the galah

They refered to it at length because that was a summary of the main thrust of mcgraths lawyers case. thats what they do,sum up what was presented to them. Basically my reading of the decision is once they rejected they should re litigate the original sentence,that only left mcgraths case with he was remorseful ,rehabilitated and he had served 4 years. Basically not much to halve an 8 year penalty. Hall,mcgraths lawyer,was strongly critical of the RIB's submission but the adjudicators said halls submissions were not accurate or helpful. So the adjudicators clearly found the RIB submissions were a more accurate and appropriate summary of what should happen. I understand there will be times the RIB deserves criticism,but clearly this isn't the case here. So its all well and good to jump on the anti RIB band wagon,but people need to pick more accurately when its appropriate.

as i quoted earlier,the decision said this..... But is says they did reject they should review the origanal penalty. They specifically say they..... cannot review the unchallenged(no appeal) decision of the judicial committee. can't be much clearer than that. I agree ,given mcgrath's counsel and it seems the rib focused on the justification of the original penalty,you would have to think they thought it was an appeal of the orignal decision. that never made much sense for a rule to be written in a way that usurped the function of the original appeal process.Was it hrnz or counsel for mcgrath who got that focus bit wrong or maybe a bit of both. perhaps the current decision will have clarified its function for fututre applications. Even calling them an appeal committee gives the impression it was an appeal against the original sentence.It seems a somewhat misleading name. the current adjudicators wouldn't have named themselves,it would have been done by hrnz sothey should be responsible for the lack of clarity prior to this case?. you make some good points in your last 3 posts though.

I don't think they would get much support myself.. They haven't in the past,so why would they now. I do see some benefit in having a system where people can put a claiming price on their horse.And the handicappers and race programmers could put conditions on a race which would allow horses with a particular claiming price to start in.That did work in the past to a degree. Having said that ,the handicapping system has been stuffed for ages and they haven't changed it.So,given the same people would be having the input around what races the claimers went in,who would have much confidence in them working claimers out right.

whether mcgrath would or wouldn't have been successful on appeal is debateable,but we do know the adjudicators were wise and legally experienced people and their original judgement reflected that. When you say the latest hearing was more an appeal against the original sentence,that was a concept clearly rejected by the appeal judges. mcgrath's cousel may have treated it like that,but he got it wrong. Mcgraths cousel i think,like his supporters at HRNZ,have become too personally involved and have lost perspective. Parole the word you use/steps needed to be undertaken to resume ones career,whatever you call it . i think they are there. Its just a matter of HRNZ using common sense and applying them at the appropriate time. Hrnz did not use common sense when granting mcgrath permission to break in after such a short period of time. If anything you could argue HRNZ abused the spirit of the rules by doing that. It was pointed out at the latest hearing that even if mcgrath's had have won the case and had the disqualification ended,it did not mean he would automatically be granted a licence to train again. But given HRNZ"s past decision making it appears they are happy to bend over backwards for someone who breaks the rules and has connections with those in authority. That wasn't a good look which ever way you cut it. anyway,If and when he is successful in a subsequent appeal in the future,that would be the appropraite time for HRNZ to take the transitional approach to mcgraths return.That would be the time when he should be granted approval to break in and pre train,with conditions that should he have no rule breaches say within 12 months,then he could say train a team of no more than 10 racehorses,then in another 12 months he could become fully licensed again. There needs to be common sense applied and they need to have people at hrnz making decsions about mcgrath who have no conflict of interest.If they did that,then it would help mcgrath be perceived better.

No. i have faith that when it comes to length of penalties,the adjudicators know exactly what they are doing. 8 years ,not challened at all by appeal,was the sentecnce,so i believe that to be fair.. read the original decision,which i just did again,it seems very fair. But the logic i apply is. its obvious 8 years is a long sentence. I accept mcgrath today has made changes. In particular i accept hes more genuinely remorseful and has done proper self reflection on appropraite standards he must uphold to be a trainer. While the original adjudicators gave him some credit for that at the time,they stated in their decision that they only gave him a small credit due tio the mitigating factors. Also,in my opinion,at the time of the original sentence his actions thereafter were more an indication of someone upset by the predicament they found themselves in than genuine someone rejecting what they had done. So given,how mcgrath has progressed in his remore and rehabilatation,i believe it logical that it is reasonable to give greater weight to that aspect. So its reasonable for any future appeal hearing, to factor that in when deciding whether that future date is an ok time to allow him back.I think they should and will the factors i have mentioned never warranted the sentence being halved though. Just the wrong time,and i thought that should have been pretty obvious before he even tried.

you call me naive quite a bit. naive isn't accurate. i think you find me irritating at times,so just call me that.I won't take offence to that.. When you talk about their opinions. I guess you mean other industry participants who thought it would be sending the wrong message if they were to halve the 8 year sentence. reality is integrity issues and peoples perception of how they are dealt with, is very important in my opinion. As to people changing their minds you say. i haven't been talking about people changing their minds. in that respect,i've been talking about people who think mcgraths sentence of 8 years was at the high end of the spectrum and would have no issue with it being reduced to say 6 years. Not halving ,that was never going to be successful and thats exactly how it played out wasn't it. But serving 75% of his sentence seems to fall within the realms of reasonable. thats as i see it.always have. thats why i predict he will be back in two years. good luck to him when he does. thasts why i support the hrnz rule, which if applied properly,creates leeway for someone to transition back into the sport through progressive steps.hrn

In my opinion,clearly your analysis is missing the blatantly obvious. the two decisions made in respect of mcgrath, being given permission to break in 18 months ago and the recent appeal. The most obvious thing is who is mcgrath listening to? Because whoever it is, is giving him some very poor advice. imagine encouraging mcgrath to seek permission to break in without ever having an understanding of the emotional stress,the negative press ,the cost ,the negative social media and very importantly how such approval would be perceived by other licence holders and the wider industry. Talk about reading the room wrong. the one thing mcgrath seems to place very high value on is ironically his respect amongst his peers. yet there he was,given advice to do something and no one thought to seek out what his peers thought or how it would be recieved. What were hrnz and mcgraths advisors thinking when giving him approval to break in so early in his sentence? do they care about the guy or not. Then the latest application. You would have thought ,having been publically humiliated to a degree with the first thing,his advisors would have wanted to protect him from the same stresses this time and at least learnt from the previous mistakes. He should only ever have been put through the latest hearing on the understanding of his application being a good thing to win. but that wasn't the case. again supported by the same echo chamber ,same lack of foresight. hell,you can't but have a degree of sympathy for the bloke just because of that. so once again hes comes out losing and once again people who supported him will deflect with things like personalities that didn't support him or dragging operation inca into the conversation. The whole things rather pathetic really. If mcgrath were to ask me,i would give him this advice. Don't listen to your current advisors. Sure,loyal support from them will be very valuable when he does make his come back and their intent should be appreciated,but they have a track record of giving you bad advice when it comes to these matters. When mcgrath makes his next application ,which he should in a couple of years,get the support of his peers like mark jones and use someone like that to set up something where he can discuss getting the support of the trainers and drivers association,create proper dialogue with thr RIB and stop treating them as the enemy,its not helping him,and just be transparent and up front with everyone.. Then his application will very likely be granted and while it may not please everyone,those who still opposed it won't mame a song and dance about it ,as their issue with him was always related to his actions,not his personality.

No,no negative at all. tab forever sums it up well as relates to that. Its the fact he was willing to express his opinion,knowing he was representing a point of view held by many,but also knowing he would cop criticism for doing so. Your a funny man chief. Calling house a patsy. doesn't patsy mean someone who is easy to cheat or take advantage of. If he were a patsy he would have not taken a stance where he expresses strong opinions against cheating.

I don't know chief. this topic has gone off on a bit of a tangent,but it happens sometimes i suppose. Like i have said .Your hard to please. I know a couple of trainers who i speak to from time to time who have had horses with house and they have earned substantial amounts. They aren't top liners but very handy horses. i have spoken to them in the past and briefly asked them what they thought of house and they have said nothing but positive things. comparing michael house with mark purdon is unfair. On one hand you have a trainer with millionaire owners who move on any horse that they don't consider capable of competing at high levels.Then you have house who takes on horses of varying abitlities,often at the lower end,and plots a course with them to reach their maximum earning potential. On one hand you have a trainer who mostly runs in races with the high stakes,races that don't generate profit from turnover. on the other hand you have a trainer who is recognised as providing the most horses to regularly race, in the races around canterbury that keep the industry going,the races that generate profit from turnover compared with stakes paid.The very races that help fund the high stake races . You don't have to agree with what he says and you can think hes average if you want. I don't agree,but surely even you can see how important he is to the industry and why he has every rite to express opinions. I'm putting the michael house cheerleader pom poms back in the closet where they belong now. I have used them too much today already i think.

Whenever did i say there weren't factions within the industry. In fact i even quoted mark jones in the post right before yours,where he said.....never seen the industry stand up so strong together against something that isn't right... so if i'm quoting that it indicates i'm illustrating the industry is often divided on many issues. I'm not a cheerleader for m house,nor want to be. But as the major has pointed out,house is currently 4th on the premiership. In fact hes finished in the top 4 for the last 7 years. your a tough judge chief. i suspect you wouldn't be calling him that if he said things you agree with. i wonder what you think of the other 502 trainers who finish behind him?

Walt,when does the timeframe happen where you come to describe someone as vindictive,holier than thou and wishing to kick a man when they are down kick in? I ask that question because this was widely reported 18 months ago when HRNZ made a decision to allow mcgrath to break in horses.A decision at the time suppoerted by the same people who supported him this time. "Trainers bombarded the board of hrnz with emails and letters demanding the decision be revisted.Some say the the issue has brought unhappiness with industry leadership to a head...........Robert dunn ,a board member was asked for comment but did not respond.." Mark jones was quoted he had "never seen the industry stand up so strong together against something that isn't right". "no one has anything personal against nigel. Whoever supported this has let the industry down...it sends completely the wrong message" "If they are going to make an exemption for nigel,they have to do it for others. Who's next" of note,that was not even as significant as an apllication to half his disqualificion. I'm sure you get my point walt,that is, Its not unreasonable to express an opinion,when asked,that someone should not have their disqualification halved. it doesn't make you the things you descrobed m house as for having that opinion. as to reading the decision. yes i had assumed you had read the decision. But i had also assumed,rightly or wroongly, you had preconceived thoughts on his original penalty,knew the current application had been dismissed then read the decision and after you had read the first part,you would have been thinking was does mcgrath have to do to catch a break,so when it came to what i personally consider was the most omportant part of the decsion,the reason why they dismissed the appeal,you didn't place the significance to it that it warranted. Thats why i specifically suggested you read that part. Anyway. ,i sincerely hope whatever it is that you say you will focus on in the near future goes well for you. I look forward to you getting back to having spare time again to express your opinions on here,which i always enjpy reading.

They just target the gambling sites. i'm no expert but i think they work out where you are based on your internet and if that said you were from nz ,the internet providers would have been told by our government to deny access to overseas gambling websites.

yes easy to have symapthy for that aspect of it. But reality is he made the decision to put himself through this stressful process and was why he had to present a strong and compelling case.Especially if he was expecting to overturn such a high profile decision. so he got it wrong and was that a surprise? surely not. Personally i think it very telling that the nz harness trainers and drivers association chose not to make any submissions. Thats a clear indication that they were not willing to go on record as supporting this application. no doubt that is because they realised just how contentious and strongly some people feel about the rule breaches involved .

I had always though the geo blocking thing would have had something to do with ladbrokes approach to nz customers. Ladbrokes is owned by entain isn't it. last year entain stated they would give the government an extra $100 million if they were to geo block overseas betting sites,so that nz customers could only bet on the nz tab. The nz government at the time indicated they intended to. I have read that would be quite difficult to do. but with winston as racing minister maybe racing may get a helping hand if it happened. But it would have to be done sooner rather than later if that were the case. So whats happening,if anything about that.

I'm not going to knock nigel mcgrath as a person. sounds like you know him and have a high opinion of him.I have no doubt he has the qualities you speak of. Good on you for supporting him as i think loyalty is a very important in life. But as to casting the first stone. Well i can tell you, its been obvious the lengths mr mcgrath went to win and if you had raced against him and been beaten because you know you played by the rules and he didn't,your sympathy as regards the predicament he finds himself in,well lets just say most won't have much. Also,you can do both like him and admire many of his obvious qualities as a person,but at the same time recognise that he needed to be penalised for what he was doing. people need to differentiate the two things and not lump things into one category. I put m houses views in that category and your criticism of m house to me is totally unwarranted on this matter. From the people i speak to,what m houses says most of the time,the vast majority totally agree with.I think hes far more in touch with grass roots participants thinking. And even when people don't agree with what he may be saying,they respect him because they see him as someone willing to not be cowered into towing the line or the turning a blind eye. You know,when it comes to mr house,i think people in a group will criticise him,as if its what they think they should be seen saying,but when your having a one on one conversation with those very same people they will actually express opinions similar to his and indicate they respect him. But i think you need to read the decision in full. it said,"this tribunal should not and cannot review the unchallenged decision of the judicial committee.Much odf the material filed for mr mcgrath was critical of that decision. The only way that decision could be challenged was to formally appeal." The tribunal pointed out mcgrath never took any steps to appeal the original sentence.

whats the mcgrath application got to do with operation inca? would mcgrath have been caught milkshaking his horse if not for the fact he was under more scrutiny because of operation inca? Are you saying the the integrity unit can be used to put pressure and cause stress to certain people on the whim of someone with connections to hrnz,but can't be asked for an opinion on a disqualified person getting there licence back?

the hearing does give us some clues about things, it showed people with influence and standing will try and use that to assist someone they know and like. personally i may not agree with their thinking the disqualification should be halved,but i find it understandable that people supporting mcgrath would do that. then again i could say,what say the facts were the same,but the personality was not mcgrath and instead some hardly known small timer. Well i know the answer to that,Sorry small timer,go away,we don't care. Which is why i give kudos for michael house being willing to be named as opposing the application. House has clearly looked at the application,taken out the personality side of it,and expressed his opinions based on whether someone who gets disqualified for 8 years should get the sentence halved.. Now those hearing the case obviously came to the conclusuion that they didn't need to know what house thought. I suppose they made it clear that they weren't influenced by house from their wording,but they would have read what he said. At the end of the day those making the decision clearly didn't think now was an appropriate time to tamper with the original sentence.Maybe it will happen in the future. But i think the hearing should be seen as having dealt with the facts,irrespective of the personality. which of course is how everyone should hope it would be,whatever side you were supporting.

the appliaction to allow n mcgrath to resume training was dismissed. But the published decision did have some interesting things. I found it interesting that HRNZ had at one point agreed to allow mr mcgrath to break in and gait horses. What was interesting about that,was it was acknowledged that the approval was done without any consultation with the Intergrity unit. Now call me cynical,but don't those associated with HRNZ sometimes consult with the integrity unit and ask them for imput on matters of far, far less significance than the mcgrath case. What was going on with hrnz there? was it because the integrity unit would have opposed that. Seems a major double standard by those at hrnz. Turned out mcgrath didn't take up the breaking in of horses as he was upset by the adverse publicity. interesting that mr mcgrath would not want to bring adverse publicity upon himself and the industry. So you have to wonder,given he thinks of the negative consequences for that,how did he get a different mindset for the cause of the predicament he finds himself in.Thats interesting. The trainers and drivers association didn't provide support or otherwise to his application. Robert dunn obviously provided a reference to support mr mcgraths application and the finding noted he is a prominent figure in harness racing. Interesting that those hearing the case would call him a prominent figure,but when it came to michael house providing an affidavit that opposed the application,they described him as someone speking as an individual. So if they describe house like that,then who was dunn speaking for, as i thought he is also only one person,the definition of an individual. I thought those hearing the case used confusing language there. good on dunn and house for both going on record.Especially House given that he may be speaking for the majority,but the majority is often preferred not to be heard. At the end of the day,it must have cost mr mcgrath a lot to have that hearing and he may have to pay costs. Hes only try6ing to do whats best for himself and his family so you can't blame him for that. But somehow you would think the people advising him have given him some bum advice. perhaps he will l;earn from this hearing and approach it in a way next time where he may have more success with a similar application at a more realistic time.

tony camerons winning was also the highlight for me.. The post race trackside interview and coverage captured the occasion well.Just had a feel good vibe to it. It would have been interesting to see whether mach shard would have won Must have gone close as it was going easy at the time.can't win them all i suppose.

my guess would be the race got a reasonable couple of minute lead in time in australia,and given the nz part of our pool is not much,the australian parts that were commingled mostly went onto better eclipse, as you would expect. He was favorite on the tabcorp pool as well that had $7000 in it.

we have been over it a few times in the past so don'treally feel like going over it again when this topic is about another stable. but the only thing about your post that i would clarify. I have never said the all stars are dishonest but i have said i believed,at times in the past, on the big days they do things which enables them to gain an advantage others don't.They have the resources and contacts to do so.. As to stakes per start won. I don't care about that. owners might,but i don't. My perspective has always been. Was i always able to make an informed assesment of a horses chances based on previous recent form. The answer would be yes for the dunns but at times in the past,no for the all stars.i'm just talking about the big days or the big stakes races. You can do things legally but still gain an advantage which could be argued as unfair.

I pointed out they had an abnormally long time for them between wins.That was true. you say i said why,but you make that bit up like you can do sometimes. i also noted they had to start winning again as they had so many nice horses. Even at that time i think john dunn was driving ok,but hes currently displaying just how skilled he can be, when at the peak of his game.Every horse hes driving at the moment hes driving inch perfect and hes currently so consistent at that.

i think everyone enjoys seeing good horses race,whatever the age,but particularly the older horses. Your obviously in it for the love of the sport,both horses and people.. When its comes to some topics discussed on here. theres a difference between negativity and negative reality. i think HRNZ needs a 5 year,a 10 year plan published with detailed financial goal setting and analysis,setting up where the industry is heading and also laying the groundwork for the implementaion of the hard decisions that will need to be made by administrators. And its important that if we have administrators ignoring realities, then they need called out.

Gamblers in that study,were classified as anyone who gambled on anything legal on regular basis. So that has to be taken into consideration when assessing those figures. it included pokies,horse racing,sports,scratchies,lotteries,etc, The australian product in 2022 that was getting the highest average spend from someone classified as a gambler, was gallops,i think at an average of $91 per month. i threw the figures out there to highlight how overall,australian harness compares to australian greyhounds.They seem to have a handful of million dollar races over there for the dogs. its hard to imagine dogs ever becoming more popular than harness in nz. The greyhound track at addington in my opinion is a terrible on course viewing track.

so the decision by the appeal committee is now up on the RIU website. Those hearing the appeal noted... it is not enough for a driver to sit motionless in the cart and not take some steps to encourage his horse... so mr nairns appeal was dismissed and his 10 day suspension stands. Really,its easy to understand where nairn was coming from. But he had to lose that appeal. They could not set a precedent of overlooking or condoning the possible implications.