Chief Stipe

No I don't but unlike elsewhere I'm free to express my opinions. Just as you are. Suggest you try throwing stones at the Comic Dog and see how you get on.

I didn't say it was "an issue". Just said "why would you want to"? One of the most polluted cities in the world controlled by an authoritarian draconian Government. Haven't you been watching the news? How many of the current Trainers are young and non-asian?

I realised that after I posted. Have since corrected it however it still stands that the RIB essentially appealed against themselves. Will the "flood gates open" as they suggest?

Will the RIB appeal High Court for a judicial review?

Does this case seem fair?

The Stewards/Adjudicative Committee initially dismissed the charge. Then the RIB appealed against themselves and the appeal was dismissed. Does that sound fair? The RIB argues that dismissing the appeal "will open the floodgates" for drivers to appeal careless driving charges.

Perhaps that's the case or is it "early crow"? Those trainer's percentages and terms that you quote support my opinion that he is using HK as a stepping stone. Build up a war chest and head to OZ. Who would really want to live in China 🇨🇳 run Hong Kong for too long let alone raise a family there?

Appeal - Written Decision dated 4 April 2023 - Alicia Harrison racingintegrityboard.org.nz 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. On 8 December 2022, Ms Alicia Harrison drove the colt, MITCH, in Race 6 at the Manawatu Harness Racing meeting. 1.2. Subsequent to the race, she was charged by Stewards with careless driving, being a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) of the Rules. The relevant wording of the charge was as follows: …in that near the 250m, she allowed her drive to shift in when activating gear, which resulted in her drive (MITCH) racing over track markers causing it to break, losing its chance. 1.3. The charge was dismissed by the Adjudicative Committee. The Racing Integrity Board appealed that decision. 1.4. The Appeal Hearing was held at the Cambridge Raceway on 23 March 2023. Footage of the race was shown, and both the RIB Stewards and Ms Harrison set out their position by way of talking to the race replay and explaining their respective positions. 1.5. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Appeals Tribunal informed the parties that the Appeal was dismissed, and reasons would follow. These are the Appeals Tribunal’s reasons for that decision. 2. THE RACE 2.1. It was uncontested that MITCH was an extremely difficult drive. At the time of the race, he was a colt. Video footage made it clear that Ms Harrison worked extremely hard to keep the horse under control. 2.2. The horse started quickly from barrier four, made its way across other horses and led the race until the incident that is the subject of the charge. Earplugs being used on MITCH came out before the start causing the horse to over-race. As stated, Ms Harrison had a difficult drive. On multiple occasions, she moved up the reins to tighten her grip and restrain the horse. 2.3. The incident occurred on the final bend. At about the 250-metre mark, Ms Harrison reached down with her right hand to activate the blinds. The horse reacted by shifting inwards and therefore racing over/inside the marker pegs. The horse then galloped after Ms Harrison reacted to straighten the horse, impeded the chances of other horses, and finished the race in ninth (second last). 3. DECISION OF THE ADJUDICATIVE COMMITTEE 3.1. At the conclusion of the race day hearing, the chair of the Adjudicative Committee, Mr McCutcheon, stated: “I’m not going to delay matters. I think there is some doubt in this, some grave doubt. I’m not satisfied that you have driven carelessly. The charge is dismissed.” 3.2. The Written Decision issued by Mr McCutcheon states: “The Adjudicative Committee found that passing the 300m, Ms Harrison had both reins in her left hand and activated the blinds with her right hand. Her drive “MITCH” drifted to be inside the marker peg line. The Applicant’s evidence was that Ms Harrison did not have sufficient control of her drive when it went in. Ms Harrison said that her horse was a difficult drive and that after activating the blinds, it ducked in and that she reacted straight away and could not do any more. The Adjudicative Committee, after considering all of the evidence which included film replays, believed that Ms Harrison did react within a reasonable amount of time to straighten a difficult drive”. 3.3. The Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that Ms Harrison had driven carelessly and therefore dismissed the charge. 4. JURISDICTION 4.1. The Appeal was brought by the RIB pursuant to Rules 1202 and 1203. 4.2. Prior to the hearing, Ms Harrison raised an issue as to whether there was jurisdiction for the RIB to appeal a decision of the Adjudicative Committee. This point was not pursued once the Appeals Tribunal referred Ms Harrison to the applicable provisions of the Rules. 5. RESPECTIVE POSITIONS 5.1. The Notice of Appeal referred to the definition of careless driving as stated by Adjudicative Committees on previous occasions: “Whether a person acts carelessly is a matter of fact. The issue is whether the driver exercise a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances…” 5.2. No issue was taken with that being an accurate statement defining careless driving. 5.3. The RIB’s case is that Ms Harrison failed to have sufficient control when activating the blinds near the 250m mark and the horse drifted in at the apex of the corner and ended up inside the marker line. In its view, Ms Harrison was careless when activating the blinds and allowed the outside rein to go forward and lose control. The horse then turned his head when off the track and shortly after, broke. 5.4. Ms Harrison’s position is that instead of going forward when the blinds were activated, the horse instead overreacted ducking inwards. She tried to correct him as soon as a wheel went inside the marker line. The horse fought being turned outside and broke after his legs contacted with a marker and the next marker went between his legs. No more could be done. Prior to this critical point, Ms Harrison says that the horse was under control despite its difficult nature/race manners. 6. DECISION 6.1. Having reviewed the race several times, both at full speed and in slow motion, and having heard the positions of the parties, the Appeals Tribunal has reached the same conclusion as the Adjudicative Committee. 6.2. While the Appeals Tribunal deems the matter to be finely balanced, the Appeals Tribunal has genuine doubt as to whether the actions of Ms Harrison were careless. The Appeals Tribunal notes that the incident came towards the end of an extremely difficult drive. The horse had over-raced and led for the entire race. Ms Harrison had worked hard to restrain the horse as much as possible. Prior to Ms Harrison activating the blinds, the horse was racing within the permitted area. After activating the blinds, the horse reacted by moving inwards with initially the sulky wheel going inside the marker at the apex of the bend. The horse then fought the attempt to correct it outwards and reacted in a way that reflects more on its race manners than the actions of Ms Harrison. 6.3. Ms Harrison had both her hands back on the reins in the top grip at the point it drifted inwards and the sulky wheel went inside the marker line. She has made every effort at that time to correct the horse. 6.4. The Appeals Tribunal concludes, as the Adjudicative Committee did, that Ms Harrison in the circumstances had reacted within a reasonable amount of time of the horse drifting inside the marker peg following activation of the blinds to straighten a difficult drive. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. EFFECT OF THIS DECISION 7.1. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal raised the point that, if upheld, the Decision of the Adjudicative Committee will have wider consequences. In essence, the point was a concern the Decision will ‘open the floodgates’ and be used by Drivers to successfully defend careless driving charges. 7.2. The Appellant did not further advance this point in submissions before the Appeals Tribunal, however the Appeals Tribunal notes that charges of careless driving are fact specific. Each must be considered having regard to the particular circumstances, including matters such as the track, Driver and horse. A decision in relation to the particular circumstances of one charge will rarely have any influence on the outcome of another. 7.3. The Appeals Tribunal’s decision in this instance turns on its particular facts.

Similar examples here. Hard work defending yourself when the other side has what seems unlimited access to industry funds.

But she based that on the information presented to her. As I have repeatedly posted she said, to paraphrase, that the penalty may be justified however the explanation given so far doesn't support it. She noted that when reviewing the other cases she was not privy to ALL the information used to determine the penalty.

In my opinion the Judge's conclusion truly reflects her position - as you would expect. In my opinion the rehearing could go either way. Up or down in terms of penalty. The Judge hasn't directed one way or another regarding the penalty but has highlighted that the explanation doesn't justify the penalty. All the RIB need to do is say in more detail the rationale of how they arrived at the penalty.

Not sure about the % but what I do know that a low rated maiden can race for $200,000 or more. As for all the other experts who assure us they are right I'd be interested to hear their analysis of the statistics that don't lie. https://racing.hkjc.com/racing/information/English/Trainers/TrainerRanking.aspx

I'll post the Judges conclusion again with some highlighting. [60] On the information before me, I am unable to reconcile the penalty imposed on the applicant in this case with the penalties imposed on the other respondents to whom I have referred. That is not to say the differences cannot be explained but that explanation is not presently apparent. This decision is not intended as a criticism. For instance, I do not know if any of the cases to which I have referred were relied on before the Tribunal. Also, it may be that there are other cases which are relevant and which have not been part of the case before me. [61] However, in the circumstances on the information before me, the only proper course is to remit this matter back to the RIB for reconsideration. At no point does she say anything along the lines that the penalty was manifestly unjust. She essentially says she can't see how the penalty was arrived at based on the evidence put before her. Arguably there is a chance that Wiggs penalty could be increased. Given the RIB's current modus operandi aka INCA I wouldn't be surprised if they dig their toes im and rehear the case. Then present a more complete explanation to justify the penalty. It could go either way. They will have to be careful that they don't open up the police, judge, jury and executioner issue. I've heard that there are a few influential stakeholders wanting to address that issue.

No I just read the judgement. If the Judge felt the penalty was too high she could have said that. She didn't. She also mentioned earlier in her judgement there may well be an explanation for the penalty but it wasn't presented. The RIB didn't acquit themselves all that well it would seem.

More "On Report" over there than an entire NRL season!

That's not correct. The Judge sent the matter back to the RIB for reconsideration. She didn't suggest that the penalty should be reduced but did say that further explanation may justify the penalty given.

Some site managers must find it hard sleeping in their kennels at night with all the moderating they have to do. Easier to just let people express their opinions. I just did a quick read of posts relating to Jamie Richards move to Hong Kong and can't find any really that knock his talent. A few knocking Mark Walker however. But he has well and truly silenced those critics with his training successes. Back to Jamie Richards. He is doing OK in Hong Kong but certainly doesn't warrant the over the top spruiking of his achievements so far. It is early days in his Hong Kong career with a smaller stable (50) than some of his competitors. With only one horse rated over 85. It will take more than one season to see how he rates. As a few have said the challenge will be doing more managerial and buying work than he did for Te Akau. Coupled with what really is a horrible environment to train and live in when compared to OZ and NZ. I for one couldn't live under the Chinese regime in a heavily polluted environment. Although some people thrive on it. For those reasons I can't see Richards staying long when Australia looks a much more attractive option. Surely for a young trainer Hong Kong is a stepping stone rather than a 5 or 10 year tenure.

Records tumble at Inglis Easter Yearling Sales Gai Waterhouse & Adrian Bott Racing purchased lot 116 I Am Invincible/English for $1,550,000 at the Easter Yearling Sale held at the Riverside Stable complex at Warwick Farm. Picture: Jonathan Ng By Ray Thomas 09:49pm • 03 April 2023 0 Comments BIDS of $1 million-plus were as frequent as the congratulatory tinkering of champagne glasses as records tumbled on the opening day of the Inglis Australian Easter Yearling Sales at the Riverside Stables on Monday. The most important thoroughbred yearling auction in the southern hemisphere attracted buyers from around the world trying to purchase racing's next champion. They rubbed shoulders with the nation's leading trainers like Gai Waterhouse, Chris Waller, Peter Moody, John Hawkes, Ciaron Maher and Annabel Neasham and champion jockey James McDonald. English maestro William Haggas, trainer of Dubai Honour, the early favourite for Saturday's Queen Elizabeth Stakes at Royal Randwick, only arrived in Sydney on Monday morning but made a beeline to the Inglis Riverside complex near Warwick Farm racecourse to attend the sale. The bidding on day one of the Easter Sale was frenetic at times as never before at an Australian thoroughbred auction where 14 yearlings sold for $1 million or more in a day's trading. The previous record for seven-figure bids in one day was eight. The sale-topper was Lot 117, a filly by champion sire Pierro out of Ennis Hill, the dam of this season's outstanding two-year-old filly Learning To Fly. The yearling was knocked down for $1.75 million to American agent Michael Wallace on behalf of Singapore's Kuldeep Singh Rajput. Buyers from England, France, America, Japan, United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa and New Zealand competed with domestic investors to push the sale aggregate for day one to more than $65 million at an extraordinary average price of $411,000 per yearling. Gai Waterhouse, who trains in partnership with Adrian Bott, won her first ATC Australian Derby with Major Beel last Saturday and was on the lookout for her next stable star. The Hall of Fame trainer had the "inside word" on Lot 116, the I Am Invincible-English colt which she secured with a final bid of $1.55 million. Waterhouse used to train English, a dual Group 1 winner which ran second in a Golden Slipper and was twice-placed in the TJ Smith Stakes. "I was looking at this colt at Newhaven Park one day and I thought he is a ‘cool dude','' Waterhouse said. "At the time I had no idea he was out of English. "He grew more and more on me and we were lucky enough to get a syndicate together to buy him. As they say, the stars aligned!" The leading buyer on day one was Chinese billionaire Yuesheng Zhang's Yulong Investment which spent more than $7 million to take home 15 yearlings. Records fell at the opening day of the Inglis Easter Yearling Sale at the Riverside Stable complex at Warwick Farm. Picture: Jonathan Ng Yulong spent $10.4 million to buy top English sprinting mare Alcohol Free last year and she makes her Sydney debut for the Waterhouse-Bott stable in the Queen of the Turf Stakes at Royal Randwick on Saturday. The Australian thoroughbred industry seems almost immune to the economic pressures that impact the rest of society and the results on Day One of Easter was another indication the sport is enjoying boom times. "The fantastic results from Day One of Easter are a reflection of the market confidence in the Australian racing and breeding industry,'' Sebastian Hutch, CEO of Inglis, said. "This is a great time to invest in the sport with prizemoney at record levels and we have seen many domestic and international buyers here at the Inglis Easter Sale. "Day Two (on Tuesday) promises to be as exciting and competitive as the opening day of the sale.''

For a start I think the whip rules are a farce. Secondly I doubt one extra strike of the whip makes any difference.

But the Wigg case to the High Court was based on the opposite viewpoint.

Actually that's only part of the issue. As many have pointed out when the RIB restructure was first presented there were inherent problems with the new organisation being the Police, Judge and Jury. Also leaving only a very very expensive appeal option for those that are convicted. In my opinion the new structure was a step backwards. Some including yourself @the galah think things were going well.

Costs have nothing to do with HRNZ. The Respondent was the RIB.

She said. The Judge is a woman. I'm not sure she understands racing all that much.

That's a different scenario. A Jockey can get suspended and a fine for causing interference in a Group race yet still keep his percentage as the horse isn't always disqualified.

I disagree. If my first maiden winner got beaten by a drug cheat then that win would have been worth more than a million dollars to me.