Chief Stipe

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

Rule Number(s): 534(2)(b)Prior to commencement of racing Mr M Williamson presented an Information alleging a breach of Rule 534(2)(b) in that Ms Guy, the Trainer of EMPRESS QI, failed to scratch her horse from starting in Race 4 before the required scratching time of 7.30am today. Ms Guy admitted breach. She stated that the ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(c)This Decision records the outcome of a charge preferred against Mr Pinn on raceday 5 May 2021. Following the running of Race 3 the "Homestead Sports and Reuben Lewis Memorial" Mr Williamson presented an Information charging Mr Pinn with a breach of Rule 638(1)(c) in that he rode his mount EMPRESS QI ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

So you are supporting a RIU/JCA justice system that supersedes/overrides the Courts?

The rules are wrong. Anderson committed a crime which was dealt with through the courts. It had nothing to do with Harness Racing. He was sentenced. Then HRNZ and the JCA do a posturing exercise and rub him out for two years. A penalty far greater than the one he got through the courts. That's not justice that is malice and injustice.

"Cleaning up the sport" doesn't require feeding two journalists who appear to have an agenda against the industry and are so lazy that they have to rely on leaks from the RIU for their stories which they continue to repeat ad infinitum. The RIU DOESN'T run the sport - HRNZ has that function. Leaking to the media BEFORE informing HRNZ serves no purpose but to undermine the sport.

In my day if you did something wrong you were relegated to dunging out the stables, cleaning ALL the harness each day, feeding out and cleaning the trainers car for a couple of weeks. I think the penalties are wrong. Surely stopping someone from training or driving is enough. But stopping someone from working a horse on a private track for a few dollars seems a bit far to me.

Exactly. That's what happens when you outsource to Parnell.

You keep blindly backing the RIU. In my opinion this current mob is a big part of a problem.

It must be a RIU member either doing it directly or through an intermediary. I just can't understand why some harness supporters can't see that. It is making HRNZ management look like impotent incompetent dicks!

You are spinning again Galah because you are on the wrong side of the debate.

It isn't the first time Woodham has indicated he hasn't been briefed. If you take your slant on it then it leads one to conclude he is incompetent. From what I've heard my slant is closer to the truth than yours.

You completely miss the point. At the very least Woodham should have been told BEFORE a muck raking journalist.

A really good twist on what I said Galah. What I was questioning was why wasnt the CEO of HRNZ told about the charges in detail BEFORE the media? Surely you are not suggesting that the media were also pre-warned before the RIU investigated? Why shouldn't anyone on the HRNZ Board be told BEFORE the media? How can HRNZ be expected to respond coherently and accurately if the first thing they hear about a charge is from a journalist and not the RIU?

Probably. Most likely. There is a major shake up coming at the RIU. Not before time.

Yet any unlicensed person with a criminal conviction can pitch up and work a horse and dung out the stables.

It isn't clear yet what he was actually doing at Burrows establishment. I guess it is a bit like David Walker. If he is banned from training in his own right and driving then what is actually wrong with him working a horse for someone? Yes the rules say he can't but are the rules wrong? I think the punishment far outweighs the crime especially when considering the sentence he got in the Justice system. The Harness sentence is far more severe than the court one. If he had been a professional rugby player he wouldn't have been effectively stood down for two years.

No matter which way you try to paint the leaks they are BAD. Why? Industry administrators are not being told first. Are THEY not trusted above journalists? Leaking to the press to promote an agenda, which contrary to what you infer ISN'T the improvement of Harness Racing, does nothing to encourage trust and respect amongst participants. It is old school policing that in the past has resulted in numerous cases of injustice. It leads to the type of behaviour where the RIU sit on positives (that were legitimate mistakes or environmental contamination) to try an "catch a bigger fish". In my opinion that ISN'T how the industry should be governed.