Chief Stipe

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 9, the Wenham Grain and Seed 1600, won by the horse YOSSARIAN, ridden by Ms Schofer, Mr Goodwin presented an Information that Ms Schofer had offended against Rule 638(3)(b)(ii) in that she was guilty of a breach because her whip use before the final 100 metres was excessive ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Funny ha ha. Export of horses? Races? Messara did look at Race exports. With regard to horse exports I don’t see what the issue is.

A bit of pot kettle there Mehe!

If you already knew why didn't you explain it the way I did? Would have saved me 25 mins of research. The reality is that the truth lies somewhere between your view and Brodies. It is a bit simplistic to say "the HRNZ Board did it all" when in fact they didn't. I'd even go so far to say that they didn't even initiate the process.

Export of what?

Why not? I thought it would be important to know especially if there was or wasn't adequate consultation of the industry. In that regard Brodie has a point.

FFS I have already posted that information. Two parts to that question. Did the CEO draft the rule? Most likely. Did the CEO push it through the Board? More than likely. Was the industry consulted adequately? I have doubts. Therefore consensus cannot be claimed. So as they say in the industry the CEO was the owner, trainer and driver of the rule which the Board approved.

Don't understand your question. Regardless the way it is framed and the topic it covers would require more than a one word answer!

Under Rennell they up the ante a bit by clarifying rule 103A. If due process was followed then all industry stakeholders (except punters!) had a chance to make submissions to the Board on the Whip rule change......but looking at the dates and when the detail was finally formulated I'm inclined to agree with Brodie that there seems to have been a fast track process that may or may not have followed the letter of the law. I don't know if the Board minutes are published to the public.

With regard to the Whip Rule - the HRNZ Board presented a remit at the 2017 AGM/Conference which was passed giving the Board the power to formulate and enforce Use of the Whip Regulations. Following that Conference the HRNZ Board (13 November 2017) approved the current whip rules (attached) which came into force on 20 November 2017. In my opinion there is no question that this was led by the CEO who it appears consulted with the RIU on the details. UseoftheWhipRegulations-withPenaltyGuide.pdf

I doubt that that would be the case Brodie. As I said above the CEO and Senior Management would have formulated the rule however consent for its implementation would have had to have been given by the HRNZ Board. The CEO would have argued the case for it and therefore was probably the main driver of the change. Some rule changes are presented for voting on at the annual conference/AGM. The process in my opinion is too slow, convoluted and variable. Often HRNZ rules are way out of kilter with NZTR's on matters where they should be the same.

Why would Brodie take notice of what JJ Flash has posted when it is patently wrong? A Board of Directors primary, and arguably their only role, is to provide strategic direction and of course an oversight in terms of budgets and expenditure. JJ Flash has to date displayed a very confused understanding of the role of Boards and CEO's as evidenced in his posts about RITA's Board and its CEO. As for the rules and regulations - did the Board collate the HRNZ's Covid-19 response? As for Rennell just like any CEO he would have had considerable influence in operational matters of which the whips rules are but one. The normal process (certainly in all the organisations I've worked in) is for the CEO and the Senior Management team to formulate and present papers to the Board that require Board consent. So in the case of HRNZ rules and regulations would be formulated by CEO and Senior Management and presented to the Board who would give consent or not or request more information. Large Strategic decisions are normally driven by the Board.

There was no reason to cancel all the early season dates. Affected Ruakaka more than any other clubs.

Rule Number(s): 869(2) Clause (b) of Whip RegulationsFollowing the running of Race 8 (Marshall Racing Mobile Pace) Information A12248 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that Mr Stormont used his whip on more occasions than is permitted over the final 400m. Mr Stormont said that he understood the Rule, the Charge and confirmed that he ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(2) Use of Whip Regulations clause (b)Following the running of Race 7 (Dunstan Horse Feeds Mobile Pace) Information A12249 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant that Mr Whittaker used his whip on more occasions than is permitted under clause (b) of the Whip Regulations. Mr Whittaker in the presence of Mr ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870(5)Following the running of Race 2 (M White Racing Mobile Trot) a Protest was lodged by the Informant, alleging that BULLER WHITEBAIT (P Ferguson) broke late in the run home and was lapped on by the fifth-placed horse ROMEO FOXTROT (K Blublitz). Judge’s Placings were: 1st LEXIT 2nd DEMOLITION MAN 3rd ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(7)(B)Following the running of Race 9 (Mike Berger Stables Mobile Pace) Information A12250 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that DOWN THE HATCH (2nd) gained an advantage by racing over several track markers approaching the 50m when inside of MAC’S TOMADO (4th). (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870(B) & the Breaking Horse RegulationsFollowing the running of Race 4 (White Start Stables Mobile Trot) Information No. A12247 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that GRIFFINS HALL broke in excess of 50m in the final 200m. Mr Ferguson representing the connections of GRIFFINS HALL said that he understood the Rules and confirmed ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

A good well organised club that have been shat on. Shows you the difference between those that have a permanent head in the trough and those that are struggling for the scraps.

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of the UNITED SECURITY NORTHLAND MAIDEN, an Information was lodged by Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson against Jockey, Mr B May alleging that Mr May as the rider of KAPALKA allowed his mount to shift in near the 1300 metres mark contacting MOLLY'S GAME with that runner ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(3)(b)Miss Haley, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr Ferguson (VON ART) drove carelessly past the 400 metres in race 3 when striking the leg of ROCKNROLL MAMA (R Anderson) causing that horse to break. Mr Renault, Stipendiary Steward, demonstrated the alleged breach on the videos. He pointed out Mr Ferguson ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

I think Paul Humphries owns Princess Kereru.

This is Howard Clarke. JOHN HAWKINS/STUFF Winton Jockey Club president Howard Clarke at the Gore racecourse on Wednesday.

Rule Number(s): 642(1)Following the running of Race 3, the Dave & Jill Quigley Maiden, Trainer, Mr MR Pitman, filed an Information instigating a protest, under Rule 642(1) in that STELLA CREEK, ridden by Ms K Williams, placed first by the Judge, interfered with the chances of MISS TYCOON ROSE, ridden by Mr K Chowdhoory, placed ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article