For a reason 1:50!!!

[german]

Exhibit 1 In Appeal - 28/9/13 Menangle Race 7.
It seems that Lauren is becoming the new Koala Bear of the industry.
Luke is a morale to get off on appeal.

Luke is no moral to get off on appeal. Dont kid yourself, he has absolutely no chance he may as well not even appeal. He shouldn't have got 6 weeks i agree totally it was incorrect he should have received 6 months!!! What he did was a discrace on the trotting industry, they should have called him in and cut up his licence. Excel Stride wasn't pulling Luke was chassing it up to lay the pressure on he gave his horse no chance of winning. Some trotting people in a weird world watch the replay no the race no the horses it was clear as day a tactical drive to help the stable mate and intern bury the leader. Pretty simple i repeat again Luke Mcarthy a discrace! No wonder the trots in NSW are going down hill with the main stable having to turn to these tactics with a champion like Excel Stride.

[Pena]

This drive was no worse than the Suave Stuey drive. Although the 47kg girl seems to be an acceptable excuse. Well it doesn't cut it with me. If Reid Sanders and his team want to take the hard line position then go for it, but just be consistent. In 3 weeks Panella had two incidents of not being able to hold a horse "APPARENTLY", with the COT drive on Longtan Luke and the Suave Stuey. Penalty - ZERO. When you see people like Adam Francis getting 6 weeks for I am still not sure why, there definitely seems to be a massive bias towards the new golden girl of harness racing.

[mango]

Hi Jack

Would have to agree with you totally, just watched all drives again on the horses you have mentioned and can't understand how Luke get's time and Lauren not a thing. I would like to know what the stewards see different in those races to what i'm looking at. In know way am I having a go at Lauren as I think she is doing a great job but in saying that if she apparently can't hold certain horse's maybe she should not be driving them.

[ScabsCat]

There have been a lot of curious decisions by stewards in recent months. I can think back to August 10 when the now infamous "Mister Chow" race occurred. Ashlee receives a 6 week suspension for going to the rear and disappearing at the horses previous start, then on August 10, Mister McRooney a noted leader hands the lead up to Mister Chow who leads from barrier 5. No COT on either horse, Mister Chow is backed into even money after it's "disappointing" run the week before. And not a question asked by the Stipes. I believe that to be the moment harness racing took a turn for the worse in NSW.

[Boydy]

I am a massive advocate for the removal of the Change of Tactics rule.

To start with I do not believe that the rule helps the everyday punter in the TAB it only helps the professinal punter. The rule takes away any initiative and can lead to uncompetitive racing especially when a favourite going further forward.

The sooner the rule is scraped the better. It amazes me that the participants don't take action through their representative to get rid of the rule as I have never spoken to anyone that thinks the rule is either good for the sport or the participants.

[ScabsCat]

I agree Boydy, you either have to police it fully or get rid of the rule. I don't think it was simply an oversight on August 10 however.

[Pena]

Dallas, the facts are any fair minded person can see the Suave Stuey drive and the Excel drives were almost identical and produced the same result both horses sets of horses getting beaten 30+ metres. In each circumstance both drivers gave their horses no chance of winning. Adam said in one of his previous posts his horse has always won from the front, but Adam Mach Beauty has never been subject to a 26.9 second quarter. By holding in this instance MB had no hope, particularly being first up.
On the rules of racing, if a race is run too slow the driver of the leader gets fined. If the race is run too fast the driver in the death gets suspended. Does any one find this strange???
I am sure glad that my livelyhood does not depend on the current rules of harness racing.

[Toohard]

Hi Jack

Would have to agree with you totally, just watched all drives again on the horses you have mentioned and can't understand how Luke get's time and Lauren not a thing. I would like to know what the stewards see different in those races to what i'm looking at.

Gday Dallas

I agree. Maybe the times had something to do with it. They went 1.55 in SSL race. Ideal Scott went 1.56 same night. C3-c5 1.56 too.

Saturday night 1.50. And (I'm not suggesting anything!) the stablemate won Saturday night.

[german]

I am a massive advocate for the removal of the Change of Tactics rule.

To start with I do not believe that the rule helps the everyday punter in the TAB it only helps the professinal punter. The rule takes away any initiative and can lead to uncompetitive racing especially when a favourite going further forward.

The sooner the rule is scraped the better. It amazes me that the participants don't take action through their representative to get rid of the rule as I have never spoken to anyone that thinks the rule is either good for the sport or the participants.

The rule COT is one of the best rules in the industry. If your betting on harness racing yu have every right to know whether the driver or trainer has decided to vary there tactics. I don't want then going forward one day and back on another willy nilly!!! They should always have to declare if the are changing tactics or else we would have cowboys doing watevaaaa they like going back one week sitting 4br pulling horses up then spearing to the front the next week. By the way without professional punters you would need the COT rule cause the drivers would be racing for 200bucks prize money! Punters deserve to know there the reason the drivers have a job! Don't forget that

[german]

Dallas, the facts are any fair minded person can see the Suave Stuey drive and the Excel drives were almost identical and produced the same result both horses sets of horses getting beaten 30+ metres. In each circumstance both drivers gave their horses no chance of winning. Adam said in one of his previous posts his horse has always won from the front, but Adam Mach Beauty has never been subject to a 26.9 second quarter. By holding in this instance MB had no hope, particularly being first up.
On the rules of racing, if a race is run too slow the driver of the leader gets fined. If the race is run too fast the driver in the death gets suspended. Does any one find this strange???
I am sure glad that my livelyhood does not depend on the current rules of harness racing.

The drives were kind of similar except suave stuey limbo attempted to find the lead but couldn't so sat up Mach stride actually ran along down the back straight I'm not sure why people are suggesting stuey attacked he didn't he was half a metre behind Luke was the one running along, it should also be noted stuey had previously been leading and running along so sitting in the death attempting to run along would have been acceptable. Now MB a known leader was never handing up, Excel stride is not known and has barely if ever attacked in the 2nd and 3rd qtr and attacked a horse which freely runs along in front he beat option anyway would of been to sit on MB who would of still run along and then Excel stride could have his chance to come off his back in straight and as we know MB would have run time and being first up Excel would have got his chance. In doing wat Luke did his option was not to sit outside MB and win his option was clearly to bury MB with no thought of winning himself. The week before Lauren still had thoughts of trying to win! That is the difference here Lauren attempted to win on stuey Luke made no attempt to win just to bury and help his stable mate... Like I said he should have got 6 months!!!