Chief Stipe

The disputed facts causing offence and the threat of litigation have been removed. In my opinion that should be enough. If they are worried about their personal reputations then they should clean up their own act first. Interesting how they are quick to threaten legal action but duck for cover when it suits.

Yes but is it for real? If it is it just shows you what kind of show is run over there. If it is a legitimate apology then why isn't the thread locked to comments by posters? That's slack management if you ask me. You watch they'll change the status to the thread now.

Yes you can ask to remove a post but the reality is once it is up online the horse has bolted! SLB 2.0 has been a pawn in someone else's game for a long time. Unfortunately in his case he has never had the financial resources to defend himself. He is not even allowed to post to defend himself on the other Channel.

I've edited the original post supposedly causing offence by removing the disputed facts.

Only if it's "good for traffic"!

No not at all. I have removed the disputed facts from the first post. Can't work out how I defamed him. Isn't clear in the communication either. Funny how he himself abuses people online and allows his little buddy to do the same but gets his knickers twisted when people call him out rightly or wrongly.

Rule Number(s): 330(3)(c)Prior to the running of Race 1, Welcome Back to Hawke's Bay Racing 2YO, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 330(3)(c). The Informant, Mr Goodwin, alleged that Mr Elliot failed to make the carded weight for BOOMER HILL. Mr Goodwin advised that Mr Elliot was 1.5kgs over the carded weight of 57kgs. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

I thought as long as you didn't gain ground during a break then it's fine.

Just got a letter from Comic Dogs lawyer threatening defamation proceedings. It isn't exactly clear how he has been defamed.

Who knows. Maybe RITA has slashed costs and revenue is sufficient to avoid another handout. As I said in another thread I find it odd that RITA and co (apart from HRNZ) have not received the second tranche of the wage subsidy.

Note the attached documents above are from the DIA and Treasury. Both make it clear that Racing will require MORE financial assistance. Also of importance is that the original tranche of funding was only enough to get RITA through to 31 July 2020. That is TODAY!

TAB just months away from collapse before Government bailout Thomas Coughlan14:07, Jul 31 2020 CHRISTEL YARDLEY/STUFF In May, a $72.5m package was announced for the racing agency, with $50m going directly to RITA. The TAB and the wider racing industry was months away from complete collapse before a Government bailout of the racing industry saved it. A briefing to Racing Minister Winston Peters from April warned that the TAB had suffered a sharp drop in revenue thanks to racing and betting ceasing during the Covid-19 lockdowns. The briefing said that without Government support the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA), which owns the TAB, would have to “cease operations” at the TAB. RITA told Government it needed “assurance of Crown support as soon as possible to avoid that outcome”. RITA said the racing industry needed $75 million to survive the crisis, with $56m of that package being required by the TAB alone. It said the racing industry was already making use of existing budget support packages, but this was unlikely to sustain the industry until August, when the racing season resumed. “There is a major issue that needs to be addressed if the industry is to survive,” the briefing said. Officials warned that if the TAB failed, it would be difficult to replace, leading to a further disruption in the industry. “Liquidation of the TAB would delay the recovery of the racing industry by a minimum of 12-18 months or drive it into a downward spiral from which it might not recover. “This would almost certainly lead to further requests for financial support from the industry,” it said. RITA forecast the TAB would have revenue of $380m for the year to 31 July 2020, but Covid-19 saw this forecast slashed to $250m. ROBERT KITCHIN/STUFF Winston Peters secured a major bailout for the racing industry. The papers were published on Friday as part of the Government’s release of hundreds of papers relating to the response to Covid-19. In May, Peters announced a $72.5m package for the racing agency, with $50m going directly to RITA. $20m went to build two new all weather race tracks and $2.5m for the Department of Internal Affairs to look at ways of addressing the sustainability of gambling revenue as more kiwis used online platforms to gamble offshore. When Treasury was consulted on the package, it noted that it hadn’t “assessed” the information provided by RITA to verify the financial state of the TAB or ascertain what sort of support it may need. Treasury did say that any financial support should look at helping the TAB in the near term and stay away from “wider issues with the racing industry”. “The detailed commercial scrutiny required may provide an opportunity to consider ways to put the TAB on a more financially sustainable footing in the long term,” the paper said. Peters has and his racing portfolio have a chequered relationship with Treasury. During the last budget, Peters and Treasury officials butted heads when Peters tried to secure the repeal of a tax on the racing industry. Treasury officials warned the risk of problem gambling by making betting cheaper could have social consequences that cut against the spirit of the 2019 “wellbeing” budget. b20-ra20200091-4285392.pdf b20-initiatives-ia-4278244.pdf

Personally I think these rules are archaic. They have been there since year dot. By banning people with a criminal record or people you deem to be "undesirable" from a racecourse it somehow maintains the integrity of racing! As I said in an earlier post I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged these rules in court. Theoretically anyone with a drunk driving conviction isn't allowed on a racecourse.

Is there anyone not on the list?

I'm hoping Comic Dog does sue me. Disclosure time will be really really interesting and trust me it won't be all one way traffic. As yet I haven't had any complaints under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. Makes me laugh that those two are trying to take the moral high ground. That is way out of reach for both their statures. The truth is always the best defence.

The New Act: 40Rules controlling or prohibiting admission to racecourses (1) This section applies to any racecourse on a day during which racing is being held on that racecourse, whether or not it is, or forms part of, a reserve or other place for which there exists a right of public use or entry. (2) Subject to any enactment and the general law of New Zealand, racing rules may include separate rules controlling or prohibiting the admission of persons to any racecourse used by racing clubs registered with the racing code that made the rules. (3) The rules may exclude any specified class (or classes) of persons from entering a racecourse, either absolutely or subject to any special conditions that may be set out in the rules. (4) However, subsection (3) applies only to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of maintaining public confidence in— (a) the conduct of racing; and (b) the integrity of racing betting. (5) Rules made under this section do not come into force until they have been approved by the Minister and published on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the relevant racing code. (6) A person who breaches any rule made under this section may be removed from the racecourse by any of the following persons: (a) a stipendiary steward or a racing investigator: (b) a member, officer, agent, or employee of the racing club or of the racing code with which the racing club is registered: (c) a constable.

I notice that NZTR hasn't got round to updating their rules of racing yet. Maybe the little one could get off on a technicality. The old Act: 34Rules controlling or prohibiting admission to racecourses (1) This section applies to any racecourse on the day during which racing is being held on that racecourse, whether or not it is, or forms part of, a reserve or other place for which there exists a right of public use or entry. (2) Subject to any enactment and the general law of New Zealand, racing rules may include separate rules controlling or prohibiting the admission of persons to any racecourse used by racing clubs registered with the racing code that made the rules. (3) Rules made under this section do not come into force until they have been approved by the Minister and published in the Gazette. (4) The rules may exclude any specified class or classes of person from entering a racecourse, either absolutely or subject to any special conditions, that may be set out in the rules. (5) However, subsection (4) applies only to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of maintaining public confidence in— (a) the conduct of horse racing; and (b) the integrity of racing betting.

I've always wondered why no one has every challenged a warning off in court. In my mind freedom of association is a basic right. If they enforced this rule then there would be hardly anyone left on course.

Comic Dog has played the lawyer card on me before when I set up BOAY. He made some outlandish and false claims. I showed the letter I received to a prominent lawyer friend of mine who just laughed and said it was standard bluster. Comic Dog is all piss and wind. As for the other fella has he actually ever won a case?

The first scrap will be over the revenue split.

He is an Owner. I think that gives them jurisdiction. I know it does in Australia. Also they have the power to ban anyone they like from a racecourse.

Yeah na. I'm in their sights not SLB. I will not be bullied. SLB can sit back an watch.

I'm happy to let you both post here if you let me post there. Let's go head to head! Honesty gets double points!

Rule Number(s): Rule 869(2)(a) and use of whip regulationsThis charge arises from the running of Race 2, the Noel Taylor Hall of Fame Mobile Pace 2200. An Information was filed by the Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Muirhead alleging Licensed Open Horseman; Mr T Macfarlane breached Rule 869(2)(a) in that he used his whip on more occasions than permitted over ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Ok. Who is the low grub?