Chief Stipe

Well this guy got dobbed in for striking a horse on the head. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300189998/dunedin-man-heart-broken-to-lose-horse-after-admitting-he-struck-the-animal

No you are missing the point. Posters were starting to make accusations BEYOND what was published in the media i.e. they were directly accusing or inferring that Kerr was responsible for a number of crimes that hadn't been published. All I posted was a section from the Crimes Act under which I believed Kerr MAY be charged based on what was written in the Stuff article. There is a difference.

Like what? Mehe in case you haven't realised yet BOAY is a forum where you post opinions. I have an alternative opinion to Harewood's. Is that OK?

Rule Number(s): 642(1)Following the running of Race 7, Mr Davidson, Stipendiary Steward, lodged a protest under r 642(1) against the 1st horse, MIDNIGHT RUNNER, alleging interference by that horse to the 2nd horse, GALLANT BOY, over the concluding stages. The official placings were: 1st 4 MIDNIGHT RUNNER 2ND 1 GALLANT BOY ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Mr Davidson alleged that in Race 5 Mr Mudhoo (LET ME TELL YA) rode carelessly in that he permitted his mount to shift ground when not sufficiently clear crowding and checking THE SELECTION (J Lowry) passing the 200 metres. Miss Haley demonstrated on the films that Mr Mudhoo was racing towards the outside ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Not that I'm a legal eagle by any stretch - I think the following section is the one that applies - namely falsely using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage: 240Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception (1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,— (a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or (b) in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or (c) induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or (d) causes loss to any other person. (1A) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, without reasonable excuse, sells, transfers, or otherwise makes available any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage knowing that, by deception and without claim of right, the document or thing was, or was caused to be, delivered, executed, made, accepted, endorsed, or altered. (2) In this section, deception means— (a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and— (i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or (ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or (b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or (c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.

Heard from where? In relation to what?

Do you have legal training? The issue with your assessment is that you have no idea of the outcomes of all cases pertaining to this crime. I would imagine like most of us your sample is biased to those that are published in the media.

The blood tests were negative.

As I have said to the others be careful what you assert.

You may well be right Harewood but I assume you are as much a lawyer as I am. Subsequently please be careful what you assert.

Forbury I'm not going to tolerate hearsay and speculation on this topic of the type you engage in. So be warned.

No I think it is more akin to falsifying a document for a pecuniary advantage. It appears he has reached agreement with some in terms of restitution. Jailing him wouldn't allow him to do that. As a first offence, honest attempts to fix the damage and actively in a rehab programme will also help.

FFS - are you taking the piss? YOU are the one calling people names.

Pass. Perhaps for the same reason Colt 31 didn't want to stay on the back of the horse it was behind. Which incidentally died in a hole a fair way out. I don't disagree it was a dumb move but was it a deliberate move to make Colt 31 lose? Yeah na. If that was the case then he would have kept on attacking. If he'd known he was going to get 3 weeks then maybe he would have.

As for Lilac Flash moving four wide to let King Of The Stars out. That's nonsense. Just had another three looks at the race. King of the Stars was on Colt 31's back. Dixon skittles Lilac Flash to get out (Dixon got fined) and all King of the Stars did was stay on the back of Colt 31 who got to one out leaving King of the Stars parked three wide. Now you could argue that was a dumb move but it certainly wasn't facilitated by Lilac Flash.

I should have said "consider" laying the horse. I haven't looked at Colt 31's previous races but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a pattern of being beaten for early speed. Bit like Amazing Dream in that regard. If there was a pattern then why wouldn't you lay the horse? As it was Dixon had to get creative when he swung on the horse to get off the marker so quick. Otherwise he would have been shuffled as the race progressed. We are all entitled to our views. Just as you are entitled to promote your conspiracy theory about Aussie Harness.

What's the point of continuing the discussion? You are convinced that the race was corrupt and dodgy. Nothing that I, or anyone else posts will change your mind. If you read the entire Stewards report for the meeting there were a number of drives where horses were not driven to their normal racing pattern. I'd put that down to race circumstance - you'd put it down to a conspiracy. With regard to the McMullen drive - he went forward seeking to get the lead or to sit outside the leader. He failed to achieve that - didn't have the horse flesh to do it. Yep should have stayed where he was. But did it make a material difference to the race? No. Ok they ran a quarter in 28 followed by one in 31 - not unheard of. The only horses chances that were affected was the one McMullen was driving.

It's not "fishy" when there is a clear cut hot favourite who has drawn 1 in a harness race - the smart money would lay the horse. Quoting Dixon from Gammalite's post if "he'd drawn 2 then it would have been a different story."

Obviously enough of an idea to give you a run for your money. But Mikie you are the expert on Betfair, harness driving and harness fullstop. I'm just a mere enthusiast that has worked in the industry and had some skin in it. So I defer to your immense knowledge and superior intellect. There is obviously considerable corruption in Harness racing. Just so happens I agree with Gammalite. Merry Christmas Mikie.

Geez Thomaas keep up. Do you forget the All Black prop?

Not when it seems he has already negotiated restitution with some of the owners.

Yep that's how I saw it. Agreed and I think he should have got asked a couple of questions regarding the first 2-300m. That didn't look all that tidy to me. Certainly the Ozzie's drive with a lot more aggression than their Kiwi counterparts - always have as your non-de-plume "Gammalite" always reminds me!

Gammalite - don't worry about it - I'm not upset by any stretch. The only thing that annoys me at the moment is the state of the industry. Also it bugs me when people are quick to play "cut the tall poppy" which we see often with the All Stars. The reality is that the All Stars in NZ run a top class operation under extreme scrutiny and have put in many a hard yard. In my opinion those chasing are simply not up to speed. That has been to the detriment of the industry but you can't blame those who have been successful. I would rather point the finger at the 9 to 5 administrators and slack officials. For example it defies belief that Lamb can continue to have two conflicting roles in the industry and be useless at both of them!

No you went looking for data to prove something - that's called predetermined bias. Is 25% more layed against a hot favourite on the night that far out of whack? Fine I have no idea - neither does Harewood or Gammalite. You are the expert Mikie. But the drive by Grant Dixon wasn't that good either was it? But you don't mention any of that. Why wasn't Dixon questioned about his movement of the markers when not clear soon after the start? Why didn't Dixon try harder to keep the lead? I think he made a split decision to bail out - heavily restrained his horse - checked those behind him on the markers and then pulled off to be one out to take advantage of the gap forcefully created. The following from the Stewards report is when Dixon moved out in front of Lilac Flash to go get parked. Grant Dixon (Colt Thirty One) pleaded guilty to a charge under AHR rule 163 (1)(b)(ii) for moving Colt Thirty One from its one wide line at the 1800 metres which hindered the forward progress of Lilac Flash NZ. A fine of $200 was imposed.