Fernlea25

My Dad owned a good jumper many years ago and I always enjoyed the jumps racing back then. I feel these days that there are more 'bad' jumpers going around - referring to hurdles more than steeples. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but every time I watch a hurdles race there seems to be one or two (if not more) who chance more fences than not. My memory may not quite be accurate but I remember the jumps racing from 20 years ago being run at a slower pace and with more measured jumping than the way they attack the hurdles these days.

Can you not just comment on how much you enjoyed the jumps racing without putting down another code? It doesn't really add anything except suggest to people you may be a little jealous. Hard to believe you genuinely enjoyed yesterday's jumps more than the Jewels but each to their own.

That's exactly my point - everyone has tracks they like and tracks they don't. If you were to open it up to more tracks, who decides which ones? Building a new track for one race day per year doesn't sound like a viable option, nor a good use of industry funds when Ashburton and Cambridge seem to be fine. As I mentioned in my original comment, I wasn't so keen on Cambridge because I thought it wouldn't make for competitive racing but I was proved wrong yesterday.

If you were going to share it around, how far would you go with it? If you were happy for it to be run at Forbury Park, what about Manawatu, or on the grass at Hawera? I'm obviously being facetious but I think you just open it up to more arguments and dissatisfaction if you spread it far and wide. It'll become like the Soccer World Cup where there is always controversy and talk of corruption about where the tournament ends up. I don't see an issue with it only being held at Cambridge and Ashburton. Personally I expected the Cambridge Jewels to be a bit of an anti-climax with the racing being a leader / behind the leader-dominated procession, but was pleasantly surprised that wasn't the case. Some good, aggressive, positive driving meant that horses were able to win from anywhere. It goes to show that many of our horses can do some work in the run and still kick on to the line - it would be nice if the same could be transferred down to other, less important races. But I digress.

Cool Pursuit, Little Teagan, Jinja Power, Alpinador Blushing Belle, Lochinvar Brando, Buddy Broke, Opawa Tania

I adopted a retired racer through GAP about August last year. Everyone from GAP that I dealt with during the adoption process was very pleasant, but I felt the process was disjointed and communication a bit slack and I remember thinking / saying to people on numerous occasions "Gee they must miss out on so many potential new homes for these greyhounds because people get sick of chasing them up". At every step of the process I felt like it was me that had to keep things moving forward - it was me making follow-up calls, sending follow-up emails etc just to get action or find out where things were at. The person I was dealing with seemed to keep changing, too. I appreciate that a number of the people involved are volunteers, but surely clarity over the process and effective communication is a must if GAP is going to reach its full potential. I wasn't invited to complete any kind of survey or offer any feedback on my experience throughout the process, so I never gave any - I think this is a must. Then again, maybe they are usually much better and I was just one that wasn't handled so well. It's a shame I wasn't rapt with the process because the product (the greyhound) is the real deal. Appreciate I've gone away from the topic in the blog somewhat but think this is still relevant to the effectiveness of GAP.

I think some of you need to get over your personal vendetta towards Trev. Last weekend Peter Earley called a dog in front from box rise to 10m before the post when he realised he was calling the wrong name (Rockin' Rod instead of Where's Carlos). Yet no mention of that on here... As I've said on here before, yes Trev makes mistakes and yes he likes to commentate around his picks perhaps a little more than we might like, but you cannot question the guy's passion for the sport. He commentates a lot of dog racing, and no disrespect to the dogs and their owners, but a fair bit of low quality dog racing, yet he still does his best to keep it exciting and obviously puts in the hours preparing. Give the bloke a break!

Super effort the winner - got off balance leaving the front straight the first time as the dog beside it came out a tad, turning Sweet It Is a little sideways. Not a huge amount of interference but to regain balance and momentum and come with such a strong run was beautiful to watch. Imagine how far it would've won by if the race had been, say, 750m instead of 715m. Well done to the connections of Know Class. He did so well to qualify for the final, particularly given his limited experience over the long distances - unfortunately the breaks didn't quite go his way last night but you can be very proud.

The whole timing thing in NZ dog racing needs a re-vamp. It seems there are still races being hand-timed, or races where the times are simply being reported / recorded incorrectly. The winner of the first race at Palmy on Monday was reported on the TV as running 26.65... it wasn't until the commentator noted prior to the next race that the time was actually 25.65 - a very big difference! The times dogs can run is not only important information for punters, but also for anyone with a speed freak who may like to sell their dog. Dogs are regularly sold in Aussie based on trialling times or times run in their first few races, but no one is going to want to buy a dog based on times if they have no confidence in the way the times are measured, or that the times are being recorded and reported correctly.

Ohokaman

Sounds from your comments re the Stacey Jones incident that you have questionable morals also and I will bear this in mind when reading your thoughts on RaceCafe in the future

Indirectly they do actually

What's your excuse for what he did? You should feel free to offer an alternate point of view rather than just saying other people's opinions are crap.

Yes, you're exactly right - it was a silly thing for me to say. I guess the point I was trying to make was that the fields are often less than 8 because any scratchings result in an incomplete field rather than an emergency getting a run.

What is the rule regarding classic age races? Every dog nominated must get a start? We do seem to have a large number of these races with incomplete fields - vacant boxes or no emergencies. The heats / final series that I don't like the format of is the Waterloo Cup. This is one of our premier races, and with dog racing being such a "dogs for courses" sport, I think it takes away from the event when there are often dogs in the final who don't race well at Auckland. I've seen in recent years dogs qualify for the final who've had multiple runs at Manakau without even managing to run a place - but have qualified because they go good around Addington, or Cambridge, or Forbury. I think that heats and finals for all races should be run on the same track.

I thought Butcha was less than genuine on Friday night. There was enough room to drive a bus through underneath My Squizzy, and Butcha has shown an ability to rail underneath through much smaller gaps during his earlier racing days. My immediate reaction watching it live was that he wasn't chasing. Andrea railed through and took the lead at virtually the same time that Butcha was having a look at My Squizzy, and then set off after Andrea which made is less obvious than it may otherwise have been. The fact Butcha ended up in between My Squizzy and Andrea has led some on here to suggest that he simply ran out of room - I don't agree. Andrea was behind both of the other dogs and there was ample opportunity for Butcha to rail through to the lead if he were chasing hard. Agree that the size / importance of the race shouldn't be important, and that there are plenty of serial offenders around, but that doesn't make it okay, just means that the Stipes need to grow a set and start being tougher. Butcha is chasing other dogs, not the lure. I'm not an expert on greyhounds but I watch a lot of racing and I wonder if he's not quite right - especially the way he swung wide on the last corner. If dogs continue to be allowed to race after not pursuing the lure without penalty then it just makes dog racing look like a fiasco.

Tortuff

I worked at the Wellington Greyhound Racing Club about 10 years ago and I seem to recall the difference being significant, but I couldn't give you the percentages off the top of my head though nor be sure if it has / hasn't changed since.

Appreciate your thoughts here but I don't agree. The TAB have shown that they don't care about looking after the punter. I can't see why the TAB would care whether a punter goes to the track, his local TAB, or bets from home via the phone / internet account... in actual fact, from a purely financial standpoint, the TAB probably prefers the punter doesn't go to the track. If clubs leave it to the TAB, then you can expect nothing to change, or for it to get worse. The club has a vested financial interest in getting people on course and having a bet, so why shouldn't the club put some effort into it? I don't see there being any duplication of effort given the TAB does nothing, nor does an effort by the club have to come with a significant financial cost. A number of things Portfolio has suggested don't have to cost much (or anything), and any funds spent in attracting punters on course should be viewed as an investment. If done well, the club will enjoy the financial returns. Have punting dollars been taken for granted by clubs for so long that club members can't comprehend actually having to do something to ensure the continuation of this custom? You wouldn't do nothing for your sponsors and still expect the $$ to keep rolling in, so why not make a bit of effort for the punters, too? Yes it's nice to have a big crowd, but if the crowd is made up of people only spending $20 the whole day then perhaps a bit more effort could be put into enticing those who want to spend more? This is a fairly basic concept of business - understand your customers - both their needs, and also which ones are significant in contributing to the financial sustainability of your club. Before anyone says it, I'm not suggesting ignoring small punters or families who enjoy the occasion day out at the races, just as any business doesn't ignore their smaller customers. A good starting point would be listening to suggestions that the punters have rather than, as some on this forum have done, respond with sarcasm or accusations of selfishness. The long-winded post from Rdytdy above... I cannot think of a business person or other industry which would treat their customer with such contempt. Here is someone prepared to take the time to make some suggestions as to what might make coming to the track with their punting dollars more attractive, and you reply with that sort of nonsense? It's actually quite unbelievable.

My two cents worth... I feel that the TAB, in general, treats punters with contempt. I also feel that racing clubs, in general, don't seem to go out of their way to accommodate those going to the track to have a decent punt. As a 30-year old punter, I think Portfolio's comments have a fair amount of validity. Racing, like any industry, needs input from multiple sources to be successful. Without owners, trainers, jockeys, and administrators, horse / dog racing does not happen. However, the punter is the "customer". No business or industry can continue without customers. I can definitely sympathize with Portfolio's frustrations at the track around not having a satisfactory place to view the races, often poor accessibility to the tote to have a punt, and no audio / decent TV screens to watch inter-track racing. It is a pretty well understood rule of any business that if you want to have a continuing relationship with your customers (or attract new customers), you should make an effort to understand the customers' wants and needs. Portfolio has made some suggestions as to what might make going to the races more appealing... and it would be arrogant and stupid for racing clubs and their committees to not listen to those suggestions and take appropriate action. Everything at a race course seems geared up to look after the owners, or the suits who are often there to spend $20 on the punt the entire day. These people might be persuaded into going to the races by free entry. I'm not. I don't ever recall seeing anything on a race course set up to cater specifically to those going along for a decent punt. Good business is understanding which customers are profitable and which aren't, but for some reason punters don't seem to be considered as customers. I live a busy life with many pastimes, and have no interest in serving on a racing club committee. Does that render my suggestions invalid? It shouldn't. I am a contributor to racing through the punting I do, and it should be a top priority of any race club to accommodate substantial punters (customers) as best they can.... not discard the ideas because it is not the same as what you've been doing for the past 50 years... times change... Seems like club committees are asking for ideas but don't really want to listen to them...

You could have $0.10 in your account and watch all day, with no possibility of having a bet... yet that counts as a "positive account balance". However, you can spend any amount of money on a race / game, but can't watch if it brings your account balance to Nil. I had a bet on a basketball game a little while back, spending the exact balance in my account (which happened to be a round number). I couldn't watch the game using the "watch and bet" service - meanwhile someone with 50 cents in their TAB account and no financial interest in the game could watch. Sort it out TAB!

I've had a similar experience with Michael Dore - and the word douchebag is exactly how I would describe him. I had a wager on a dog race many years ago in Australia and the dogs all started from the wrong boxes (must have been a re-draw). He emailed saying exactly the same, i.e. they were not responsible, and I followed it up with another email saying I didn't think it was acceptable for the TAB to have no accountability and he told me to "go away as he was too busy dealing with genuine complaints". Whenever I see him on the tele, I always tell whoever is with me that he is a massive dickhead.

Thanks to the TAB for putting the wrong barrier draws on their website for the feature sprint at Toowoomba tonight. I probably should have noticed, but with wall to wall racing I didn't, that on the website the TAB had the barrier draws in runners order, rather than the correct draws... i.e number 1 as barrier 1, number 2 as barrier 2 etc. Thought I was backing a horse from a nice draw... turns out it drew the carpark. I know it won't be the TAB's fault though... never is. False advertising?

Just watched the Off The Rails programme... Michael Walker is not a good advertisement for NZ racing. There's a big difference between confidence and arrogance, and he comes across as pure arrogance. You can almost see him dreaming up the bullshite in his head as he sits there.

I like the greyhounds - not so keen on the horses. Brian Martin was fun, Steve Davis is annoying - in my opinion.