Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

Chief Stipe

Administrators
  • Posts

    484,408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    659

Everything posted by Chief Stipe

  1. Because there is easy money available. Pure and simple. Put trials on the AWT that cost and they'd rather travel all the way to Rotorua to trial on a Heavy 10. As for evasive I'm still waiting for answers to my direct questions to you.
  2. You agree with me yet down vote my post saying exactly that.
  3. Is that why they all went to Rotorua yesterday to trial on a Heavy 10? You'll struggle to defend or spruik the success of the AWT's. Rogie seems the only one who wants to run young horses on them.
  4. Aren't trainers showing what they think of them by voting with their feet? For example Cambridge trials cancelled yet 23 heats yesterday at Rotorua on a heavy 10?
  5. In reality you want a dedicated channel for NZ thoroughbred racing. Perhaps NZTR could fund it?
  6. They are actually but then there are some very good trainers not in the top 20. Although being in the top 20 based on number of wins isn't a good indicator of the skill of a trainer.
  7. Your research says what?
  8. Just talked to another trainer who would avoid Pukekohe at all costs. As well as the AWT's. How is your survey going?
  9. Ok if there were three NZ race meetings evenly spread across the day then that would be one race every 20 minutes. Subtract 3 x 5 (duration of race plus barrier filming) = 15 mins. So that leaves 45 mins to do the parade ring and preliminary for 36 horses. Might work.
  10. Environmental contamination. The issue to address is what level of arsenic or cobalt is performance enhancing or detrimental to the health of the dog? Yeah Na. Let's set an arbitrary test level and justify our existence.
  11. I know lots of stories like that. That said very hard to see enough of the horses in the preliminary for selection purposes. I like going to the races on my own and watching the parade and preliminary then making a bet. Not enough TV time to do that if there are two or three meetings running. That's why I like the way the Aussies do it with their assistant commentators in the parade ring, on the track and around at the barrier. The NZ equivalents are not in the same league unfortunately and seem to promote every horse as a winning chance which is about as useful as picking blue sky names!
  12. I see Peter Profit aka @Archie Butterfly is going for the outlandish headlines. "Levamisole isn't just a wormer son - it's speed!", he posts. What utter nonsense. So one of its metabolites is aminorex. It is produced in very small amounts and cleared very quickly. Not only that it is extremely easy to detect. I notice so far the positives notified are to Levamisole NOT aminorex!!! Is it because it wasn't tested for or not detected?
  13. The reality is most punters wouldn't have a clue what to look for in a preliminary. I asked a friend why she liked a particular horse. "I like its colour", she said.
  14. I doubt McGrath will apply again given the rule doesn't actually offer any scope for leniency. Poorly written rule in my opinion if its intent was to allow those charged to argue rehabilitation had occurred.
  15. Appeal – Costs Decision dated 4 June 2024 – Nigel McGrath ID: RIB42842 Respondent(s): Racing Integrity Board Applicant: Nigel Raymond McGrath Appeal Committee Member(s): Mr M McKechnie (Chair) and Mr A Harper Persons Present: Mr P Hall KC - Counsel for Mr McGrath, Mr D Dow - Counsel for Racing Integrity Board, Mr R McKenzie - Registrar, Mr N Grimstone - Chief Investigator (RIB), Mr N McGrath, Mrs A McGrath, Mr R and Mrs G Gardner, Mr A McKerrow - Racetrack Chaplain (Salvation Army) Information Number: A11684, A11685, A11686 Decision Type: Appeal Charge: Charge 1: Attempts to administer Prohibited Substance; Charge 2: Refuses to make a statement; Charge 3: Obstructing a Racecourse Investigator Rule(s): 1004(1) - Prohibited substance, 1001(1)(i) - Other - Serious Racing Offence, 1001(1)(j) - Other - Serious Racing Offence Animal Name: STEEL THE SHOW Code: Harness Race Number: R8 Hearing Date: 17/05/2024 Hearing Location: Christchurch Outcome: Appeal Dismissed Penalty: Unlicensed Person Nigel McGrath's disqualification remains in place along with an order for payment of costs totalling $9,500 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Mr Nigel McGrath made application under Rule 1205 of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing for the cancellation of an order for disqualification of his Trainer’s License which was made by a Judicial Committee on the 3rd of July 2020. 1.2 By a Written Decision dated the 22nd of May 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the application by Mr McGrath. 1.3 In its Decision of the 22nd of May 2024, the Tribunal invited the parties to make submissions in relation to the issue of costs. Submissions have now been received from both Mr Hall KC, Counsel for Mr McGrath, and Mr Dow, Counsel for the Racing Integrity Board. 2. THE COSTS APPLICATION BY THE RIB 2.1 Mr Dow submits that it is the usual practice of Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals to award a proportion of the total costs incurred of around 60%. 2.2 It is said by Mr Dow, that the timing of the application is relevant in as much that it was brought at a time when Mr McGrath had served less than half of the period of disqualification and that this weakened the application. Further, it is said that the costs incurred, were substantially increased by the fact that the Applicant took issue with the length of the period of disqualification and much of the material filed for Mr McGrath addressed that issue. As to the relevance of that, the Tribunal ruled in its Decision of the 22nd of May, that it was required to accept the unchallenged Decision of the Adjudicative Committee. Mr Dow submits that the application, to quote his words effectively turned the application into a dual hearing involving both an application under Rule 1205 and an appeal against penalty. 2.3 The total costs incurred by the RIB were approximately $13,000. In addition, disbursements were incurred totalling $901.62, being accommodation on the 16th of May 2024 in Christchurch and $621.99 for flights from Auckland to Christchurch and return. 2.4 The Respondent, on the basis of a 60% calculation, seeks the sum of $8,701.62. 3. THE SUBMISSIONS FOR MR McGRATH 3.1 Mr Hall KC, in his submissions on costs, submits that the application was not without merit and that there was a persuasive foundation for the application. 3.2 Mr Hall points to L v The Integrity Unit 27 May 2020 and the second L Decision of 15 June 2021 and the modest costs award that was made on the second occasion. 3.3 Mr Hall submits that any order for costs will fall not only upon Mr McGrath, but upon his wife and family. It is said that he has already exhausted family savings in bringing the application in the first place. 3.4 Mr Hall points out that Rule 1205 does not provide that an application for cancellation must be brought after 50% of the disqualification has been served and that an application can be brought after one year of the disqualification having been served. 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 As to the merits of the application, it is unnecessary to repeat what was said in the Decision of the 22nd of May 2024, other than to note the following, which were significant considerations: a) Less than half the term of the disqualification had been served. b) Much of the hearing and the submissions for Mr McGrath challenged the length of the disqualification imposed by the Adjudicative Committee. c) The Decision of the Adjudicative Committee had not been appealed. 4.2 In addition to the costs sought by the RIB, considerable expense was incurred in assembling the Appeals Tribunal and in hiring the hearing room at the Commodore Hotel in Christchurch. The room hire was $775.66 excluding GST. 4.3 The application by Mr McGrath was dismissed. As the Decision of the 22nd of May makes clear, this was by a considerable margin. 4.4 In the ordinary course of events, costs follow the event in judicial or semi-judicial proceedings, unless there be some compelling reason otherwise. No such reason is apparent here. That said, the Tribunal is conscious of Mr McGrath’s financial circumstances and the impact of the disqualification upon his career in Harness Racing. 4.5 There are no ‘hard and fast rules’ as to what percentage of costs should be awarded. It is entirely discretionary. As Mr Dow points out in his submissions, the figure of around 60% has been adopted on a significant number of occasions. 4.6 The Tribunal considers that having regard to what has been said above and conscious of the circumstances of Mr McGrath, the following costs awards are appropriate: a) To the Compliance RIB, the sum of $5,500. b) To the RIB Adjudication, with reference to assembling the Tribunal and conducting the hearing and issuing the Written Decision – $3,500. c) The contribution towards the costs of the venue hire – $500. The figures above come to the sum of $9,500. There are orders for the payment of costs in terms of para a) b) and c) above. Decision Date: 04/06/2024 Publish Date: 05/06/2024
  16. But the example I gave is real - one had 46 drives the other 18 this year. They both got 3 days. Some get fines some get suspensions. So the questioning the consistency of rulings is valid.
  17. No I actually posted on the Topic before you did. The original post was by @Nowornever not @Brodie. But you seem to overlook such points when Brodie is involved.
  18. Thanks for the sarcastic response. However if you look closely at other decisions related to the whip rule you will see inconsistency. For example a driver might have had 43 drives this season gets 3 days the same as someone who has had 18 drives. The rule is inane in my opinion.
  19. What level of arsenic is harmful to dogs? Research shows that 20mg/kg of dry matter in pet food is not toxic. I doubt 800 nanograms per litre is anywhere near toxic. Why would anyone retrospectively test every bit of wood for arsenic and rebuild their kennels? Who could afford to? What level of arsenic is performance enhancing? I look forward to someone giving me an answer to that question. Arsenic is a heavy metal that is toxic. Long term exposure isn't in the best interests of a dog and certainly wouldn't be performance enhancing. At the end of the day it is easily detectable and only an idiot would risk deliberate administration.
  20. Nowhere near 30.
  21. Do you know how close 800 nanograms is to zero? 0.000000008
  22. 😒 hmmm or herrrrr
  23. You don't sit right fullstop. Question: are most Greyhound trainers thick if they think they can administer Arsenic and not be detected? Yeah Na. The fact is like the other two codes testing thresholds of zero return positives due to environmental contamination.
  24. Really? You want money to pay for your research? Do you have grandchildren?
×
×
  • Create New...