Chief Stipe

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?

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?

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

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.

That's a very moot point regarding your entitlement under the BORA and as I said above I'm sure that Freedom of Expression covers calling anyone a "stupid prick" but that is a different Act and doesn't apply to you as an individual. If you persist in calling @hesi a stupid prick online he has every right to ask you to desist and if you fail to do so can use the HDCA to force you to desist.

Which laws? Given your rudimentary understanding of BORA and HRA I'd be interested to know specifically what laws you refer to.

I don't believe NZTR would get hammered. Afterall didn't he throw in his license to avoid getting "hammered"?

I'm not sure I agree with that. The winner of that race by virtue of winning it got entry into the KM and nearly pulled off the win in KM 2yr old. Although only four in the field this year there were 7 the previous year. 2yr olds have to start somewhere. I know a Grp 1 winning filly and mulltiple Group winner that started its career in a 3 horse 2yr old race at the course. Incentives such as what? Tauherenikau is favoured with a number of meetings during the holiday period. Isn't that incentive enough?

Well many people get confused between the two. The BORA (Bill of Rights Act) doesn't confer as many rights as people think. It is directed at Goverment and its Agencies and binds them to certain principles. That said neither Act is paramount and laws can be passed that are inconsistent.

Aren't you confusing the Human Rights Act with the Bill of Rights Act? One primarily focuses on discrimination and the other freedom of expression.

Anyone can make a claim about anything but then they need to provide evidence to support their claim. How does the Harmful Digital Communications Act work?

Yes and you fail to get the point. Morty didn't cross the line. The Bill of Rights doesn't allow you to abuse, insult and degrade people does it?

Noted. Case closed.

You're an idiot. The rule is about the withholding of water. So if a horse is dehydrated after being given a preventative medicine then it would be an offence to not give it water. Of course you could argue that if you were truly interested in the welfare of a horse you would allow Furosemide because it is effective in preventing EIPH (Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage. But no you don't raise that but focus on how it isn't fair to punters - oh the hypocrisy!