Chief Stipe

These types of surveys are a waste of time and money. Most of time their questions are poorly worded and the results are skewed by responder bias. Pointless exercise. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what's wrong. NZTR have now opened themselves up to small groups of stakeholders politicising the results and playing games. It is already with the likes of @curious and Wightman.

How can you appreciate a post and presumably its content if there is nothing factual? Amounts to gossip does it not?

Which describes @Thomass to a Tee.

Who is this comment directed at?

I disagee he was very close but then it wasn't him writing half the stuff.

He abuses the crap out of people at a personal level. He hides behind the fact he threw his license in.

Really? I'd put NZ Netball and NZ Rugby well on that criteria. Although I guess you could say NZR are doing better simply because they only have the tea lady left to run things.

You seriously think that the Bill Of Rights has any clout? What specifically in the Bill Of Rights expands allowable speech beyond other statutes? Does the BOR allow @Thomass to spout off on social media abusing individuals? You surely must admit the Kevin Morton went very close to the line in expressing his "oponion"!

So adding is not changing?

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.

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.

Tell me if a Trainer has taken drugs how does it improve the performance of their horses? I realise you have quite a few more clues than @Comic Dog who seems to believe it does. Comparing a Jockey about to ride a horse that same day with a Trainer who on raceday the closest they are likely to get to a horse is saddling it is not an apples with apples comparison. Regardless if the Jockey doesn't present for a test on raceday then he isn't likely to ride that day is he? Then they would be immediately suspended for failing to fulfil their engagements. In either case if charged with failing to present the person concerned is very unlikely to present in the future while under investigation with drugs in their system knowing full well that they can guarantee they will be tested. The other factor too is the zero tolerance for both a Jockey and a Trainer but that's another whole area of discussion about environmental contamination.

It cracks me up when I read some comments that say those owners and trainers that had horses beaten by Cole horses would be pissed off that he wasn't suspended straight away. Is that what you on about @Huey? As if Coles condition affects the performance of his horses!!! But there are always a few in this industry looking for any edge they can get.

FFS do you and @nomates and @Joe Bloggs sit on a joint ZOOM meeting all day? The three of you are tarred with the same brush. Facts: Cole was asked to appear for drug testing. He found an excuse to avoid it. The RIB charged him with failing to present for the test as requested. A hearing found him guilty. Now we await his penalty. In the meantime unti his penalty is given which will probably be a suspension he is continuing to train. Big deal. Only small minded types such as yourself are banging on about on social media. Probably because you have nothing else exciting in your life and you won't admit to being a Coronation Street fan.

Yes @Thomass I saw that yearling being auctioned and the two bids from Te Akau - embellished.

For @nomates and his new (old) buddy Bucky can someone explain to them where in this Topic is there mention of the word defamation? I guess literacy isn't a strong point with some. Actually you can't explain it to them because there isn't any mention.

Actually @Murray Fish I think you will like the humour in this post.

https://www.obstetricgynecoljournal.com/index.php/cjog/article/view/cjog-aid1197

Guest post: Forget pickles and ice cream. I published a fake paper on pregnancy cravings for prime numbers Image generated by Google Gemini I had grown weary of the constant stream and abuse of spam invitations to submit manuscripts to journals and to attend fake conferences on the other side of the world, a trend extensively studied in academia. The last straw: a solicitation from the Clinical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, well outside my work in mathematics education. Accepting the challenge, I decided to submit a deliberately nonsensical, AI-generated manuscript in response to observe how the individuals behind these supposed journals operate. In October 2025, I wrote to someone named Henry Jackson, who had sent the article invitation in August (despite the fact that no such person is listed on the journal’s website). I sent a manuscript generated entirely by ChatGPT to test how far a publication created with zero genuine effort could go and whether there was any filtering mechanism in place to prevent a meaningless article from being published. I proposed the following title in my reply: “Obstetric Paradoxes and Didactic Equations: The Impact of Mathematical Teaching on Childbirth and Beyond.” The abstract read: On October 29, I received the following response from someone named Amelia Sandra, from the journal’s editorial office (who is also not listed among the journal’s staff): “We request that you submit the full-length article on your research so that we can forward it to our quality department for evaluation.” I asked ChatGPT to generate a full article (clearly absurd and entirely fictitious) consistent with the submitted title and abstract. I deliberately included graphs that explained nothing and results that were entirely implausible. The conclusions were patently unbelievable. A cursory glance at the paper would have been enough to realize it made no sense whatsoever. Pascual D. Diago At this point, I resorted to a small deception and submitted the article under a pseudonym, as I had no intention of gaining any benefit from the publication, nor of having it appear among my genuine academic works. I chose a pseudonym similar to my real name, “Pascual Chiago,” since I had to submit the manuscript from my official university email account. I left other obvious signs that the article was a joke, such as references to non-existent journals and authors with rather explicit surnames (e.g., Sneakydez, Trickón, Sneakarez, Hoodvez, Cheatillo) hoping that anyone would clearly see the false nature of the article. On November 3, I submitted the AI-generated article on the impact of mathematics education on unborn children. Minutes later, I received a response from Amelia stating that my article had been forwarded to their “professional review team.” At this point, I assumed my experiment would end there. I was wrong. On November 12 a certain Susan Lee (also not listed on the journal’s website) demanded an immediate response within 24 hours to the review comments on the submitted paper, even though I had not previously received any email with review comments. The tone was threatening and insisted on payment of the invoice. I received six identical emails with the review comments. Fortunately — or amusingly — the manuscript was rated as “ACCEPTED WITH MINOR MODIFICATIONS.” The review letter praised the manuscript as “fairly written and interesting” and commended my “hard work.” Among the requested revisions were suggestions that made little sense, including demands that I cite unrelated journals such as the Journal of Molecular Liquids and Spectrochimica Acta. Pressed for time and increasingly irritated, I resubmitted the same file five minutes later, randomly highlighting passages in yellow and making no actual changes. I also added the requested citations without checking their existence, inventing authors and titles to further test whether anyone was genuinely overseeing the process. The references included authors explicitly named to suggest fabrication (e.g., “Me-Lo, I.” and “Nvent, O.”, names that, when read in Spanish, sound like ‘me lo invento’, meaning ‘I’m making it up’). Within less than an hour, I received final acceptance from the editor. Shortly after, I was sent an invoice for APCs amounting to USD $2,949, payable within two to three days. Naturally, I had no intention of paying such a sum. So when I received a payment reminder email on November 18 signed by Robbie Williams, I decided to extend the joke slightly further so they might realize they were the ones being deceived this time. I replied angrily and embedded references to songs by the singer Robbie Williams (the real one), with a fake receipt attached from the “CheatBank of Spain” generated by AI. Perhaps the fake invoice was excessive, but it felt like poetic justice. I assumed the matter would end there. However, a few days later, after recounting the story to a colleague, I discovered that the article had indeed been published on the journal’s website with an assigned DOI. I had assumed that without payment, publication would not proceed. My email of November 18 was my last communication with them. Since then, Robbie Williams has continued to email me every five or six days requesting payment. The paper has somehow brought me back to where I started. This week I received an unsolicited email from the conference manager of an upcoming gynecology meeting. It seems my paper “was identified as pertinent to themes under consideration.” What was my intention in doing all this? Even today I am not entirely sure, but I suppose that, first, I was seeking a kind of vendetta against the malicious spam emails that academics receive daily. Second, I wanted to demonstrate what we are repeatedly told in training courses about predatory journals: The machinery designed to exploit the academic system is devoid of scientific rigor and ethical standards. But I don’t think I needed AI to tell us that. Pascual D. Diago is a professor in the Department of Teaching of Mathematics at the University of Valencia in Spain. His (real) research is on the use of new technologies in teaching mathematics.

As always you miss the point and contradict yourself at the same time. I just said I don't see what the big deal is about following due process. You and others will make a meal out of it.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Due process has been followed and Cole will be suspended for a period of time. No doubt, appeal options aside, Cole is working through the process of who continues training the horses in his stable. Hopefully he has someone there that can step up. Cole will in due course do his time and be allowed back to training. But there will be the holier than thou types (most of whom are hypocrites) that won't let up and will be baying for him to be stamped out.

You are not really a bundle of fun are you @Thomass ?

True from a legal perspective he just didn't turn up to be tested. Which is different to refusing. But he is guilty so now it is just waiting for the penalty.

Correct. But the Industry holier than thou types like nothing better than a witch hunt and lynching.