Forums

Because it is incumbent on NZTR to fund that and they don't.

I've used your favourite AI tool "AI Overview Whether there is any "excuse" for human physical violence is a complex question that depends on whether one is looking for a legal, ethical, or moral justification. While advocates and experts agree that there is never an excuse for domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, or acts of power and control, certain, narrow, and specific circumstances are generally recognized where the use of physical force may be legally and ethically justified.  Widely Recognized Justifications Self-Defense: The most universally accepted justification for physical violence is to protect oneself from an immediate, imminent threat of serious physical harm. Defense of Others: Similar to self-defense, using reasonable force to protect another person from an active, violent attack is often considered justifiable. Preventing Imminent Harm (Defense of Property/Others): In some jurisdictions, reasonable force may be used to prevent a crime from being committed, such as stopping a burglary or preventing a child from running into danger. Law Enforcement: The use of force is legally sanctioned for police officers in specific, regulated situations to maintain public safety or apprehend suspects.  Key Conditions for Justification For violence to be considered legally or ethically justified, it generally must meet strict criteria:  Proportionality: The force used must match the level of the threat (i.e., you cannot use deadly force against a non-deadly threat). Imminence: The threat must be happening now, not a past or future threat. Reasonableness: The action must be what a "reasonable person" would do in that situation.  Contextual Distinctions No Excuse for Abuse: Violence used to control, intimidate, or harm a partner or family member is never justified, regardless of provocation, stress, or the influence of alcohol/drugs. Retaliation vs. Defense: Hitting someone back after they have stopped attacking is considered retaliation or revenge, not self-defense, and is not legally excused. Philosophical Views: While some, such as pacifists, argue that violence is never moral, others argue that violence can be a justifiable "last resort" to uphold justice, protect the vulnerable, or defend a community.  In summary, while "excuses" are often offered to rationalize violent outbursts (such as "I was drunk" or "I was provoked"), these are not accepted as valid justifications for abuse. The only generally accepted, narrow exceptions are restricted to immediate, proportional defense of life and safety."   So, NO is the answer...obviously You can make up all the excuses in the 'violence' World...wasting, heat of the moment (after the race is NOT hotm) wife didn't cook her partners eggs properly, et el It's NEVER justified and if you still think it is then i suggest you hand in your counselling badge         

No that Freehold land was one of the factors not the complete picture nor did I rank the relative importance.  That said CJC seem to have a more secure location than the likes of New Plymouth.   As for you second question you miss the point.  It is incumbent on each and ever club to maintain their own infrastructure.  Not many are doing it.

I'm getting sick and tired of the old men and women moaning about every little thing they can find with what they perceive to be wrong.  Yes @Freda I'll quote from the Leo Molloy playbook - most of them haven't acheived a great deal of success in racing and are blaming anything they can find for that lack of success.  Racing is a tough brutal game for lots of reasons not the least of which is you are dealing with a 500kg animal that is not only tough but fragile, that is not only smart but dumb.   PS: @Murray Fish I don't put you in the moaner category by a long way.  

yeah right! I will say my insults when I am standing in front of you! Do you get out much, or is it 100% social media worrier!  baby!!  Ponder this, most times I am on course I will have a brief chat with the stipes on that day!  I do find that they give me their time and ear! 95% of the time the topic will be 'unsafe tracks' perhaps that is the approach that you might like to try! re Jockeys,  On the surface, there is a lot of gilts and glamour!  In reality many are often challenged with weight and the reality of 'dieting' and the challengers that go with that sort of thing! Then having to produce  top physical and split second decisions in the race! mistakes are made!  rules are broken!  The best stipes know that and take that on board!  Then of course!  Any 'work place' mistake can get serious media spotlight!  I could continue in this vain! but sigh! I really am getting tire with 'things racing', very soon I will be gone....  

Perhaps @Thomass taking the photos scared it.

wow

i see n40 racing had the first of its 3 high priced purchases from last years yearling sales,line up at the trials last week. The questions i have are ..is it normal for horses sold at nz yearling sales  a year ago, to not change ownership officailly. ..And is it normal for the stipes to allow horses to start at trials,knowing that hrnz has the owner as someone who hrnz themselevs have publicised is not the owner and of course the stipes would have known that.   I mean,maybe it is within the rules for hrnz to let horses start,when they obviously know the owners listed aren't correct.Will the stipes not only allow it to start at the trials,but can it race under ownership that sold it over a year ago.  maybe someone can clarify what hrnz allow,i have read the rule . Is there some type of preferential treatment being shown for a big player,or does hrnz and the stipes allow all owners to run horses at trials and races,knowing the owners shown arenot  the actual owners. . i note all 3 of the horses bought over a year ago at the sales by N40 racing, are still owned by the breeders who sold them at the sales,according to hrnz.  

Yes @Thomass gets away with a lot online.