What were they thinking.

[the galah]

just watched race 9 at invercargill and it was interesting the close up they had after the race of kirk larsen smiling to brent barclay and then brent barclay smiling back with 1000m to go.

kirk larsen had just driven his horse into submission by keeping out the favorite,eventually fininshing at a walk 200m last,then b barclay immediately attacked from that poinbt,driving with real intent to ensure the leadwer got no peace. Of course he gave his horse no chance either by doing that.

Thats  racin g i suppose,but t wasn't amusing if you backed any of those 3 horses,espcwi wonder why they thought it was amusing especially larsens.

strange  

Edited June 3 by the galah

[Newmarket]

26 minutes ago, the galah said:

just watched race 9 at invercargill and it was interesting the close up they had after the race of kirk larsen smiling to brent barclay and then brent barclay smiling back with 1000m to go.

kirk larsen had just driven his horse into submission by keeping out the favorite,eventually fininshing at a walk 200m last,then b barclay immediately attacked from that poinbt,driving with real intent to ensure the leadwer got no peace. Of course he gave his horse no chance either by doing that.

Thats  racin g i suppose,but t wasn't amusing if you backed any of those 3 horses,espcwi wonder why they thought it was amusing especially larsens.

strange  

Yeah, under the circumstances that Bobbie’s Rock went huge

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Newmarket said:

Yeah, under the circumstances that Bobbie’s Rock went huge

It did go good,but had a hard run for nothing.

I just thought trackside capturing the other 2 drivers smiling at each other,then b barclay pressing on hard straight after that,effectively undermining his own chances,indicated something.

I suppose they are only human and showed personalities or relationships,past or present,egos,wanting to make a statement, come into drivers tactics sometimes.

Its just that normally never helps their chances in the particular race involved.

today an example of that.

Edited June 3 by the galah

[Doomed]

Fascinating race. The commentator certainly thought it looked strange, but the stipes didn't seem to spot anything wrong at all. At best it could probably described as incompetent driving by the drivers mentioned above.

[Nowornever]

1 hour ago, Doomed said:

the stipes didn't seem to spot anything wrong at all

Do they ever? They don't wake up unless there is a lower rated driver whipping 10.5 times instead of 10. Then they will have the magnifying glass out in front of the video and then the guy tied up in the chair trying to get a confession.

[Brodie]

Didnt watch much of the racing today,!

Note that race 6, being a race for horses that had won one race.

They came home the last half in 61.4  and last 400m in 31.1?????

Would that be the slowest last quarter on an all weather good track down south for a very long time???

 

 

Edited June 3 by Brodie

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Brodie said:

Didnt watch much of the racing today,!

Note that race 6, being a race for horses that had won one race.

They came home the last half in 61.4  and last 400m in 31.1?????

Would that be the slowest last quarter on an all weather good track down south for a very long time???

 

 

The whole handicapping system is applied differentlly in nz and i think sometimes they stand on their head when deciding what to dp.

For example.

In the areas where they need more horses to progress higher up the ratings system,they programme the most races that can be penalty free if driven by a junior driver..

Today they had 5 horses in the highest rating race at invercargill.Just 5 horses.

who wants to bet on 5 horse races?

So you have to ask,why does  southland and the other region with the smallest number of higher rated horses,auckland/waikato,run the most races that are possibly penalty free.

This week 40%(4/10) of the races in the north island were possible penalty free races. 20%(2/10) of southland races were and just under 5%(1/22) in canterbury.

They seem to be working on the theory that having less horses going up in the ratings is of less importance than giving juniors additional opportunities.

it also seem to be an admission that the half penalties aren't enough to encourage trainers in those areas to give  junior drivers who have less than 50 wins a drive. So they virtually have to double the incentive.

Edited June 3 by the galah

[Doomed]

11 hours ago, the galah said:

The whole handicapping system is applied differentlly in nz and i think sometimes they stand on their head when deciding what to dp.

For example.

In the areas where they need more horses to progress higher up the ratings system,they programme the most races that can be penalty free if driven by a junior driver..

Today they had 5 horses in the highest rating race at invercargill.Just 5 horses.

who wants to bet on 5 horse races?

So you have to ask,why does  southland and the other region with the smallest number of higher rated horses,auckland/waikato,run the most races that are possibly penalty free.

This week 40%(4/10) of the races in the north island were possible penalty free races. 20%(2/10) of southland races were and just under 5%(1/22) in canterbury.

They seem to be working on the theory that having less horses going up in the ratings is of less importance than giving juniors additional opportunities.

it also seem to be an admission that the half penalties aren't enough to encourage trainers in those areas to give  junior drivers who have less than 50 wins a drive. So they virtually have to double the incentive.

One thing I have never understood about harness racing is this reluctance to move horses through the grades. Any opportunity for a penalty free race and they leap at it. I imagine there must be almost 500 odd races in Southland each season for maidens and 1,2,3 win horses, yet put on a race for 5 or more win horses and you are lucky to get 6 or 7 starters. Where do the winners go?

And this socialist approach where maidens race for higher stakes than winners is just weird.

I can remember back in the 80s when horses were desperate to get 10 wins so they could start in the "Cup". Since then it seems that the worse thing you can possibly do is win several in a row. How many $2 maiden winners go on to win their next start?

There obviously needs to be some incentive for horses to work through the grades. Having a $100,000 Invercargill Cup clearly hasn't achieved much. 

I suspect the punters want to see some decent 5+ win* races with several last start winners all working their way through the grades.

*I don't understand the harness rating system so I prefer to refer to such things as 5+ wins.

[Brodie]

The up to 75 rating class at Addington on Friday night has 3 nominations?

The 2 year old fillies race at Auckland Friday night for a reasonable stake, has how many nominations?

ZERO!!

Breeding incentives are working good!👍 

[the galah]

40 minutes ago, Brodie said:

The up to 75 rating class at Addington on Friday night has 3 nominations?

The 2 year old fillies race at Auckland Friday night for a reasonable stake, has how many nominations?

ZERO!!

Breeding incentives are working good!👍 

At least theres more 2 year olds looking for a start in southland than auckland. They got 1 nomination for the southland 2 year old race.

The most obvious thing about the idea 2 year old bonuses would mean more starters,is people who commented on this website like ourselves,said this will never achieve what hrnz said it will.

So clearly we have more idea of what works than the people in charge.

 

[Doomed]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

 

So clearly we have more idea of what works than the people in charge.

 

Don't go thinking that makes you sound especially clever.

[the galah]

Just had a  look at the nominations for addington on sunday.

176 nominations.

5 horses share the highest rating for the day. R50.

martha stuart who has won $99,000,very majestic,chicago bear,both 1 win horses and 2 non win horses.,1 of whom has had 1 start and the other a first starter.

So the first starter is equal highest rated for the day,and higher than 171 other horses nominated.

At least the 2 start non win horse,betting gift, doesn't have to draw the outside in the amatuer race this week, due to its high rating. But it still draws 7,  due to the draw being preferential based on ratings. It  draws outside horses who have won the likes of 16,5 and 4  races.

Edited June 4 by the galah

[Doomed]

40 minutes ago, the galah said:

Just had a  look at the nominations for addington on sunday.

176 nominations.

5 horses share the highest rating for the day. R50.

martha stuart who has won $99,000,very majestic,chicago bear,both 1 win horses and 2 non win horses.,1 of whom has had 1 start and the other a first starter.

So the first starter is equal highest rated for the day,and higher than 171 other horses nominated.

At least the 2 start non win horse,betting gift, doesn't have to draw the outside in the amatuer race this week, due to its high rating. But it still draws 7,  due to the draw being preferential based on ratings. It  draws outside horses who have won the likes of 16,5 and 4  races.

You can see why I said earlier that I didn't understand the harness rating system and I preferred to use the number of wins, which was the old system. I did think it might make me sound a bit thick and someone was going to come on here and call me dopy because I couldn't follow something really simple. 

I sort of feel vindicated by Galah's comments. 

Do you think someone should advise HRNZ that the system may need some minor refinements?

[the galah]

17 hours ago, Doomed said:

You can see why I said earlier that I didn't understand the harness rating system and I preferred to use the number of wins, which was the old system. I did think it might make me sound a bit thick and someone was going to come on here and call me dopy because I couldn't follow something really simple. 

I sort of feel vindicated by Galah's comments. 

Do you think someone should advise HRNZ that the system may need some minor refinements?

hrnz  have had their board member,staff,handicappers,trainers look at the current rating system..Even as late as last year they came back and said no changes needed.

Blind freddy can tell the non win horses are unfairly started at a rating 50. Because of that any horse who wins a non win early in its career, immediately has to race against horses it shouldn't.

They did have a committee  that about 4 months ago came out and said they needed to bring non win ratings down to r 40,but with less than 2 months to go, when they said they may look at that change,nothing has been said recently.

Then again the same committee recommended 2 year olds who win go back to being rated non win horses when they turn 3. 

So on one hand they were trying to implement something that would help encourage people to continue participation  with horses at the lower end(where the most horses are),but on the other hand were re introducing a policy that in the past discouraged the very same group of people.

In my view they are right if they change to start as r40  non win horses.

they don't actually have to change much else in the way horses are rated.

But they do need to change the people or the mindset of the people who programme races.

For example they should have more races with appropriate conditions to encourage participation at all ends of the spectrum.

You should have non win races for lower stakes.e.g $6000,where they could have rating 35 horses with no earnings or earnings under $2000 in their last 5 starts. Then the horse that wins that race could then start in a $12,000 race against non win horses,with a condition that the race was for non win horses or horses with a winning stake equivalent to that received in the $6,000.

people say thats catering to the bottom end. Well turnovers show that you would be more likely to generate a profit for hrnz on races like that,it would just be a matter of running them in the right mid week or sunday time slots.

Then you could programme races for horses with whatever rating ,but with conditions that they have only 1 career win. and so on. Then you could have races for say 3,4 or 6 plus win horses and set conditions based on total earnings and earnings in last so many starts.It would not be hard to programme races where all horses can find a suitable race based on recent form and past record.

they need to use Preferantial barrier draws properly.

it doesn't seem over complicated but the programmers or handicappers keep tinkering but haven't worked out how to do it right.

stakes need to be reduced for the conditioned races where there is not much form and increased a little for races where  the ratings are higher. 

people need to face the facts. There is only so many races run. you are better to spread a bit more of the wins across the board,as that is how you will encourage continued participation.

for some reason they seem to think stakes are the be all and end all for everyone ,but they aren't for connections of horses at the bottom end. They just want to occasionally run in races where they may have a chance and are happy to compromise  on the stakes won front.

its just logic. would you rather run in races with little chance of earning but good stakes,or a chance of earning,bit low stakes.

The extra mid week meetings should have been focussed in canterbury. The tuesday meetings should have been for these lower stake,less form type of horse with say 2 lots of 3 heats and 2 penalty free finals on the friday nights 3 days later,with the field being comprised of 12 horses,made up of the first 4 home in the heats.Obviously realistically they probably need to run at least the heats over sprint distances.

 

the 

Edited June 5 by the galah

[Doomed]

5 hours ago, the galah said:

hrnz  have had their board member,staff,handicappers,trainers look at the current rating system..Even as late as last year they came back and said no changes needed.

Blind freddy can tell the non win horses are unfairly started at a rating 50. Because of that any horse who wins a non win early in its career, immediately has to race against horses it shouldn't.

They did have a committee  that about 4 months ago came out and said they needed to bring non win ratings down to r 40,but with less than 2 months to go, when they said they may look at that change,nothing has been said recently.

Then again the same committee recommended 2 year olds who win go back to being rated non win horses when they turn 3. 

So on one hand they were trying to implement something that would help encourage people to continue participation  with horses at the lower end(where the most horses are),but on the other hand were re introducing a policy that in the past discouraged the very same group of people.

In my view they are right if they change to start as r40  non win horses.

they don't actually have to change much else in the way horses are rated.

But they do need to change the people or the mindset of the people who programme races.

For example they should have more races with appropriate conditions to encourage participation at all ends of the spectrum.

You should have non win races for lower stakes.e.g $6000,where they could have rating 35 horses with no earnings or earnings under $2000 in their last 5 starts. Then the horse that wins that race could then start in a $12,000 race against non win horses,with a condition that the race was for non win horses or horses with a winning stake equivalent to that received in the $6,000.

people say thats catering to the bottom end. Well turnovers show that you would be more likely to generate a profit for hrnz on races like that,it would just be a matter of running them in the right mid week or sunday time slots.

Then you could programme races for horses with whatever rating ,but with conditions that they have only 1 career win. and so on. Then you could have races for say 3,4 or 6 plus win horses and set conditions based on total earnings and earnings in last so many starts.It would not be hard to programme races where all horses can find a suitable race based on recent form and past record.

they need to use Preferantial barrier draws properly.

it doesn't seem over complicated but the programmers or handicappers keep tinkering but haven't worked out how to do it right.

stakes need to be reduced for the conditioned races where there is not much form and increased a little for races where  the ratings are higher. 

people need to face the facts. There is only so many races run. you are better to spread a bit more of the wins across the board,as that is how you will encourage continued participation.

for some reason they seem to think stakes are the be all and end all for everyone ,but they aren't for connections of horses at the bottom end. They just want to occasionally run in races where they may have a chance and are happy to compromise  on the stakes won front.

its just logic. would you rather run in races with little chance of earning but good stakes,or a chance of earning,bit low stakes.

The extra mid week meetings should have been focussed in canterbury. The tuesday meetings should have been for these lower stake,less form type of horse with say 2 lots of 3 heats and 2 penalty free finals on the friday nights 3 days later,with the field being comprised of 12 horses,made up of the first 4 home in the heats.Obviously realistically they probably need to run at least the heats over sprint distances.

 

the 

That is a well thought out suggestion, but interestingly no one has commented on it. I have noticed that anything a bit complex on here about the structural aspects of the industry seems to fly over the head of many. It would be interesting to see some input from trainers about how they think the flow of horses could be improved.

[Slippery Slope]

2 hours ago, Doomed said:

That is a well thought out suggestion, but interestingly no one has commented on it. I have noticed that anything a bit complex on here about the structural aspects of the industry seems to fly over the head of many. It would be interesting to see some input from trainers about how they think the flow of horses could be improved.

Unfortunately I think most of the knowledgeable contributors here know the industry needs real change, it is incredibly urgent, but it may already be too late. Right now there is limited clarity and detail coming out of a clearly resource challenged HRNZ since the managment losses back in January/ February on what happens next. Except for the somewhat debateable 2yo bonus incentive, we probably all have to be very concerned that the previous administration's effort to innovate in the calendar (good and bad admittedly), and provide transparency on performance reporting is going out the window. The month of May has come and gone, and the first new Tues/Fri northern dates combo is supposed to start in only 60 days from now. None of these dates changes have any chance of success (which means betting returns match or exceed cost of stakes) without a re-organised handicapping and stakes subsidy system.

We are all no wiser as to how HRNZ will invest stakes subsidies differently for the good of the 75% of breeders/ owners/ trainers who can keep it alive. There has been nothing said about how the handicapping system may be modified. What is going to be different, and how can any owner and trainer (especially in the South Island) commit to and invest in the industry when its leadership is really battling to explain what its strategy is and how it will sustain the core of harness racing against the incredibly competitive world of online / digital gaming and gambling? The latest HRNZ Chair's update last week has specified end July to finalise code funding agreements and end September for completion of the horse utilisation work (presumably to implement asap thereafter?). Those dates all seem far too late don't they? So be ready for a very messy spring schedule of meetings with cancellations, especially in the North, and lesser betting returns from Sunday racing in the south with increased throughbred competition.    

Even more worrying times for the majority of our owners and trainers lie ahead. Our 4 leading training partnerships have all earned over $1m in stakes already this year, the next best have stakes earnings of less than $450,000. This is not a sustainable business model. 

[Gammalite]

1 hour ago, Slippery Slope said:

Even more worrying times for the majority of our owners and trainers lie ahead. Our 4 leading training partnerships have all earned over $1m in stakes already this year, the next best have stakes earnings of less than $450,000. This is not a sustainable business model. 

Just not starting or training enough horses mate. 

Too many 'old' trainers possibly , who only want to do a few horses at a time. 

John Dickie started just 29, J Cox 26, Hayden Cullen 22 ?? etc etc. and it's been half a year and they start one horse per week ???  they are fairly big names and there are many more with very poor numbers. Cullen has just had Greeeat grounding at Allstars and Telfers. should be starting plenty. Mark Jones scratching around on the grass tracks all the time, he should build a Metro team with SamO and should do better. G

Great to see the Dunns at 'the beach' with lots of horses though , and lots of staff, lots of effort,  and lots of Winners !! 💰👍🏆 at least someones having a real dig at racing a lot of different horses. I cheer them on more than Allstars these days  

I remember 4 of us doing 25 horses daily , and racing 15 per week for a good long time , into years even. 5 raced on Wed, 5 on Fri, 5 on Sat metro, 5 on the truck Sunday to the workouts/education, 5 young ones or work ups at home. and we did it easily. 

couldn't imagine just having only one starter per week like those NZ blokes ?  Definitely Not a sustainable Business model as you said . 

[TAB For Ever]

Re the above discussions on Harness and the lack of comment....

I think a lot of us have just accepted things as they are and stopped worrying about the administration of the sport and the way Clubs are heading !

Phase out slowly.......

Wonder at how these increased meetings for lower stAkes are going to fare , the monthly training bills are going up and expect a n increase on August 1 or soon after . Never hear much about how the Northern Clubs are gonna get thru the next year ,where are the horses ?

More racing but less inclination to bet on them , look forward to Cup week and the big races ,and a few picnic meetings in South over the Summer.

Businesses all over NZ are struggling , folding as people think twice before spending their dosh , poor Entain could be going against the tide .

[Brodie]

53 minutes ago, TAB For Ever said:

Re the above discussions on Harness and the lack of comment....

I think a lot of us have just accepted things as they are and stopped worrying about the administration of the sport and the way Clubs are heading !

Phase out slowly.......

Wonder at how these increased meetings for lower stAkes are going to fare , the monthly training bills are going up and expect a n increase on August 1 or soon after . Never hear much about how the Northern Clubs are gonna get thru the next year ,where are the horses ?

More racing but less inclination to bet on them , look forward to Cup week and the big races ,and a few picnic meetings in South over the Summer.

Businesses all over NZ are struggling , folding as people think twice before spending their dosh , poor Entain could be going against the tide .

Despite what some have said, Entain was never after the TAB for the racing!

They have the Sports and non sport betting with the TAB for 25 years, and that is what they were after!

Do they really care if harness racing crashes in NZ?

No, they do not, if they did Shannon would be coming out speaking about the current issues!

McAnulty and others have been conned big time, just like what the looney left did to most citizens with the Covid BS!

Fauci has been grilled and the truth is coming out all over the place including medical specialists who are now stating that the so called vaccines has been the reason for the excess deaths!

Who wouldve thought?

 

 

[the galah]

23 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Despite what some have said, Entain was never after the TAB for the racing!

They have the Sports and non sport betting with the TAB for 25 years, and that is what they were after!

Do they really care if harness racing crashes in NZ?

No, they do not, if they did Shannon would be coming out speaking about the current issues!

McAnulty and others have been conned big time, just like what the looney left did to most citizens with the Covid BS!

Fauci has been grilled and the truth is coming out all over the place including medical specialists who are now stating that the so called vaccines has been the reason for the excess deaths!

Who wouldve thought?

 

 

The whole manipulation of data around the vaccine is nuts.

I read not that long ago they did a study on women having miscarriages .Data from 249,000 women.

They found those who had been vaccinated were almost twice as likely to have a miscarriage as those that weren't.

So what did they do.

They then decided they had to look closer into the data and came up with the answer,so they say.

Women having pregnancies later in life are more likely to have a miscarriage and because those women are more likely to be vaccinated and because more of those who had had miscarriages also came from socio economic groups,which they said were more likely to be vaccinated,they factored that in and instead of the women being almost double the chance of having a miscarriage if vaccinated as the original data showed,after the recalulation they were in fact more likely to have it if unvaccinated.

if you do a goggle search,goggle filters out studies like that and all you get are the results saying vaccine good,unvaccinated bad.

The whole thing is so dishonest. 

you mentioned excess deaths. I used to look up the oecd excess deaths.

anyone can see it although they are swithcing off the patform from next week.

Why they are doing that,i'm not sure as its so easy to understand the data they show. Maybe thats why.

but anyway,new zealand excess deaths in the whole of last year were not good reading % wise. I wonder why?

Edited June 6 by the galah

[the galah]

15 hours ago, Gammalite said:

Just not starting or training enough horses mate. 

Too many 'old' trainers possibly , who only want to do a few horses at a time. 

John Dickie started just 29, J Cox 26, Hayden Cullen 22 ?? etc etc. and it's been half a year and they start one horse per week ???  they are fairly big names and there are many more with very poor numbers. Cullen has just had Greeeat grounding at Allstars and Telfers. should be starting plenty. Mark Jones scratching around on the grass tracks all the time, he should build a Metro team with SamO and should do better. G

Great to see the Dunns at 'the beach' with lots of horses though , and lots of staff, lots of effort,  and lots of Winners !! 💰👍🏆 at least someones having a real dig at racing a lot of different horses. I cheer them on more than Allstars these days  

I remember 4 of us doing 25 horses daily , and racing 15 per week for a good long time , into years even. 5 raced on Wed, 5 on Fri, 5 on Sat metro, 5 on the truck Sunday to the workouts/education, 5 young ones or work ups at home. and we did it easily. 

couldn't imagine just having only one starter per week like those NZ blokes ?  Definitely Not a sustainable Business model as you said . 

The 3 trainers you intially mention. j dickie,j cox,h cullen.

Ii would say only johnny cox can be classified as someone who is happy training both good horses and your average run of the mill horses that owners can get a lot of pleasure from,without making money.Hes santas excuse an example of that.

Many successful trainers have a policy of identifying the horses who can at least get close to paying their way and if not,well many are discarded.

No one can be blamed for having that approach.it obviously works for them and their owners.

But from an industry perspective,theres wastage of a resource that is badly needed to sustain harness racing.

Thats why i ask this question and give an example..

Why does the indutry not do more to keep the grass roots people involved.

e.g. P Andrews.

a trainer from invercargill that few would ever think of as being important to the industry and because of that industry leadership would never give him a second thought.

well p andrews has lined up his horses more times than h cullen in each of the last 4 years,and more in 3 of the last 4 years than j dickie or j cox.

Tomorrow he has a horse going around. Sly tricks. 109 starts for 1 win. Last start 20 lengths last.

What are hrnz doing to retain that mans participation.

Nothing .

what could they do.

well tomorrow,instead of putting him in a 10 horse 1 win race where he has no chance,why didn't they put him in the non win 7 horse field,where most likely even at his best,rival trainers would be happy to see him.It would have been a win/win decision for him and the club.

just common sense to me.

No one likes running last,even if you are a battler. So how long will he last for.

to retain his enthusiasm,there should be things in place that will help him think he is valued.

They should have contacted him and said we are dropping your horse back to a non win field because we value you,would be a good start point.

Edited June 6 by the galah

[Doomed]

3 hours ago, the galah said:

The 3 trainers you intially mention. j dickie,j cox,h cullen.

Ii would say only johnny cox can be classified as someone who is happy training both good horses and your average run of the mill horses that owners can get a lot of pleasure from,without making money.Hes santas excuse an example of that.

Many successful trainers have a policy of identifying the horses who can at least get close to paying their way and if not,well many are discarded.

No one can be blamed for having that approach.it obviously works for them and their owners.

But from an industry perspective,theres wastage of a resource that is badly needed to sustain harness racing.

Thats why i ask this question and give an example..

Why does the indutry not do more to keep the grass roots people involved.

e.g. P Andrews.

a trainer from invercargill that few would ever think of as being important to the industry and because of that industry leadership would never give him a second thought.

well p andrews has lined up his horses more times than h cullen in each of the last 4 years,and more in 3 of the last 4 years than j dickie or j cox.

Tomorrow he has a horse going around. Sly tricks. 109 starts for 1 win. Last start 20 lengths last.

What are hrnz doing to retain that mans participation.

Nothing .

what could they do.

well tomorrow,instead of putting him in a 10 horse 1 win race where he has no chance,why didn't they put him in the non win 7 horse field,where most likely even at his best,rival trainers would be happy to see him.It would have been a win/win decision for him and the club.

just common sense to me.

No one likes running last,even if you are a battler. So how long will he last for.

to retain his enthusiasm,there should be things in place that will help him think he is valued.

They should have contacted him and said we are dropping your horse back to a non win field because we value you,would be a good start point.

Once again, as you suggest, the problem is the total disconnect between the owners and trainers who provide the product, and the enthusiasm, and the powers that be who govern the industry and make the policies. Sometimes you do wonder who exactly the governing bodies think they are actually working for and what they are trying to achieve.