Chief Stipe

Not at all is it off topic. I drew a relevant comparison.

Some would still call excessive whip use or cutting corners as cheating. Obviously you do have some tolerance for cheating.

Given she is a follower of the true code she'll understand what it means to be competitive.

I don't have a problem with any driver or trainer going around at the moment. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/ashburton-tc-26-february-2022-r8-craig-thornley/ http://jca.org.nz/race-days/geraldine-tc-harness-racing-31-1-2016/r2-geraldine-trotting-club-31-january-2016-chair-mr-s-ching/?searchterm=Thornley

Some considered McCaw to be the biggest professional cheat of all time. He often crossed the line and got penalised as often as he didn't.

Mmm they can't be all that successful or use top line drivers.

It deserves a Topic thread of its own. I guess on topic the turnover shows that all the negative press is proving beneficial. As the old saying goes "there's no such thing as bad press"!

Where do you draw the line at "cheating"? You must have a very very limited choice of Trainers or Drivers. I guess you were never a fan of Richie McCaw either!

But where is the rule? If there isn't one then she can tell them to take a hike. What's more hair testing might show the presence of a prohibited substance but not accurately when it was administered.

Where is this Rule? BTW the RIB don't or shouldn't be making the rules. HRNZ do that. The RIB only enforces them.

Why does it matter if he breaks in a yearling or three? He can't train them or drive them in races. I'm not sure he can even own one.

Yes he was a bit misleading with that statement. It wasn't McGrath that said it but the "star witness".

The question is do you need to be licensed to break in Thoroughbreds?

Based on your criteria and moral high ground you wouldn't have any champion trainer training your horses. Not that we are sure you have the intent to race any. Moody did his time and has come back better than ever.

Van Beynen has taken a bit of literary license with his statement that McGrath was caught "red-handed". The charge sheet doesn't read like that. Arguably the "star witness" in McGrath's case was under duress and unreliable. A method that ex-Detective Grimstone has used before. In a criminal court the charges would have been on shaky ground.

Perhaps he could break in Thoroughbred horses. Do you need to be licensed to do that? McGrath was sentenced for charges related to racing horses. Arguably breaking in and gaiting horses is far removed from racing them! To draw another Thoroughbred comparison. Peter Moody was convicted for administering Cobalt - positives were actually returned. After two years he is back training Group 1 winners. I'd gladly let him train any horse I owned.

Then why don't you start another Topic on that subject? Instead of posting in topics you "have no interest in"? If you need assistance in how to start new topics then don't hesitate to ask.

What it does highlight is that Tim Williams knows his job and can articulate what happened very clearly. I recall a similar case recently, debated at length on BOAY, where the driver didn't acquit himself so well in the hearing and got nailed. Now of course the usual social media suspects are inferring that Williams got off because his father is on the RIB board! Which is utter nonsense.

I see the usual suspects have gone off piste and are attacking individuals rather than debating the real issues. The whole world has become tribal. Isn't it hilarious when you see posters whose usual focus is commenting on how great things are going for the Thoroughbred Industry attacking the Harness Industry? I wonder 🤔 why that is?

Non Raceday Inquiry - Written Decision dated 21 November 2022 - Tim Williams racingintegrityboard.org.nz BACKGROUND: Chief Stipendiary Steward, Nigel McIntyre, has filed an Information alleging that, in Race 13, Spectators New Menu Mobile Pace, at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan TC at Addington Raceway on 11 November 2022, the Respondent Driver, Tim Williams, as the Driver of FERNLEIGH CASH in the race, failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures near the 400 metres when electing not to shift outwards prior to being covered by STEEL THE SHOW, when it was reasonable and permissible for him to do so. Mr McIntyre produced an Authority to Charge signed by Mr Mike Clement, Chief Executive of the Racing Integrity Board. The charge was heard at the meeting of Rangiora HRC at Rangiora Raceway on 16 November. The Respondent was offered the opportunity by the Adjudicative Committee to have the hearing adjourned but he declined. The Respondent endorsed the Information “I do not admit a breach of the Rule” and confirmed he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge. Rule 868 provides: (2) Every driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place. EVIDENCE: Chief Stipendiary Steward, Nigel McIntyre, showed video replays from all available angles of the relevant part of the race, passing the 400 metres. He pointed out FERNLEIGH CASH, driven by the Respondent, passing the 600 metres racing in the one-one position behind DASHING MAJOR (John Dunn). It was evident that the Respondent had turned his whip round and flicked his runner, Mr McIntyre said. As the field got to the 500 metres, it appeared that the Respondent’s runner was back on the bit. At that stage it was both reasonable and permissible for the Respondent to shift ground outwards to put his horse into clear racing room, prior to being covered by the improving STEEL THE SHOW. The Respondent elected not to do so and thereafter had been held up until approximately 60 metres from the finishing line, Mr McIntyre alleged, and had made ground on the runners in front. The Respondent had left it too late and, as a result, has been blocked for a run. It was not a split-second decision but, rather, the Respondent had an opportunity over a distance of 100-150 metres to shift out into a clear run, Mr McIntyre submitted. The Respondent asked for a replay of the race from the 1400 metres. He pointed out that when he improved to go 3-wide, his horse had lugged in. When he reached the parked position and then got cover, his horse was caught flat-footed, and he lost his trail before activating the ears plugs to get the horse back on the bit and turned his whip, he said. The horse was still “aggressive” on the outside rein. He saw STEEL THE SHOW coming and had plenty of opportunity to come out, but could not do so because of the way the horse was “holding” the rein and lugging and making it an awkward drive, he said. STEEL THE SHOW had improved quickly and, as he was covered, his horse had attempted to race it. He had got outside the wheel of DASHING MAJOR and, had his horse been going good enough, the gap was there. He was unable to improve into that gap. He left it late to come out because of “steering issues”. STEEL THE SHOW had got past him and he had got onto its back. His horse’s head was turned in because it was hanging in, he said. He had no reason not to come out, he said. In the straight, he had the opportunity to ease the eventual winner, CYRUS, wider on the track, had his runner been steering well enough, he said. He submitted that it was not too late to ease out at that stage, 200 metres from the finish. He had been fighting with his horse for some distance, he said. His horse was not steering well enough to enable him to ease CYRUS out. Mr McIntyre said that he did not disagree that the Respondent was having difficulty coming out at that stage. When he stopped fighting with the horse and took an inside run, it had become an “easier steer” for him, and the horse had run on quite well as the placegetters were coming back to him. Mr McIntyre agreed with the Respondent that there was a point near the 400 metres when the Respondent did attempt to come out, but submitted that it was too late and the run had gone. DECISION: The charge was dismissed. REASONS FOR DECISION: On a viewing of the video replays, it appeared that the Respondent had an opportunity to shift his runner out near the 400 metres as alleged. It also appeared that it was both reasonable and permissible for him to do so. The Stewards have charged the Respondent on that basis. The standard of proof to establish a charge under the Rules of Harness Racing is on a balance of probabilities. However, it is well-established that the more serious the charge, the higher is the standard of proof. A charge under Rule 868(2) is a serious charge because of the penalty provisions that apply when a breach is proved – a 20 drives suspension or a $1,000 fine. The Adjudicative Committee needs to be comfortably satisfied. The Respondent’s defence to the charge was that, during the part of the race out of which the charge arose, he had in fact attempted to shift out ahead of the advancing STEEL THE SHOW. He accepted that it was reasonable and permissible for him to attempt to shift out at that point and he had attempted to do so. He had no reason not to do so, he said. However, he told the Adjudicative Committee, his horse was “holding the rein” and hanging in, proving a difficult drive. He had got part of the way out but the horse would not go further, he said. The Adjudicative Committee finds that it was not unreasonable for the Respondent to delay shifting out until STEEL THE SHOW commenced his run but, when he made the decision to shift out, his horse did not respond sufficiently quickly. The Adjudicative Committee finds that there was no error of judgement on the Respondent’s part and it is necessary for the Stewards to establish an error that is capable of being described as “culpable” or blameworthy”. There was some evidence that the Respondent’s horse had been hanging. The Respondent had the video replay of the race from about the 1400 metres to the 400 metres played to the hearing which lent support to that. He then showed a video replay of part of the run home, during which he had the opportunity to ease out the eventual winner, CYRUS, with approximately 200 metres to run, and he could be seen to attempt to ease out with some vigour, but again the horse was reluctant to respond, forcing him to take an inside run. Mr McIntyre did not disagree with this. The Adjudicative Committee found the Respondent’s explanation to be credible. Furthermore, that Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that there had been any clear evidence presented that he had made no attempt to shift out. The burden of proof is on the Stewards to prove this. The charge was properly brought by the Stewards, but the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied to the required standard that the charge has been proved.

Bit of Pot Kettle going on here. Mmmmmm where is the unified action against the real fundamental issues affecting the industry?

Seems the Social Media Hounds got their way. Banned harness trainer apologises publicly for first time Martin Van Beynen05:00, Nov 23 2022 KAVINDA HERATH/STUFF Nigel McGrath holds the Riverton Cup he won at Ascot Park Invercargill in the heyday of his career. The harness racing industry is in uproar over a dispensation granted to former high-profile trainer Nigel McGrath who was banned for eight years for cheating in 2020. But in a surprise move on Tuesday night, McGrath, speaking publicly for the first time in five years, said he had withdrawn his application to break in yearlings on a restricted basis. “I have made this decision for my family, my personal wellbeing and for harness racing. The last thing I wanted was to create a stir,” he told Stuff. Harness racing has been in uproar since dispensation was granted this month to allow the formerly highly successful trainer to break and gait horses after he was banned in 2020. Trainers bombarded the board of Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) with letters and emails demanding the decision made this month be revisited. Some say the issue has brought unhappiness with industry management to a head. The controversy comes as Harness Racing celebrates New Zealand Cup Day’s (Addington) turnover of $7.5 million, the largest by any code for a New Zealand race meeting over the last 10 years. McGrath said the withdrawal was a reaction to the “unfortunate social media commentaries” on the approval. “At no time was my application to include the jogging or pre-training of horses. It was solely for permission to break in yearlings with strict guidelines prepared by the CEO of HRNZ relating to numbers and stage of yearling preparation before they were to be passed to a trainer. Given this opportunity, my intentions were to break in two to three yearlings at any one time. “It’s been nearly three years since I foolishly breached the HRNZ rules. There is not a day that goes by during which I don’t regret my actions at that time, and I’m truly sorry to those that have been affected, especially my family.” DEAN KOZANIC/STUFF McGrath drives a winner at Addington in 2020. McGrath, a prominent Canterbury harness racing identity with 570 wins, was disqualified from holding a training licence in July 2020 after he was caught red-handed “tubing” a horse on a March race day the same year. He was also found to have obstructed a racecourse inspector and to have refused to supply information. An assistant told investigators it wasn’t the first time he and McGrath had “tubed” a horse, although he later said the statement was made under the influence of alcohol and drugs. At a meeting on November 7, the board HRNZ board approved an application by McGrath to break and gait yearling (up to 2 years old) horses. TOM LEE/STUFF Former school principal John Coulam became chairperson of HRNZ in 2016 and promised to stamp on any unlawful activity. The board appears to be keeping silent on the issue. Chairperson John Coulam did not respond to messages and board member Cam Bray, a bloodstock auctioneer, said he could not comment but would not say why and then hung up. Another board member, Auckland and Canterbury trainer Robert Dunn, also did not respond to a message. HRNZ chief executive Gary Woodham did not reply either. The board meets again on December 2. McGrath's application followed a law change passed last year that removed a blanket prohibition on a disqualified person breaking or gaiting any horse. Gaiting is teaching a horse to pace or trot. Some sources say the rule change was pushed through in murky circumstances. The change said the prohibition could be lifted if the board gave written consent. Trainer Michael House said he had never seen senior Canterbury trainers so unified by any issue. “This industry is based on integrity and this is just a shocking look. Trainers are up in arms. Nigel had his chance at redemption and now needs to man up and do his time. There are plenty of other jobs he could do.” Harness racing doyen Mark Jones said he had “never seen or heard the entire industry stand up so strong together against something that isn’t right”. “No-one has anything personal against Nigel but whoever supported this have let the industry down... it sends completely the wrong message,” he said. “If they are going to make an exemption for Nigel they have to do it for lots of others that have been penalised. Who is next?” McGrath, who is widely regarded as a charming and hugely talented horseman, was previously penalised for cheating when he was found guilty in 2004 of administering the performance enhancing substance Blue Magic (propantheline bromide). He was disqualified for 18 months, reduced by five months on appeal. In February 2020 he was suspended from driving for six months for breaching racing rules.

Well I guess that's the end of this Topic. However I do see some parallels between the history of Wrestling and Harness Racing.

I think you must be mistaken. I don't delete anything. What may have happened is you posted it in the wrong sub-forum and or the wrong topic. With the latter you were probably well off topic. All I would have done is move it to the appropriate part of BOAY.

Never said it was acceptable. Same fundamental problems affecting ALL participants. As for advocacy Harness is the same as the Gallops those who provide the product don't work collectively together to tackle the issues and largesse of the administrators.