Chief Stipe

Well TJ Smith had a few go sore as does Gai. But I guess we are all not chasing that hard to win Golden Slipper.

To be fair though it would appear Justice Peters doesn't understand the rules of racing or racing that well when she asked during the hearing if having pepper on your hands while feeding a horse could result in a positive. Although arguably the RIB didn't argue their case very well.

Interesting point. I didn't realise that Peter Moody started out working for TJ Smith until I heard his comments post I Wish I Win's win at the weekend in the TJ.

This is what Dean Mackenzie said March 2022: 5. In looking to the future, the Messara Report outlined that outsourcing of New Zealand’s TAB was the only way forward given the lack of scale in New Zealand. Have any of the outsourcing steps been pursued? Is there a mandate to pursue outsourcing? Do you foresee this happening any time soon? It was an essential plank of the report and through the MAC work, I think the biggest challenge was getting everyone to understand that it wasn’t MAC of RITA’s job to do it (seek partnering options), the job was to ensure it was able to be done if that was the best course of action. There was clarity needed on what steps would be taken if we went down that path. RITA believed that our focus was ensuring the steps were quite clear and as a result there is a section in the new Racing Industry Act that partnering would need full approval from the TAB and then be presented to the Minister for final approval. Our thoughts were that if the Industry is to make that decision then a robust process must be established. When you can only do something effectively once, you need to make sure the boxes are ticked so the next board/wave of administrators are not saddled with an even bigger issue. In our Statement of Intent last year there is mention of a work stream for the new Board to further examine the key partnering opportunities. While it has been on the table, the environment has changed massively in the last three years and we are now in a substantially different position to what we were then. We haven’t lost any ground by being circumspect, with the TAB now being far more profitable and our leverage position so much stronger because of it.

This Topic isn't one about "knocking Jamie Richards". When he left for Hong Kong many were quick to say Te Akau's success would drop the implication being that Mark Walker wasn't as good. That clearly isn't the case. Would be second rate to imply otherwise. Shame people can't post their opinions freely on all forums.

It's detectable only if you administer more than can be metabolised in the time to the sample being taken. Bit like withholding periods.

Bicarb is measured by TCO2 levels. As long as you are below those levels you are ok. So theoretically you could raise the TCO2 levels of your horse by administering bicarb and not pass the threshold. Alcohol is metabolised relatively quickly. In the RIB recent case vodka was administered to supposedly calm the horse on the way to the races. Would have been gone from the bloodstream by testing time.

This type of approach has been going on for years. Operation INCA was the pinnacle of the approach with wire tapping, flak jackets and police.

Are you serious @nod ? She could have given the horse a number of things and not returned a positive. For example Bicarbonate or as was recently done a shot of vodka. The rule is you can't administer anything on raceday!

MSM all do it now. Stuff and the NZHerald can have 12 or more words in a heading.

Is it any different to phenylbutazone (bute)?

There was no evidence that Mackenzie administered Cobalt within 24 hours of racing. Wigg was caught "red-handed" administering on raceday and breaking rule 1004. She initially didn't cooperate with the RIB investigation. Whether the horse raced or not is immaterial to breaking the rule. I don't think it is material either to the determination of a penalty. The issue is was the penalty consistent with the penalty guidelines and precedent. Justice Peters has asked the RIB to reconsider.

But isn't McKenzie also heavily involved in this process? Isn't he still on the payroll?

Justice Peters referred to 9 other cases presented by the lawyer for Wigg not just the Richards case. Richards was fined $1,500 (not $1,000) and charged $1,300 costs. The horse which won was disqualified from winning a black type race. There was no evidence that Richards deliberately broke the rules. Wigg did.

The crux of the matter is Wigg was caught administering a substance orally to horses engaged to race that day. That is clearly against the rules. Specifically Rule 1004(C). One Clear Day Rule 1004C(1) No person shall administer to a horse entered in a race in the period one clear day before racing (except under the direction or supervision of a club veterinarian, Racing Investigator, or Stipendiary Steward) any substance by: (a) gastric tube or nasal gastric tube; (b) injection, hypodermic needle, or oral syringe; (c) aerosol, ventilator, nebulizer, atomiser, or face mask; (d) topical treatment to the skin or tissues that contains or claims to contain medication, or has or claims to have a therapeutic effect, including analgesia or antiinflammatory actions; or (e) by any similar method. The maximum penalty for a breach of rule 1004C is a fine of up to $20,000, and/or suspension or disqualification from holding a licence under the rules of harness racing for up to five years. Wigg also lied to the RIB. Richard's offense is not even a close comparison.

The Department of Internal Affairs should be across this given their oversight of gambling legislation. Will the Class 4 license be part of the outsource agreement? Surely the RFP documentation that went out to prospective outsource partners is available for public scrutiny? Or will they hide behind the "Corporate Commercially Sensitive" screen?

Just had another thought. Does this outsourcing arrangement only involve the wagering business or does it also involve the transfer of the Class 4 Gaming License (Pokies)? The Pokies are the prime source of the $14m to fund the RIB annually.

The Archie article is a typical example of how things can be twisted. Was Richards case comparable with Wiggs? Hardly. Wigg was caught giving a horse (possibly three) an oral paste on raceday by an RIB employee.

Here is @Archie Butterfly take on the decision

The Harness Trainer Sheryl Wigg took her RIB disqualification and penalty to the High Court for review. The decision was that the penalty wasn't consistent with others handed down by the RIB and should be reviewed. High Court Ruling - Wigg vs RIB 14 March 2014.pdf

Conclusion [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. Result [62] I remit this matter back to the Racing Integrity Board for reconsideration. [63] The parties may make submissions on costs in the absence of agreement.

High Court Ruling - Wigg vs RIB 14 March 2014.pdf I see the High Court has said the penalty handed down to Wigg was not consistent with other precedents and that the RIB needs to reconsider.

Probably on a certain owners private Facebook page so hardly an "open letter".

When did it change? What were the changes? I see Murray Baker won the Premiership in 2018/19 so I guess these changes were post then?