Hockey

Good to see that they are finishing with the 12k 2 year old bonus, as it has not done what it was meant to do, but then who would've thought? It is long overdue for HRNZ to actually become financially frugal, but then it is probably too late, but we will see! I believe that there are a lot that derive their income from harness racing still believing that everything is Ok as this is what has come from HRNZ! Chucking around Entain money just because it was there is not s business plan that was ever going to work medium term. There is going to need to be a helluva lot of belt tightening from many parties for it to be able to sustain the industry in the next decade. Punters and ownership needs to be encouraged.      

Good question. Here’s a breakdown of what Vicky Leonard has claimed — or alleged — in relation to Peter V'Landys and the broader racing-industry governance / media-freedom dispute. Because the public record is complicated, what follows reflects what’s documented to date — not claims I can verify independently. 🔎 Who is Vicky Leonard (in this context) Vicky Leonard is a part-owner / founding figure behind The Thoroughbred Report (TTR). ttrausnz.com.au+2ttrausnz.com.au+2 She is also associated with Kick Up (or “Kick Up for Racing” / “Kick Collective”) — a group that describes itself as “promoting positive welfare messaging” and defending the racing industry against what they regard as misinformation. ttrausnz.com.au+2racing.com+2 Leonard and her groups present themselves as pro-racing, pro-welfare (as defined by them), and keen to challenge what they see as media or activist attacks on the racing industry. racing.com+2ttrausnz.com.au+2 📣 What are Leonard’s main claims/accusations involving V’Landys or the industry — and why she’s critical From publicly available statements, Leonard (via Kick Up and The Thoroughbred Report) has made — or repeated — several claims / criticisms in relation to V’Landys / the governance of racing and how media and critics are being treated. The key ones: In response to V’Landys calling scrutiny a smear campaign (particularly around the proposed sale of Rosehill Racecourse and the management of the industry’s Equine Welfare Fund), Kick Up (including Leonard) said the “threat” was “false and insulting.” They argued that attempts over many years to get clarity on welfare-fund spending had been met with “evasive responses—or lack thereof.” ttrausnz.com.au+2thoroughbreddailynews.com+2 Leonard (via Kick Up) accused V’Landys of employing a “dual strategy”: rewarding media or industry insiders who stay quiet or “play along,” and penalising — via legal threats, accreditation bans, or other forms of pressure — those who raise uncomfortable questions. ttrausnz.com.au+2thoroughbreddailynews.com+2 She argues that this pattern undermines media freedom and transparency: that when powerful regulators exert influence over what gets reported or who gets access, it erodes independent oversight of the racing industry. ttrausnz.com.au+2X (formerly Twitter)+2 Leonard claims these problems are not just occasional but systemic — that there’s a culture of “soft-pedalling” issues, of media being influenced or pressured, and of the industry being shaped by those unwilling to allow critical reporting or dissent — framing it as a threat to fair public scrutiny. ttrausnz.com.au+1 In short: The claim is that V’Landys (and those around him) are using influence, resources and legal / accreditation power to suppress legitimate journalism and criticism — which Leonard sees as essential for welfare and governance accountability in racing. ttrausnz.com.au+2ttrausnz.com.au+2 🔄 Where Leonard’s claims come in — recent events During hearings around the proposed sale of Rosehill Racecourse (2024), V’Landys alleged that “wealthy breeders” were behind a campaign to discredit him — he said there was an email circulating encouraging people to “make up whatever you can … doesn’t matter if it is truth, doesn’t matter if it is lies, but just smear him.” ttrausnz.com.au+2Parliament of NSW+2 In response to that allegation, Kick Up (and by extension Leonard) pushed back: they said their repeated attempts over years to seek clarity on equine-welfare spending had been met with evasiveness, not transparency — and implied that V’Landys’ characterization (that critics were effectively “pro-abattoir” or reckless) was misleading and insulting. ttrausnz.com.au+1 Separately, in commentary tied to media coverage of racing, Leonard has written about what she sees as a broader culture of media influence — where mainstream outlets have historically been “soft-pitched” to underplay controversies or avoid challenging powerful players like V’Landys. ttrausnz.com.au+1 In effect: Leonard claims the public and industry deserve better transparency about welfare, post-racing horse fate, financial flows (welfare funds, race-club revenues), and that independent journalism must be protected, not threatened. ⚠️ What’s known — and what remains contested / unproven It’s known that V’Landys has previously initiated defamation legal action (or threatened to) in response to media investigations of welfare issues — for example against ABC after a 2019 report about alleged racehorse slaughter. He lost that case in 2021. ABC+2ABC+2 It’s established that Leonard and Kick Up have made public statements about lack of transparency, about legal threats or accreditation denials for TTR after critical reporting. ttrausnz.com.au+1 What remains uncertain: Whether all the allegations of media suppression, intimidation, or “smear-campaigns” are legally or factually proven. As of now, many claims remain in the realm of public accusations and counter-accusations. For instance, while V’Landys alleged “fabricated evidence” by “wealthy breeders,” Leonard’s group rejected this — and no publicly verified independent proof has (as far as I can see) emerged to definitively confirm either side’s full narrative. If you like — I can pull up 5–10 key recent media articles that summarise the Leonard vs V’Landys dispute (with dates, quotes, and links). That way you can see the arguments “live” and judge for yourself.   You said: yes   ChatGPT said: Good idea. Here are several recent media-articles and commentary pieces summarising the dispute involving Vicky Leonard (and her organisations) and Peter V’Landys — with dates, what’s claimed, and public responses. 📄 Key Recent Articles & Commentary Date / Outlet Headline / Summary What Leonard (or her group) Claims / Argues 15 Apr 2025 — “Mainstream media zeroes in on V’landys influence” Article by Leonard published on The Thoroughbred Report (TTR) Leonard argues that major media outlets are showing how V’Landys “courts loyalty, rewards silence, and shapes the public narrative.” She claims that after TTR probed governance issues (e.g. around the proposed sale of a racecourse and welfare matters), TTR — and her other business Kick Collective — had their media accreditation denied, and received a legal letter threatening defamation proceedings. ttrausnz.com.au 10 Aug 2024 — “Battle lines drawn: V’landys’ war of words targets breeders with explosive allegations” Coverage of the parliamentary inquiry into the proposed sale of Rosehill Racecourse The article reports that V’Landys accused “wealthy breeders” of running a smear campaign against him, even alleging emails encouraging people to “make up whatever you can … doesn’t matter if it is truth, doesn’t matter if it is lies, but just smear him.” In response, Kick Collective (associated with Leonard) issued a statement condemning V’Landys’ remarks, calling his insinuations “false and insulting,” and argued that their repeated efforts to get clarity on how the industry’s Equine Welfare Fund was spent had been met with evasiveness rather than transparency. ttrausnz.com.au+2thoroughbreddailynews.com+2 11 Nov 2025 — “The group smashing misinformation about racing” Interview/feature on racing.com with Leonard Leonard describes Kick Collective’s goal as countering what they view as misinformation about horse racing — especially during high-profile events such as the Spring Carnival. She paints the group as defenders of racing and horse welfare, and argues many welfare-based attacks are based on “false information.” racing.com+1 2024–2025 — commentary/op-eds by Leonard on industry transparency and media access Various articles in TTR / related outlets In these, Leonard highlights alleged systemic issues: she claims media access for TTR and Kick Collective has been blocked as a form of punishment for critical reporting, and that industry insiders have been “rewarded” for silence. She frames this as an attempt to control the narrative and suppress critique, arguing it undermines transparency and independent oversight. ttrausnz.com.au+2ttrausnz.com.au+2 🎯 What These Claims Center On — Key Themes From the articles above (and associated writing by Leonard), the main claims / arguments are: That the industry leadership under V’Landys uses power, influence, and financial/legal pressure to shape media narratives, rewarding friendly media and punishing critical or independent reporting. ttrausnz.com.au+2ttrausnz.com.au+2 That attempts to scrutinise spending (especially welfare-funds used for post-career care of racehorses) and governance (e.g. racecourse sale) have been met with evasiveness or hostility, rather than transparency — despite repeated, reasonable questions. thoroughbreddailynews.com+2ttrausnz.com.au+2 That independent media (like TTR / Kick Collective) have faced denied accreditation and legal threats simply for doing investigative or critical work — which Leonard argues is a form of intimidation and undermines journalistic freedom. ttrausnz.com.au+1 That the broader public (and racing-industry members) deserve open, transparent governance and access to information — and that suppressing such scrutiny risks undermining trust in the industry. ttrausnz.com.au+3ttrausnz.com.au+3ttrausnz.com.au+3 🧭 How Leonard Frames Her Role & Motivation According to her own words and public statements: Leonard says she started Kick Collective because she was troubled by what she saw as misinformation and emotionally charged criticism of horse racing — which she believes wrongly malign the sport and its participants. racing.com+1 She argues that responses to criticism should be based on data, science, transparency — not suppression or defensiveness. racing.com+1 She casts her and her organisations as advocates for “true” horse welfare (as defined by caretakers, trainers, and industry-insiders), opposing what she views as external pressure groups using emotion or sensationalism. racing.com+1 She says that withholding media accreditation or threatening legal action against critical reporting is a dangerous precedent that undermines the industry’s accountability and legitimacy. ttrausnz.com.au+2ttrausnz.com.au+2 📌 Why These Claims Matter — and What’s Still Disputed This is not just a “he said / she said” media spat: the dispute raises real questions about transparency, governance, and power dynamics in the racing industry — including oversight of funds supposedly used for equine welfare. If independent journalism is effectively blocked or intimidated, that reduces public oversight — potentially enabling mismanagement or welfare issues to go unreported. On the other hand, some of the broader criticisms against V’Landys (e.g. that his influence shapes media coverage across mainstream outlets) remain difficult to prove objectively. As one earlier case showed — when he lost a defamation suit against a broadcaster over welfare reporting — courts may accept that a veterinary-welfare problem exists and that regulation is ineffective, but still reject that this means the CEO knew or was complicit. The Guardian+2ABC+2 Thus, while Leonard’s calls for fairness and transparency resonate with many, the full truth about what goes on behind the scenes — and whether pressure is systematically applied to silence critics — remains partly in shadow.

Why do they need to be given all this free money to bet with? Going to be interesting to see if OTG js continued in the New Year? Hardly encouraging harness racing when they mostly offload on these Same Race Multis on the Greyhounds, which are going to be terminated from NZ in July! Thursday nights now has emphasis on the Dish Lickers which is unfortunate I wouldve thought, as it takes very little skill to be wagering on them!    

Good question. Here’s a breakdown of what Peter V'Landys’s legal action against The Thoroughbred Report (TTR) is — and why it matters. I’ll also touch on how this ties into his history of legal actions for context. ✅ What is The Thoroughbred Report The Thoroughbred Report (TTR) is an independent racing-industry publication covering news, governance and issues in the thoroughbred racing world — including investigations into governance, welfare, and oversight of racing authorities. ttrausnz.com.au+1 On 2 December 2025, TTR published a statement saying that it — and two other “independent racing publications” — had recently received correspondence from V’Landys and/or legal counsel for Racing NSW in response to TTR’s reporting on governance issues. ttrausnz.com.au The statement characterized the correspondence as a “legal threat.” ttrausnz.com.au ⚠️ What V’Landys’ action (or threat) against TTR is about According to TTR’s public statement, the legal correspondence was triggered by its reporting “on governance matters within the New South Wales thoroughbred racing industry.” ttrausnz.com.au In other words: V’Landys (or Racing NSW’s legal counsel) appears to be challenging or threatening to challenge TTR because of critical or investigative reporting into the way the industry — under V’Landys’ leadership — is governed. The precise issues under scrutiny aren’t detailed in the TTR statement. But given the history of controversy linked to V’Landys, it likely relates to governance, transparency, or welfare in the industry. TTR says it views the threat as “legal intimidation,” arguing that independent journalism is essential for oversight and accountability, especially when powerful regulatory bodies are involved. ttrausnz.com.au 🕰️ How this fits into V’Landys’ past legal cases This isn’t the first time V’Landys has used legal action (or threatened to) in response to media scrutiny: In 2019, an investigative program by ABC titled The Final Race revealed serious alleged animal-welfare abuses and slaughter of former racehorses — sometimes sold to knackeries/abattoirs. ABC+2thoroughbreddailynews.com+2 V’Landys sued ABC (and the journalist behind the piece) for defamation, arguing the broadcast wrongly implied he was responsible or complicit in systemic cruelty. ABC+2Coleman Greig Lawyers+2 In 2021, the court dismissed his defamation claim. The judge ruled that although the report was damaging to his reputation, it did not meet the legal threshold for defamation — specifically, the court found the broadcast didn’t prove he “knew” about the cruelty or knowingly permitted it. The Guardian+2racing.com+2 The dismissal and appeal failure reaffirmed that journalists can — under law — draw attention to systemic problems even when senior figures are implicated. Wikipedia+1 So the new action/threat against TTR seems to follow a similar pattern: powerful industry authority reacting defensively to critical reporting under threat of legal escalation. 🧭 Why this matters for racing, journalism, and governance Media freedom and scrutiny: TTR argues that this kind of “legal threat” undermines independent journalism — essential for holding powerful regulators to account. ttrausnz.com.au Transparency in the racing industry: If journalists fear legal retaliation, it could discourage reporting on real issues (governance failures, welfare problems, mismanagement), which harms industry accountability. Precedent and public trust: Given the past controversies around horse welfare and regulation under V’Landys’ leadership, how this plays out could influence public confidence in how racing is governed. Regulatory culture: A pattern of legal challenges to scrutiny (rather than engagement or reform) may raise concerns about how open the industry is to external oversight.

to be honest! I'm struggling to get my head around this???