Chief Stipe

One question that I hope someone can answer is why weren't HRNZ a respondent? Only the RIB were. At the end of day it is HRNZ that grant the license and it is the HRNZ rules that are being addressed.

That was McGrath's third mistake not appealing. The fact he didn't appeal doesn't add weight to it being right as you infer. There appears to be no concept of parole in the rules. It is more of an appeal against the original sentence and is heavily skewed towards justifying the original sentence rather than rehabilitation. Perhaps that is unjust given we allow the concept of parole and rehabilitation in higher Courts. Which he can do again in 12 months. Not that it carries any weight but do you think House's emotive views will have cooled down by then?

Bollocks as the Judge said to me opinion carries no weight in a Court of Law. An affidavit is a legal document that sets out clearly the facts in support of your case. Nothing more. It is obvious that the RIB had contact with House either before and or after the affidavit was written. It is a serious indictment on both parties that the affidavit was presented as RIB evidence. Surely there is ample experience at the RIB to have either coached House in writing the affidavit or chosen to not present it. It was presented as RIB evidence NOT as an individual. The Tribunal members have extensive legal experience and treated the affidavit with the disdain it deserved. Only because they were obliged to read it as it was presented as evidence by the RIB albeit I'd say nerfariously. McKechnies day job is as a very experienced litigator. That is far more relevant than his hobbies. But in his affidavit House clearly showed he wasn't credible hence it was ignored. The legal professionals I know have an innate ability to completely ignore the irrelevant and not be influenced by it. Are you suggesting they didn't even read it before they presented it as evidence? Even more sloppy. Are you suggesting House rang the RIB and said I'll write an affidavit in support of your case? Even more dodgy. Correct. They found House to give evidence but he didnt have any.

More back flips in that post than the Cirque du Soleil!!!

Opinions are irrelevant and not considered in a Tribunal or any court for that matter. Opinions again. Irrelevant. However if 8 years was manifestly just in the first place then that's what his term will be. They won't as long as the RIB continues their stance. I gather for you to have this view you believe that the initial sentence was unjust.

It was in the Judgement which you obviously haven't read. Not only that I pasted the relevant paragraph from the Judgement above. The RIB presented House's affidavit as part of their evidence. Do you think it just fell off the back of a truck or it was delivered by the tooth fairy?

You definitely are naive. Surely you are not suggesting that those who have similar views to House are going to change their minds nor that THEIR opinion actually matters?

Which is evident in the RIB case to the Tribunal in the McGrath application. Forget about who is advising McGrath WHO advised House?

I'm not sure where the character assassination of House has occurred in this thread but didn't he open himself up to criticism by filing an "emotive and extravagant language" affidavit? Who was doing the character assassination in that instance?

We don't know what opinion he expressed other than the Tribunal considered it to be poor and of no consequence. Don't you see a degree of desperation on the RIB's part to present House's affidavit as evidence? Does it really give you confidence in the RIB? Afterall it is very clear in a legal context what an affidavit is. I remember very clearly being admonished by a Judge for presenting opinion rather than fact in my first attempt at writing and filing one. Didn't make that mistake again.

I don't have a problem with House but I do have a problem with whoever at the RIB engaged him to write an affidavit. House's mistake was to write it. Of what benefit was it to the case? Of what benefit was it to House? Of what benefit was it to the Industry? In my opinion it reeks of the stench of the motivation behind the INCA affair.

He was a patsy for the RIB and according to the Tribunal made a hash of it. A forlorn hope I know but wouldn't it be great to see a formal inquiry into the costly mess that INCA turned out to be. Especially seeing witness and Informant statements. It would be great if someone posted House's affidavit. It would be even more interesting to find out who from the RIB approached House and presumably vetted his affidavit.

Cry me a river @the galah ! You're telling me that House deserves accolades for turning up all round Canterbury with average horses in below average races! So we should promote mediocrity for the good of Harness Racing - Yeah Na! Of course he has a right to express his opinions but he was put up to by the RIB and I suspect one individual. The one individual who has driven most of the INCA garbage and who has a reputation for dubious witness statements. The Tribunal no doubt quite rightly described House's affidavit as follows: The RIB provided an affidavit from a License Holder Mr Michael House. This opposed the application. Mr House uses emotive and at times extravagant language. He speaks simply as an individual. The Tribunal attaches no weight to the affidavit. Surely that is a big negative for House, the industry and his acolytes.

You made the comparison by referring to the 500+ other trainers below House on the premiership. Over a third of House's wins have been at Manawatu!

The current board member can't have much integrity.

Hearsay. Any proof?

I would because I'm not a hypocrite. Really on that basis you'd rank House above Mark Purdon, Cran Dalgety, the Williamson's, Herlihy? I know who I'd send my expensive yearling to!!!

FFS @the galah use your favourite measure the UDR and House is distinctly below average. One major win in the last 3 years - a listed race at Kaikoura. Averages stuff all stakes winnings per starts and only clocks up winners because he chases lower grade races all over the country!

He's only had one major win in the last 3 years! Even @the galah would struggle to say House was an elite trainer. @the galah gets all hot when the All Stars drop below UDR 0.3500! House has never ever got close. On all standard measures House is average at best.

24 wins from 247 starts? Hardly above average. Barely reaches 0.2000 UDR at the best of times. Barely earns more than $1,200 per start. Anyway you've made 14 posts on BOAY the majority of them promoting House. What's the connection? Hell you even promoted him to take over as CEO of HRNZ. I'd suggest reading how the judiciary described his recent affidavit that he's got Buckley's chance!

I see Jamie Richards is well off the pace in the Trainers Premiership. When will he move to OZ?

Nice win. I was starting to think he may not acclimatise to the Hong Kong setup. I see the trainer scored in the first at 25-1. $165-1 winner on the card!

@the galah you are naive if you don't think there are factions within the industry. Unfortunately some kept fueling INCA out of bitterness and jealousy rather than substance. Harness Racing has always been like that. Michael House is an average trainer at best.

Yet you focus on UDR's which on their own aren't a very good indicator of stable performance. Which contradicts your assertion that the All Stars seem to peak for the big races. So for example a horse could run out of the placings in the lead up races to a Group race then win. It would have a poor UDR but nabs the big pile of bacon. But you knew that and you knew on the big day the All Stars would be primed and ready. The reality is it is very hard to keep a horse at the elite level of performance for a long time. No point winding your horse up for an Open race worth $20k when the target is the $500k race two starts away. Anyone who has been involved in training a horse knows that. I've seen it first had recently where in the two weeks prior to the big dance no stone was unturned in ensuring the horse was ready. Full vet checks, bloods tested, diet supplements and more.

But so arguably would the Dunn's. However you constantly inferred something nefarious. The reality is as the top level all you need to do is get that extra 1 to 2% in performance and you are lengths ahead of everyone else.