Fernlea25

cant be to bad, still plenty of horses and trainers racing horses. problem is no one really wants to do what is needed to make the industry viable as there is to many with there own agendas and self interests. 
 
Geographically we are so spread out the costs have increase beyond what the industry can return in stakes and we are a small population.
 
If you were to really run the industry as a business to make real returns and good stakes you would get rid of 80% of tracks and centralise to main centers.
 
Instead market forces will force the weak out over time. The industry will never die as some are saying. What we will have will be tracks force to close and trainers force to look for other employment as has happen with some tracks to date.  This industry has been for some time and still is a slow cancer that is killing the weak.
 
If we had hard decisions been made now we might have a better industry for the future just quicken the process today instead of 10 years down the track when this is where the industry will be anyway.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good to see Clone Your Own back in winning form at The Meadows last night.
 
Lovely money, as the saying goes.
 
Well done, team.

I have seen the stipes give the benefit of the doubt to hundreds of dogs where it's obvious a dog has turned their head.  Why do they do this?  I'm not sure but it happens regularly if you watch greyhound racing closely.  Jack's a Jewel has been put out once or twice but could have been atleast 15 times if the stipes were concentrating.  Even his trainer was talking on Trackside saying, 'He's not the hardest chaser'.   

A lot depends who knows who.  I have a neutral view and have no doubt he was checking out My Squizzy.  The stipes made an error of judgement and I believe the Butcha will make them look stupid in upcoming runs.  

Tortuff

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... 

Portfolio, exactly how have the media mistreated Mr Myers?
The facts are -
 
1. Mr Myers mislead the media and punters about the prospects of one of his choices.
2. He acknowledged he did this deliberately in order to increase the dividend.
3. The media laid a complaint about his deception (lies).
 
As this thread shows some people believe trainers have a right to do this on the basis thet have no responsibility to anyone other than themselves and their owners. Others believe such behaviour and his subsequent refusal to promote racing through the media is unethical and detrimental to racing. I suspect most people are in the second category but I may be wrong.
 
Regards
tony

Kevin Myers rubbed his deliberate lie into all our faces subsequent to the race.
I recall being outraged at the time, not because of any personal factors but because I knew the damage to the reputation of the racing industry that would result.
Mr Myers set out to rort those who provide the lifeblood of our industry...punters. Then, having done so, he went out of his way to tell them that he had just done so.
The response from the Trainers Association was similarly arrogant and equally stupid.
 
There are factual reasons why the reputation of our industry is in the toilet, reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual management of our industry.
 
Mr Myers does not have to talk to the media.
Equally, the industry owes him no favours. Nobody is above the game.
 
Cheers.
Ashoka

Dave, you are being simplistic in the extreme. Why did he say he thought his horse wouldn't win?

Thats a joke, if you have money in there at the start of the day . you should be able to watch all day.

just have had a bet ,taking my balance to zero, guess what, can't watch that bet go around, and waiting form comfirmation of the derby result . TAB gets it wrong ,yet again !

Right. I have located my correspondence.
 
It's the PLATINUM PUNTER.
 
In big bold type at the top of the page are the words  PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL.
 
It starts
 
Dear Xxx
As an elite customer of the New Zealand TAB this is your opportunity to participate in an exclusive, invitation only event .....
 
At the bottom of the page it further states  "only TAB account holders who receive this letter and register for the Platinum Punter can take part in this exclusive event."
 
Thats hardly a promotion to the general public as intended in the legislation.
 
In fact it was probably copied from one of Bernie Madoff's or Bill Vlahos's communiques.

TBOTF.... Do you enjoy putting relatively large bets on racing on HK and Singapore? I find both places very hard to decipher, especially Singapore which hosts some of the world's worst racing.

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.

Despite my last post about the beloved Steve, I actually think most of the presenters do a good job. 
 
One thing that does get under my skin though, is where the studio presenter is talking when the horses or dogs jump from the starting gates / boxes, and instead of just shutting up and playing the commentator, they continue to finish their sentence, stating "they're now racing at Timbuktu, let's get you across to the track, this is Race number 7, and your caller is ............". 
 
By the time they pick up the commentary, you've often missed the first 5 or 6 horses the commentator has called.  When you aren't familiar with the colours this can be a bit of a pain.  I know where the race is, you've been showing it on the screen for the past 2 minutes, same with the race number, and I really don't give a flying faaaaark what the race callers name is. 

Munchakov got it wrong.
Wayliss is a banker;  Bayliss is a -------; The Sheriff will not let me use that malapropimistic word.

He's quite popular so I'm going to be unpopular for say this, but Steve Davis - biggest dick head on Trackside.   
 
Mondays during the Palmy North greyhounds is an ear-raping I can barely stand.  Why he is giving out tips on greyhounds is beyond me, yet still has to gaul to often criticise the Video Watch that Matt Nicholls has come up with... 
 
"How on earth has he come up with this one!???  Just look at the track stats, hasn't run a place in the last 3 starts, I couldn't have it"
 
He then proceeds to lecture you as to why the short-priced favourite just cannot get beat and why you should be piling as much money on it as you can... and then after the race (when his tip has got beaten, as it invariably does):
 
"It's not an exact science people, I keep telling you, it's not an exact science".   
 
I love a bit of presenter personality as much as the next person, but give me a robot / drone / puppet to read cue cards any day over this idiot.

Sorry I stopped reading at the part when you said Karen Fenton-Ellis would hold her own on any channel...