Chief Stipe

I guess on a positive note the NZ National Table Tennis Association will get a windfall this year.

The fields are a bit small. Surely one of them is wearing blinkers. In any case I can't make up my mind between the Ukraine Cup and the Moscow Open.

Some good news! The TAB is taking betting on the Ukraine Cup ping pong tournament.

Well there is hardly that WITHIN the codes. Just to make it clear I think there does need to be some controls put in place but it irks me somewhat to see the inconsistencies and some measures which are just cosmetic. For example I understand the Chinese restaurant at Alexandra Park is open tomorrow night but harness fans and owners are not allowed to attend the races. I also know that some thoroughbred trainers rely on their experienced owners to help with their horses on race day. I know I used to do it - lead the horse from the truck, pick up the saddle from weigh-in, get the saddle cloth number and take it back when finished, even managed to lead my horse into and out of the bird cage a couple of times. I think as Curious alludes to in his post if things progress towards worst case scenario then some owners will be essential to keeping things moving. Will "Officials" stop travel between the islands? Will be interesting to know if Grimshaw attended the raid on McGrath's property. Woops forgot that's a Harness case not Thoroughbred.

Be careful everyone with your comments. One point though I think you'd find tubing equipment in many stables.

You watch. The next step will be to centralise all racing at a few locations so "we can enforce access restrictions more effectively and minimise operational movements." Another point is that the three codes are not working in unison. For example my understanding is harness drivers can still travel between the Islands.

You miss the point I'm making. Trainer's have in the past, prior to Covid-19, signed off some owners as stable hands. Now the fact that an Owner has a Stable Hand ticket (or even license) doesn't put "the whole industry at risk." Indeed there are many many owners who are as experienced and as able as any ticketed stable hand. I doubt you will see hundreds of Owner's suddenly becoming Stable Hand's. The difference now is that the "powers that be" have upped the security around it and are checking which they were lax about in the past.

Can you two get back to the topic?

Rule Number(s): 869(2)(a) & Use of the Whip RegulationsFollowing the running of Race 2, Clocktower Motors Fillies & Mares Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr P Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr R L Houghton, alleging that, as the driver of SHE’S TOUGH in the race, he “used his whip on more occasions than permitted by Clause ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(2)(a) & Use of the Whip RegulationsFollowing the running of Race 5, Enterprise Recruitment Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr P Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr G W Hunt, alleging that, as the driver of FOREIGNER in the race, he “used his whip on more occasions than permitted by Clause (b) of the Use of ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870(1)Following the running of Race 1, D R Britton Limited Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr P Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Mrs J J A Young-Grant, alleging that, as the driver of LITTLE MISS in the race, she “allowed her horse to pace for a considerable distance after 300 ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(4)&(6)(b)&(c)Following the running of Race 9, Commodore Hotel Team Teal Challenge Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr P Williams, against Licensed Open Driver, Ms K M Cox, alleging that Ms Cox, as the driver of AVA ADORE in the race, “shifted outwards prior to the 1000 metres forcing ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

I find it odd that they are restricting jockey movements between the islands. Hardly NSW vs Victoria. I assume the RIU won't be travelling between the islands either?

How does an Owner acting as a Stable Hand put the "whole industry at risk"? I know many owners who have more experience and ability than some raw recruit stable hands.

View the full article

View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870 (3) & Breaking Horse RegulationsFollowing the running of race 8 the MLT PIONEER TAVERN TROT Stewards lodged a Protest under r870 (3) and the Breaking Horse Regulations against the fifth placed SUNNIVUE PHILEAH. The Information alleged that SUNNIVUE PHILEAH broke from its gait shortly after the start and galloped more than 150 metres ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 8 (Al Basti Equiworld Dubai New Zealand Oaks), an Information was lodged by Mr J Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) in that J Waddell angled his mount JENNIFER ECCLES outwards dictating KAROLINO (J Parkes) outwards onto KAIPAKI ROAD (D Johnson) who was crowded ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 8, an Information was lodged by Mr N Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638 (1) (d) in that R Hannam permitted his mount FLICKERING SHADOW to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear crowding ODE TO JOY and ROYAL INN shortly after the start. Mr Hannam confirmed his understanding ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 9, Betty Wadley Memorial Rating 82, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr DM Wadley, against Licensed Jockey (Class A), Mr A Balloo, alleging that Mr Balloo, as the rider of BABAN in the race, he “used the whip excessively prior to the 100 metres”. Mr Balloo ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 8, Ecolab R82, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr DM Wadley, against Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B), Mr R Beeharry, alleging that Mr Beeharry, as the rider of TICKET TO RIDE in the race, “permitted his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of race 5, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638 (1)(d). The Informant, Mr Jones, alleged that Mr Goindasamy allowed AILEEN GRACE to shift in when not clear of ARRAIGNMENT who had to be checked near the 50 metres. Mr Goindasamy said that he understood the Rule and confirmed ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of race 5, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638 (1)(d). The Informant, Mr Jones, alleged that Ms Burdan allowed GRIFFIN to shift out over the concluding stages when not clear of TUTTA LA CLASSE which had to be steadied losing ground. Ms Burdan said that she understood the ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Why would the Government offer the Racing Industry assistance when it already provides negative revenue to them? The "left field" solution will be to force clubs to sell up to support the industry. Surely you are taking the piss? When have we seen any cost cutting at the NZRB/RITA? Given we have much the same old crew in charge at Board Level (seems to be a revolving door) what is going to change? The fact is RITA and previous iterations thereof have pissed the industry reserves away on stakes increases without doing any structural changes except nearly bankrupt the TAB with a software upgrade. Why should the Government help? There isn't even any justification now that the local racing club is an integral part of the the local community.

If you read the section in the decision labelled - THE FACTS UPON WHICH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED - you can quite clearly see that the telephone conversations had little if not no bearing on the decision. Of the five lengthy paragraphs (17-21) in this section only one references the recordings. The part that does refer to the recordings is as follows: (20) We do not need to dwell at any length on the intercepted conversations between Mr McGrath and Mr “A” given how the matter has been resolved, but we make some brief observations. Of course, as is common practice, it is very usual for a trainer to discuss with an owner how his horse may be driven and race tactics and chances before a race. But this does not permit a driver trainer to advise or discuss how his other horse in the race, which he will be driving, will likely to be driven or its tactics. The telling paragraph on how the basis of the decision is as follows: (21) We can attribute the actions of improper driving on this occasion to complete stupidity and very unwise actions as the admitted charge does not involve deliberate dishonesty. To sum up emphasis was placed on HOW the horse was driven not the peripheral matters. If you draw the obvious conclusion from this you could say the RIU could have and SHOULD have laid a charge on the 31st March 2018. That would have sent a clear message to all participants. But no they didn't. Why? Were the Stipes/RIU aware of the Police investigation? It is stated in the decision that they weren't which I very much doubt. If you have been following the case(s) involved that have INCA connections you will understand that these arguments focussed on a point of law, the rules of racing, precedents and the differences between two legal jurisdictions. Bear in mind there are or may be other cases that may be affected by this point of law. That being, is evidence used to charge someone in the Criminal Court but not formally filed able to be used in another jurisdiction e.g. the JCA. McGrath in his deal with the Crown Prosecutor agreed to hand this evidence over to the RIU/JCA (moot point with the RIU as I bet my bottom dollar that they had seen it anyway). Note the Crown Prosecutor cannot have been confident of success in their criminal prosecution. Indeed comments by a Judge indicated that the evidence did not reach a criminal conviction threshold by a long measure. McGrath's lawyer then attempted to renege on what was agreed by arguing that as the evidence had not been formally filed in Court then it couldn't be used in the JCA hearing. Part of their argument I assume was based on the fact that it wasn't RIU gathered evidence. But that aside the moot point was.... McGrath HAD that evidence in his possession therefore the JCA contended that under the rules of racing anything in McGrath's possession could be used in the hearing AND if not provided a summons could be issued. That seems a pretty far reaching rule in my opinion and potentially at odds with natural justice. Hence the lengthy arguments. However as seen from the final decision that evidence had no bearing on the result. To reiterate - (21) We can attribute the actions of improper driving on this occasion to complete stupidity and very unwise actions as the admitted charge does not involve deliberate dishonesty.