Chief Stipe

FFS our can you offer "a competitive model" when you are up against freeloaders!!

Oh dear I see they are still online banging on about the decisions of the trainer. They'd obviously make a wonderful training partnership Wallace, Scott and Mackenzie. Not that any of them have had much success themselves but they do know everything about it. @Comic Dog @nomates @Joe Bloggs

Just for the @Comic Dog record if anyone thinks I'm supporting this individual's actions that led to the Law Society case - I'm not. However I do support his right to be able to move on and in that respect I have some compassion for the person. I realise for some that are challenged and have a propensity to muck rake and be negative about all things racing that is a difficult concept to grasp. What is even more laughable that those pointing the finger often display disgusting attitudes online while hiding behind non-de-plumes. Nor should it be construed that I support the subsequent actions of the RIB or the Waikato Rugby Union. I laugh when I see the baying mob talking about moral high ground and integrity. I'd love to remind one forum owner of the conversations he and I had over a couple of boozy lunches in Auckland a few years back. However I accept that we all can readjust our moral compass. As I have posted many times before on many topics the fact that Racing tries to project itself as being any better than the rest of society is a mistake that will forever hoist itself on its own petard. Then to make things worse to double punish someone because the industry deems they need to show they set higher standards projects an image of elitism and creates incredulity. Afterall those in the industry are no different to anyone else in the wider community. Australia seems much more grown up on these matters. NZ - yeah na. We all make mistakes and if those online projecting that they are holier than thou honestly applied the same moral compass to themselves then show me the last man standing. He will either be a very good liar or have a very good lawyer.

@Brodie why don't you create a BOAY Pot on BETCHA and then we can go head to head with Out the Gate? You would be head tipster.

Going by what you post it must be difficult for you living with yours. All those dark clouds. ------ Well that ends that topic. No doubt the subject will be added from time to time to the narrative of the anti's and moaners. Oh well back to counting whip strikes. Stuff putting any real energy into getting useful change.

So that equates to him being a "piece of shit"? Strong words. I assume you think you are in a position to judge. Obviously you haven't looked at the timeline. That said it appears you haven't read what I posted. In my opinion the reason I wouldn't have employed him is because he didn't put processes and procedures in place as per the Law Society requirements. But you overlooked that. Now there is an old saying that those without sin shall caste the first stone. Do you think that posting online about your employees indiscretions is without sin? I don't think what Botherway has done deserves him being called a "piece of shit" online. But obviously you have lower standards than most.

Really? Since when did you join the convent? Or is it something in that Racecourse Hotel rum?

We are assuming they didn't know. I find it hard to believe, even though the Law Society would be one of the better agencies to maintain privacy, that someone in the RIB didn't know. BTW the main issue that undid him with the Law Society wasn't the misconduct itself which was minor but the fact that he didn't have the policy, processes and procedures in place to handle workplace misconduct as required by the Law Society. This point seems to fly past most online commentators. In my opinion that is the reason he probably shouldn't be employed at the RIB. I can't work out why the Office Manager(s) didn't have this covered after 7 years. Everything was all good until the employer/employee relationship broke down then the complaint was made. I've seen that happen in employement cases many many times.

Which gets back to my "gun shy" suggestion. The problems you refer to have been building for decades - hard to fix things quickly when the crisis point is reached. Yes I see the visuals but the RIB probably wouldn't have known as the Law Society are pretty rock solid at keeping someones privacy. Even so I have doubts about the RIB employment vetting policies. We all know about the ex-Police staff that have been employed and their records! As for Botherway he is now entitled to practice as a Lawyer. Let's face it the price he is paying for a minor indiscretion (in the overall scheme of things it IS MINOR) and the vitriol he is getting is way over what he deserves. Calling him a piece of shit @Freda goes beyond the pale. I have some compassion for the situation he is in because I have had personal experience not because I actually did anything wrong but because of a false accusation that bought out all the same type of vitriol and hypocrisy. Thankfully social media wasn't a big thing then and I had some staunch close friends that stood by me and managed the media hawks. Later in life I met people who were destroyed because of minor indiscretions or sometimes just unfounded allegations. If not destroyed completely broken. Yes mostly men Yes there are certain things that in my mind you can't come fully back from nor should you be allowed to. I'm not defending the RIB - I doubt they knew. If I'm defending anyone it is Botherway or at least showing some compassion. Does the indiscretion match the crap he is getting? Hell who would want to hold any licensed position in the racing industry or rather who are the individuals that haven't done something that the sanctimonious moral vultures wouldn't tear you apart for if they knew? Why the hell does racing have to hold some moral high ground? It isn't like that in Australia. Some of their license holders have made major indiscretions and haven't faced the vitriol that they would in NZ. We hang people out to dry based on a rumour talked about in a bar!

Not at all. But then I don't know any adult who hasn't seen some. LOL actually it brings to mind some instances in my working career I had to deal with as IT Manager. One case was where the company I worked for was about to have their systems integrated into the Global Parent. I received via DHL several boxes of policy, procedure and systems manuals (an American Company). Being ever the inquisitive student I started working through them - the systems were fascinating as was the phone list of every executive in the company worldwide. I rang a couple of Vice Presidents at the Global Information Systems Headquarters in an effort to get some traction on our NZ integration. Worked a treat as they were genuinely interested in NZ as a country and were often amused when I told them that I looked out of my office in the Head Office at paddocks of sheep! Anyway while getting through these folders I came across the Global policy on internet use. In NZ we had very few policies in place and the internet was still quite novel and only the management had access to it. I was the only one who had access to the logs of who was viewing what. Anyway the Global policies were very strict and the consequences quite high so I thought I better do a check. LOL lo and behold two senior managers were exploring quite a few things they shouldn't have been. My boss was number 2 in the company and was looking at some stuff that was well let's say to the right of soft. I thought I better have a discreet chat with him. Basically I met with him and talked about the policies (no one had read much of these folders - yes all Senior Managers had got a shipment of folders - some were common to all but many were specialist to their roles. I was the only one who had the IT related ones. So I had a meeting, explained the policies and what they meant, then explained the detailed logs that were kept on internet access including all the links to all the websites visited. I sensed a subtle realisation dawning upon my boss. I then said would it be prudent before the integration that I filtered and flushed some of these logs for the purposes of simplying the integration. Yes he said that would be a good idea. I also suggested he might wish to raise the topic at the next executive meeting or would he rather I sent out a memo. He chose the former. LOL I received a formal written warning that year - I averaged about one a year normally for going ahead and doing things that wasn't approved - I worked on the principle of fix it now and ask for forgiveness later. The next annual salary and bonus review was an interesting one and needless to say I argued well my case for an increase.

Sorry why is this guy a "piece of shit"? The Law Society don't consider his crime to be as serious as you infer. He was watching porn on his computer in his office of the company he was the sole proprietor of. His staff caught sight of snippets for six years and then complained to the Law Society. Obviously when they had finally decided to leave. He copped the punishment and has served the penalty.

Alleged drug positives. Sorry I'm not privy to the full rum medicated discussions at the Racecourse Hotel. As for employing those with a record of sexual abuse? It can't be this person who is the subject of this Topic as they haven't committed any sexual abuse let alone been convicted of it. I note that the RIB employee referred to in this Topic is now free to practice law with his suspension having been completed. The penalty was very low in severity which is commensurate with the indiscretion. But no let the sanctimonious preach holier than thou... I see the journalist has scored yet another headline with the person in quesion being suspended from rugby referring. I guess there was a real risk that he would look at his laptop during an injury break. No wonder the All Blacks are stuffed!

The head post isn't my post. In answer to your question - no. I'm surprised you haven't picked up the nuance - well not surprised as you seem to get a bee in your bonnet and gnaw at the bone of trashing racing.

You obvuously have no understamding of employment law.

Wrong on all counts. You are as bad as @curious reading what you want to read as opposed to distilling the facts. You make the assumption he tried to hide it. What if he wasn't asked? In any case what was he hiding? That he watched porn on his office computer? If you are talking about your post then not "clever" more salacious innuendo unbecoming of someone of intellect. Given both you and @curious haven't yet identified the core issue with the case I can say that neither of you would meet your expectations of an RIB Stipe. Now what does that highlight?