Fernlea25

Spot on Jack, the fact that allaboveboard recorded TAB TV hoping to see the build up / after race from the interdominion is a laugh in itself. You do know that channels for ALL broadcast races for the day, so why on earth you'd complain when Menangle ran 5 minutes late and there was a pick 6 / quaddie going at the dogs, I'm sure their was many people interested in that... The coverage out of Menangle was rubbish anyway, we had Steve Davis doing most of the build up because Australia was covering another race. I watched the interdoms on trackside and flicked over to TAB TV when the race had finished. Give me the dishlickers over the crims on rims anyday of the week.

I'm a trots person through and through, but in fairness to the dogs. they were on time, so deserved to be shown live. Menangle had a time slot, and they missed it, so they are the ones to blame here, nobody else.

I would have thought provision of the product "Free Trackside" would have been a cost of doing business that would have been factored into the takeouts anyway.
Real simple this issue - provide the product - lets say Trackside - market the sellable items (betting) through the product to a captive audience and enmtice them through marketing of the sellable items etc etc etc ..........
Or am I missing a link somewhere.

That he stole?
 
If I posted something on this site which is trademarked, copyrighted, or patented, does that make you a thief?

Personally I think Daryl Robinson is very good.  Tipping out half the field (or more) seems to be a prerequisite to get a job on Trackside, so a bit harsh to single out Daryl.  I actually think he does a good job of throwing out some value in his selections rather than just picking the faves.
 
I think Roso is an excellent presenter but I don't think he has the voice for commentating.  Peter Earley is a legend but I don't think he's as sharp as he used to be.
 
Trevor Wilkes sometimes struggles but his enthusiasm for the sport and the job make up for his shortcomings in my opinion.
 
I think the ranks are pretty strong in New Zealand for commentating dog races.  The Aussies are generally accurate but they don't always sound very excited to be there - probably because they're calling hundreds of races per week.

Personally I think Daryl Robinson is very good.  Tipping out half the field (or more) seems to be a prerequisite to get a job on Trackside, so a bit harsh to single out Daryl.  I actually think he does a good job of throwing out some value in his selections rather than just picking the faves.
 
I think Roso is an excellent presenter but I don't think he has the voice for commentating.  Peter Earley is a legend but I don't think he's as sharp as he used to be.
 
Trevor Wilkes sometimes struggles but his enthusiasm for the sport and the job make up for his shortcomings in my opinion.
 
I think the ranks are pretty strong in New Zealand for commentating dog races.  The Aussies are generally accurate but they don't always sound very excited to be there - probably because they're calling hundreds of races per week.

A lot of people still attempt to honour their "debts" following bankruptcy even though in the eyes of the law the debts no longer exist.
 
Paying back the debts, or attempting to, would no doubt help people to forgive and forget, and have more faith that he was trying to make a genuine fresh start.

This is a grey area guys.
You gave up betting on trots because of starts- I gave up on gallops because of track bias, penetrometer.
All three codes have quiet runs- running out of class to drop back etc
I definitely think our stewards should be much tougher on some of the points made in here. Top drivers can make a 'valid' excuse in every situation and get away with indiscretions.

well said Jack
Gave betting on Harness away years ago.
Starts are a fiasco, either stand or mobile, team driving, not putting a horse in the race, quiet runs, and on and on I could go - just far too many variables to be taken seriously

give them away - happens often - no worth having a bet on them

got to wonder why TAB  doesn't do the right thing and scratch horses at the barrier when they have no chance...
 
3 rd time in recent weeks where a horse I've backed  never even got to the mobile start line - i00 meters behind
 
the barrier and they let them go..
 
not a good look when such strong favourite doesn't even get to the start line.
 
either late scratch the horse or declare false start and send them round again.
At least at the Gallops they will late scratch the horse when it does something similar.
 
time to come out of the dark ages and give the punters a fair go

Same deal with Queen Rowdy in the last race I believe.  W & T Steele on NZGRA, Peter Taylor on TAB website.
 
No point complaining to the TAB though, can't remember them taking responsibility for an error yet.  It would be interesting to know the legalities of the TAB providing incorrect information about their 'product'.  Any sellers of 'products' in the more conventional sense have a legal responsibility to provide correct information about said product... and as a consumer, you are entitled to take that information in good faith that it is correct, and if it isn't, the seller has made a misrepresentation and therefore breached their obligations.  Further, as a purchaser, your contract is with that seller, not the original producer who the seller has purchased the product from.  A shop-keeper therefore cannot pass the buck if they have sold you something on a false pretense, or where information provided was incorrect.
 
When I place a bet, I am a purchaser of a product, and the TAB is the party I'm contracting with.  For them to then blame NZGRA, Thoroughbred racing, the racing clubs etc when a mistake is made (misrepresentation) would seem to be out of whack with contractual law.    
 
Whilst the TAB clearly don't make mistakes on purpose, they do tend to have a fairly slack attitude to it when they have made a mistake.  It is sad the NZ public don't have an alternate local betting agency which would act as an incentive to the TAB to lift their game in this respect.

Same deal with Queen Rowdy in the last race I believe.  W & T Steele on NZGRA, Peter Taylor on TAB website.
 
No point complaining to the TAB though, can't remember them taking responsibility for an error yet.  It would be interesting to know the legalities of the TAB providing incorrect information about their 'product'.  Any sellers of 'products' in the more conventional sense have a legal responsibility to provide correct information about said product... and as a consumer, you are entitled to take that information in good faith that it is correct, and if it isn't, the seller has made a misrepresentation and therefore breached their obligations.  Further, as a purchaser, your contract is with that seller, not the original producer who the seller has purchased the product from.  A shop-keeper therefore cannot pass the buck if they have sold you something on a false pretense, or where information provided was incorrect.
 
When I place a bet, I am a purchaser of a product, and the TAB is the party I'm contracting with.  For them to then blame NZGRA, Thoroughbred racing, the racing clubs etc when a mistake is made (misrepresentation) would seem to be out of whack with contractual law.    
 
Whilst the TAB clearly don't make mistakes on purpose, they do tend to have a fairly slack attitude to it when they have made a mistake.  It is sad the NZ public don't have an alternate local betting agency which would act as an incentive to the TAB to lift their game in this respect.

when there's a dog who has changed kennels etc?  
 
In race 3 at Waikato today Ten Point One had transferred to the Steele kennels yet it still says Peter Taylor on the TAB website.  You guessed it, the dog won paying $17.  Wake up GRNZ for gods sake, this is not a one off.  
This is an ongoing issue that needs to be sorted out.  

I'm surprised anyone still watches after the departure of Paul Henry...
 
That Rawdon is dreadful

I'm surprised anyone still watches after the departure of Paul Henry...
 
That Rawdon is dreadful

I'm surprised anyone still watches after the departure of Paul Henry...
 
That Rawdon is dreadful

This debate has been had on RaceCafe many times before.
 
I think people forgot that with the sheer number of dog races in New Zealand each year, it becomes a statistical probability that some dogs will draw the same box multiple times in row, or much more often than others in their career.
 
There is a 1 in 8 chance that a dog gets the same box twice in a row, which means that roughly 1 dog in each race (on average) should start from the same box it had in its previous start.  Just like there is a 1 in 64 chance (on average) that a dog gets the same box 3 times in row, so one dog in every 8 races, i.e. more than 1 dog per meeting.
 
Say a dog drew box 1 at it's first start.  The next time it is entered in a field, it is just as likely that it draws box 1 as it is for it to draw 2, or 3, or 4... 
 
The whole mathematics behind the draw being "random" means that anomalies are likely to occur from time to time.  People just think it happens for often because they remember the unusual ones... they forget the thousands of normal ones each year.

This debate has been had on RaceCafe many times before.
 
I think people forgot that with the sheer number of dog races in New Zealand each year, it becomes a statistical probability that some dogs will draw the same box multiple times in row, or much more often than others in their career.
 
There is a 1 in 8 chance that a dog gets the same box twice in a row, which means that roughly 1 dog in each race (on average) should start from the same box it had in its previous start.  Just like there is a 1 in 64 chance (on average) that a dog gets the same box 3 times in row, so one dog in every 8 races, i.e. more than 1 dog per meeting.
 
Say a dog drew box 1 at it's first start.  The next time it is entered in a field, it is just as likely that it draws box 1 as it is for it to draw 2, or 3, or 4... 
 
The whole mathematics behind the draw being "random" means that anomalies are likely to occur from time to time.  People just think it happens for often because they remember the unusual ones... they forget the thousands of normal ones each year.

I like darryl robinson better, he should be a permanant comentator

They do eat plenty of dogs in China.... Maybe thats what they want them for?  At $30k each still cheaper than shark fins or elephant tusks!

He's doing very well thank you - has settled in great and we have lots of fun together.  Absolutely no regrets about adopting a greyhound and stoked to have got this big fella.

Favourite dog is Thrilling Ransom...
 
Cost me plenty in the early days of his racing career when he was super quick but erratic, and now he's costing me even more as he's my recent GAP adoptee.
 
Super dog

He's doing very well thank you - has settled in great and we have lots of fun together.  Absolutely no regrets about adopting a greyhound and stoked to have got this big fella.

Favourite dog is Thrilling Ransom...
 
Cost me plenty in the early days of his racing career when he was super quick but erratic, and now he's costing me even more as he's my recent GAP adoptee.
 
Super dog