Rusty

For some reason, and look I don't know why this is, but for some reason, I have the legendary Australian cricket commentator Bill Lawry's voice in my head, screaming: "GOT 'EM!!!"

Rule 213(1)(c) talks about prohibitive substances that may, or may not have been administered to a horse. Watch this space.

This um, this may not be great news about to break, if what some people are saying is true.

My thoughts and prayers are just with the horse, Happy. Horses are our friends.

Late scratching of this horse from the Cam Jones stables tonight at Addington. The 5 year old gelding was a bit of a market mover in race 2, prior to the order of the Stewards coming through pre-race. I certainly hope the horse isn't injured, or in poor health etc.

Brave or stupid.

Yes. "Based on that Winton run."

Good analysis Karrots. And good on you for asking the question. Unfortunately in Jacindastan, often people are unable to share their true thoughts and opinions without receiving repercussions for doing so. I don't wish to publicly share my thoughts on the matter, sorry Karrots, but by saying nothing, it actually says more, than saying something, in this case.

1. 11 2. 5* BB 3. 12 4. 12 5. 6 6. 9 7. 1 8. 6 9. 5 10. 2* BB Thanks

Yes. Exactly what Happy said. They're farked. I can't remember if it was Auckland, or Cambridge... think it was Auckland... where they had this young hip dude with a funny haircut, running the show. The writing was on the wall then from that point on lol

11. 8 12. 10 13. 9 14. 8 15. 5** BB Many thanks

1. 7 2. 4 3. 15 4. 1** BB 5. 1 6. 6 7. 5** BB 8. 7 9. 1 10. 7 Many thanks.

Scratching replacement for competition race 9: 9. 4 (replacing the 12). Thanks.

1. 15 2. 5 3. 4 4. 2* BB 5. 3 6. 5 7. 4 8. 2 9. 12 10. 6* BB Many thanks

I'll go for this one... just to be different.

1. 8 2. 7 3. 2 4. 1 5. 3** BB 6. 9 7. 12 8. 6 9. 7 10. 4** BB Many thanks.

The anti-racing brigade certainly do not need any extra amo than they already have, that is for sure. And when you say "authorities", I am assuming you don't just mean the RIU. I think MPI should be all over it, because it certainly wouldn't hurt for them (and their legislative powers) to have a wee look. And not just at this specific incident, but in general terms too.

Oh yes, thanks Karrots, just read your weekly round up. Woodend Beach. Whoever would have thought?! Let's hope those headlines in the article are not true.

A "magic beach"? What beach would this be? Sumner, New Brighton, Ninety mile, St Kilda? Somebeachsomewhere? Does this magic beach start with "Wood" and end in "end"?

1. 8 2. 5 3. 3 4. 6** BB 5. 7 6. 11 7. 6 8. 4 9. 9** BB 10. 2 Many thanks

There is a difference between believing and suspecting. Like a lot of things, it comes down to evidence and also standard of proof. Don't get me wrong. I suspect the vast majority of horse people are telling the truth. They certainly won't say it in the stipes room with non-stipes present. But I can almost guarantee that what some think, and what they say are sometimes two different things.

A novel indeed. It seemed there were plenty of questions, or I should say, one question being asked on multiple occasions, regarding "improved performance." What's the angle the stipes are coming from here? What are they thinking the answers may be, what do they expect the drivers/trainers to say? But more importantly, there never seems to be any supplementary, or follow up questioning, and why ask the question at all? It appears it is just a box ticking exercise, as often the answers are fairly vague and disingenuous. Here's a tip for the standard answer, and no further questions will be asked: "Sir, I'm buggered if I know really, argh, been working well at home, tinkered around with the shoeing, and haven't had much luck recently. Oh and um, also went alrite here before." Now I don't know if any of that response would be in relation to the horse or the driver/trainer, but it seems to stop the stipes from scratching the surface any deeper, and they just go on to the next person.