eljay 1,711 Report post Posted February 24, 2016 Menangle Race 5 - No.2 Easy on the Eye - Tr, S.Tritton, Driver Natalie R. Horse drawn No.1 (Joys A Babe) is 2nd emergency so unlikely start and Nat moves into No.1 No1 on second row - Smolda. Co-trained by Nat and yes I know they dont allow partnerships in Oz but surely not much imagination needed. Just saying!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thejanitor 1,206 Report post Posted February 24, 2016 6 hours ago, eljay said: Menangle Race 5 - No.2 Easy on the Eye - Tr, S.Tritton, Driver Natalie R. Horse drawn No.1 (Joys A Babe) is 2nd emergency so unlikely start and Nat moves into No.1 No1 on second row - Smolda. Co-trained by Nat and yes I know they dont allow partnerships in Oz but surely not much imagination needed. Just saying!! Just saying what? What are you on about? There is nothing "surprising" about Natalie Rasmussen driving Easy On The Eye. She has driven the horse twice recently for a win and third placing. She got the horse home in 1:50.7 three starts back and the horse paid over $100 so I can understand why Tritton would put her on again. Mainland Rookie 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljay 1,711 Report post Posted February 24, 2016 In N.Z. she wouldn't be allowed to - she is co-trainer of Smolda and cannot take "outside drives". The Aussie authorities know she is co-trainer but under their regulations a horse cannot have co-trainers. So why would she drive against a horse she trains on a horse she doesn't train. Yes, the rules over there will allow it but why would she want to? Guarantee she gets her whack of whatever Smolda wins in stakes, just like she will from all the other horses over there that are just in Mark's name. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsvman 294 Report post Posted February 24, 2016 Well she bet on a horse she wasn't driving in nz cup so anything goes really eshe 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljay 1,711 Report post Posted February 24, 2016 So it appears Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue 1,080 Report post Posted February 24, 2016 Rules is rules though Lloyd. If she was on the #1 horse and Smolda had drawn 8 there wouldn't have been a murmer. Just the luck of the draw I think but I agree it does put them in a commanding position Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted February 24, 2016 2 minutes ago, Blue said: Rules is rules though Lloyd. If she was on the #1 horse and Smolda had drawn 8 there wouldn't have been a murmer. Just the luck of the draw I think but I agree it does put them in a commanding position The chances of easy on the eye holding the lead against that front line are slim to none IMO. Smolda will have to drop back and go around them if he doesn't want to be 3 back the markers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted February 25, 2016 hsvman and eljay, She was charged, found guilty and punished for her transgression. In this case, anything did not go. Credit to the authorities when it is due. All the best. Ashoka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljay 1,711 Report post Posted February 25, 2016 Correct Ashoka. So I take it then you quite happy for her to take stakes from Smolda even though she has accepted a drive for an opposition stable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted February 25, 2016 eljay... I consider both situations to be entirely separate matters even though there are overlapping factors that go to the heart of both situations. I am not at all happy about the current situation and consider this matter to be of such significance that the Australian harness racing authorities need to seriously consider the implications and, on the face of it, ensure that a repeat is not permitted. Further, the stipendiary stewards need to speak to all drivers in this event and remind them of their obligations, both to the connections of the horses that they are driving and to the integrity of the sport and industry itself. Speeches of such a nature are often made to jockeys engaged in major events and I see no reason that the same should not apply to drivers prior to a major event. All the best. Ashoka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil 333 Report post Posted February 25, 2016 Just as a matter of interest, what are the hard numbers here? Presumably as the driver she gets 5% of whatever EOTE wins. What about Smolda? 10% divided by 2? Which would again give 5%. Obviously there are reputational factors in play as well, but it doesn't seem like the direct financial implications point one way or the other. So while the situation isn't ideal, it's not clear that there's a massive conflict of interest in play. Or am I missing something obvious? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted February 25, 2016 Basil... Yes, in my opinion. That is the issue of integrity. A wagering business without it is a scam, plain and simple. All the best. Ashoka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil 333 Report post Posted February 25, 2016 11 hours ago, Ashoka said: Basil... Yes, in my opinion. That is the issue of integrity. A wagering business without it is a scam, plain and simple. All the best. Ashpka Yes, I already mentioned 'reputational issues'. But are the direct financial implications as I stated or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted February 25, 2016 Basil... I took your reference to "reputational issues" to be those of the individuals concerned, not the interests of the wider sport and industry. Regardless of the reputations of the people concerned, this situation is to the detriment of the sport and industry as a whole. All the best. Ashoka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSprat 947 Report post Posted February 25, 2016 I personal don't see any difference between this driving engagement and others that occur under the Australia rules every day of the week. Because most states don't allow training partnerships, and even through a husband and wife may clearly train in partnership, one is the the official trainer - leaving the other free to take outside drives, irrespective of whether the "partnership" has a runner in the same race or not. This example is no different. It's simply the way things are structured over there. Thejanitor 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat 19 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 Great driver, as good as any round. More 'outside' trainers should put her on. Thejanitor 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil 333 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 On 25/02/2016 at 10:18 AM, Ashoka said: Basil... I took your reference to "reputational issues" to be those of the individuals concerned, not the interests of the wider sport and industry. Regardless of the reputations of the people concerned, this situation is to the detriment of the sport and industry as a whole. All the best. Ashoka But how exactly? We have a horse (Smolda) that has two trainers. One of them is driving him. That leaves the other trainer unemployed. If another owner, in full possession of these facts, then wishes that unemployed co-trainer to drive his horse, who are we (or anybody else) to second-guess him? If the direct financial incentives are a wash (which nobody to date has contradicted), then personal reputation concerns ensure that the second horse will be driven to the best of the driver's abilities. In short, I'm not convinced there's a problem here. And certainly not one that requires legislating against. Thejanitor and kilcoyne 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted February 26, 2016 Basil... So-called "silent" partnerships are illegal in regard to ownership. An obvious link between drivers that is so close as this one is must constitute an integrity issue. The fact that such obvious issues are ignored in the racing industry is one reason why punters turn to other avenues through which to indulge their habits. The climate of the racing industry is one in which the self-interest of the few conspires to destroy the industry for all. King regards. Ashoka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil 333 Report post Posted February 27, 2016 21 hours ago, Ashoka said: Basil... So-called "silent" partnerships are illegal in regard to ownership. An obvious link between drivers that is so close as this one is must constitute an integrity issue. The fact that such obvious issues are ignored in the racing industry is one reason why punters turn to other avenues through which to indulge their habits. The climate of the racing industry is one in which the self-interest of the few conspires to destroy the industry for all. King regards. Ashoka Or, more likely, it's ignored because there is in fact no issue. The incentives are aligned and the information about what's happening is there for everybody to see well in advance. I'm afraid I can't agree with the 'silent' owner analogy. There's no such concealment going on here---every man and his dog knows Rasmussen is Mark Purdon's co-trainer (even if the Oz authorities refuse to recognise this). And those who somehow don't know this are protected by the far greater number who do. richie 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted February 27, 2016 Basil... Integrity requires such issues as tacit partnerships to be openly disclosed. That is not what is happening on occasions such as this. The racing industry ignores such issues to its peril. To my mind, the industry needs to find a way to disclose the "inside" information to all on each occasion or risk losing what wagering income we currently command. I believe that this will become obvious to everyone...once our market share has declined to the point of no return. All the best. Ashoka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...