Chief Stipe

If you want to try and "out" someone (unsuccessfully I might add) then out yourself first.

Rubbish that is only a perception not a fact. Surely you are taking the piss by inferring that it has improved? Inconsistency is rampant - from Lamb the starter, to inconsistent non-starter declarations, to unfathomable application of the whipping rules, to sitting on positive drug charges etc, etc! Get over the Blue Magic "scandal" - it happened 16 years ago!!!! You really think that this RIU mob is an improvement? INCA has been an absolute travesty and a waste of millions of dollars without ONE RESULT! So who have the RIU "caught"? Nothing from INCA aside from some recreational dug charges which weren't even in their target! Then outside of INCA who have they "caught"? McGrath and Alford. How were they caught? By hiding in hedges wearing flak jackets! So much for a consistent and robust drug testing system - they couldn't detect anything. Racing Victoria has been testing for formalin since 2015!!!! Or did the RIU have positives that they sat on? They didn't "catch" Kerr - he was dobbed in by disgruntled owners (justifiably I might add) - no systems in place to prevent the fraud that was done and no indication since that HRNZ will put these systems in place. The RIU betting analyst (does he buy your form analysis Galah?) was unaware that Kerr was gambling millions of dollars he didn't have offshore!!! All you can come up with is a "lost a leg" theory and "well if he was dishonest enough to commit fraud then he must have been doping". No proof which shoots down your contention that the RIU is consistent and doing a great job! Their systems haven't found any evidence of cheating! Matt Anderson - again not a result for the RIU. Caught with recreational drugs by wire tapping during INCA!!!! They found NOTHING else! Then hounded by the RIU still looking for a result to hide their failure (have a read about the RIU ex-cop history!). A domestic violence event results and is dealt with by the Courts. An automatic ban punishment that is way above what the Judge imposed. RIU result = ZERO. I'm sorry Galah but your RIU form analysis just doesn't add up!!

True. A bit of misdirection from @Newmarket no doubt driven by his blind need for a public stoning. Of course if the defrauded owners wished to lodge the debts owed against the forfeit list then it wouldn't be likely that he would clear the debt sufficiently to get a license anyway.

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 7 the Red Door and Riverton Plumbing and Wrens Invercargill, information 11792 was filed by Stipendiary Stewart, Mr M Davidson against Apprentice Jockey, Mr K Chowdhoory, alleging a breach of Rule 638 (3) (b) (ii) “You struck your mount excessively prior to the 100 metres”. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

They haven't caught anyone while spending millions of dollars of tax payer and industry money. They haven't scared anyone - you'd have to catch someone to do that. That said the RIU are either incompetent or there was nothing to find in the first place.

Are you implying the owners are mugs? Or are you saying the father should pay for the sins of the son? That is no different to any other crime in society. Hell the rest of society bends over backwards to rehabilitate whereas racing and the likes of yourself throw them to the wolves and want a public stoning every week for the rest of their Iives. If Mitchell Kerr does come back doesn't "buyer beware" become a factor? Who knows he may go on to be as successful as Purdon and Rasmussen. Perhaps HRNZ have pulled a finger and are working on putting in place systems that prevent over selling of horses and one that registers financial interests against the horses they register and licence. Now that would have a few people scurrying to tidy their paper work up.

Galah all you can see are Ghosts. Your argument relies entirely on the assertion that is Kerr was defrauding his owners then he must have been doping his horses. You have no proof. The only thing that is dodgy is your form analysis to support your "lost a leg theory". Geez I'm no form expert but it wasn't hard to blow your analysis out of the park.

What's so dodgy with a trainer having a winner? Geez you must be a sad individual if that makes you depressed!

You'll find that the ground on the inside will break up and be shifty.

No

That's not correct but then you do prefer fiction. @JJ Flash you may think you post on behalf of the world but rest assured you don't. Yes I think the rules do result in people being hard done by. David Walker in the Thoroughbred code was another example. This issue isn't just about Matt Anderson it is about how the industry is run. I realise that you can't see a bigger picture. At no stage have I condoned what Anderson has done however I do have some compassion that once someone has done their time they deserve a second chance. As Brodie has pointed out Anderson is a talented horseman and the industry can't afford to lose that type of talent. I also believe that punishment should be just and relevant to the crime and in my opinion the Harness rules need to be adjusted to allow justice to be fair. A one size fits all rule does not allow them. I don't belong to the stone them, hang them, draw and quarter them brigade. I certainly have never been obsequious at any stage of my life and don't intend to start now just to be popular.

FFS is English your second language? I said I don't agree with the rule and it should be changed!!!! What part of that statement don't you understand? Idiots like you constantly bagging it doesn't help. But that said Harness is in no more trouble than any of the codes and the biggest reason for that is that years of administrators taking the piss and the money and more recently an out of control RIU. Your average stakeholder has just gone about their work and put up with it. It is about time that those stakeholders stood up and fought back.

You are speculating as we don't know what the circumstances were. It should also be noted that Anderson's 3 month home detention sentence ended in March this year. He had done the hard part of his Court sentence which no doubt was part of the reason his supporters sought to get an exemption to get him reintegrated back into society. As for sneaking around that is a bit emotive. Were the RIU hiding in bushes again? Or did the 0800 RIU SNITCH line buzz? I imagine Anderson has a considerable legal bill plus the $5,000 reparation payment and the JCA fines to pay. Why shouldn't he be able to work behind the scenes of Harness Racing out of the public eye?

No - under the rules nothing would happen to them as they have been convicted. Even if they did apply the rule then the ban would be TWO years not ONE!!!! That is the point I'm making. The rule is draconian and inflexible and results in unjust punishment. I'd be more than willing to assist anyone who wishes to challenge the rule.

Salacious repetitive muck raking journalism fed by leaks from the RIU. If the industry is truly worried about its image then is should be managing the release of information and that requires the HRNZ leadership to be kept abreast of RIU charges BEFORE the media. Other professional sports front foot these things.

But they aren't. They have a one size fits all rule. If Anderson had done 6 months prison time he would have received the same automatic suspension. Anderson has 3 months community detention meaning that he is managed by Corrections and has restrictions on where he can live, work and who he can associate with. He has a curfew and will be wearing an ankle bracelet. After 3 months the detention ends.

In case you didn't notice JJ Flash BOAY is a forum where people can express opinion's. I realise you struggle with anything outside the echo chamber you normally frequent. FFS we don't need you to introduce the facts - we all know the facts! In case you didn't notice my opinion/argument is that the RULE IS WRONG! It is draconian and unjust. It is an arcane rule that harks back to the hold Racing Act. But I won't bore you with the history or even test your attention span.

Well I hope those that are supporting Anderson indeed "take the system on". In my opinion there are many legal precedents to call upon to present a winning case.

Do you support public stoning and capital punishment as well? So what is the relationship between the term of punishment and fostering a good 'image'? Name one instance where a Rugby or League player has had their contract terminated for a period longer than their court sentence or received a punishment worse than what the court dealt to them? (Don't use Israel Folau as an example as that is another whole can of worms for another topic and as it turned out he had enough financial security to challenge the ARU). It isn't what I'm saying with Anderson at all. Again I reiterate it is about double jeopardy in regard to punishment. If society deems through the legal system that a punishment should by x then surely it is incongruous that a professional body decrees just because it is a sport that their punishment should be x + y + z? We are not talking about Alford or Kerr where the crimes committed were in the course of their employment as professional licensed horsemen. Anderson's "crime" was committed elsewhere and is in no way related to the sport of training, driving or wagering (punting). One would have to draw a long rein to link Anderson's crime to the sport of Harness Racing. He was punished for the crime in the legal system now for a matter unrelated to racing he has had his livelihood taken completely away from him and is being punished twice and more severely. I'm not proposing that Anderson should be free to take up race driving or public training - with the 3 month community detention sentence he is unable to do that. However I believe he should be allowed to continue to work in the industry to pay his court costs and his JCA fines and that the HRNZ/JCA sentence should not be any more severe than the one handed down by the Court. Finally you are starting to see my point. Anderson working on a private property has NO public image. He is serving a 3 month community detention sentence which means he has a curfew and has to stay at an approved residential property which could even be a harness training property. He is allowed to work anywhere during that period as long as he has the approval of Corrections. Why can't he be back race driving once that 3 month period is finished which is what you are suggesting?

Let's face it we wouldn't even be discussing this if either the RIU wasn't hiding in hedges or someone snitched. At the end of the day what harm did it do to anyone with Anderson driving a horse on a private track? When asked should the Exemptions Committee have given an exemption to allow Anderson to rehabilitate and earn money to pay his JCA fines while doing some unglamorous hard graft on a training property? They have the power to allow him to do that and even go so far as allowing him to drive at the trials or the races. Why not give him a 12 month probationary period where he is confined to working only on a private property until his Court sentence is finished.

You are missing the point Freda. This is a case of double jeopardy. Anderson has been sentenced in Court but the punishment inflicted by the JCA/HRNZ is well beyond the Court one. That isn't the same as Molloy’s case. If he was licensed would he now be stood down for 2 years? Freda one day you miscalculate have one too many rums and get done drink driving. The Court fines you $600 and disqualifies you for 6 months. Should you also be stood down from training horses as well? I disagree the rules aren't clear, they aren't applied consistently and they shouldn't be more punishing than the criminal Court.

That's not to say that the rules are correct or just or for that matter legal. Anderson was discharged without conviction by the District Court for the MDMA charge. Part of the rationale behind that decision was that it was accepted by the Judge that Anderson would be stood down as a licensed Harness person. The JCA suspended him for 6 months starting 1 August last year. Note that the MDMA charge arose as a "by-product" of the INCA investigation. It was only discovered due to the wire tapping and surveillance of the Police. NO charges relating to the purpose of INCA were EVER laid. My understanding is that the stand down for the MDMA charge had been completed. But it didn't stop certain individuals at the RIU from continuing to pursue Anderson. He was put under intense pressure and lost his only source of income for 6 months. I'm not condoning the assault that was committed. However that charge was addressed in the Court system and Anderson pleaded guilty and was handed a sentence of 3 months community detention and 12 months intense supervision. The only rule that I can see that applies is Rule 4 but that only provides for a ban from entering a racecourse for 2 years. Even then an application can be made for an exemption. (Can anyone point me to the rule that says the ban extends to not being able to work on a harness racing property? Yes you might point to the fact that an unlicensed person supposedly can't work on a property but that law isn't applied very well is it?) So the criminal conviction apparently automatically results in a 2 year stand down. No discussion no consideration of the facts no nothing. Sorry you're out for 2 years. If he was a bus driver or a motor mechanic he'd be back at work as soon as his community detention had been completed. Yes I can see a case for banning him from training or driving publically for the same length of time as his court sentence i.e. 12 months but no more. But why ban him from working in a stable? That's where the rule is wrong and unjust. It fails all the tests of restorative justice. It harks back to an arcane part of the Racing Act that created the term "undesirable persons" which was a sop to the temperance movement or their ilk to put racing beyond repute. It was a nonsense then and is still a nonsense. Hell if it was applied by the rule of law then you wouldn't have any owners and no one attending race meetings!

Prove what? That the sentence given to Anderson by HRNZ was disproportionate to that given to Anderson by the Court? I realise your obsequious sycophancy has permanently blinded you but even a blind man should be able to tell that difference between 3 months community detention and 12 months intensive supervision versus being banned from going anywhere near a harness horse for 2 years! Surely banning him from being a licensed trainer or driver for a year was sufficient. Being confined to dunging out stables, cleaning harness gear, getting up early in the morning to jog or fast work horses but still able to earn something to support himself would be more worthwhile.

What you are saying IS rubbish @Robalan No LAW of NEW ZEALAND says that any professional association is ABOVE the NZ LAW COURTS! NO law of New Zealand says that Anderson should be BANNED for two years from his job for a conviction in a Court of Law. That is only a Harness Racing Rule. The Judge made a ruling taking into consideration ALL the facts before the Court and sentenced accordingly. The JCA sentence is disproportionate to that court sentence.

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 1, the Northland Business Systems Maiden, Mr Williamson, Senior Stipendiary Steward presented an Information alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) by Mr Innes, in that he rode DOUBTFUL SOUND carelessly. Mr Innes admitted the charge and said he understood the Rule. Rule 638(1)(d) ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article