Attn: VVV/VOR - Your thoughts

Been loving the banter over COT's lately, so whats your views on this COT and lack of notification from Menangle today:

R5

Neffeli Lavra - Started at long odds on @ $1.30 at its 3rd race start.

Won its first start leading
Ran 2nd at its second start sitting in the death (big run in good time)
Today is last off the arm, and last at the 800m, 6 wide round the bend for a close up 3rd.

Could not see any Change Of Tactics on the HRNSW website?
$1.30 favourite being driven upside down and losing, I remember when Luke McCarthy drove Roman Stride against its normal pattern and winning a race, and still got fined from stewards? Will be interesting to see if anything came of Molanders drive this afternoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rainmaker

Been loving the banter over COT's lately, so whats your views on this COT and lack of notification from Menangle today:

R5

Neffeli Lavra - Started at long odds on @ $1.30 at its 3rd race start.

Won its first start leading
Ran 2nd at its second start sitting in the death (big run in good time)
Today is last off the arm, and last at the 800m, 6 wide round the bend for a close up 3rd.

Could not see any Change Of Tactics on the HRNSW website?
$1.30 favourite being driven upside down and losing, I remember when Luke McCarthy drove Roman Stride against its normal pattern and winning a race, and still got fined from stewards? Will be interesting to see if anything came of Molanders drive this afternoon.

---

I did not watch the race live to day but have just looked at the replays of all three starts it has never been driven real hard off the arm, some at its first run but never labeled urgent.

Today on replay I thought she let it begin and then after the start made a decision to go back when it was clear it would have to be driven very hard to go forward.

For mine circumstances of the race stuff but one where the stewards should have and hopefully did seek an explanation so that the punters are advised.

The report will be an interesting one.

Before I go and watch the replay and offer my thoughts (too busy today, scanning mares set to be bred tomorrow afternoon) my first reaction is not the COT ...rather, was it still wearing that big arse Murphy Blind?
The reason I ask is that, judging by last week's report from Penrith, I suspect that RULE OF THE WEEK is now Gear Forms & so VOR, I do hope you'll forgive me... for I am simply trying to get out ahead of the wave. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

Before I go and watch the replay and offer my thoughts (too busy today, scanning mares set to be bred tomorrow afternoon) my first reaction is not the COT ...rather, was it still wearing that big arse Murphy Blind?
The reason I ask is that, judging by last week's report from Penrith, I suspect that RULE OF THE WEEK is now Gear Forms & so VOR, I do hope you'll forgive me... for I am simply trying to get out ahead of the wave. :p

---

Rule of the week you cynic

You're home from Menangle early today Bill.
Have they shouted you guys a new Big Screen Plasma out there?
The one I saw a month or two back was just plug ugly bad. Resolution was dreadful...all pixelated and blurred.
The casual observer would be hard pressed to see if...I dunno, a horse stepped on a loose shoe for example? :rolleyes:
I know a bloke who works at The Good Guys up at Castle Hill and he owes me a favour.
I'm sure he can swing HRNSW a good deal. Certainly do better than something that offers a picture quality comparable to the entire screen having been taken to with a mega jar of Vaseline.

Btw...I forgot to mention Race 7.
As I recall, last time out Woodlyn Girl left from (7) with urgent stamped across its forehead and yet today it drew (1) and made no attempt to get to the front. No mention of a COT anywhere?. "It's Lillie coming in from the Randwick end and....ooooooooh, he rips another one past the batsman and it slaps into the gloves of Marsh". Not to worry. Just as long as the Gear Form was up to date eh Bill? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

Btw...I forgot to mention Race 7.
As I recall, last time out Woodlyn Girl left from (7) with urgent stamped across its forehead and yet today it drew (1) and made no attempt to get to the front. No mention of a COT anywhere?. "It's Lillie coming in from the Randwick end and....ooooooooh, he rips another one past the batsman and it slaps into the gloves of Marsh". Not to worry. Just as long as the Gear Form was up to date eh Bill? :rolleyes:

---

It does not matter how good the delivery is if the umpire yells "NO BALL" because even with the grainy screen you say the stewards have at Menangle it was clear on replay to me that Woodlyn Girl went ruff just before the start, that ends the go forward.

And please don't tell me an up to date gear record for each and every horse is not good for the game.

Ahuh. Got rough did it? Hmmmmm. Macular Degeneration & Glaucoma appear to be more widespread than anyone had first thought. Calling Fred Hollows...come in Fred. :rolleyes:
Gear Forms wise, I'm not trying to tell you anything of the sort Bill.
Rather I am pointing out that a myriad of horses have indeed passed me by over the last God only knows how long & they have worn different gear from time to time....but to my knowledge it has either not been noticed or it has not been noted or most likely of all, I suspect that many of those who are charged with doing the looking...don't actually know what they were looking at. Rather my friend it is, or at the very least it appears to be...something that harks back to the days of former Sydney Rugby League Referee Greg 'Hollywood' Hartley and his 'Rule Of The Week' campaigns. What's next? Don't tell me, let me guess.......I know....it'll be Tyre Pressure! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

Ahuh. Got rough did it? Hmmmmm. Macular Degeneration & Glaucoma appear to be more widespread than anyone had first thought. Calling Fred Hollows...come in Fred. :rolleyes:
Gear Forms wise, I'm not trying to tell you anything of the sort Bill.
Rather I am pointing out that a myriad of horses have indeed passed me by over the last God only knows how long & they have worn different gear from time to time....but to my knowledge it has either not been noticed or it has not been noted or most likely of all, I suspect that many of those who are charged with doing the looking...don't actually know what they were looking at. Rather my friend it is, or at the very least it appears to be...something that harks back to the days of former Sydney Rugby League Referee Greg 'Hollywood' Hartley and his 'Rule Of The Week' campaigns. What's next? Don't tell me, let me guess.......I know....it'll be Tyre Pressure! :p

---

I assume as the stewards are normally in the room holding inquires checking on tactics ect, it probably falls to the starter steward to check the gear and if the rumors are right our former starter was busy doing other tasks.

Referred the "NO BALL call to the third up and he has confirmed it.

Do what they do in the US. Have a gear person who goes around to every horse before the race and confirm what gear it is wearing that day. No stupid gear forms, nothing. You change gear by telling the gear person. Any change of gear is put, a la breakfast TV style with their moving ticker on the bottom of the screen for all to see. They have a rule that you can't change the gear off a horse who was a last start winner, other than that you can go for your life :)

Gear Person indeed. Excellent suggestion. Like immediate on-course TC02 Testing however, I suspect that would be far too simple a solution Flashing.

I'm not sure if it is stubborness, indifference or the fact that these simple solutions are disagreed with by the powers to be. It's just many of these "solutions" have been in use for years in North America with success, it's not like we are treading into unknown territory here.

That's pretty much right on the money Flashing.
I think it's a combination of basic stubborness & indifference and it is added to in no small way by a straight up knowledge gap of subjects at hand.
For years and years there has been an inexplicable administrative desire to either mark time or to otherwise rush to the other extreme & attempt to completely re-invent the wheel...this rather than simply looking around to see what's already being done with significant degrees of success & adopting it.
Unfortunately this applies to so many aspects of Harness Racing in this country including but by no means limited to Handicapping, Track Size/Design, Race Bikes, Race Day Procedures & Processes-eg. the use of on-course pre & post race TC02's, a gear person etc, the seemingly Taboo area of establishing a series of thresholds for a designanted list of theraputic substances, an almost total lack of emphasis being placed on fillies & mares racing opportunities, the continued reluctance to address significant broodmare husbandy issues present in the industry etc. Things can always be done better, sometimes in large ways, other times in small ways. Standing still however, IMO that is the prelude to going backwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

I'm not sure if it is stubborness, indifference or the fact that these simple solutions are disagreed with by the powers to be. It's just many of these "solutions" have been in use for years in North America with success, it's not like we are treading into unknown territory here.

---

COST.... six weeks ago when HRNSW was looking for a way forward and they started talking up new swabbing practices that would cost a little more the states leading trainer Paul Fitzpatrick bagged them in the press for spending money that is his view should have been spent on prize money.

Everybody wants integrity but on one wants to pay for it.

There is only one reason a gear person is not and will not be at every meeting in NSW " COST", it is only recently the Newcastle was downgraded from a three man stewards panel to two compare that with other states but it is all about "COST"

I'm sorry, cost is NOT an excuse for integrity after they sold Harold Park. Period. If they can afford prize money increases, and make announcements such as building on course barns at Menangle and totally rebuilding the stabling complex etc - then they can afford to spend money on something such as one person's wage to check gear, if they chose to.

How much money that is spent on testing should NOT be left up to the participants. Talk about conflict of interest!

G'day Bill,

Firstly, in Paul's defence, I think his comments were largely taken out of context. He was suggesting that HRNSW work smarter within their existing testing budget, not simply throw $$$ at it with a knee-jerk swab everything that moves, regardless approach. Furthermore, I totally agree with him.
The fact we now have the 2hrs on-course prior to race time in place and up to 2hrs post race retention for TC02 testing etc. has largely (and it should be noted has not expensively but SMARTLY) dealt with the main issue that was at hand. Let's face it too by the way, there was to a large extent, not a whole lot that was wrong with the previous testing regime only it was apparently being subverted by way of direct human intervention/interference.

Secondly, on the subject of Gear there Bill, are you confident that Stewards are in fact able to identify various pieces of gear by sight and that they also understand their function/why it is they're being used/not used/added/taken away?
I quite freely admit that while I've been around horses virtually all my life, now & again there are still pieces of gear that pop up that I've never seen before & have absolutely no idea as to why they're being used.
Sometimes it's a simple case of back to the future. Everything old is new again.
For example, in this case I knew what it was straight away but only because years ago we had a horse that raced in one...I saw a very old piece of gear just the other day...it was an all-leather running head check & complete with brass rings. It must have been at least 40 years old, maybe more.
Ok, that's a fairly obvious one I guess but the point is some Trainers still have such old school things, stuff that's even more obscure again, in their tack arsenals and from time to time they use them and I'll bet London to a Brick that few people, if any...notice. As such, it does no good whatsoever to have all of these thoroughly & perfectly noted & lodged gear forms if in fact nobody has much of an idea if any or all of that noted thereupon is actually present.
Currently, if someone were to have a bit of villain in them then I suspect they could fairly easily & effectively fiddle around with a horse's gear enough that they could improve or retard its performance...depending on their desired approach to a given race. Token gestures such as fining a bloke $50 a time for not having a current gear form lodged don't cut it.
Rule Of The Week didn't work for Greg Hartley either.
I wonder, what would the cost of On Course TC02 Testing and a Gear Person actually be...as opposed to the current cost of Testing & the perennial nonsense that is Gear Form lodgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

I wonder, what would the cost of On Course TC02 Testing and a Gear Person actually be...as opposed to the current cost of Testing & the perennial nonsense that is Gear Form lodgement.

---

I agree. Most of the suggestions I see on this forum would save money in the long run. If everything is all about "COST" then wouldn't saving money be a positive? :)

Reminds me of a meeting a long time ago where a trainer/driver gets called to the room and faces allegations of running and handling in the race. After some time, he comes out without any charges being laid but is quite upset about it and promptly walked up to his next drive in the marshalling yard and proclaims, "So they reckon I pulled that one up, I'll show them how you pull one up." He promptly shortened the horses headcheck by around 8 holes and consequently a very favoured horse never ran comfortably and ran a well beaten sixth. To make it even more interesting, he never even got called to the room after the race!
You don't have to be in the game before long before you hear stories of how easy it is to get one beat if you want it that way. And I'll wager that only the most astute eye would pick up on some of them.
There is, or used to be, provision for a check steward who was required to ensure that all drivers and horses were geared up with correct and safe gear, so a gear person would only be an extension of that job, but needs an experienced person who is familiar with most of the assorted items that can be hung on a horse at times.

I don't know exactly what the cost of collection, transport & testing of samples actually runs to for the TC02's at just one track, let's take the biggest & best show of them all in Menangle for example...at peak they're going forward three times a week Mon-Tues-Sat...however if an analyser suitable for the purpose only costs in the vicinity of 30k to purchase outright and it is expected to last at least 8 years before needing to be upgraded (that's around $3,750 a year) then unless the associated costs of staffing it are absolutely horrendously prohibitive, which they would certainly not be (I have a pretty good idea what the guys & girls on the benches at the various Labs here in Sydney get paid) then I expect it would be a very attractive option. It requires some extensive head withdrawal from the sand however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

I'm sorry, cost is NOT an excuse for integrity after they sold Harold Park. Period. If they can afford prize money increases, and make announcements such as building on course barns at Menangle and totally rebuilding the stabling complex etc - then they can afford to spend money on something such as one person's wage to check gear, if they chose to.

How much money that is spent on testing should NOT be left up to the participants. Talk about conflict of interest!

---

Not totally rebutting this but one thing to remember is NSWHRC got the Harold Park money whilst HRNSW is the state body making such decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rainmaker

Been loving the banter over COT's lately, so whats your views on this COT and lack of notification from Menangle today:

R5

Neffeli Lavra - Started at long odds on @ $1.30 at its 3rd race start.

Won its first start leading
Ran 2nd at its second start sitting in the death (big run in good time)
Today is last off the arm, and last at the 800m, 6 wide round the bend for a close up 3rd.

Could not see any Change Of Tactics on the HRNSW website?
$1.30 favourite being driven upside down and losing, I remember when Luke McCarthy drove Roman Stride against its normal pattern and winning a race, and still got fined from stewards? Will be interesting to see if anything came of Molanders drive this afternoon.

---

Just had a look at the stewards report. No mention of Molander in the race mentioned varying her driving tactics, even though her horse started at $1.30 and it got rolled.

However we have:

R2

Robbie Morris questioned for leading from the pole on the $1.80 favourite.

and

R9

Amanda Turnbull questioned for restraining her horse off the mobile in contrast to its recent starts, however this horse was sent out a $12.60 chance.

In my mind questions should have definitely been asked on a $1.30 favourite which got rolled as opposed to the $12.60 chance in R9.

As for Robbie Morris' drive in R2 on an odds on favourite from the pole any punter would hope it would lead if at all possible, which it did, and questions were asked.

Consistency anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Not totally rebutting this but one thing to remember is NSWHRC got the Harold Park money whilst HRNSW is the state body making such decisions.

---

Thank you Aussiebreno exactly my point everybody want integrity no one wants to pay for it.

Whilst VVV will never admit it that was one of the issues of the now defunct GHRRA cost and the industry perception they were wasting too much money on integrity issues.

I like VVV suggestions about TCO2 testing but as I said on another thread I think there are some issues on what is an acceptable instrument from a legal standpoint to measure TCO2

Anyone who does not think this is cost related is living on Mars and as far as Paul comments are concerned your kidding.

So NSWHRC isn't physically allowed to contribute some of their own funds towards the integrity of racing at their track despite planning to spend millions to make it the best complex in the Southern Hemisphere? Please.... it may be a cost thing as you say VOR but it doesn't mean the money isn't there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Thank you Aussiebreno exactly my point everybody want integrity no one wants to pay for it.

Whilst VVV will never admit it that was one of the issues of the now defunct GHRRA cost and the industry perception they were wasting too much money on integrity issues.

I like VVV suggestions about TCO2 testing but as I said on another thread I think there are some issues on what is an acceptable instrument from a legal standpoint to measure TCO2

Anyone who does not think this is cost related is living on Mars and as far as Paul comments are concerned your kidding.

---

[VVV] Everything else aside for a moment VOR...'from a legal standpoint'???????? Please. Call me a cynic but I find more than just a little absurd the suggestion that any instrument deemed perfectly acceptable for use in ICU's where human lives are at stake and swing on decisions made based upon the results they produce...might find itself in a position to have its results questioned as far as establishing the correct TC02 level in a horse.

Btw VOR...you ducked the Gear identification question. Armed with a Gear Form, would each of the Stewards be able to walk up to a given horse & tick off or place a cross against each piece of gear that was present or absent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

Btw VOR...you ducked the Gear identification question. Armed with a Gear Form, would each of the Stewards be able to walk up to a given horse & tick off or place a cross against each piece of gear that was present or absent?

---

Only an oversight I very rarely duck issues as you know. In all honesty I would say its 99.0% answer that is 99% of stewards would know what 99% of the gear was and was for 99% of the time.

When a gear form is lodged there is a section for unusual gear so it is often explained then.

I was at Newcastle one night when Lindsay Jones was questioned in the stables area by the then Chief Steward for using a piece of unusual gear ,I say that is in the 1% area. He copped the explanation willingly.


I am not saying you are wrong about the TCO2 issue, just that it is an international issue.

As for Flashing they have the money no question there but on Integrity please hold on now ... was that a pig flying by......

VOR writes [Whilst VVV will never admit it that was one of the issues of the now defunct GHRRA cost and the industry perception they were wasting too much money on integrity issues.]

[VVV] C'mon now. Don't try and feed me those spoilt potatoes VOR. I know too much about the subject to fall for that.
The fact is, so concerned with Itegrity issues were they that when the GHRRA folded they inexplicably deleted all of their records...I assume so as not to be in a position where they either could pass them on to HRNSW or otherwise were compelled to do so by a third party. Of course, with those deletions went the records of any number of 'fine/suspension payment plans' and the like that happened to be in place at the time. To the best of my knowledge these are the facts of the matter...and my information is that they are indisputable. Move over Eliot Ness?....on that basis, I'd say not. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

As for Flashing they have the money no question there but on Integrity please hold on now ... was that a pig flying by......

---

Doesn't that frustrate you? It frustrates me! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thevoiceofreason

only an oversight i very rarely duck issues as you know. In all honesty i would say its 99.0% answer that is 99% of stewards would know what 99% of the gear was and was for 99% of the time.

When a gear form is lodged there is a section for unusual gear so it is often explained then.

I was at newcastle one night when lindsay jones was questioned in the stables area by the then chief steward for using a piece of unusual gear ,i say that is in the 1% area. He copped the explanation willingly.

[vvv] i think that's more than likely a pretty generous assessment but generally speaking i think you're a pretty generous sort of fella so it is at the very least in keeping. would you mind if i collected a whole heap of gear and numbered each piece then got the fellas & girls together and asked them all to firstly name and then to state the application for/use of each piece?

i am not saying you are wrong about the tco2 issue, just that it is an international issue.

[vvv] one which, for example, the Pa. Racing Commision (or whatever their name is) seems to have rather swiftly and neatly overcome, to the agreement of all concerned. Seems to be a similar situation with the ORC in Canada. It's not anywhere near as hard to institute as some people might wish to make it out to be.

as for flashing they have the money no question there but on integrity please hold on now ... Was that a pig flying by......
http://www.whiskyintelligence.com/wp...flying_pig.jpg

---

vvv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

Doesn't that frustrate you? It frustrates me! :)

---

In a word "YES"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

VOR writes [Whilst VVV will never admit it that was one of the issues of the now defunct GHRRA cost and the industry perception they were wasting too much money on integrity issues.]

[VVV] C'mon now. Don't try and feed me those spoilt potatoes VOR. I know too much about the subject to fall for that.
The fact is, so concerned with Itegrity issues were they that when the GHRRA folded they inexplicably deleted all of their records...I assume so as not to be in a position where they either could pass them on to HRNSW or otherwise were compelled to do so by a third party. Of course, with those deletions went the records of any number of 'fine/suspension payment plans' and the like that happened to be in place at the time. To the best of my knowledge these are the facts of the matter...and my information is that they are indisputable. Move over Eliot Ness?....on that basis, I'd say not. :(

---

I am not as sure as you it was the GHRRA that did that with the records you might be right but I think all those records are held at the Office of Liquor and Gaming and that is a horse of an entirely different color

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

vvv

---

Most would get the gear blindfolded

Oooooh, VOR, that's a BIG CALL!....that's an EARLY CROW!
Right up there with the great Bill Collins and his famous call of "Kingston Town can't win" in the 1982 Cox Plate. :rolleyes: