Forums

That was never tested in a higher court and you are being selective in your quotation.  In my opinion McKechnie was wrong. Regardless the question is do the new rules change things?  

i believe swayzee won half a million last year in bonuses for winning 4 of the 5 nsw  country cups. He missed out on the full million when  beaten by captain hammerhead in the final cup race. this year i believe captains knock has won the first 3 legs and earned a $250,000 bonus already and if he wins the last 2 legs can win a million.Hes won the wagga,newcastle and bathurst cups so far. the victorian bonus i believe is for any horse who can win 4 of the 6 victorian cups races and one of those wins must include the hunter cup. kingman won the first,then bulletproof boy won the second beating the likes of kingman and himynameisjeff then leap to fame has won the next 3 so he is in with a shot at the milllion dollar bonus. i don't know,but i would guess nsw managed to arrange an insurance company to sign some 3 year deal to pay the bonuses and would guess their premium wasn't too over the top.The insurance company obviously made a terrible decision to take it on and no doubt the success of swayzee and now captains knock will mean any insurance company would have to be crazy to do that again on the same terms.Still who really worries whether the insurance compnay m,ade a poor decision,apart from them.. as to victoria. well since they announced the bonus only last year,after swayzee won his half million,you would guess the premium they paid would have been much more. it seems the focus on both sides of the tasman is to look after the high end horses and the owners who are already mega rich are certainly reaping the rewards.Theres never been a better time to be an owner of an elite harness racehorse in australia. reading the victorian annual report the 2024/2025 season saw them only lose $11.6m after losing $25m the year before.Because the victorian governmant bailed them out so they could stay solvent to the tune of $13.4 m,hrv was able to return a profit of 1.4m but was told by govt they were expected to live withing their means from now on.the govt funding was the final part of a deal worked out in 2023.There was significant savings with staff cuts,stakes cuts(10m less than paid out the year before) ,bonuses cuts,no new projects,cuts to develpment fund,cuts to marketing, to achieve the improved,if you can call it that,result.Turnover was down 8% but so was the number of races so turnover about the same per race as the year before.wagering on all racing is down over there. other indicators were 3282 (3652)..the figure in brackets being the year ,drivers 475 (529),trainers 896 (939) stablehands 857 (922),sires 34 (52),foals 1306 (1396),namings 953 (1044),services 2521 (2855). the end of a distribution deal from turnover with tabcorp saw a $12m drop in income from that source. i don't know how the recent deal they did with the governmant changes things where the govt took there spare land in exzxchznge for wiping hrv debt to the government. you know,you read the above figures from the annual report and you would get the impression ,things have got so much worse over there. But then you read what the current administrators and some higher profile trainers are saying and they will tell you things are on the up.Gee,how bad must they have thought things had become,because all data in that reprort from august last year don't indicate things a going too good. My impression would be,they all must jhave thought harness racing was stuffed but because of the government riding in and taking their main asset and giving them a final part of their bail out,that things havre gone from disaster to ,hey just bad.Hence,it can be said things have got better.

It's an Incorporated Society and by law is entitled to manage its own rules. Try again. Do you think Judge Ema Aitken will use BORA as a defence?

From the report on the Morton case. And the introductory words he used - "came across as" - made it plain he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to. McKechnie's words from the decision and prior, as Morty has said here. As I said. Try again.

It certainly does and was in the Morton case. It's not a private company but one performing a "public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law." Try again.

BORA doesn't apply to NZTR as it is an Incorporated Society i.e. self governing.

or that is otherwise harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry; So, for example, critical comment that may be harmful to the industry seems to go way beyond the BOR rights' limitations doesn't it? Whether or not they deem it harmful to the industry can not be a Rule of Racing if it conflicts with the BOR. This seems to go way beyond it, so is probably not valid because of that conflict?

Ok I'll put the moot another way.  What part of the NZTR revised 801 Rule conflicts with Rule 41 (1)?

Point to specifically in BORA that justifies YOUR position.