Chief Stipe

I was referring to your reference to standard business practice not letters per se. However I don't think sending a letter would be standard business practice in this case. Why would you when you can convey the restriction through the system and create the impression that it is pool or risk related rather than individual. Otherwise you would have people on forums comparing letters.

Oh ok that supports the theory that there are punters (plural) that are restricted. Why would the TAB send him a letter? When they can convey the message through the system? We all know TAB NZ is stupid but I doubt even they would expend unnecessary overhead.

Doesn't prove that CWJ was instructed to go to the "Sally's" and that was a condition of his returning to race riding. As for your hair follicle BS there are limitations with that as well. It takes a week for the hair to grow enough to show a drug result i.e. if you have taken drugs within the last 7 days but not before that then it won't show. Sure the drug will be detectable for up to 90 days but you can't actually determine when it was taken. Further they are not very accurate. In 2015, researchers at the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, conducted a study examining the effectiveness of hair follicle drug tests. The researchers compared self-reported drug use with hair follicle test results from 360 adults at risk for moderate drug use. According to the results of the study, hair follicle drug testing correctly identified: 52.3 percent of people who reported recent marijuana use 65.2 percent of people who reported recent cocaine use 24.2 percent of people who reported recent amphetamine use 2.9 percent of people who reported recent opioid use In a 2017 study, researchers compared the results of hair follicle drug tests with self-reported drug use from 3643 participants. Compared to the researcher’s expectations, the test results produced fewer potential false positives, but more potential false negatives. Due to the study results, the researchers concluded that hair follicle tests do not provide reliable information regarding drug use in the general population.

There are heaps of Eric Ryan stories. One day he had a horse that refused to unload from a float so he got a rope, tied one end to the horse and the other to a post and then drove the truck away. Or the one where he was jogging a horse on the Canterbury long acre (the grass roadside). The horse bolted and tried to cross a cattle crossing. Got its leg caught. Eric got out of the cart, pulled out his pipe, looked at the problem and decided to go have a cup of tea. Coming to the conclusion the horse wasn't going anywhere in a hurry. Another story which I find hard to believe but apparently true. A mate was having a cuppa with Eric in view of his training track. Eric's daughter was working a horse. Eric saw her and said - "I bloody told her to sack that useless piece of ..." He got up and went and got a rifle and shot the horse the next time round.

What about Windsor Park that owns the Parnell building at 60 Stanley Street that has TAB NZ housed in it. They were also involved in the Randall pillage on the broadcasting contract. Now NEP which do Trackside broadcasting/production are housed in that building!

What I can't fathom is how not many seem to read the annual reports and actually analyse them. Or those that believe the BS spin by both NZRB and NZTR and promote it! That latest annual report is NOT good. Nothing has changed - if anything it has got worse. Yet where are the Trainers Association, Owners Association and any other stakeholder group yelling for action? I just can't believe that everyone has bought into the lastest spin bullshit notice to owners that Saundry has published this past week. It is clear that they have their sights set on grabbing the assets of those that have performed well, even though they have had everything against them, to fund the admin largesse who STILL HAVEN'T made any fundamental change!

Provide evidence to the contrary. Let's face it you have no idea what TAB NZ's business practice is. Now given their performance comparative to other wagering outlets one would be justified in thinking that TAB NZ DOESN'T follow "standard business practice." Who knows what "the TAB gains from treating Brodie any different to any other punter" - you don't know that he isn't treated any different - perhaps if they do treat him differently that is because he costs them too much. In fact we do know that the TAB treats some punters differently than others. You yourself have confirmed that. Some VIP punters get rebates and most do not.

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 9, the Racecourse Hotel & Motor Lodge Rating 65, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Davidson, against Jockey (Class A), Mr B Murray, alleging that, as the rider of TOP OF THE STRAIGHT in the race, he struck his mount excessively prior to the 100m. Mr Murray ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 9, the Rating 65, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Davidson, against Class A Rider, Mr L Callaway, alleging careless riding in that he permitted his mount LADY VERAWOOD to shift outwards when not sufficiently clear forcing WHERE’S WALLY onto MISS CURIOUS, ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 648 (3)This Request for a Ruling was filed pursuant to Rule 648(3) and arises following the running of Race 5, the Vector Wero Whitewater Park 2100. The Informant, Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr M Williamson, alleged that the rider TE AKAU CALIBURN weighed in 1.7 kg underweight. Rule 648(3) provides that: If, ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(3)(b)Following the running of Race 8, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault, against Open Driver Mr J Dunn alleging that “Mr Dunn drove carelessly near the 500M when allowing his runner to strike the wheel of FRANCO NIVEN resulting in his horse breaking briefly and losing ground”. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)This is a defended hearing arising from the running of Race 2 the JP & Associates 1300. Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson filed an Information pursuant to Rule 638 (1)(d) alleging the rider of GAS MONKEY (K Asano), permitted his mount to shift in when not sufficiently clear of ROCKLAND which was ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Actually I have but can't prove that. I know when a horse I had a share in won most of us got on big at 17's. Eventually it was backed into 6's and favourite. The TAB hurt that day. Recently though didn't we have the BGP place a large bet? Sure the odds weren't high but their potential win was considerable. But obviously they are the type of losing punter the TAB likes and doesn't restrict.

Yes but you could argue that they often get the price wrong. That's why Mardigras spend their entire day looking for value.

Now you are contradicting Mardigras who has posted that the TAB wouldn't do that.

Except he is selective in what he chooses to answer. He still hasn't answered why wouldn't the TAB override a restriction when the punter puts up a decent size bet on a horse that the TAB has priced as the rank outsider.

So you are saying that those that are restricted are treated equally in the sense they are all restricted under the same process. Brodie says they are not treated equally because the restricted amount varies. Geez Mardigras you'd get a job in this Government!

There should definitely be an investigation into the Openbet and Randall Broadcasting company setup.

FFS we've covered this ages ago - keep up!

There is nothing new in this article that the more astute BOAY posters haven't been posting since its inception.

Right so you're content with trolling rather than debating the substantive issue. All good. Each to their own I guess.

That wasn't the question. Why wouldn't the TAB take his bet of $1,000 to win $80,000? You say they won't because they (or the system) don't consider individual bets just the fact that punter Brodie historically has been a winning punter.

So if Brodie pitches up next week and puts $1,000 to win on the Spitfire at 80 to 1 should the TAB take his bet or restrict him?

Semantics is it not? Supposedly what you are suggesting is that the system identifies a winning account and flags it for future bets. I would have thought that the risk of an individual bet relative to the pool should be determined regardless of what account holder makes it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled it out of their arse. Technically their flash new system should be able to do it automaticallt without human intervention. However if you believe that and that their is no human intervention then I would consider you gullible and potentially clueless.