain fog when you made your post. The fact is the horse broke at the start and lost considerable ground(see stipes report). The horse did amazingly well to finish 4th. Horses are not machines, they have limits to what they can do. It's not just a case of putting your foot down on the accelerator

I do think Ms Wigg was treated a little harshly and on the basis of the evidence presented, what she was giving the horse would not improve it's performance. Given that's the case why on earth did she do it.

I'm not aware of the arguments of your wokesters but I doubt they will get much traction. Products and surgical proceedures, to reduce inflammation, bone and cartilage damage have been in use for some considerable time. If used within the timelines set out in the rules, they are not a problem. In fact, without them, I believe there would be few horses racing. If the use of these products and proceedures were banned, then I believe that the SPCA and other animal welfare organisations would be loudly calling for all racing to cease

I dispute your statement Chief. I for one believe that the rule is both necessary and effective. Before the rule was implemented people were giving their horses all sorts of administrations on raceday, mostly by tubing. This rule has clearly stated that no one is to give a horse anything using a tube or syringe on a day that horse is racing. Everybody understands that rule and know that if they are caught contravening the rule then they will be charged and will likely receive a period of disqualification. Since the implementation of the rule we have all been playing on a much more level playing field

What a load of nonsense about nothing. The boy broke the rules and pleaded guilty. End of story

To my recollection, commentators always gave their selections for each race as part of the lead in to the race. Even commentators such as the great Dave Clarkson and Reon Murtha

Trotting in Norway is of a far less quality than in Denmark and particularly Sweden. Sweden is the leading Harness Racing country in Scandinavia and horses from Norway and Denmark often go to race there

I'm sorry Brodie, you make a lot of sense when you post on racing subjects, but your obsession with the covid pandemic and also on Jacinda Adern is bordering on psycothic

I don't know what circles you move in, but $223,500 is a hell of a lot of money in my circles. You may not be able to buy a house with it but it would make a bloody good deposit

You've answered your own question, how many hundred thousands are there in 200,000

I don't know what Matt Anderson has been doing during his absence from racing, but he has been spending hundreds of thousands on yearlings at the sales, so it must have been profitable

Records are available on line Chief, visit the HRNZ website and you will be able to see who is loaded as owner of any horse you might be interested in. As for saving the transfer fee, you would be surprised at how many horses suddenly change ownership just before they go to the trials for the first time. In contrast you will be able to find many instances of horses sold at the yearling sales, which still show the breeder as owner even up to several years later

The HRNZ rules state that any change of ownership for any horse must be regustered with them, immediately. However if owners do not register a change of ownership, because they may want to,say, wait to find out if the horse is any good before they pay out the cange of ownership fee. How are HRNZ to know if the owner shown on their records is not rgthe person who actually owns the horse.

You make some good points Chief, but with Anderson you are overlooking the fact that he was found guilty of attempted strangulation and assault and was certainly not discharged without conviction on this charge. You say HRNZ should tighten up thier systems to make it impossible for people like Kerr to commit fraud. Please explain what you would do to achieve this foolproof system

It is not a rule it is the policy

According to the gist of most of the posts on this subject, Racing would be better without the Racing Integrity Unit. People like Anderson, McGrath, Alford and Kerr etc are just decent guys who made one slight mistake. I for one don't hold that view and I am very thankful for the work done by the staff of the RIU

I never said that Anderson was disqualified. Harness Racing will not consider an application for a licence or any other transaction until 2 years after the date of receiving a criminal conviction. In Matt andersons case he would have to apply for relicencing and this would require the approval of the Harness Racing Executive

I'm sorry, I must have accidentally been posted to the wrong site, I was looking for a chat site about racing

Lets wait and see

I don't think there would be many doctors, nurses or teachers in that ferile mob outside parliament

It's not worth arguing about, it will be interesting to see what arises

That is correct, but if they take part in those activities the authorities are unlikely to ever relicence them

I said he would be charged, you disagreed

There is an automatic 2 year stand down after receiving a criminal conviction

Maybe you will now concede that I was right, Chief