RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
45yearsofharness

Inquiry?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, We're Doomed said:

I am only an outsider looking in, but it does appear to me that people are a bit harsh on this stable just because they are successful. Being so successful and having so many good horses does have its own problems. For one thing they have to compete against their own horses all of the time. You don't see anything like this attitude towards Chris Waller. I hate to think how many horses he had in the Queensland Oaks.

You would almost think it creates an opportunity for other trainers to try and attract some of their owners away from them. After-all it can't be much fun having the third best horse of a particular class or age in the stable. Obviously they keep all of their owners happy,

I can remember many years ago when the Gibbs stable at Matamata had about four of the best stayers in the country. The owners of the 3rd and 4th best often didn't get to contest the big cups, they had to head down the line to avoid their stablemates.

So, other trainers should be using this situation as a positive and telling prospective owners "why would you want to go to a stable full of stars, give your horse to us and it will get our 100% attention".

not harsh at all, the peop[e have a right to expect all is above board, other wise all the trainers/drivers may as well meet in a room sort out who is going to win and how, a bit like WWE.   we would like to think harness racing and gallops were clean as a whistle. .BUT   we know it has it's elements within..  and don'tr ever get me wrong, I love to see trainers with really top horses. even mark purdon.. I personally like to see the little guy win, because for me.. "THAT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS"   or am I barking mad? barking up the wrong tree even... a while ago I sort of had a go at tim vince, since then I've been watching him and he has earned my respect for his horsemanship and for what he says here on racecafe..

so if proven wrong I will admit I was wrong... but for what it is worth, I don't jump beds (not that often) and sometimes the penny takes a while to drop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JackSprat said:

For crying out loud. They have 3/4 of the country's best horses in their own back yard, so if they can't organise their own "race like" workouts to get horses ready to race, then maybe they aren't as good a trainers as they'd have us believe they are!

To make matters even more shameful, by blaming the handicapping system for their defeat, he's belittling his own brothers effort in winning the race - a man who has operated under the exact same handicapping system for considerably longer!

It would appear that the All Stars team now think they are bigger than the game!

Before everybody gets too carried away, it might be a good idea to read what's actually written on the All-Stars website:

"Natalie and Mark don't make excuses and wouldn't use any after this race but anybody else would be sure that the defeat of our two best three year olds was as much to do with lack of suitable races thanks to the new handicapping system which works against talented three year olds.

"He had his chance" Natalie said of Ultimate Machete who went down late to Jack's Legend."

So one statement about the handicapping system that would seem to be written by Dave Macarthy, and an acknowledgement from Rasmussen that UM was beaten on his merits. Hardly excessive whinging, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, hsvman said:

Yet they let mark jones and other trainers if they wanted to  join in those private workouts aswell also they allowed full coverage to trackside to fil, and time those workouts . Any trainer can ask alexandra park if they want to have a few work on the track before a pemier meeting and the club will allowed it if time suits (with construction )  . 

Their arent the only trainers complaining about the handicaping systems havent you seen the stories on harness express about 90 south island trainers at one meeting all complaining about the system, why is it only purdon says something you jump up and down .? 

Addington workout morning was not available to every trainer - Mark Jones likely got an invite as he is anti grading system so is on PR side re this and head of the horsemans .

It was private use of the track and facilities and therefore a bill due . If no bill why are they been given favoured treatment by one club.

Anyway how do you explain the excuse re coming second in the 3yr old jewels - poor loosers and bad sportsmanship comes to mind which confirms my view of the stable and its tactics .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Basil said:

Before everybody gets too carried away, it might be a good idea to read what's actually written on the All-Stars website:

"Natalie and Mark don't make excuses and wouldn't use any after this race but anybody else would be sure that the defeat of our two best three year olds was as much to do with lack of suitable races thanks to the new handicapping system which works against talented three year olds.

"He had his chance" Natalie said of Ultimate Machete who went down late to Jack's Legend."

So one statement about the handicapping system that would seem to be written by Dave Macarthy, and an acknowledgement from Rasmussen that UM was beaten on his merits. Hardly excessive whinging, imho.

That's why they have a PR mouthpiece on the payroll - to "spin" things to the media!

Do you honestly think Dave McCarthy would post anything without their approval?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Basil said:

Before everybody gets too carried away, it might be a good idea to read what's actually written on the All-Stars website:

"Natalie and Mark don't make excuses and wouldn't use any after this race but anybody else would be sure that the defeat of our two best three year olds was as much to do with lack of suitable races thanks to the new handicapping system which works against talented three year olds.

"He had his chance" Natalie said of Ultimate Machete who went down late to Jack's Legend."

So one statement about the handicapping system that would seem to be written by Dave Macarthy, and an acknowledgement from Rasmussen that UM was beaten on his merits. Hardly excessive whinging, imho.

" ......was as much to do with lack of suitable races thanks to the new handicappingsystem which works against talented three year olds. 

"....Jack's Legend has had five starts since March 1, Ultimate Machete 3 and More the Better only 2. "

You forgot the last part of the PR excuse -are those two statements an excuse ? My understanding of comprehension is they are both excuses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Basil said:

Before everybody gets too carried away, it might be a good idea to read what's actually written on the All-Stars website

I did in regard to the PP affair and then Purdon /Rasmussen supply a different story in the stipes room! I simply cannot believe the contradictory nature of what she has said. 

I think the case against her should be reopened.

I think it is also safe to assume on the race track in harness racing in NZ there are 2 levels of control. The junior drivers, amateurs and bit players in harness racing get a rough deal from the stipes. I think back to Jeremy Markham at Geraldine, Alistair Lowe on Sandra Keith at Ashburton and Geoff Martin on Danke, all excessively punished or hounded in comparison to the velvet glove treatment the likes of Purdon receive.

As for the handicapping system complaint. To say you don't make excuses but then give one is weak. If you are going to say something on your website, have the balls to say it. Anyone one would think the producer of the All Stars website was the same person as the producer of the Box Seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2017 at 7:14 PM, Happy Sunrise said:

So if the shoe was on the other foot and you backed Alta Maestro, or more importantly, Aloka, you would be ok with it?

On that occasion Alta Maestro was gone (IMHO) anyway, maybe not so Aloka - who knows - but over time we've all had a runner we've backed relegated on protest or whatever but you just have to move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2017 at 9:10 PM, LongOwner said:

Blue summary is the dumbest thing I have read - the majority of the thread is that it is endemic in the Alstars and is not a one off.

And worse the thread is saying the stipes ignore the cheating and box seat applauds it !

 

LO this has always been the case with tall poppies. Initially we love to see them succeed then invariably they DO get preferential treatment. Not saying it's right or democratic at all but we know it happens in every sport.Forget what Geurin says on Box Seat, it's only his opinion like yours or mine.  I just don't believe this case deserves 4 pages on cafe and furthermore, what do you propose should be done about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hsvman said:

 

Their arent the only trainers complaining about the handicaping systems havent you seen the stories on harness express about 90 south island trainers at one meeting all complaining about the system, why is it only purdon says something you jump up and down .? 

Can you  post the article you refer to as I had not heard of the meeting where the 90 trainers all complained about the system. I had thought many went there  to support the new system.    Like I said earlier, the all stars  amongst others are complaining because it makes their better horses progress higher in the grades faster than they used too.  They completely ignore the fact that they are competitive in the grades they are assessed at. They do so because it undermines what they are saying.

They are just trying to get whats best for their owners, however the handicapping system thats best for the all stars is not whats best for the industry as a whole. By the way all this moaning from those with the best horses, earning the most money, winning the most races, who want more concessions  and more than they currently get is actually a sign  those who designed the current system have got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Blue said:

On that occasion Alta Maestro was gone (IMHO) anyway, maybe not so Aloka - who knows - but over time we've all had a runner we've backed relegated on protest or whatever but you just have to move on. 

Agreed about the moving on but it is the principle of the rule that is in question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JackSprat said:

That's why they have a PR mouthpiece on the payroll - to "spin" things to the media!

Do you honestly think Dave McCarthy would post anything without their approval?

Do you really think they have time to proof-read everything DM says on their website?

In any event, it's nothing they (particularly NR) hasn't said many times before, so it can hardly be described as 'making excuses after the event', or excessive.  Nor are they alone --- as Brodie never tired of telling us, many Canty trainers are against the new handicapping system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said:

I did in regard to the PP affair and then Purdon /Rasmussen supply a different story in the stipes room! I simply cannot believe the contradictory nature of what she has said. 

I think the case against her should be reopened.

I think it is also safe to assume on the race track in harness racing in NZ there are 2 levels of control. The junior drivers, amateurs and bit players in harness racing get a rough deal from the stipes. I think back to Jeremy Markham at Geraldine, Alistair Lowe on Sandra Keith at Ashburton and Geoff Martin on Danke, all excessively punished or hounded in comparison to the velvet glove treatment the likes of Purdon receive.

As for the handicapping system complaint. To say you don't make excuses but then give one is weak. If you are going to say something on your website, have the balls to say it. Anyone one would think the producer of the All Stars website was the same person as the producer of the Box Seat.

I was only referring to the hysteria over the All Stars supposed 'whinging' about the effect of the handicapping system on Ultimate Machete and More The Better.  I totally agree with you on the PP affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2017 at 8:39 AM, Blue said:

LO this has always been the case with tall poppies. Initially we love to see them succeed then invariably they DO get preferential treatment. Not saying it's right or democratic at all but we know it happens in every sport.Forget what Geurin says on Box Seat, it's only his opinion like yours or mine.  I just don't believe this case deserves 4 pages on cafe and furthermore, what do you propose should be done about it?

Totally agree. What I find strange is that they jump on Mark over Blue Magic and yet no one comments on Nigel McGrath, Cran Dalgety (I've lost count how many times he has been caught), and then the milkshakers -Townley, Blanchard and Langdon.

Totally Tall Poppies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Spikecity said:

Totally agree. What I find strange is that they jump on Mark over Blue Magic and yet no one comments on Nigel McGrath, Cran Dalgety (I've lost count how many times he has been caught), and then the milkshakers -Townley, Blanchard and Langdon.

Totally Tall Poppies 

no, not like that at all. what you have to remember with blue magic saga, one got  a lot of time off sentence the other all but served what he got. personally. they all need a swift kick up the arse.. no one should be doing it..  but my guess some where out there   within the industry, some one is doing it yet again.. who I have no idea, but it comes down to trust.. and some just are not trust worthy. .and  I would not be surprised if something hits the wall  in the very near future. and yep I jump on mark purdon . because, he should've known better.

so should've nigel l McGrath but I hope they have both moved on from that saga..  although  it will always  be  hiding behind cloud 9..   just as Geoff small affair. and if people like me keep bringing it up, well    they all just have to live with it don't they.  tall poppies in your eyes.  hero's in mine.. it is our right to comment on what we feel is wrong.. tough shit if you don't like it or agree with it... they were tried and convicted...  no sugar  coating from me .. so sniff that up your butt hole and live with it dude. and as for milkshakers. don't forget  that fella that had a couple of useful nags over papamoa way..he got taken.  come on you started the list now finish it.. or haven't ya got the BALLS?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Spikecity said:

Totally agree. What I find strange is that they jump on Mark over Blue Magic and yet no one comments on Nigel McGrath, Cran Dalgety (I've lost count how many times he has been caught), and then the milkshakers -Townley, Blanchard and Langdon.

Totally Tall Poppies 

 I get it.  You can't refer to previous positives returned by successful trainers as it will be called  tall poppy syndrome, yet if you refer to other less successful trainers positives its o.k. No syndrome for that.   Where have you been?  Cran dalgety has copped plenty of criticism from some.  So did all the others you mention at the time, although  are you sure they all returned positives? I do point out the irony in what you have said anyway.   All the above names  to which you refer were names which copped the criticism before their positives, with subsequent events proving that criticism justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2017 at 4:55 AM, final luca said:

looking after the mates yet again syndrome. we  see   some stables get the treatment quite often.

were  the officials  just LOOKAWAY,  the call could had gone either way? I have my doubts..

however, I like most will watch for a future performance from another driver and see what the officals  dish out to  them..

I don't think others would get off without dirty sheets.

 

Were the Smalls ever charged with team driving? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Thejanitor said:

Were the Smalls ever charged with team driving? 

this thread isn't about what Geoff small did or didn't do it is about the all stars team .

however. G small to my knowledge wasn't however it doesn't mean he  never did it. like I said I might be dumb but I am not blind...

and  thejaniter  if you are going to site Geoff small you must also  bring in other stables past and present that have 3  or 4 runners in a field..

I can remember the butts . and mays   and even Irwin berhns  with 2 or 3 runners.. and for mine they set up stable runners..

it seems to be  and has been common practice that has gone untouched for decades.

come to think of it.. the purdons..  didn't they split to what they are now because of something similar  at that time being said..

they were winning the cream of the cream and everyone was getting the speed wobbles about it,  public included.

my opinion is that it is not and has never been a good look for harness racing.. but I guess . most would be saying about now.. F/L we don't give a fuck what you think,

which is fine...   when I was a kid I listened to adults saying racing and trotting was dirty.. I guess those people then would be standing up  and saying I told you so...

I can see why many people are giving the game away, owning,training and even driving, not to mention the every day punter that really has had a guts ful.

what was once a great past time and enjoyable entertainment  has now become a boring saga of corruptible exploits.. in the name of MONEY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, final luca said:

this thread isn't about what Geoff small did or didn't do it is about the all stars team .

however. G small to my knowledge wasn't however it doesn't mean he  never did it. like I said I might be dumb but I am not blind...

and  thejaniter  if you are going to site Geoff small you must also  bring in other stables past and present that have 3  or 4 runners in a field..

I can remember the butts . and mays   and even Irwin berhns  with 2 or 3 runners.. and for mine they set up stable runners..

it seems to be  and has been common practice that has gone untouched for decades.

 

Thank you for your reply FL.

You are right it has been going on for decades and nothing done.

I am glad you mentioned the Anderson/Butt stable. At one time they were the dominate Canterbury stable, like Purdon/Rasmussen now. Often they had multiple runners in races, particularly age group races. I remember the likes of Cullen's Creek and The Force were used to give Stunnin' Cullen an easy run. One race stands out in my mind. I think it was either a Sire Stakes or Sales Series race at Addington, from memory Anderson/Butt had four runners although one broke hopelessly in the running. Highview Tommy was leading and Cullen's Creek came around to sit parked outside him and gave Stunnin' Cullen the one-one. Cullen's Creek pressured Highview Tommy from around the 1000m mark and managed to take Stunnin' Cullen to the straight before he faded out of it. Highview Tommy still took a lot of catching but with the easy run Stunnin' Cullen hauled him in to win, Tintin in America dashed home for second and Tommy held third. Similar tactics occurred in other races too.

The Small team adopted the same tactics in many races.

Mark Purdon had a smaller team then so perhaps he learned a thing or two about team driving from the masters of team driving the Small and Anderson/Butt stables?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thejanitor said:

Thank you for your reply FL.

You are right it has been going on for decades and nothing done.

I am glad you mentioned the Anderson/Butt stable. At one time they were the dominate Canterbury stable, like Purdon/Rasmussen now. Often they had multiple runners in races, particularly age group races. I remember the likes of Cullen's Creek and The Force were used to give Stunnin' Cullen an easy run. One race stands out in my mind. I think it was either a Sire Stakes or Sales Series race at Addington, from memory Anderson/Butt had four runners although one broke hopelessly in the running. Highview Tommy was leading and Cullen's Creek came around to sit parked outside him and gave Stunnin' Cullen the one-one. Cullen's Creek pressured Highview Tommy from around the 1000m mark and managed to take Stunnin' Cullen to the straight before he faded out of it. Highview Tommy still took a lot of catching but with the easy run Stunnin' Cullen hauled him in to win, Tintin in America dashed home for second and Tommy held third. Similar tactics occurred in other races too.

The Small team adopted the same tactics in many races.

Mark Purdon had a smaller team then so perhaps he learned a thing or two about team driving from the masters of team driving the Small and Anderson/Butt stables?

Geoff small was only a small stable. excuse the pun..   when he started off. and mark purdon was already highlighting the head lines.

this has been going on for years (team driving)   Charlie hunter ,jim smith.. they all worked wonders . purdons  are easy subjects, I've seen them in Auckland years ago with 5 horses ,

paddy timmins,tom Knowles, peter wolfenden. , barry, mark, owen.. who have I forgotten? set up  stable runners.. nothing new.. and it most likely will be going on long after i'm dead and gone..and I might add,  I really don't blame them for doing it... just look at the 1600 at the Olympics. the African countries set the pace, hassle every other runner protecting the gifted runner for the gold.  I guess it is just  marks stables turn.. in 5 or 10 years from now, some up start youngster just starting off in training will be top dog...

and everyone on racecafe will be bitching just like we are doing today..

but I don't agree that mark learnt anything from Geoff small or Anderson/butt. he was doing alright with that all by himself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kotare_Hunter said:

Sogo, Christopher Vance, Mark Hanover, Two Under and Insutcha finishing in that order beating 5 others in the early 90's

.

thanks KH, but also happened  2 or 3 other times.. think in 70's.  maybe in the days of del's  dream . classiebarn,

some one with a sharper memory  than I have may recall., not saying I wasn't well executed , it was.. and not always the favourite stable runner would win..

makes the guessing game that much more interesting I guess. these days they seem to put something into the race so the top horse has an easier run...

now just off the  topic here... purdons use to have a smart horse  called mr  shorthorn, it had a name change was it sole command ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, final luca said:

Geoff small was only a small stable. excuse the pun..   when he started off. and mark purdon was already highlighting the head lines.

this has been going on for years (team driving)   Charlie hunter ,jim smith.. they all worked wonders . purdons  are easy subjects, I've seen them in Auckland years ago with 5 horses ,

paddy timmins,tom Knowles, peter wolfenden. , barry, mark, owen.. who have I forgotten? set up  stable runners.. nothing new.. and it most likely will be going on long after i'm dead and gone..and I might add,  I really don't blame them for doing it... just look at the 1600 at the Olympics. the African countries set the pace, hassle every other runner protecting the gifted runner for the gold.  I guess it is just  marks stables turn.. in 5 or 10 years from now, some up start youngster just starting off in training will be top dog...

and everyone on racecafe will be bitching just like we are doing today..

but I don't agree that mark learnt anything from Geoff small or Anderson/butt. he was doing alright with that all by himself.

 

Yes you are right, but i cannot recall anyone bitching about the Anderson/Butt team driving even though it happened regularly. Perhaps it is because M. Purdon is an outsider, not part of the Canterbury harness racing subculture? 

I don't know what the answer is perhaps return to brackets, but that would cost the TAB plenty if an outsider scores like Ashley Locaz for example at Jewels Saturday. All Stars also had many other long shots over the years. I don't think you can limit trainers to one per field because that is unfair to owners especially those paid up to Sales Series, Sire Stakes etc. 

Do you have any solutions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thejanitor said:

Yes you are right, but i cannot recall anyone bitching about the Anderson/Butt team driving even though it happened regularly. Perhaps it is because M. Purdon is an outsider, not part of the Canterbury harness racing subculture? 

I don't know what the answer is perhaps return to brackets, but that would cost the TAB plenty if an outsider scores like Ashley Locaz for example at Jewels Saturday. All Stars also had many other long shots over the years. I don't think you can limit trainers to one per field because that is unfair to owners especially those paid up to Sales Series, Sire Stakes etc. 

Do you have any solutions?

 

if I am not mistaken, some one will correct me. but the purdons  came from down that way, went te awamutu  then Clevedon.

just like mourie McKendry, sure he was a south island original. so could be just the south island anti north island  (Auckland) attitude.

even I have to admit. mark is the best trainer in that part of the country. must I say it (yes it hurts) the best in the country if not australiasia./world.

god that hurt saying that... but it is true. but like I said along will come some one else  to look even better,

and yes I like that idea of brackets.. was great fun.. but marks horse pay stuff all now  imagine if they were bracketed?be even money both ways with a 4 or 5 horse bracket.

although I think they only brackted them under the same ownership.

no suggestions. I agree in principal, that if he has the horses and they are good enough to win heats and qualify then they should start

I like you and everyone else have no idea how to compete with officals of clubs  or HRNZ how to put things right again...

it is though the industry has been violated, broken. and can not be fixed. sometimes we have to return back to our roots, to understand and

revisit the problem  so it can be corrected, like Australia, NZ tried to become like American harness, maybe for the sale market..

I use to think  harness racing in nz was better, and as new blood arrived with new ideas, the industry  went on a down ward sloop.

along came  drugs  (although been there for years/day one) detection of drugs came along would be more correct.i quite often go for a drive down cardigan bay road in Mataura,

to were  the great champion Cardigan bay started off.  can not feel any prouder.. then we have these fellas  mmmmm, yes, we all make mistakes but some of us learn.

maybe if brackets came back the horses  brackets should be limited to 3 ,   manaroa, royal ascot, manawaru bracket was one I loved.  they really didn't need any more than that..

yep, the fun has  truly been taken out of betting on harness racing for a gut like me that loved the past. but I've moved on.. changed my style  of betting to suit myself.

I wish I had more answers, but I guess I've said it all above.. revist  harness racings roots.. just like cooking, if you burn the pot, start over again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bracketed horses were either from same stable, same ownership, and a combination of both.      Also where division races were run which meant over 25 horses in the one pool, after stable/ownership brackets were established. to get the numbers down to the tote maximum (25) the club would randomly create brackets from the balance of the horses.     Sounds complicated, but it wasn't really.    And of course in those days the tote indicator boards were operated manually by a system of "Holland blinds" drawn up or down to the corresponding dividend.    The crowds used to stand by the indicator board just to watch for changes in divvies - no lights or TV's!!!   Then, because of the number of patrons on track, there was a mad rush to the payout windows - yes there were separate selling and payout windows - and they listened to the on course speakers for the race to avoid being way back in the queue.    Not a place for children - as the horses crossed the line some fine examples of the English language flowed.    Then it was back to the tote board and/or selling windows or (mostly) a quick amber in the public bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.