On The Money

[Taku Umanga]

On what planet would the original conditions of the race have this part "Also horses with 1 win since 25/07/2025 if driven by a concession junior driver."

The original conditions (and fields) were out before Origin won on 25/7/2025.

The conditions were changed to align with the rules that allowed the horse to remain entered in its original position off the front.

  

[Brodie]

Taku is totally correct they altered the conditions of the race after Origin won on Friday night!

Yes very poor and is a continuation of some of the shocking decisions being made!

When Origin won, HRNZ had it up for a short time with Origin starting of 20 metres so I also didnt give it a great chance of winning.

Appalling decision by HRNZ once again and have never ever seen this done before ever!

Nothing surprises us anymore as there is preferential treatment for some  and also victimisation towards others in racing in NZ!

Look forward to getting the defense from HRNZ, but they will say nothing to see here?

Edited 19 hours ago by Brodie

[the galah]

well,i'm now consideing there is the possibilty that they put that condition in when the fields came out,that is prior to origin winninng on friday.

now i not saying that happened. i don't know.Others on here are saying,defintely not that.

But it does seem the only likely available escape route for those who handicapped that race,otherwise it seems corruption and favoritism,if whats alleged is true..

I just find it hard,even with my sometimes lack of confidence in how they run hrnz,,that  they couldn't possibly be that dumb as to score  an own goal of that magnitude. Could they really be that stupid?

Especially when they have people like mark jones already criticising the handicapping system and people.

But even on best case scenario for hrnz,the other  1 win horses were still excluded from being able to take advantage of starting off the front, if driven by a concession junior,like origin was

Does the owner or trainer of origin have some connection to the handicappers. 

or maybe someone at hrnz has deliberately sabotaged the handicappers ,so as to look corrupt.

corruption-i just goggled its meaning to confirm its the appropriate word"the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regareded as erroneous or debased"

seems thats the right word if what everyone is saying is true.

what more can you say.

Edited 17 hours ago by the galah

[Taku Umanga]

4 hours ago, the galah said:

well,i'm now consideing there is the possibilty that they put that condition in when the fields came out,that is prior to origin winninng on friday.

now i not saying that happened. i don't know.Others on here are saying,defintely not that.

But it does seem the only likely available escape route for those who handicapped that race,otherwise it seems corruption and favoritism,if whats alleged is true..

I just find it hard,even with my sometimes lack of confidence in how they run hrnz,,that  they couldn't possibly be that dumb as to score  an own goal of that magnitude. Could they really be that stupid?

Especially when they have people like mark jones already criticising the handicapping system and people.

But even on best case scenario for hrnz,the other  1 win horses were still excluded from being able to take advantage of starting off the front, if driven by a concession junior,like origin was

Does the owner or trainer of origin have some connection to the handicappers. 

or maybe someone at hrnz has deliberately sabotaged the handicappers ,so as to look corrupt.

corruption-i just goggled its meaning to confirm its the appropriate word"the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regareded as erroneous or debased"

seems thats the right word if what everyone is saying is true.

what more can you say.

 

As Brodie said, after the horse won on Friday it was initially shown in the fields as being re-handicapped off 20m.

Someone has obviously pointed out the rule (posted above) to the handicapper and the conditions of the race were changed to align with that rule.

How can it be "corruption" when the rules allow it?

Edited 12 hours ago by Taku Umanga

[Blackie]

I very much doubt you can change conditions after fields are published, they can after nominations to get the maximum field but surely not after a field is published. They should have not changed anything and just allowed the new rule to work (ie concession driver on so they can still start) if they knew about it, obviously not. That rule should be void for a maiden winner being able to start again against maidens, seems wrong. Own goal there.

[Taku Umanga]

29 minutes ago, Blackie said:

I very much doubt you can change conditions after fields are published, they can after nominations to get the maximum field but surely not after a field is published. They should have not changed anything and just allowed the new rule to work (ie concession driver on so they can still start) if they knew about it, obviously not. That rule should be void for a maiden winner being able to start again against maidens, seems wrong. Own goal there.

Changing the original conditions to fit the final fields has been happening for years.

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Taku Umanga

[the galah]

6 hours ago, Taku Umanga said:

 

As Brodie said, after the horse won on Friday it was initially shown in the fields as being re-handicapped off 20m.

Someone has obviously pointed out the rule (posted above) to the handicapper and the conditions of the race were changed to align with that rule.

How can it be "corruption" when the rules allow it?

Well its you who is saying they changed the conditons of the race after the horse won..

You said there was no such condition originally.( I've referenced what you said below) 

13 hours ago, Taku Umanga said:

On what planet would the original conditions of the race have this part "Also horses with 1 win since 25/07/2025 if driven by a concession junior driver."

The original conditions (and fields) were out before Origin won on 25/7/2025.

The conditions were changed to align with the rules that allowed the horse to remain entered in its original position off the front.

 t  

To change means alter/modify,so using your words,there was never a provision for a let up

So why are you now saying its ok to change the race conditions after the fields come out?

where's that in the rule youv'e quoted?

And i quoted the definition of

corruption  "the process by which a word or process is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.".

so thats why i said it falls within the definition of the word corruption,based on what your saying.

And this whole non win/1 win isn't the crux of the argument.

As if we go by what your saying,then whats to stop them altering any race conditions after the race when the fields are out. For example what to stop some horse in a mobile 1 win race winning,then them changing the conditions of another 1 win race that its accepted in 2 days later to allow the junior driver concession penalty. ,and so on.

really,lets cut to the chase,your seem to be implying that its within the rules to have many future examples of preferential treatment happening, irrespective of what type a race is being run. 

so why do they have a rule that can be manipultaed by someone,i.e. the handicapper,to give preferential treatment. And its very obviously preferential treatment. As pointed out by you,not me,they specifically altered the conditions of sundays race to exclude the other 1 win horses from getting a let up if driven by a concession driver.

Edited 6 hours ago by the galah

[the galah]

4 hours ago, Taku Umanga said:

Changing the original conditions to fit the final fields has been happening for years.

 

can you name one similar example to what happened on sunday, or any other race where junior drivers have replaced other declared drivers  to gain let ups as a reseult of changes to pre published race conditions.

Edited 6 hours ago by the galah

[Taku Umanga]

24 minutes ago, the galah said:

Well its you who is saying they changed the conditons of the race after the horse won..

You said there was no such condition originally.( I've referenced what you said below) 

To change means alter/modify,so using your words,there was never a provision for a let up

So why are you now saying its ok to change the race conditions after the fields come out?

where's that in the rule youv'e quoted?

And i quoted the definition of

corruption  "the process by which a word or process is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.".

so thats why i said it falls within the definition of the word corruption,based on what your saying.

And this whole non win/1 win isn't the crux of the argument.

As if we go by what your saying,then whats to stop them altering any race conditions after the race when the fields are out. For example what to stop some horse in a mobile 1 win race winning,then them changing the conditions of another 1 win race that its accepted in 2 days later to allow the junior driver concession penalty. ,and so on.

really,lets cut to the chase,your seem to be implying that its within the rules to have many future examples of preferential treatment happening, irrespective of what type a race is being run. 

so why do they have a rule that can be manipultaed by someone,i.e. the handicapper,to give preferential treatment. And its very obviously preferential treatment. As pointed out by you,not me,they specifically altered the conditions of sundays race to exclude the other 1 win horses from getting a let up if driven by a concession driver.

You need to get up to date with the new regulations before accusing anyone of corruption .....

 

17.4. If a horse incurs rating points that takes it out of the parameters of a future race for which it is entered:

a. If a nomination it transfers to an eligible ratings race on the programme.

b. If it is an acceptor in a mobile race, it can retain its eligibility, if driven by a Junior Driver (<50 wins) OR scratches.

c. If it is an acceptor in a stand race, it can retain its eligibility if driven by a concession Junior Driver (<50 wins), OR take the appropriate distance penalty OR scratches.

[Nowornever]

Will all trainers now start nominating their horses for Friday, Sunday in the hope of winning Friday and putting a junior on for a free go in the same field. Why wouldn't you.

Sunday fields might be decimated by scratchings if the horse doesn't win Friday or is a there a stand down rule for scratchings?

[Taku Umanga]

1 minute ago, Nowornever said:

Will all trainers now start nominating their horses for Friday, Sunday in the hope of winning Friday and putting a junior on for a free go in the same field. Why wouldn't you.

Sunday fields might be decimated by scratchings if the horse doesn't win Friday or is a there a stand down rule for scratchings?

Exactly, if you had a horse that you thought would back up, why wouldn't you?

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Taku Umanga said:

You need to get up to date with the new regulations before accusing anyone of corruption .....

 

17.4. If a horse incurs rating points that takes it out of the parameters of a future race for which it is entered:

a. If a nomination it transfers to an eligible ratings race on the programme.

b. If it is an acceptor in a mobile race, it can retain its eligibility, if driven by a Junior Driver (<50 wins) OR scratches.

c. If it is an acceptor in a stand race, it can retain its eligibility if driven by a concession Junior Driver (<50 wins), OR take the appropriate distance penalty OR scratches.

How many times do i have to state the definition of the word corruption.

Why are you ignoring the defintion.

Its not me who makes up the defintion of words.   

"the process by which a word or process is changed from its original state to one regarded as erronous or debased."

i don't know,perhaps your unsure of the definition of the word debased.

It means..

reduced in quality or valued. and gives the example..the debased traditions of sportsmanship.

If your confused as to defintions of  words i've used,just google them.

You've lost me to be honest.

I  started out saying that you would think the original wording in the programming allowed such  a change,then you came on and said no. I quoted what you said above to highlight that.

so i said,well ok maybe your right and what they have done falls within the definition of the word corruption.

Anyway i suggest you go look up google or a dictionary.

i do get what your saying .i.e.they don't need to state any such clause in any race programming.

Edited 3 hours ago by the galah

[the galah]

35 minutes ago, the galah said:

i do get what your saying .i.e.they don't need to state any such clause in any race programming.

heres the simplest way to put it for you taku.

what they did was they implemented a rule which allowed for

"the handicapping process to change form its original state to one regarded as debased from sportmanship."

the exact definition  of corruption

and thats based on what you said. (not me)i.e. 

16 hours ago, Taku Umanga said:

On what planet would the original conditions of the race have this part "Also horses with 1 win since 25/07/2025 if driven by a concession junior driver."

The original conditions (and fields) were out before Origin won on 25/7/2025.

The conditions were changed to align with the rules that allowed the horse to remain entered in its original position off the front.

  

taku are you now withdrawing that comment. 

Maybe your now saying they shouldn't be specifying any such allowable programming change in any race programming,as people should know how it works.

lf thats the case,then how did that go for them,going by this thread and all the negative comments.

And back to mark jones point,how is it fair or sportsmanlike to have a race like they had where other 1 win horses never had a chance of a let up ,even if they had been driven by the very person who drove origin on sunday.

And why should a horse who wins a $16,000 race be treated better than one who's won a $10,000 race a few days prior.

here i was,starting off by  saying i thought that race was an example of a positive change in the new handicapping system,as it  allowed horses who struggle in the 1 win grade to drop back to non win races,thus retaining their participation,when all along it wasn't.lol.

Edited 3 hours ago by the galah

[Brodie]

This rule is just another example of crazy policies that HRNZ seem to bring in!

Just ridiculous that a winner can start on the front against maidens where the other winners are off a back mark!
Who agreed to this BS, just another reason to have no confidence in HRNZ and yet they have a Racing Integrity Board?

Just like the stupid whip rule and enquiry rules, just no common sense with them and underlines the fact that things are not flash with decision making!

Why should maidens who are trying to win their first race line up against an in form race winner off the same mark?

Lunacy, and they wonder why harness is losing participants? 

Edited 1 hour ago by Brodie