Chief Stipe

Go for it. But be advised you won't be able to be anonymous if you make a formal complaint of the type you are suggesting. The irony being of course that it is mainly your posts that are in question. So will you effectively be complaining against yourself? I've put you on moderation AGAIN - which means every post you make will be reviewed before being made public. My apologies to those BOAY'ers that @whiplash smile has had an uncalled for go at.

No chance but disappointing you would even consider abandoning your principles just to score a point! I'll keep hammering away at Riccarton until I see a plan for fixing the Turf Track. But I won't hold my breath waiting. Hell they are spending $16m without a business case/plan and praying for a miracle. Hell Sunday church service must be full with all you South Island Racing stakeholders sitting on the pews waiting for divine assistance!

25 YEARS AGO!!!!!! FFS name ONE metropolitan track in Sydney or Melbourne that hasn't had at least TWO track renovations in the last 25 years!! The irony of your statement is you are agreeing the track is fucked! Arguably for the last 25 years!!! Yet you expect doing nothing is going to fix it!! Lunacy! Do you add a few extra Hail Mary's for the track when doing your penance? Reefton haven't you been looking at the track for the last decade? Interesting how your focus has changed because you have skin in the game and are watching your horse race around a shite track. Bullshit. You know as well as I do that there are Accountants with heaps of letters after their names that are shit at their jobs. Hell some of them have even made it up to high positions in racing administration. Before you jump up and down I'm not referring to you. But you know who I'm talking about because I've seen some of your criticism. Then again there are heaps that do have the letters after their names that are good. Either way it is irrelevant as the fact is the Riccarton Turf Track needs renovating. You, I, and even Pitty agree on that plus a damn sight more!

I could ask you the same question Pitty. If you have stepped on it lately it has been with your eyes closed. Still waiting for answers from the Trainer with the most invested in the Premier South Island Turf Track who won't race on the AWT: When will the Turf Track be renovated? What is the plan and what will be done? When will they purchase or fix the irrigation equipment? Surely you are banging on Mill's door every morning and asking those questions because it is in your self interest to do so.

The classic response. I assure you I know a damn sight more about training race horses than zero. That aside that doesn't stop me from having an objective opinion based on what I see in a sport that I have been involved in for 50 years. The irony is that you agree with my assessment. You "don't see much of a future for your horse" but blame the tracks and one hard race. Whereas my observation is that she isn't competitive, is weak (which might change given time to grow) and could have been better placed relative to her ability. Short sprints over the AWT might suit her and get some of your investment back.

Two causes identified there. If the irrigation gear is not up to scratch and apparently hasn't been for years why hasn't that problem been fixed? When will it be fixed? Why aren't you and Pitty and every other trainer at Riccarton banging on Mill's door demanding action? The lanes are again a symptom of the underlying cause - irregular irrigation would make it worse but the problem is the soil and structure. Her comparative form hasn't been that good Reefton. Her "good" times were on rock hard tracks but every horse was running "good" times on those tracks. But most horses were running "gooder times". What "that day"? The one on the 3rd of October of a very very hard G3? Or the one on an irrigated D4 on the 24th of October? Over 800m early season dashes. Back to name calling I see. My apologies I forgot to put in a comma or an and. She was last and 14 lengths from the winner. Promised what? Did Pitty talk her up?

I'll resist getting into name calling. The need to irrigate the way they do is symptomatic of an underlying problem or cause. The unven water distribution is not caused by irrigation but the underlying problem. I meant race in late Autumn and you know that. You were rolling the dice that the track would be suitable.

They wouldn't need to try anything if it was written into their syndication contracts which for those that are directly with Te Akau it is. Given the way Fortuna load up the original purchase price I bet they have the 10% sale clause as well. Whether Te Akau clip that ticket I don't know. But I do know that Te Akau Syndication doesn't load up their original purchase price. Based on what you are posting @Horace I'm assuming you are not close to any big stables. Most if not all only make a profit out of the sale of their colts and mares. That is they struggle to break even through training. Hence they get rid of the slow horses really quickly.

Sure. In what condition is the upholstery? No stains?

Can I go halves on the firewood?

Why don't you just post what you think without the encryption?

Why would you expect 3 to 4 years when the RIU at the original hearing only asked for 14 months? From the Judgement: (f) Apart from the mandatory disqualification of the greyhound from the race, the RIU submitted that the Respondent be disqualified for 1 year 2 months...... However, it accepts that those cases involved facts where there was a connection between some person attached to the stable complex having had a past history of Methamphetamine use – which is not the situation in this case..... 19. We do not see that a lengthy disqualification is appropriate in a case such as this. It is important that Trainers take all possible steps to comply with the Rules, and there is crucial need to deter other, and to signal to the Greyhound Industry that Methamphetamine related breaches cannot be tolerated. A fine is not sufficient to meet the various sentencing factors. We conclude that an order for disqualification is necessary..... 20. We take as a starting point 8 months disqualification. There are no aggravating factors. We accept, and give credit for, the Respondent’s blameless record, over a lengthy period of successfully training Greyhounds. We note that she has paid the winning stake to her syndicate owners and recognise that she is further “punished” through loss of her percentage of the winning stake, she also incurs the reputational loss of being the Trainer of the winner of a Prestige race. For those mitigating factors we allow a significant discount of 50%..... That is how they got to 4 months. The RIU wanted 14 months.

At least Hughes this time has come out and front footed with some statistics that put the injuries in perspective.

All you've established is that there is zero evidence that Turnwald was responsible for giving P to the dog. You've also left out the possibility that it was an unidentified third party not connected to the kennel. Also you are being lean with facts. For example in the Scholfield case wasn't it established that Denis was helping to "play the system"? Also in that case it wasn't a "plausible reason" that was offered it WAS the reason. Therefore blame could be assigned. The RIU and the JCA appeared to have accepted in the first hearing that Turnwald hadn't administered the P or knew about it. Hence the offering of what turned out to be an implausible reason in the first instance. She changed her plea after finding out that the results indicated that the dog ingested the P prior to the race. That doesn't diminish the fact that she could only offer the explanation that she initially did. You could argue that she did the RIU and JCA a favour by pleading guilty to presenting a dog with P in its system. That doesn't make her guilty of administering it. My understanding is that neither Turnwald nor her partner when tested returned a positive to P. In contrast in the other cases it was clearly established that there were people handling the dogs in the kennel who where P users.

That would be an injustice if they succeed. Assuming you are meaning Turnwald's sentence.

It was headlines in the media no different to Sharrock's.

Do you think there might be another reason for that?

Another point - although I disagree that the TA positive was swept under the carpet as due process was followed resulting in a disqualification and a fine you could point the finger at why was the P cases at New Plymouth "swept under the carpet"?

We've discussed that before. Aside from the fact that it is only your perception, when in reality the communication from the RIU has been the same as has the media coverage, the difference is Big Red came out swinging. It also didn't help that it came straight on the back of a P positive in the Greyhounds.

Great to see your attitude has changed somewhat for the better. You seem to have a more balanced view than when Te Akau returned the morphine positive.

That will result in false positives and injustice. Just as horses can return a positive from environmental contamination so can humans. The key question is there are thresholds in workplace testing why does Racing have a zero threshold? A case in point being the non-negatives for the two Jockey's in Southland which are now determined to be false positives.

Maybe they could hide in hedges around the course?

Yes they get a share as the syndicate share purchase involves ownership shares. Plus the Fortuna markup! I'm pretty sure Fortuna and Te Akau will clip the ticket as well.

You are being disingenuous Reefton. I have always said that inconsistent irrigation is a symptom not the cause of the issues. At least we agree that there ARE serious issues with the Riccarton Turf Track. The questions that you should be joining me in asking, not fruitlessly banging on about not irrigating the track, is what is the plan to fix the problem and when will it be done!! The major flaw in Pitty's argument which you support is what happens when you don't irrigate? The answer is quite simple really you have no green grass. The steeplechase track is evidence of that. You are blaming the irrigation and not accepting the fact that she wasn't up to it. Based on the form from the race she achieved the best possible position based on her ability. What was Pitty's excuse last start in a relatively weak Listed Race on her favoured Good 3 track where she ran 14 lengths last? Are you setting her up for the AWT? If she does like a firm track why bring her into work late autumn going into the winter when we all know that the Riccarton Turf turns to a bog.

The Trentham numbers aren't that good either. Not many trained there either.