Chief Stipe

Oh dear you do lack comprehension skills. I said there are markets in every country working effectively including China. Just as there are markets that are not working effectively in many countries because of centralised control and bureaucratic largesse and inefficiency. Why don't you remove the socialist blinkers, then the communist blind fold and open your eyes...at least for Christmas?!

Free markets operate in every country including China. It is only control freaks like yourself and Cindys Labour Government that distort those markets by trying to enforce excessive controls.

Successful markets are all around you. Open your eyes. Hell you're the only person I know who runs around with blinkers on top of a blind fold with their eyes closed.

What else was she doing? But she didn't administer anything that was detrimental to the horses health for obvious reasons. Which requires an elite athlete being at or near peak fitness and health. No but you are behaving like it is a hanging offence.

TURNPIKE JOE - held up early and middle stages of the run home. Driver D Butcher was warned for contacting the sulky wheel of PETER FORSBERG passing the 50m. In considering this matter Stewards took into account the minimal consequential effects. Following the normal post meeting review of this race Stewards questioned Driver D Butcher (TURNPIKE JOE) regarding the tactics he adopted during this event. Mr Butcher stated that TURNPIKE JOE, which was having its fourth race day start, was competing against far more seasoned horses so he had elected to go back at the start before shifting down on to the marker line near the 2200m to follow runners which he rated as the main chances. Mr Butcher further stated that although he had the opportunity to shift out to follow PETER FORSBERG near the 1300m he decided not to do so given that gelding's recent performances. Mr Butcher then explained that he had been content to remain on the marker line racing down the back the final time and on the home turn given the strong tempo throughout but had then had difficulty obtaining clear running until approaching the 50m mark. After considering Mr Butcher's explanation, Stewards were satisfied that the tactics he adopted were not so unreasonable given the circumstances as to be culpable and took the matter no further other than to note Mr Butcher's comments.

It does actually but you're blinded. Of course you can offer no realistic alternative. That's point actually you haven't offered any alternative.

It works everywhere everyday. Your socialist experiment of the last 6 years was an absolute failure.

That's why you continue to support a failed ideology.

The only way to fix it is allow the market play and remove all the constraints.

Join Boys Get Paid.

It's effectively the same thing. Dear oh dear. Can be called an accumulator or a parley or a mug bet.

It's called a Multi. But why reduce your winnings over time? Essentially you've handed over your buying power to the bookie for the day.

I gather you are willing to find excuses for Walker but not Stewart? In the Wigg case possibly a fine however there were some differences between her case and the Stewart and Walker cases. She was caught administering on race day. No one clear day ambiguity there. But most trainers don't do anything and some fly under the radar. Stewart was out by a few hours. Arguably, using your logic, the other trainers don't keep their horses healthy. But at least by inference you now agree that illegal PED's weren't being administered. So you're saying someone shouldn't have legal representation and just roll over? The law doesn't work like that. It needs to be challenged. Unfortunately in racing those that challenge are up against a bottomless pit of funding and it has broken some. I don't see you arguing against the millions of industry money spent by the RIB. In some of these case yes. But the penalties are couched in terms of "a fine up to x amount and or a disqualification up to x amount".

Yes I've read it and discussed it online. The facts are the same namely: A therapeutic substance was administered to a horse inside one clear day of it racing. Yes I've read that. What's your point? The foreman was only following the instructions of the Trainer. The Trainer was fully responsible. Your point? As I said ignorance is not a defence. However one can argue that the one clear day rule is ambiguous but that's a different matter. I haven't argued they should be treated differently however the rules allow for varying penalties. I've argued that the penalty and the consequences should match the crime. Walker got a fine - why shouldn't Stewart be treated in a similar fashion? What you are suggesting is far from common sense. How are the other trainers "victims"?

The way you write them they are slogans. Where is the policy in that statement?

Don't open that can of worms again. There was always a suspicion that someone nobbled those horses. Would only have taken a double espresso poured into the feed bin.

It wasn't me doing the comparison between race x and z. The point I was making was against your point regarding a class of horse being subsidised versus mine about a race being subsidised regardless of class. The Invercargill field was better than a 5 horse field with a standout favourite from a revenue and subsidisation perspective. Could the race have attracted the same field for $80k? Probably.

Slogans and no substance. One things for sure the country couldn't have continued doing what the last mob were doing.

Yep increase the Unions levies. That said isn't the question not how much was raised but how much was spent? When you do that calculation don't forget to include Union spend on Labour Party promotion.

Which is, dare I say it, the approach of most successful punters. That said if you back yourself then a fun bonus strategy would be to throw a very small amount on a multi of your selections. A lottery ticket but one day..... The trap of course nowadays that must sucker a few in is you can take combinations within a multi e.g. any 2, any 3 etc and then each ways. Before you know it your $1 multi turns into a $30 combo! In terms of an All Up on the tote that's a mugs game.

The facts are both Stewart and the Walker case are the same. The one clear day rule was breached. No positives were returned. Walker got a fine and his horse was disqualified and the stakes returned. Stewart's horse didn't even get to the races. Walkers excuse based on his Singapore experience was completely ignored in sentencing as was the plea bargaining regarding the size of the stable. Ignorance is no defence in these cases. In the absence of any illegal PED having been found Stewart should also get a fine.

They DIDNT admit that. Why do you keep twisting the facts on those cases? I'm not ignoring any of it. I'm just not reading the facts through blinkers wearing Murphy Blinds! WHERE ARE THE POSITIVES? WHAT WAS THE SUPER PED THAT THEY WERE ALL USING? The Feds had samples of the products for a long time before charges were laid. It turns out the drugs were common everyday manufactured drugs that were fraudently mislabelled.

No it doesn't. Judges make decisions all the time on the relative impact of a penalty versus the severity of the crime. For example a small trainer might have two horses and can't afford to pay a large fine. There could possibly be lifelong ramifications. Six months on the sideline would be a deterrent but wouldn't have severe unintended consequences. Whereas a large fine vs shifting 150 horses may have a similar impact as the small trainer penalty but again without unintended consequences. The penalty should match the severity of the fine. No performance enhancing substances were found nor was anything that was used outside of the one clear day illegal. As I said earlier there have been similar cases in NZ that have resulted in fines rather than disqualifications. You could compare it to the difference in sentencing for someone caught with Cannabis vs someone caught with Methamphetamine.

It's a good thing that overall the BGP aren't that successful otherwise they would surely be restricted in the amounts they can win like @Brodie I note that the $5 Melbourne Cup bet is not mentioned. I thought it returned $300k+?