Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Complete without any downtime ×
Bit Of A Yarn

The Rest of the World


75,598 topics in this forum

      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 127 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 127 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 116 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 136 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 139 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 131 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 134 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 144 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 136 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 141 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 154 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 126 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 139 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 141 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 127 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 129 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 130 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 119 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 120 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 127 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 120 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 120 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 124 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 112 views
      • Journalists
    • 0 replies
    • 152 views


  • Posts

    • That picture proves SFA but I see @Comic Dog stole it so he can sing to the crickets.
    • Each to their own.  But if I didn't win a race in 20 starts I'd be looking for another horse and probably a new trainer.
    • when mcgrath was disqualified for 8 years,one of the 3 charges mcgrath had was attempting to administer a prohibited substance. The adjudicators decisions in both the mcgrath and dalgety cases, specifically addressed the issue of previous breaches of the rules as relates to prohibited substances and the impact they should or shouldn't have on the penalties handed down.. The mcgrath decision specifically said he got a small uplift in penalty because of the 2004 prohibited substance charges and the 2020 improper driving charge. The dalgety decision said ,becuase dalgety had no breaches in the last decade he got no such uplift. there was a clear difference in how the two people where treated by the different adjudicators. I would suggest the decision by the mcgrath adjudicators was a better decision than the adjudicator in the dalgety case, As pointed out,the adjudicatopr in the dalgety case said dalgety had no breaches of the rules in the last decade,which clearly was not true. the dalgety adjudicator seemed to reject the rib submission that the 2017 positives were relevant.Why? Would the adjudicator in the dalgety case have done the same if it had been mcgrath whom he had before him.. after all,the whole point of penalties being handed down is the consistency in the application of the rules/penalties. you see,as we all know,when you have someone who gets penalised for something and then they look at the next guy who does the same thing and gets more lenient treatment,you foster a mistrust and resentment towards authorities by the person whos been treated more harshly.Sometimes you hear people say,suchand such has a chip on their shoulders or whatever,well the people that say that should also acknowledge,well theres a good reason for that.
    • Here's one for you in the first today to keep you going. I backed it too
    • I doubt I'll be waiting until tomorrow. Good if you leave the activists alone though. We need all the help we can get to encourage the powers that be to listen.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...