Chief Stipe

With regard to "the excuses" do you analyse each horse's races on video?

Actually on reviewing this further it was actually Hunter The Punter who posted this first NOT Thomaas.

I agree. With reference to your last sentence if that was the case then perhaps the debacle in Race 1 at Hokitika may not have happened.

I couldn't see any Strathayr either! Or OSH compliant fences.

I think Aquaman was responding to the post about Regaine positives.

If she got the facts wrong in expressing her opinion then she only looks a fool nothing more. A lesson there perhaps.

The slow-mo:

Horses test positive to hair growth shampoo Photo: Twitter Article Author Darryl Sherer 20 January 2019 Two horses have been disqualified from races in England after testing positive to a prohibited substance found in a popular mens shampoo. Outrath and Ertidaad both won races at Kempton Park last February and both horses provided post-race samples featuring minoxidil, an ingredient in the hair regrowth shampoo Regaine. Both horses were saddled on race day by assistant Tom Best, the brother in law of trainer Suzi Best, and who has been using ‘Regaine' shampoo for seven years. The British Horseracing Authority accepted the explanation that contamination from the hair regrowth product led to the positive test. Minoxidil is on the list of substances banned by the BHA on raceday because it may have a pharmacological effect on multiple mammalian body systems. Best accepted the result and was fined £1,000 for both charges with both horses disqualified. “As the horses were under my care and control I take full responsibility even though I had no reason to believe it could result in a positive,” Best said in a statement. “My assistant has been using the product for many years and neither of us had the slightest idea this could happen. “As the trainer I take full responsibility for the unfortunate circumstances that led to the positives and am devastated.” RACENET.com.au

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 7 (JR & N Berkett Telegraph Group 1), Mr Oatham lodged an Information with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 638(3)(b)(ii) in that M Cameron used his whip excessively prior to the 100m without the necessary respite. Rule 638(3)(b) provides A Rider shall not: (ii) strike ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 9 (NZ Campus of Innovation & Sport Wellington Cup, Group 3), Mr Oatham lodged an Information with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 638(3)(b)(ii) in that jockey L Hemi used her whip excessively prior to the 100m without the necessary respite. Rule 638(3)(b) provides A Rider ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 3 (Lincoln Farms Premier), Mr Oatham lodged an Information with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 638(3)(b)(ii) in that jockey M McNab used his whip excessively prior to the 100m on his mount REDCAYENNE, striking his horse 17 times without the necessary respite. Rule 638(3)(b) ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 6 (Gazely Mercedes Benz Premier), an Information was lodged by Mr John Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that M Singh allowed his mount to shift inwards near the 1500m when not at the required distance clear of WHATSUP which was checked. Prior to the commencement ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 6 (Gazely Mercedes Benz Premier), an Information was lodged by Mr John Oatham alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that L Innes the rider of EFFERVESCENT allowed his mount to shift inwards near the 200m when not clear of WHATSUP (S McKay) which clipped heels and fell. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Shrewd UK punters using drones to gain an edge Drones with cameras attached are appearing at UK racecourses. Article Author Brad Waters 21 January 2019 Crafty UK punters have caused a stir with the use of drones flying over racecourses to aid ‘in-running’ betting. The use of drones has been reported at multiple UK racecourses in recent weeks as punters use drones with cameras attached to fly over races in order to beam back pictures to give them an edge when betting in the run. The drone pictures get back to a few punters before the broadcast pictures get to television audiences, giving those with access to the feed an advantage over those watching the commercial racing coverage. ‘That overhead view is massive. If you can see a manoeuvre before anyone else it gives you a massive advantage,” a punter told UK newspaper then Daily Mail. The Daily Mail reported witnessing an operator flying a drone from the roof of a nearby building to follow a race down the back straight at one racecourse. “We, along with a number of other racecourses around the country, have seen an increase in unauthorised drones and similar remote-controlled aircraft which we suspect are being used to capture and broadcast live pictures of our racing,” a spokesman for the Arena Racecourse Company, which runs multiple racecourses in the UK, said. The ARC representative said the company viewed the practice of recording races from drones as “theft” from the commercial broadcasters. Interestingly, The Guardian reported racetracks sell a similar service to on-course punters, who pay thousands of pounds for the right to sit in a box at racetracks and view the official pictures before they are broadcast to television viewers. The Guardian reported punters paying for the official service on track enjoyed an advantage of up to 10 seconds over the majority of betting exchange customers. The British Horseracing Authority released a statement confirming the responsibility for policing the drones rested with the racecourses. “Responsibility for preventing unauthorised intrusion by drones above a racecourse sits with the racecourses themselves,” the BHA media manager Robin Mounsey said. “If required or appropriate, racecourses might wish to call on the support of local law enforcement to deal with an issue around unregulated drones. “The BHA stewards would become involved if they are asked by the racecourse executive to either delay or abandon a race or races because drones were on site and causing a risk to horses, participants or the general public.”

As Chimbu has pointed out it is on Stuff - they actually have the video in slow mo. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12193643 Apparently the rooftop boys are wearing skin coloured underwear.

He obviously loved the "open spaces" at Tauherenikau and Wanganui. Can you show us your betting slip for the collect you got off Gorbachev?

I might add that the Greyhounds definitely and possibly both Harness and Thoroughbreds Rules are not aligned to the JCA decision regarding stakeholder Social Media participation. Which is great because I know there are licensees who comment on BOAY.

I recall all of us having this debate at the time of Morty's case. The JCA may well be like a semi-quasi High Court however that is to the racing industry's advantage. It is a less expensive option than the High Court and provides an independent adjudicator i.e. it allows a fairer system then allowing the RIU to be the Police, Judge and Jury. The RIU spent a large amount of money challenging the right of licensees to comment publically and challenge their decisions. They failed and they know they would fail in the High Court as well.

You are correct Curious but that won't stop her from getting grief from the RIU. They have short memories. Unfortunately for some the price of free speech is too high.

View the full article

Loyalty to whom and what Kakama? If I recall correctly you got the flick at both RC' s.

I don't have time to read every single post and moderate them. I'm relying on the community to regulate itself. I will read all content reports to the moderator. However I do not spend 24/7 on BOAY. Particularly this past two weeks when I have had my young daughter staying with me. I will intervene if I determine that a post oversteps the mark. Today one did. I may have erred in editing the offensive comment from the original post and subsequent quotes. However I took the approach I did because the comment crossed the line and person it was about is not here to defend themselves. Secondly I left the rest because in my opinion it was valid opinion. I'm now being told I should have left it up so people can file defamation proceedings. You'd be surprised how many "expert" legal practioners are on this site! If Mardigras, Curious, Thomass and Reefton want to call each other idiots then go for it. I'm not defending Thomaas but did anyone notice that he was right and Reefton was wrong when it came to the actual barrier positions at Hokitika? Thomaas has been posting on the site since it started and it seems it is now a BIG issue. Aside from the fact that he is probably enjoying the oxygen and limelight that you are giving him! Ignore those you don't like. I'll will reply to whoever I feel I want to. I was certainly interested in the protest that was organised for Trentham. If it hadn't been for the Tank how may of us would have known about it?

Do what "decisively"?

On what grounds Hesi?

Act "decisively" and do what?