Chief Stipe

Feeling threatened @All The Aces ? Start transitioning!

But not Lost in Space!

FFS - soils fckd!

@Newmarket J Kah has some nice rides at Eagle Farm on Saturday. Want to have a bet?

I'd take on Leo any day.

The Budget?

There are some past races this season (one at Grp 1 level) that I was very keen to see the Stewards vision for. Not loaded. The Grp 1 was at the new $55m track aka Ellerslie.

Sharrock is more disengaged from the reality of racing than any of his predecessors. At least they didn't have the money to spend that Sharrock has to burn.

More of a short story than an essay. Given the absence of fact maybe you are a journalist. Of course like Sharrock you dismiss Bellews concerns with platitudes, condescension and deflection. His concerns are valid. They are issues that face the entire industry. They may well be micro but lots of micro make macro that Sharrock supposedly worries about. Unfortunately Sharrock doesn't realise that you need to make micro changes (collectively) to change the macro direction. Of course Sharrock and his predecessors know full well that those micro changes can be negative and lead to negative change. He can't have it both ways.

They hired an external consultant IER to write the report. The motivation for that I'm not sure. The objectives for that I'm not sure. Can you enlighten us?

That's the point you can't because the judgement is poorly structured and open to far too much interpretation which is clearly apparent in your responses. If the Judgememt was clear then you would have no latitude to make the suppositions or assumptions that you have. I suspect you know that hence your reluctance.

The Cambridge AWT fields weren't exactly big either.

NZD$7.1 million. You're not funny.

Then let's do this step by step. How many clear reasons were given in the Judgement? What is the first clear reason mentioned? Don't refer to the judgement just copy and paste the text. Good luck!!

Imperatriz sells for record $6.6m www.racing.com The world's highest-rated sprinting mare Imperatriz is now also Australasia's most-expensive broodmare ever after she was purchased on Tuesday for $6.6 million. The 10-time Group 1 winner was purchased by Yulong after an opening bid of $4m progressed by $250,000 increments to $6.5m until the final bid was lodged. Imperatriz is the premier sprinting mare in the world so far this year with a 119 mark from her Newmarket Handicap defeat at Flemington in March. Imperatriz, who cost Te Akau principal David Ellis $360,000 as a Magic Millions yearling, has accrued $7m in stakes earnings from her 19 career wins. Her dam Berimbau (by Shamardal) fetched $1.8m at sale in 2023. Previously, Milanova held the Australian record when sold for $5m in 2008, with Sunlight going for $4.2m in 2020 and the following year another Te Akau mare, Avantage, became the world's most-expensive online purchase when Coolmore bought her for $4.1m. Tuesday's broodmare record comes just six weeks after Debbie Kepitis paid a world record $10m at the Sydney Easter sales to retain the first foal of former superstar Winx. Yulong’s General Manager Vin Cox said no plans have been made about which stallion Imperatriz will be mated with this spring. “They’re absolutely rare commodities, a 10-time Group 1 winner,” Cox said. “We knew we had to dig deep coming here and I think she made well and truly enough money. “Congratulations to Te Akau Racing – David and Karyn bought her here on the Gold Coast, raced her and campaigned her initially in New Zealand and then proved her here in Australia. “We went over and had a look at her (in New Zealand) last week, had dinner with David and Karyn and we liked her obviously. “You never write your speech before the race so we certainly weren’t making any plans (about a stallion) or having any ambitions until we owned her.”

Interesting how both Yulong and Imperatriz weren't at the sales venue. Didn't stop Yulong spending in excess of $10m. I can understand Imperatriz not being there. Flights are risky and when you don't know where she is ultimately going why take the risk. Also she is being let down to be a broodmare spelling at Te Akau Stud which is one of the better places to agist.

The judgement is as clear as mud. It says "for the reasons anove". List the reasons as direct quotes! You are reading stuff that isn't there. You do it constantly!!! Your posts are long enough at the best of times it should be a breeze to quote succinctly what the exact reasons are.

Your post is as unclear about the reasons as the judgement is. You make suppositions and inferences based on your interpretation. A good judgement makes the reasons clear and beyond equivocation.

One things for sure they won't attempt to race her.

Australasian record. Was the predicted price. Any odds on them lasting?

$6.6m Yulong

The rule and guidelines are not clear regardless of the inaction of HRNZ or the actions of McGrath's counsel. Impossible if the rule is unclear. If anything they have shown that it isn't worth trying to get a penalty cancelled under the current rule. However for arguments sake if this occurred in a Court the counsel would argue that the intent of the rule is based on what the original formulators wanted I.e. they would refer to Parliamentary debate and what the debate intended the law to be. Obviously the rule had an intent but this judgement doesn't make it any more clearer.

But that's where the judgement is not very clear. If they couldn't revisit the original decision then why refer to it length? They were being asked to cancel it. You tell me from the Judgement what were the reasons for not cancelling it?

Like Michael House? Where are you going to find anyone with no conflict of interest? Wouldn't a better solution be for HRNZ to get off their arse and work with the industry associations and groups and rewrite the rules and guidelines so that they are workable and above all back and white? The rules are based on this puritanical concept that racing needs to be held to a higher standard than the rest of society in order to maintain its "social licence". A term I might add that hasn't be around very long in the history of racing. That's where the industry shoots itself in the foot. It tries to achieve a standard that the rest of society isn't accountable to with normal everyday people. So it will fail time and time again especially when there are those involved that can't achieve in the lower standards enforced elsewhere. In the real world rather than in this artificial construct McGrath would have had to have committed a far more heinous crime than he did for 8 years and would have been paroled in 4.

It wasn't clearly rejected. Arguably the final judgement is somewhat poorly constructed on the reasons for the decision. It really is a good example of tautology and semantics. McGrath essentially was asking for the cancellation of his disqualification after having completed 4 years of his 8 year sentence. If the Tribunal had agreed to do that then effectively it would have been the same as an appeal producing a sentence reduction. What is clear to me is that the rules under which the application was made are unclear as are the grounds under which a decision can be made. If the rule(s) intent is to provide relief after rehabilitation akin to parole then they fail to meet that intent. Subsequently I can't see how anything will change for the Tribunal adjudicators in another years time. Where HRNZ has erred majorily is in not defending their actions or challenging their rights with the RIB. Not to mention of course that they have yet to rewrite their rules to remove ambiguity amongst other failings. Once McGrath's finished his sentence then it is HRNZ's decision to issue a license NOT the RIB's. The RIB may lodge an objection but I'm not sure if the rules allow that. Common justice would support McGrath being relicensed afterall his sentence was 8 years NOT life. Wouldn't a better option be for the industry to grant a supervised parole period before the 8 years is up?