-
Available Subscriptions
Trotting Chat
3,023 topics in this forum
-
- 2 replies
- 496 views
-
- 29 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 3 replies
- 529 views
-
- 17 replies
- 5k views
-
- 6 replies
- 986 views
-
- 7 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 0 replies
- 469 views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 470 views
-
- 7 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 16 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 7 replies
- 1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 585 views
-
- 1 reply
- 659 views
-
- 4 replies
- 694 views
-
- 27 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 6 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 77 replies
- 6k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 15 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 3 replies
- 598 views
-
- 9 replies
- 989 views
-
- 10 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 521 views
Announcements
-
Posts
-
By Chief Stipe · Posted
Name the trainer and the case then we can assess the Decision that was passed otherwise we are relying on your interpretation and @Pete Lane 's. -
By Chief Stipe · Posted
They are changing the rule if you read the first post again. The Morton case was tested against the rules at THAT time. Given the crap vitriol spewing from some individuals I support any measure to rein that in. However I would have thought the Harmful Digital Communications Act would cover most issues. -
since i posted this comment,the horse akula has had its ownership changed officially on hrnz records,obviously done in the last 2 days by hrnz.So at least its finally been done i suppose. sold a year ago to n40 racing,according to hrnz records,the ownership is now k butt and n40 racing and that ownership was from 4.1.2026. Even though it met qualifying standards in a trial a week ago,its official racing status is shown as "unqualified or current qualification status unknown". the other 2 horses sold a year ago at the sales still have not had the ownership changed,but all 3 of the horses are shown trained by k butt. Correct procedure and what the rules say,seem simple enough to follow. The thing about yearling sales, is there doesn't appear any ambiguity to when a horse changes ownership,its pretty straight forward. But in this case,obviously not. HRNZ are the ones who promoted through lots of publicity on their website the horses concerned, yet its turned out they have been examples of hrnz official oversight which seems not to follow their own rules. -
By Murray Fish · Posted
I presume that one of the every day topics @HeadOffice, around the coffee machine is "Did you see what X said on x social media" , enough of that sort of thing can then generate its oh heat! Flashing the Current Available Punishment is worth trying!!! Show those trouble makers you MEAN (purrr) Business! A pro active approach! (something this Industry is not known for,,,) would be to monitor the active sites/groups, Note what simple factual information is being misrepresented! Politely provide the correct facts etc. For the 'rabid voices', they are actually very easy to deal with, case by case! Often leaking them some juicy false info can bred some internet fun! -
I don't really see how the proposed new clause makes any difference to the current rule. This was tested rather frivolously a decade ago in the Morton case which concluded that he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to. And to quote McKechnie that "Action before the Judicial Control Authority must be with reference to the conduct of racing or behaviour by licensed persons which goes beyond the expression of criticism or scepticism. We do not consider those boundaries have been crossed."
-
-
Topics
-
