Fernlea25
-
Posts
219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Fernlea25
-
-
-
In an age of Betfair and being able to 'lay' horses, the ability to cheat for financial gain is far more possible without needing a large number of co-conspirators.
-
10 hours ago, what a post said:
Personally I thought It was hard to believe a driver of Andersons ability could drive it so poorly. After reviewing the replay I concluded he wasrt trying. I know someone who had a good bet on it who thought the same..The trackside presenter described it as an unbelievable, just unbelievable drive. It was the subject of a thread on one of the harness chat sites(,not started by me)
I agree. Even coming around the home bend, he seemed intent on allowing every runner inside him to flush him wider and wider - not even to mention the early and middle stages of the race.
I've never been much of a fan of the two-day meetings. Seem to have to be 'in the know' for which horses are just there for a look on day one.
-
4 hours ago, Virtual.Stipe said:
Name Suppressions in place on Harness Racing prosecutions. Details in the Stuff article below:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/106978548/racing-figures-in-operation-inca-due-in-court
Granting of name supression in these types of cases is damaging in my opinion as it allows rumour and speculation to cast mud on a much wider range of people than should be.
-
1 hour ago, Lee270744 said:
Anyone driving / training would be crazy to do anything but try their very best right now with the spotlight shining so bright. The best time in a long time to have a punt in confidence that you'll get a fair run for your money!
-
If there is strong evidence to substantiate the allegations, and serious jail time on the line, it'll be interesting to see how quickly someone flips for a more lenient punishment (and then just how many are implicated as a result).
-
I just hope that, whatever the outcome, the authorities move swiftly and provide as much accurate and timely information as possible to the public (without prejudicing the accused who have a right to innocence until proven guilty), so that rumour and conjecture does not burden those who have done no wrong.
I would also hope that even those with personal relationships with the accused, are able to recognise objectively that if the charges laid are substantiated and proven, appropriate punishments are paramount to give the sport a chance at continuing and reestablishing itself to its former glory.
-
13 minutes ago, Lee270744 said:
Most of there phones were tapped they heard all conversations read all emails and texts.
I should have quoted the post above mine from Slam Dunk about not seeing anything wrong with the race.
-
-
Just now, Fartoomuch said:
So do you believe the Feds were tipped off. I do and think it was a very ordinary piece of human behavior by the grass. You and others a free to think otherwise
In my opinion, unlikely to have been potted - more likely spotted by someone from the integrity unit having a beer at the pub after the Albion Park races.
If he was grassed-up by someone, it's not great form but he knew the rules and chose to break them. It's not the informant that broke the rule, he did.
-
22 hours ago, Fartoomuch said:
Thanks for the sarcastic reply. You clearly don't get it. Why was a QRIC Commissioner at some Bush pub. He was clearly tipped off to be there
Breakfast Creek Hotel, I believe, is right across the road from Albion Park where there's harness or dog racing most days of the week, and pretty close to Brisbane city. It's not exactly a 'bush pub'.
The rule may be a joke, but it's a rule nonetheless and until it changes, these folks need to wise up and abide by it.
-
-
His partner, Trista, has been disqualified for 12 months recently after being judged to have pulled her horse to the inside to give clear running to another runner in a feature race at Albion Park.
Many big names in QLD falling at present - seems the authorities are finally taking a strong stance.
-
Just a thought,Could a steward charge a dog with unsatisfactory performance for actions after the finish line?The rules are not clear about this as far as I can find."81.1 Where a Greyhound fails to perform to the satisfaction of the Stewards or an Authorised Person, the Stewards or the Authorised Person may, after considering any submission made by the Trainer or person in charge of the Greyhound, order that the Greyhound undergo one or more Satisfactory Trials and/or such action as they deem necessary before being eligible to compete further in any Race. No appeal shall lie in respect of an order made to undergo one or more Satisfactory Trials."It is after all part of the race, just not a part that affects punters or purses directly.Would a dog attempting to qualify in a trial be passed if it committed such actions?If not, a tote race should not be treated any differently, should it?
It's a nice thought Yankiwi, but the Stipes have a hard enough time identifying and taking appropriate action against non-chasers before the line let alone after it!!
-
Trifectas are not commingled on Australian racing - the pools are so small it's not worth having a go (it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy). Need to stick to first fours on the Aussie races if you're betting with the NZ TAB.
-
I see the TAB has a "Roughie refund" promotion running tonight at the Christchurch Dogs whereby you get a refund if you backed the 2nd-placed dog for a win (in a single bet, on fixed odds), and the winner pays $12 or more on fixed odds.
The following excerpt from the TAB website:
Things you should know
- The winner must pay a Fixed Odds Dividend of $12 or more to set off the refund special
- If there is a dead heat for second then both greyhounds will be refunded
- This applies to individual Fixed Odds Win bets only. It does not apply to Tote bets
- Multi bets are allowed. A refunded bet is considered a successful Multi leg at a dividend of $1.00
A couple of questions from me which hopefully someone can clarify:
1. At what point must a dog be paying $12 or more on fixed odds for it to qualify as
"pay a Fixed Odds Dividend of $12 or more"?
e.g. say number 7 wins and at the close it was paying $10 on fixed odds, but when I placed my bet it was paying $14, does this qualify? If not, there's really nothing to stop the TAB making all the dogs $11 at the close of betting. What about vice versa, i.e. it was paying $10 when I placed my bet, but ended up paying $14 at the close?
2. The last and 2nd last bullet points would seem to contradict each other. How can it apply to individual bets only, but multi's are allowed? Or are they just pointing out that one refund out of a whole multi won't result in a refund of the full bet?
I like the intention to have some promotions (even though I think this one is shit), but it would be nice if someone with a slightly analytical brain could read these promo's before they're released to make sure the grey areas or terms & conditions are adequately explained.
They could have made this one that if a $12 or more winner rolled home, then they pay out on win bets on the 2nd place dog as well (rather than just being a refund). Dogs don't win and pay $12 or more on fixed odds very often in New Zealand, especially with the way the TAB bookmakers go about setting the odds... there's often not a single dog paying $12 or more in a race.
Cheers
-
-
I've communicated with Richard and he does a great job in Australia (for anyone interested check out http://fairwageringaustralia.com) but for reasons I'm not going to go into here I cannot lead a public campaign like he does.
I have taken action behind the scenes though (and will continue to), including a recent case I took to the Commerce Commission regarding the TAB behavior. It is rather frustrating thought when I had (in my opinion) put together a reasonable case and the only formal response I got was "The Commission does not regulate the TAB, and as a private company they can run their business how they see fit." and they wouldn't enter into further discussion on the matter.
A very odd response from the Commerce Commission.
The Commerce Commission's job is to ensure competition is enabled in all industries - even if the TAB is a private company, what difference does that make? Private companies are regularly scrutinised by the Commerce Commission for anti-competitive behaviour. Being private doesn't give you the right to conduct your business in an anti-competitive manner.
It sounds like a politically motivated response to me... i.e. we're under instruction not to investigate or entertain investigating SOE's.
-
-
Me I could watch Williamson all day. True test batsmanship from days gone by. Near perfect technique against spin. He's our Dravid. T20 might have ruined you Fernlea if you can't watch that class of cricket.
You're right I have been ruined, but not by T20 - I've never had much time for that format. I've been ruined by the way the likes of Australia, South Africa, and India play their test cricket. Positive batting and aggressive bowling.
I've played a lot of cricket myself and to quite a high standard so I do have an appreciation of the game and the skills on display, but as far an entertainment goes, I'll never enjoy watching someone score 100 off 300 balls on Day 1 of a test match. It would be different if the team were 30/4 and under pressure, or batting to save the game, but I feel playing that defensively when your team is on top is really just letting the opposition off the hook.
After Day 2, my assessment is that we've put all our eggs in one basket. If we don't manage to bowl West Indies out under the follow-on, we can't win. The final session of a day is when you really put the boot into the bowling / fielding team - they're tired, and they've only taken 2 wickets all day - spirits are low. Not, "here, have 37 dot balls in a row." Williamson had already faced a truck load of balls, and then faced more than 6 overs without getting a run? That's not helping NZ to win the test match... nor is it going to get me interested in watching the game... clearly just my personal view
-
It would be nice if we could go into a test match with the intention of winning, rather than trying not to lose.
On the face of it, we had a good first day, but in reality we only lost 2 wickets yet managed a very mediocre 2.6 runs per over.
I can see us losing our last 8 wickets for 100 to be all out for 340 half-way through day two, when we really should have scored over 300 on day one by playing a little more positively. He's clearly a quality player but Williamson (and I put Watling in the same basket) always has me reaching for the remote control when he comes in to bat, it's just awful viewing. I'd rather watch something else, and flick over 60 overs later when he's nudging a half-volley through the covers for 2 to bring up his hundred.
-
Lynn ran in 3 Collars
A fall in her first - winner: McDeeBee
4th in the next - Winner: Rivette Reason
3rd in her final one - Winner : Thrilling May
Fancy me forgetting that! I'm only 30 and already losing my memory! I remember the first when she fell, that's probably when she was at her best. Drew near the inside, slightly slow away, and flattened going into the first bend.
The 3rd in her last ever race was a massive effort - she was great fun to watch.
-
Is there such a thing as a "take-out" on a bet type with a guaranteed pool?
-
To be honest I didn't have a bet in the heats.Didnt even find the time to watch them.
Why? Because your talking about a dozen dogs for such a big pool of money.You want to get people into the sport.
Why give such a large stake to a race,Or in fact all distance racing when you are giving it to such a small group of people/dogs ?
I can see what they are trying to do but it hasn't worked so why keep pouring it in when its clearly not on the rise?
Whilst I don't agree with everything you've said, you've raised an interesting point. Only 15 dogs entered for the heats was disappointing for me - and some of the dogs in the heats wouldn't have got a start in the past (in my opinion). Why was that?
I had a small share in Shining Comet years back who ran in two Silver Collar finals (she was retired after running 3rd in her second Collar final), and I remember the heats being much more competitive with a large number of imports brought in specifically to target the race.
I agree you can't really train a dog to run 779m if it doesn't have the natural endurance for it, but surely there are more than 15 dogs in NZ / Australia that could have a realistic crack at the prize-money. Is it no longer viable to import a stayer because there isn't enough distance racing? If that's the case then it's very sad as it is a wonderful spectacle.
What Happened to the "Fixing Scandal"
in Harness Cafe
Posted
It does seem to have largely disappeared from sight with most (if not all) of those participants concerned seemingly back to driving / training.
I understand that legal procedure needs to be followed but it is very frustrating that these matters cannot be resolved in a timely fashion. Personally I don't believe so much resource would be poured into this if there was nothing to it, but the length of time this is dragging out will most likely be interpreted as a "nothing to see here" by those that disagree with me and think the sport is pure.