This is Bizarre
Printable View
This is Bizarre
Yes very interesting, absolute liability and duty of care. Aiken is not a guest of the NSWHRC but a rent paying tenant to HRNSW who designed, constructed and operate the Menangle Training Centre.
Chris Alford could have got a QDT for his single mindedness to lead on Lenny
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...ic#MXM26051801
The Lead Time was 2.5 secs faster than when he set the Tk Rec this year
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...18#MXM27011801
The last race at Ballarat last night was won on protest
It is an interesting one as you can argue that if Wow Shes Smooth had not been carted wide by the leader she would have got to the line quicker and so she deserved to win
However if both horses had gone straight I think the finish would have been the same with WSS unable to beat Tough Call
An added tidbit is the fact that the winning driver (after the protest) was cautioned about taking inside runs like he did down the back straight
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...ic#BAC14061802
The Stewards Report
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...&fromstate=vic
R9 at Shep is the sort of race that can hurt our code. Here is Jason Bonnington's pre race analysis
OVERVIEW: You’ve only got two little issues with hotpot 3YO IM SCORCHING (1) here; the ace alley and the fact she didn’t want to score up in a recent trial at this very venue. To be fair the polemarking draw isn’t much of an imposition as even if she’s crossed Gavin will make all the right decisions after that. Her recent misbehaviour at the trials is far more worrying. Having said that if she produces a faultless display she’ll brain this lot
IM SCORCHING started $1.30. Gavin never looked desperate to get off the fence, you could even say he seemed unperturbed about settling 3 back the poles and didn't "make all the right decisions". Maybe I am super tough as the caller said "Gavin just cant find a passage off the pegs" when they were passing the winning post the first time - which is when he needed to make it happen. I know he is the Iceman and we did see a little obligatory head left + head right down the back straight. It may be just racing but it also looks bad IMO. A sceptic has plenty of ammo to say that it was the perfect way to get her beat. Imagine if you knew the $1.30 fav is not going to win tonight. I take solace in the fact that newbs are unlikely to be backing $1.30 favourites
Gavin managed to lock wheels again so we will never know how close she still might have got. We need an inventor to come up with a way of reducing the chances that wheels can lock
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...ic#SPC15061806
ps Not talking through my pocket (I'm a virtual non punter nowadays)
Think your might be being a bit harsh Kev. Bonnington did suggest the fav would get crossed, not lead and win. Has it led in any of it's races Kev? The rule here is a driver can't make another runner cover more ground coming off the pegs at the first turn, what is it there? Gav did have the whip out the back at the start and was slow out, presumably that is the QDT, Alford showed why he is the best driver in the sport, seized the initiative and drove hard for the lead and controlled the the race after that ensuring the fav wasn't getting off the pegs in running, "great front running drive" as the caller said. Svanosio held his line to the finish as he's entitled to, the locking wheels was a completely different scenario to the one previously discussed, more questions to be asked and a worse look if Svanosio had just let the fav out I think.
Bonnington could have been a little more circumspect in his comments given there was always a chance here the fav would be locked up on the pegs but I don't think that's his personality.
I am probably being a bit tough but like Bonnington, I thought barrier 1 was its only worry and I thought it was a given that Gavin would ease off the barrier until he could get off the pegs
Yes I guess he could possibly have done that, certainly not what I'm used to seeing from barrier 1 in WA though. But how do you guarantee Kev if Gav had gone back at the start to get into the running line he would have won anymore then if the run in the straight had opened up instead of jostling and locking wheels in the straight?
The only certainty in racing is that there is no certainty. Punters are wagering money on an event with an uncertain outcome in the hope of winning more money, not putting it in the bank for a 2 minute term deposit at 30%. Maybe Bonnington has a small bitter pill to swallow for the certainty of his words on this occasion or perhaps that's how the punters like them.
I don't believe that drivers have to drive according to how well supported their horse is but if you are on clearly the best horse in the race and your greatest danger is being locked on the pegs - a top driver makes sure he isn't. I have seen horses not noted for early speed ease all the way back to last to ensure they got off the pegs - it was a 2190m race and it was only a field of 8. The winner was 2nd favourite and yet it had only won for the first time at its previous start - its 34th start!
I suppose you can just say 'that is the way Gavin drives' and therefore that horse's chances were overrated. I cannot help but think that if that was a BIG race and Gavin was on a horse with a similar class edge - he would have had more input into how that race panned out
And there in a nut shell Kev you have it. It wasn't a big race but there are big races for the filly coming up. And who's rights outweigh who's? The right of the punter who has wagered 10s to perhaps 100s of dollars to expect a driver to take every measure to win that race on a short priced favourite even if it means a gut busting run to the rights of the owners/breeders who have invested 10s to perhaps 100s of thousands of dollars in the industry to have their filly given a chance in that race and return in the best possible shape for the big races and the only possible way they will see a return on their investment is to win in the big ones?
The Vicbred super series begins next week and the filly is in the heats. Did JBs form analysis take that into account? Did yours? I don't know, I thought she started too short with a bigger picture in mind. Surely the likelihood of future engagements in bigger races is/should be a part of the many uncertainties in the event taken into account during punters "risk analysis" and determination of what price they will wager at? Maybe it was here, maybe it wasn't I don't know.
Well summarized Dot. It does not take much for a favourite to start too short in Vic - risk analysis should be everything but sometimes it seems to be non existent. Sure it was an actual race but maybe it should have been treated as a warm up - somewhat 'heat' like, where winning is not everything.
Like Our Overanova was heaving a heat where winning was not everything tonight. Stablemate won though! Why go back to last like that on the odds on pop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
In the minds of punters Kev, yes, and perhaps this is where JB erred, there's no way of knowing from what he's written if he's taken the fillies future program into account, and at risk of perhaps stepping slightly over the social media policy, he should have and made it clear in his assesment that he'd considered the filly may have had bigger fish to fry. The experienced punters probably considered this for themselves but perhaps the novices could have done with a little more guidance. Right at the start of the replay you can hear the caller make reference to the super sires but too late then for punters of course.
Connections aren't given the luxury of treating a race as a "warm up" they have to be seen to be trying but I guess there will always be trying and trying. The filly was eligible for this race and you can't blame connections for trying to earn a little on the way to the sires but perhaps HRVs programming was a little off here and this should have been a 4yo and older C0 which would no doubt have seen her trial the night before. But as "Bonnie" has pointed out the better 3yos need somewhere to race too. Getting the programming right is obviously not easy but perhaps this needs a little tweak for next year with the COs immediately before the sires heats being 4yo plus and an higher assessed 3yo programmed if there wasn't.
Not surprised to see an Inquiry (Adjourned) into Lance Justice's drive in the last at Stawell
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...ic#SWC27061802
R2 Melton, I hope Ryan Duffy will be asked what he was doing using the whip a lap out if it wasn't team driving
Nathan Jack gave his stablemate a nice cart up too but he can always say that he was going to get the 1x1 by doing so
On the back of tonights loss Sydney Rooser have sacked Cooper Cronk and are ready to bring in Neil Day. Give Wagga race 1 a watch.
He will whip them into shape
ps That Trots TV replay was a jumble
I found this article from the Sunday Star Times (NZ) on Stuff.co.nz today.Quote:
Originally Posted by teecee
I believe too many people who do not actively train horses for a living show a propensity for throwing rotten tomatoes whenever a "positive" is detected or a suspension is handed down. As somebody who derives a living from delivering "justice" where needed, i find the failure of NZ officials to follow through leads coming out of the Dunn case disturbing. Make sure you read this article:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing...to-frame-owner
Thanks Trevor - the U in RIU (Racing Integrity Unit) might stand for Useless instead of Unit
"Lance Justice (Beach Skipper NZ) was questioned regarding his tactics through the early and middle stages when after issuing a short challenge to the leader Hot Breakfast in the home straight on the first occasion, he again challenged Hot Breakfast from approximately the 1400m to the 1000m as Lets Save The Day NZ raced three wide around him. After again being unsuccessful he was then forced to race outside of the leader for the remainder of the race before being beaten 28.5m into 6th place. After taking evidence from driver Lance Justice and also taking evidence from driver James Herbertson,( Hot Breakfast), which had led before surrendering the lead at approximately the 900m and driver Jason Lee, (Lets Save The Day NZ), which raced three wide through the middle stages before crossing to take the lead at the 900m, stewards adjourned the inquiry to a time and date to be fixed, to allow them to further investigate certain aspect of the race."Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...&fromstate=vic
Or UNBELIEVABLE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
I cant wait to read the answer to the QIP Audaz Bonita's connections gave for its win in R1 at Melton today
This was a $7k race at Melton albeit a weak one but Audaz had not won for 60 starts
She was first up from a spell but this years efforts at Terang, Mt Gambier etc was 8-6-7-6-6 with an average losing margin of over 40m
She started $3 - she had only started that short once in her 72 starts and that was at Mt Gambier 2 years ago when she finished 5th
They were leaving nothing to chance with this sting (?) as Gavin Lang was driving her for the very first time
Putting Gavin on may have ruined any plunge - if that was the plan - as she opened $2.80 fixed, I think
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...18#MXC02071803
Do you think Melton should post exposed current trial form in http://www.harnessracingforum.com/sh...s-Need-to-Know each week Kev? Brenno would love it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhlL4OpuWQ
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/tri...?trialId=18281
But it might do Craig Rail out of a job -
AUDAZ BONITA (1) has the strike rate of only one win from 72 starts but she has performed nicely at the trials leading up to her first up appearance. She won a trial at Maryborough then followed with a third behind the open class trotter Illawong Armstrong (2.00.5, 28.9) so a bold showing is expected.
Other states do include trial form in a horse form in their HRA profiles but Victoria doesn't. I believe HRVs racing manager is looking into including trial form in Vic in the profiles.
Thanks for that Wayne. I only caught up with the results so I did not see Craig Rail's Form Analysis - how did you get that retrospectively?!Quote:
Originally Posted by arlington
I wont answer about the inclusion of trials as I am afraid of Brenno :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Kev, Not that in retrospect will help Brenno out :D but the race field/s analysis is the same as GOODFORM's (pretty sure that holds true) and that will still be up the next race day until that day's meeting is put up but the race field analysis will stay up well after the meeting has finished as well. Pumpkin hour when it becomes results, analysis etc removed.
I have seen, more so NSW, trial form via race field profiles and it's probably a good thing. But just a little but, sure, I'd think any serious/pro punter/s that could have made that horse odds on would have known about it's trial form but if not spoon feeding means you get a good price, well it wouldn't add to the odds on thread here. Brenno may have been as suggestive before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
Not sure about your intent with quoting teecee and your first sentence Trevor. I might be very slow on the uptake. Are you saying it's only hobbyists that have that propensity and professionals never do?
I must say that I had missed the stable change from J Barker to K Barker for Audaz Bonita and there clearly was trial form for the astute to go on
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...&fromstate=vic
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. TC posted the original story quite a while back, just quoted him to give some background context to the story published the other day.Quote:
Originally Posted by arlington
I'm not suggesting anything, other than the "integrity" unit seemed to be happy in getting somebody, not necessarily the culprit. If you want to believe the story, that is.
My mistake. I'll correct my post -Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
Not sure about your intent with quoting teecee and your second sentence Trevor. I might be very slow on the uptake. Are you saying it's only hobbyists that have that propensity and professionals never do?
Does that help? My intent was to ask if you were saying hobbyists have a propensity to throw rotten tomatoes due to a positive swab or suspension but professionals never do.
So, I'm asking now if your second sentence in post #378 which said I believe too many people who do not actively train horses for a living show a propensity for throwing rotten tomatoes whenever a "positive" is detected or a suspension is handed down is merely a coincidence when you've quoted someone spelling out the difference between a professional and hobbyist? (Hobbyists being those people who do not actively train horses for a living.)
Can't recall ever using the term "hobbyist'. My point is that - too often - everybody is too willing to assume people are crooks in this business. As the Dunn case demonstrates, a professional stable has gone to great lengths to clear its name and not sully its reputation.
It is hugely disappointing to me that, when presented with credible evidence that the three horses in question had been "got at", the RIU showed little or no interest. It believed it had done its job. Just like a speed camera saves lives.
And, yes, I believe this industry has both active participants and followers who are a little to keen to eat there own. That's my opinion, you can choose to agree with me or not. I am not pointing a finger at any individuals.
I cannot blame them Trevor - we have dozens and dozens of trainers who have been suspended for trying to beat the system. But on the case you were referring to, it was of great concern that the RIU showed so little interest in investigating the Dunn's claims
I know where you are coming from in regard to speed cameras and many may wonder whether 'revenue' has become as important as safety BUT speed cameras make people slow down (I for one) and the slower you go the less you are at risk but if you disagree we will just beg to differ as it is not exactly 'harness'
I finally remembered to look this stewards report up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Ryan Duffy (Soho Crucio) was queried in relation to the tactics adopted on that filly and in particular, whether he considered taking restraint and obtaining a trail from Tiger Storm leaving the 1400m when challenged for the position outside the leader, rather than drive with aggression to maintain his position. Mr Duffy advised that while Soho Crucio had worked three wide during the initial stages the filly did so with a trail behind Soho Nolita and was not asked for any effort during this portion of the race. Mr Duffy further explained that on exposed form at Tiger Storms most recent start the filly endured a soft run on the marker pegs and felt for that reason he would be better served maintaining the position at the head of the one wide line. Mr Duffy went on to add that irrespective of this circumstance Soho Crucio proved to be extremely disappointing when beaten 74m at the conclusion of the race and never travelled as well as the filly usually does in her races. A post-race veterinary examination of Soho Crucio revealed a slower than normal recovery rate however no other abnormalities were detected. When considering the statements of the driver, and in particular taking into account the exposed form of Soho Crucio, which was indicative of the filly being able to endure some work during its races, and assessing the most recent start of Tiger Storm, stewards felt that Mr Duffy had erred to some degree by not taking a trail however, did not feel the driver’s degree of culpability warranted action being taken against his licence.
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/ste...&fromstate=vic
I still say it was simply team driving. The Stanley stable had the lead and the connections other runner was trying to make it hard for the Stewart stable to get up outside their fav
If this might be comparing apples - take AFL as an example. I'd have no problem agreeing to the eating their own expression. Main stream media commentators, some ex players, ending a player or coach's career due to diminished performance or age. Not too self destructive for the sport, however, this player or coach may never had seen a steroid or peptide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
Myself, I don't mind giving people a chance, one positive swab conviction, ok, one suspension, ok, but not so ok if it's epo etorphine propantheline bromide...
I'm not commenting on the particulars of the Dunn case but as far as having one's reputation sullied, some may need to think about that earlier in their careers.
As Kev suggested, not helped by this type of thing - https://www.harness.org.au/media-roo...?news_id=37650
...included three previous offences in relation to prohibited substances rules
As much as you have your opinion Trevor, there are some quarters who would feel a 12 month disqualification is too harsh for a professional.
12 months isn't a long time before a person's back. Consider those who haven't a sullied reputation. A hobbyist, owner in a pro stable, pro trainer who played by the rules, maybe, even, bar one infringement. In that time a horse/s they have has been turned out due to injury, immaturity etc. They get their horse going again and who is back on the scene? If it's around yearling sales time I can see how the lower end of the market can be hard for vendors.
My words not yours, me, being a hobbyist can feel ripped off in that income not derived from being a professional in the sport has been wasted many times over when a pro comes back from a second or third infringement to earn more income. I don't know about throwing rotten tomatoes or eating their own but it's hard to have empathy.
If there's a notion of betrayal in "eating their own", I wonder who has betrayed whom?
Going a bit further. I often wonder with Kev's odds on thread how, amongst other things, infringements continue to effect our odds. I realise they're tote odds but are the fixed odds that different for the shorties? The books and turnover are more effected by consistency of form but still, overall, the sport's reputation sullied even in the eyes of corporate bookies.
I had one Bookie tell me that harness racing in Australia has had well over 2,000 odds on favs this year with the number winning a little worse than my Vic June figure while the average price was about 20c better
Subsequent runs show Our Overanova a clearly superior horse. Makes me sick.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiebreno
The Septic has been found GuiltyQuote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
http://www.harness.org.au/media-room...?news_id=37701
I know someone who had a pos to a drug and the septic was the culprit. The horses were eating the green pick when it grew.The drug was a human used one for kidney dyalasis the lady who previously owned the property had the kidney complaint.The trainer said after fencing it off the horses would walk all around trying to get into it and sweating, turns they were addicted to the drug.
That same horse had problems in retirement too Greg ;)
Very interesting(Septic)