Chief Stipe

Can you show us where in the law it states this?

FFS why don't you just blame Adam and that bloody apple!

I've locked this thread. Sadly the industry has lost a talented individual who many of you would have been applauding a couple of years ago. A young person trying to make his way in what is a hard sport - a sport that requires hard work and long hours to scratch a living. Although it is another matter the suits at the numerous industry head offices should hang their heads in shame for their years of largesse. My personal opinion is that, although he has made some serious mistakes, he has been put under considerable pressure by one individual from the RIU who has been in pursuit of something that does not exist. Until that person is removed from the RIU and INCA is closed there are likely to be more cases such as this. Indeed there already has been. We ALL make mistakes - some bigger than others. NONE of us are fully privy to the each others situations. I've locked the thread because in my opinion it has lost balance and the views expressed here are not going to help any of the parties concerned. That's what they need - help - one thing I know is there will be NO help provided by the industry nor from the sorry lot that kicked off this chain of events.

Rule Number(s): 869(3)(b)Following the running of Race 7, the Woodland Stud Mobile Pace 2200m, an information was filed by Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Mulcay alleging Junior Horseman Mr Whittaker, breached Rule 869 (3)(b) “in that he drove carelessly near the 500m by contacting the sulky wheel of TOMMY TUKAA (T Cameron) resulting ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

NO I'm not arguing in anyway what he did was justified. However from what I've seen of this blasted INCA bullshit is that there has been a lot of collateral damage that probably would never have happened if it wasn't for the intense pressure that some of these people have been put under. The fact is INCA has yet to successfully prosecute one case related to what they set out to do - race fixing. Grimstone has a history of doing this - he should never have been given a job at the RIU. He fucked up on INCA and had to find something to nail someone on. Only to save face.

That's your opinion. But I've seen first hand what the sort of pressure these people have experienced does to essentially good people. Everyone has a limit. But for the grace of God there go I. In Anderson's case his first misdemeanour was only discovered as the result of a covert operation into something else. That misdemeanour in itself although wrong wasn't at the high end of the criminal spectrum. From that point on he was subjected to intense pressure. It escalated from there.

We all knew he was "right" however JJ denied he knew. I'm in two minds about allowing this thread to continue. My personal opinion is that certain individuals at the RIU have a lot to answer for. The pressure that has been put on these individuals has been extreme. That doesn't excuse certain behaviour but it does make it more understandable.

That wasn't the point of my post.

Possibly but I can understand her reaction at the track. Not making excuses but it is a dangerous activity and if rules are not followed then lives are at risk both human and animal. I know how I'd feel if someone was driving their car towards me on the wrong side of the road. The point is I think the approach taken by the RIU was a reasoned and mature approach.

LOL - I'm sure many are reading this and are dismayed at your logic.

To be honest no - not at all. But I'm kept informed. As for the Q & A - I'll admit I haven't read them. Only have to look at the official releases to understand they'll be crap especially since it was BEFORE they got caught out that they WERE insolvent.

Is English your second language? Worst = lies. Of course it is difficult to distil anything of any substance from the answers as they were the products of spin.

Are you for real? You post something with the clear intention of putting the boot in and now backtrack by saying you didn't really know! So much for credibility! Given what you have just posted do you think it would be of benefit to you if you were put on moderation permanently? Then the moderators could work our whether or not what you were posting was relevant?

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V H A WYNYARD - DECISION DATED 27 JULY 2020 - CHAIR, MR M MCKECHNIE Created on 31 July 2020 BEFORE A NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Simon Andrew Irving Investigator Informant HOLLIE ANN WYNYARD Trainer Respondent Information No: A11689 Present: Non-Raceday Judicial Committee: Murray McKechnie, Chairman Nicki Moffatt, Member For RIU: Mr Simon Irving Respondent: Ms Hollie Wynyard DECISION OF NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 27 JULY 2020 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Ms Wynyard is a licensed Class A Trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR). She is charged with misconduct under Rule 340 in relation to events that occurred at the Otaki Racecourse on 12 June 2020. 1.2 Since the charge was laid against Ms Wynyard there have been a number of developments. These are recorded in the Minutes of the Judicial Committee dated 9 and 16 July 2020. Those Minutes are to be read as part of this decision and are attached to the decision. 1.3 With reference to the Minute dated 16 July 2020 paragraph 3, Ms Wynyard has confirmed that the Rule charge document is agreed and likewise the Summary of Facts. The Rule charge document is attached – one page. The agreed Summary of Facts is attached – three pages. 2. PLEA 2.1 Ms Wynyard has confirmed her guilty plea to the charge as now formulated and accepts the agreed Summary of Facts. 3. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS 3.1 As indicated in the Minute of 16 July 2020, the Committee has determined that it can now fix penalty on the papers. 3.2 Mr Irving for the RIU has filed comprehensive and helpful penalty submissions. These point to the well-known sentencing principles and makes reference to previous cases which bear some comparison to the circumstances in this case. The submissions point out that Ms Wynyard was previously warned for misconduct on 28 June 2018. Further, that the two affected parties were youthful and junior in the track riding ranks. In mitigation Mr Irving points to Ms Wynyard’s co-operation, admission of the breach and that there have been no previous breaches. Further, Mr Irving points out that Ms Wynyard has recognised that she has some issues with her temper and has indicated she is willing to undertake an anger management course. In conclusion the RIU penalty submissions seek a fine of $1,500 with half of that to be suspended upon the completion of the anger management course. 3.3 Ms Wynyard responds to the RIU penalty submissions by submitting that the proposed fine of $1,500 is “may be quite high”. Ms Wynyard proposes a fine of $500. She says she will complete an anger management course and proposes that that be done online. 3.4 Mr Irving has indicated that the RIU would accept an anger management conducted online. 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Ms Wynyard is a senior and successful trainer in partnership with her partner Johno Benner. Her behaviour on 8 June this year was unacceptable. To her credit she recognises that. 4.2 Ms Wynyard and Mr Irving have worked co-operatively to come to an agreed position in relation to the framing of the charge and the Summary of Facts to which the guilty plea has been entered. The Committee thanks Ms Wynyard and Mr Irving for the approach which they have adopted. 4.3 The penalty submissions for the RIU do not seek a costs award. This notwithstanding that Mr Irving must necessarily have spent considerable time on bringing this matter to an agreed outcome. 4.4 The JCA has been put to some expense but this has been significantly reduced by not having to conduct a formal hearing in the presence of the parties and by being able to proceed on the papers. 4.5 Upon consideration of all the material that has been put before it the Judicial Committee determines that Ms Wynyard will be fined the sum of $1,000. That sum is to be paid without delay. When Ms Wynyard has furnished satisfactory advice to Mr Irving that she has completed an online anger management course, the sum of $500 will be returned to her. 4.6 There will be no costs award in favour of the RIU. Ms Wynyard will pay a contribution towards to the costs of the JCA in the sum of $300. Dated this 27th day of July 2020 Murray McKechnie Chairman Signed pursuant to Rule 1007(5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY Information A11689 IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT Simon Andrew Irving Investigator Informant AND Hollie Ann Wynyard Trainer Respondent AGREED SUMMARY OF FACTS Parties 1 The Respondent Hollie Ann Wynyard is a licensed Class A Trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR). She is 32 years old and has held a trainer’s licence in partnership with her partner Jono Benner since 2015. Prior to this she held a track-rider’s licence for a number of years. 2 The two affected parties in this matter are track riders 17yo Kaitlyn Freeman and 18yo Claudia Allan employed by trainer Buddy Lammas at Otaki. Both have eventing backgrounds and have been track-riding for 18 months and three months respectively. Background 3 Clause 7(g) of the Otaki Maori Racing Club Track Rules state: The 2yo grass track is for yearlings and 2-year-old horses only. Galloping on the track is allowed against the rail and all pace-work is to be on the outside of this track. 4 According to Lammas he was given verbal permission to use a ‘hack’ when educating young horses on the 2yo grass track for safety reasons, however this is contested by the Otaki RC General Manager. The Facts 5 Approximately 8.40am on Friday 12 June 2020 four riders were working horses on the Otaki racecourse in pairs. The Respondent and Johno Benner together and Kaitlyn and Claudia together. 6 Kaitlyn was on a 3yo ‘hack’ (Dolly) accompanying Claudia on a yearling breaker (Scooby) both on the 2yo grass track. 7 They were on the outside of the grass track next to the plough, going the reverse way, with Claudia on the inside and Kaitlyn closest to the plough. 8 The Respondent and Johno were on the plough about half a track ahead of the girls before they slowed down to a trot and stopped around the 800m mark. 9 As the two girls passed, the Respondent asked them “why is the hack on the grass”. 10 Kaitlyn replied that she’s allowed to be. 11 The Respondent reacted by yelling and swearing at the girls including calling them “dumb f***s”, as they continued cantering past on their lap. 12 The Respondent then come up onto the grass track and began riding her horse up behind the pair. 13 The yearling ‘Scooby’ reacted by panicking and Claudia did her best to hold on. 14 The Respondent kept coming and both Kaitlyn and Claudia’s horses stopped which caused the Respondents horse to take fright and jump back down to the plough. 15 The Respondent continued to yell and swear telling the girls that if they can’t f*****g ride then they should go back to f*****g school, that they shouldn’t be here and what are they doing. 16 Claudia responded by calling the Respondent a crazy b***h. 17 Both girls felt scared and endangered by the Respondent’s deliberate actions. 18 The incident was witnessed by the girls’ employer Buddy Lammas and his partner Aimee Mitchell, who were positioned at the end of the back straight near the 1500m mark watching the track-work. 19 As the Respondent passed nearby Buddy yelled out to her shut up and leave his girls alone. 20 The girls continued with their track-work. 21 Further heated words were exchanged between Buddy and Amy and the Respondent and Johno at the gap when they came off the track. Respondent’s statement 22 The Respondent was interviewed about the incident a week later. 23 She admitted she challenged the girls on why the hack was on the grass track and that there was an exchange of words but denied hunting her horse up to them in an attempt to scare or intimidate them. 24 In explanation she stated that she and Johno had to ride past the two girls as the girls had stopped. Breach of NZTR Rules 25 Wynyard has admitted the following offence against the NZTR Rules: (a) Misconduct - in that she has ridden her horse improperly and behaved in an improper manner. S. IRVING RIU Senior Investigator 14.07.2020 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BEFORE A NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Simon Andrew Irving Investigator Informant AND HOLLIE ANN WYNYARD Trainer Respondent Information: A11689 Present: Non-Raceday Judicial Committee: Murray McKechnie, Chairman Nicki Moffatt, Member For RIU: Mr Simon Irving Respondent: Ms Hollie Wynyard MINUTE OF NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE FOLLOWING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 9 JULY 2020 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Ms Wynyard is a licensed Class A trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR). She is charged with misconduct under Rule 340 of those rules. This relates to events alleged to have occurred at the Otaki Racecourse on 12 June 2020. 1.2 Ms Wynyard had indicated through her lay advocate, Mr Leo Molloy that she would plead not guilty to the charge. Since that advice was received Mr Molloy has withdrawn. 1.3 In answer to a question from the Committee Ms Wynyard indicated that she would not be engaging legal counsel or a lay advocate. 1.4 The Committee sought some indication from Mr Irving as to the nature of the penalty that the RIU would seek in the event that the charge were proven or Ms Wynyard were to plead guilty. In response Mr Irving indicated that the RIU would seek a monetary penalty of around $1,500.00 and a order or direction that Ms Wynyard undertake a course of anger management. 1.5 If a not guilty hearing were to proceed it was explained that the RIU would call five witnesses. Ms Wynyard indicated that she would give evidence and that there would be two other witnesses. 2.0 DISCUSSION AS TO PLEA 2.1 Discussion took place as to whether Ms Wynyard would continue to maintain the not guilty plea. She explained that while she did acknowledge some inappropriate behaviour, she considered that the wording of the charge and the Summay of Facts did not accurately record the position. She further explained that if those matters about which she was concerned could be addressed then she would be prepared to enter a plea of guilty. 2.2 Mr Irving very responsibly responded to the advice from Ms Wynyard by suggesting that they could meet and see if agreement could be reached on re-framing the wording of the charge and the Summary of Facts. Ms Wynyard agreed to meet with Mr Irving for that purpose. 3.0 DIRECTIONS 3.1 In consequence of the matters set out in the previous paragraph the Committee now makes the following directions: A. Mr Irving and Ms Wynyard will meet to review the wording of the charge and the Summary of Facts. B. Not later than 3pm on 16 July 2020 Mr Irving and Ms Wynyard will email advice to the Executive Officer of the JCA as to whether or not agreement has been reached. If agreement has been reached then the re-framed charge and Summary are to be made available. C. If the position arrived at in sub-paragraph B has been agreed then the parties are directed to make a further submission as to the appropriate penalty. 3.2 If agreement can be reached as to the wording of the charge and the Summary of Facts then there was some discussion as to whether the determination of penalty could be done on the papers. The Committee reserves its view as to that. 3.3 If any difficulties arise in relation to the directions set out above there will be a further telephone conference. Dated this 9th day of July 2020 Murray McKechnie Chairman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BEFORE A NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Simon Andrew Irving Investigator Informant AND HOLLIE ANN WYNYARD Trainer Respondent Information: A11689 Present: Non-Raceday Judicial Committee: Murray McKechnie, Chairman Nicki Moffatt, Member For RIU: Mr Simon Irving Respondent: Ms Hollie Wynyard MINUTE OF NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 16 JULY 2020 1. This Minute should be read alongside the Minute dated 9 July 2020. 2. Mr Irving has now made available to the Executive Officer of the JCA a document said to be an agreed Summary of Facts and an amended Rule Charge document. That is also said to have been agreed by Ms Wynyard. Further, Mr Irving has filed penalty submissions. 3. Ms Wynyard is requested to respond to the material made available by the RIU as follows: A. Confirmation that the Rule Charge document change is agreed. B. That the Summary of Facts furnished by Mr Irving is agreed. C. Such written penalty submissions as Ms Wynyard may consider appropriate. D. Advice as to steps taken to undertake an anger management programme. 4. Ms Wynyard's written submissions to be lodged with the Executive Officer of the JCA not later than 3pm on Friday 24 July 2020. 5. Upon receipt of Ms Wynyard's submissions the Committee will make its decision "on the papers". Dated this 16th day of July 2020 Murray McKechnie Chairman D

While visiting the JCA website recently I came across a decision concerning Holly Wynyard. In my opinion the process as outlined was a good one and achieved an excellent outcome. This is in contrast to a number of other RIU efforts. It does highlight an inconsistency within the RIU that is troubling. Is that inconsistency related to the actions of individuals? Or does Godber not have any control over his own organisation?

Then why post it where you posted it? You made a clear inference and now you are denying it.

At best embellishments and excuses to cover a lack of action.

Whiplash - you are right to point out the hypocrisy of his position but I'll defend his right not to out himself. That is another difference between myself and Molloy - I don't run behind the scenes investigations to find the identity of someone and then vilify them in public.

You are welcome to have your opinions and as Whiplash points out you would have been banned for expressing anti-establishment views on other sites. You have been moderated once - the reason for that was you were putting the boot into Matt Anderson again. Now I admit that my reaction was based on my personal opinion. I believe that a number of good people in Harness racing have been stitched up by certain individuals in the RIU who have their own misguided agenda. Having had personal experience of being accused of something I didn't do and having to defend myself to seek justice I have a great deal of empathy for the likes of Anderson. You on the other hand don't appear to have any empathy.

I haven't read your PM's unlike other sites do.

The problem with blaming previous administrations is you ignore the fact that the RITA board and CEO are not NEW. Also you overlook the fact that they had EIGHTEEN MONTHS to right the ship before they ran out of cash. They did nothing! What's more they didn't tell their Minister until the last possible moment much to his annoyance. As for the Racing Act - it is a crock and is not going to save Racing unless some serious cost cutting is undertaken. What will be the next Capital injection? Where will it come from if Winnie is not back in Government? So Mackenzie and Winnies cronies wasted 18 months to right the ship. No single person in that organisation has "really pissed" me off. However I am pissed off with RITA because they have failed to deliver. I didn't bother asking afterall we had you here as their disciple posting day in day out in their defence. As for the Answers well they weren't exactly truthful were they?

Read where?

No and you know why.

Whiplash seems to direct most of his angst to self flagellation. Thomass for all his faults rarely if ever resorted to vile and vulgar rants. As for The Galah - being continued challenged on his opinions is not vile and vulgar either. If you have an opinion and wish to express it don't expect everyone to obsequiously sit by and say nothing. If a large number of people disagree then that is a reflection on the popularity or veracity of your opinion nothing more. The irony here of course is that the difference in opinion with The Galah was largely based around his view of the RIU's efforts which is what Molloy's latest effort was about. Yet I don't recall any poster calling Grimstone a "callous racist cx#t" nor Justice Gendall a "twat which they would enviscertate in a hearing." As for yourself you continued to play the sycophant party line that RITA was doing OK and I guess are still in denial after it was made public that RITA was insolvent (still probably is). That insolvency was there for all to see BEFORE Covid-19.

sycophant noun a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage.