-
Available Subscriptions
Galloping Chat
Thoroughbred Racing forum discussion.
4,434 topics in this forum
-
- 3 replies
- 29 views
-
- 9 replies
- 107 views
-
- 1 reply
- 32 views
-
- 92 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 60 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 2 replies
- 227 views
-
- 8 replies
- 430 views
-
- 7 replies
- 263 views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 48 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 6 replies
- 273 views
-
- 8 replies
- 543 views
-
- 11 replies
- 419 views
-
- 0 replies
- 49 views
-
- 18 replies
- 825 views
-
- 2 replies
- 384 views
-
- 15 replies
- 674 views
-
-
- 34 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 28 replies
- 754 views
-
- 27 replies
- 891 views
-
- 12 replies
- 269 views
-
- 3 replies
- 287 views
-
- 1 reply
- 210 views
-
- 10 replies
- 532 views
Announcements
-
Posts
-
By Chief Stipe · Posted
Yes and you fail to get the point. Morty didn't cross the line. The Bill of Rights doesn't allow you to abuse, insult and degrade people does it? -
Doesn't really matter if someone thinks it's "harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry" does it? We've discussed that in relation to the Morton case. Doesn't and can't override the Bill of Rights. -
By Chief Stipe · Posted
Noted. Case closed. -
By Chief Stipe · Posted
You're an idiot. The rule is about the withholding of water. So if a horse is dehydrated after being given a preventative medicine then it would be an offence to not give it water. Of course you could argue that if you were truly interested in the welfare of a horse you would allow Furosemide because it is effective in preventing EIPH (Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage. But no you don't raise that but focus on how it isn't fair to punters - oh the hypocrisy! -
By Chief Stipe · Posted
That is the wide ranging clause and the most subjective. The rest of the rule changes wouldn't affect most people who comment online as but for a hardcore of serial abusers they behave politely and with common decency.
-
-
Topics
-