the galah

The judgement said this.. "The applicant brought her application for review on 2 grounds. The first ,which was pressed with the greatest force is that of procedural impropriety. The second is that the penalty imposed on the applicant and upheld by the tribunal was disproportionately severe. As it turns out,i am satisfied as to the second ground and need not determine the first".

You've highlighted only part of the judgment. It needs to be read in totality. Like i said,having read the judgment,in my opinion the period of disqualification needs to and will be reduced.

i think the trackside presenters do a pretty good job. i I personally like it when marc cookson or nicole sims do the presenting, They give informed opinions,while doing it in a way which leaves the punter to make their own informed decisions on who to invest on. Trackside doesn't promote them as expert tipsters like they push the expertise of the whale.Like i have said before,and everybody should already know,the whale tends to dumb down the casual punters as they rely on him to think for them when making punting decisions. Being a trackside tipster is a tricky thing. I'm not so sure your right when you say its easy to make money betting on nz harness.I think its getting harder. The number of punters is dwindling,and its the less successful who are giving it away.Leaving the more successful and knowledgable. Meaning its harder to find value. When households struggle to make ends meet as things have become,then spending is focused on the essentials needed just to survive,and punters who don't return a profit only choice is to cut back on the betting.That must be happening more and more these days.

I read it as well. I guess you mistyped and meant wasn't presented. Anyway,i think its obvious they will reduce her period of disqualification ,even if you don't.

Thats your interpretation,,not mine. Sounds like your saying, the RIB chose not to present evidence proving the original penalty was consistent with what others have received,and if they had then ms wigg wouldn't have had the case sent back to the RIB for reconsideration. Well if the RIB couldn't prove it to the high court,then why would you expect they could prove it to anyone else? Or maybe you are just disagreeing with what i have said ,just because you like to do that.

I agree with a lot of what you say,but its unrealistic and unreasonable to expect the ruling of the high court to be ignored. Wigg had a win of sorts in that respect and therefore deserves to have her disqualification term reduced.

Don't see how you drew that conclusion. My view is,that based on information gathered,they believed someone was committing a serious breaches of the rules,so they used their resources to investigate. As a result of that investigation they uncovered wrongdoing. Thats their job. The penalties and the processes around hearings are what Ms Wigg raised in her case. I always believe it is a positive that the RIB are actively using resources to attempt to create a more level playing for for all participants to compete on. I have always been consistent in my view on that. The licenceholders involved in such things are subject to comment based on what they do,not who they are.

Yes. i realised that. Thanks for clarifying that part of my post.

Not sure i have ever commented about the backgrounds of those who work at the RIB or the likes of the adjudicators. Nor have i commented on the processes of things like appeals,or whether there are possible conflicts of interest. What i have commented on previously is whether the current RIB does a better job in enforcing the rules in a way that treats everyone in a similar manner,in other words not deeming some to be deserving of preferential treatment/protection, based on their level of success. And the opposite,not targeting someone because they are deemed an easy target. As far as that goes i have far more confidence in the current/recent RIB ,than previous administrators of such things. Also,what i occasionally comment on,is what in my opinion,are the right and wrongs of the cases. I don't have set views which have a start point of looking for fault in the way a matter is being policed.

So it seems a given that Wigg's period of disqualification will be reduced and that she proved her point that it was excessive, when comparing it to similar breaches of cases that she brought to the courts attention. Some interesting points the judge made around the penalty guidelines He said the industry participants should have access to the guide which sets out the penalties for such offences,but it wasn't proven that they did. That penalties should be decided by those hearing the cases and not the industry(hrnz),saying it was not for the industry to have the level of input it does in formulating the penalties that are to be imposed. Also he had reservations about whether the penalty guide that changed in 2018 to recognise the severity of certain breaches of similar rules,in fact applied to the rule wigg was charged with. The most obvious thing he didn't rule on,which seemed earlier to be the main thrust of wiggs case,was whether the make up of the panels hearing the appeals of these type of cases were biased,given the members hearing them came from the same pool of people that had heard the case originally. Seems he felt he didn't have to decide that given his decision around the penalty. Seems he kicked for touch on that one. Whether anyone else in the future would pursue a case to that court based solely on that point,would seem unlikely given the cost. I wonder what the ruling is on whether hrnz has to contribute to any of ms wigg's costs of bringing the case. They no doubt would have been quite substantial, so she must be hoping she recovers even a portion of them. It may have been an interesting case,but it wasn't one that effects the every day industry participant, as only those charged with that type of charge has to deal with it. The likes of whether a trainer/driver is being fairly and consistently treated in a knowledgeable way when it comes to the day to day calls around the likes of ordinary occurrences like interference or whip rule breaches,relegations,etc. Those debates will continue every so often.

What are you trying to say hunter? If your trying to say that you believe the horse having the early stages of a respiratory infection/virus, was the reason he performed poorly,then thats for you to think.. I will stick with what the horse did pre start as more of a factor.I thought it was obvious myself..I've given my thoughts on why that happened. Just common sense . Have you heard the saying "pulling themselves into the ground". There is a reason for that saying....you should know that lol

Which just proves my point doesn't it. Obviously they took them off because of what he had done in the preliminary. Any trainer makes gear changes with the best of intentions, but sometimes they get it wrong. Looked pretty obvious from what we saw on tackside pre start that the horse had used an awful lot of energy before the start of the race,when he had the blinds on. As you said,the stipes report said early signs of a respiratory infection,and poor recovery.. Again,the poor recovery would have been a result of the energy expended before it even started,then having to run a race where it burnt very hard early,then he over raced. What horse wouldn't have a poor recovery in those circumstances? As to the early signs of a respiratory infection. The day of the race there was a write up on the HRNZ website in which dalgety was quoted as being very confident in his horse being in the right condition for a top run. Early signs of a respiratory infection, Whats does that mean anyway. Did he cough,which could have another cause,or did he have a runny nose. I posted a couple of months ago that i thought krug's somewhat inconsistent performances over the last 12 months were an indication of the very hard racing hes had earlier in his career.He put up some wonderful runs as a young horse,but as to current expectations,well he should be rated on how he is running recently,and not what he did when he was younger. Thats my opinion. Some no doubt may disagree.

The dalgety stable had been quoted in the media as saying they were hoping to see a statement performance from the horse to ensure he got a spot in the grins race. Therefore you wouldn't be surprised if they had trained him in a way that would mean that he had an aggressive mindset. The horse has been known to over race previously and last night they took the ear plugs off and added the blinds. The vision of him pre race where dalgety couldn't pull him uop in his prelimanary indicated it was as much the trainer not getting it quite right,as much as it was the horses fault. So maybe a bit of that along with what you say about stallions.

Do you think there is an opportunity for a trainer who lives close to palmerston north to step into his shoes. After all they seem to win plenty of stake money and travel costs wouldn't be a factor. Or would it not work as m house is a better trainer?

Hes trains lots of ex nz horses Brodie. For example of his 69 starters tomorrow, 30 are ex nz horses.Many more than those from nz in his stable. A lot of names you would recognise as having been winners,some quite successful. Your right there rangitara.The former all star horse has won 6 races in tasmania for yole. All in races with stakes of around $6,000. Going by the reports you read,it seems horses like him mostly don't get the retirement they deserve if trained by Yole. Yopu can't help but think that when someone operates on such a scale,and they treat the horse as just a commodity ,to be discarded once no longer useful,then the person doing operates on such a scale that they are desensitived to the cruel things they do.

One possible path forward would be for leadership to recognise that centralisation isn't a philosophy that improves the overall well being of the industry. Centralisation doesn't necessarily increase the overall $ wealth of the industry,it just transfers the $ wealth into the hands of a smaller,supposedly wiser group of decision makers and administrators. The down side to centralisaton,is it erodes the main asset the industry has,which is the vast web of industry participants. Its a bit like a spiders web. The threads of the web are held together by relationships forged by the common interest in harness racing and horses. Centralisation in effect cuts away at those threads and the industry weakens with each cut/closure. Leadership are making decisions which are well intentioned. i just think true leadership would be to consider the possibility that decisions made don't always have to be final. There needs to be a fair analysis of the consequences of the changes they made and future decisions based on that analysis. Things don't have to be set in stone,as there is still a small but diminishing window to change tact. As far as timaru goes.Numbers wise they have quire a few gallopers trained there,so its hard to think it makes sense to close.. What is noticeable is the public don't turn up to Timaru like they do to tracks like waimate and geraldine. Obviously part of the reason is because the one day a year clubs put a lot of energy into promoting their own racedays.But if you look at geraldine,probably two thirds of those who attend the november meeting normally come from timaru. But those numbers are never replicated at timaru.Part of the reason for that is Timaru has a good grass track,but for reasons unknown don't race on it.Perhaps that is because the gallopers won't let them,who knows.Also if you looked at their public car park,it always looked unsuitable for the public although that may be changing.

I assume she took the vaccine otherwise she wouldn't have been allowed on course. So her drawing the line on wearing a mask and not on injecting a vaccine into her body, that many had justified doubts over, seems a bit strange. So those who had chosen not to be coerced into doing something they didn't feel comfortable with,knew a consequence was not being able to attend race meetings. So given that, its a bit hard to see any justification in her comments.

Aquaman,you've previously pointed out the type of comments made by waretini about being a victim simply because of the colour of her skin are divisive and unnecessary. Yet no mention of that this time. Wheres the consistency?

I thought i must have been reading the coverage from a CNN reporter or comments from a nz green MP. But no. It was in fact a decision dated 23 march 2023 on the RIB website, surrounding ms waretini's comments to a stipe when asked to wear a mask almost a year ago,when masks were mandatory. Waretini's comments to the stipe when asked to wear a mask...well he accused him of being a racist and picking on the only brown skinned person there. Then when spoken to again and directed to wear a mask she apparently kept yelling out that all the RIB were racist and she was going to take it to the media. People often say stupid things in the heat of the moment,but ms waretini's reaction sure was colourful. Not sure if that is the right word????

It seems the story just gets more publicity each day. More industry participants willing to openly talk about what they view as blatant corruption. All seem to have no confidence in the integrity unit,some even seem to believe the Integrity unit,and in particular one employee are corrupt. Also some have indicated they feel they have been targets of the integrity unit for having previously raised concerns. The racing minister,after originally announcing an inquiry into the allegations was to be done by the integrity unit,now saying it will be an independent review given the allegations against the integrity unit. An opposition vote of no confidence in the racing minister to be tabled. The RSPCA saying they had visited the yole stables 13 times in the last year but the resources required to deal with the situation was greater than they had. Perhaps the saddest thing is you are seeing many in the tasmanian industry ,who have the guts to come forward,speaking up knowing that by doing so,they may be bringing about the demise of the industry they love and participate in.

When you look at the on course attendance of some of the meetings that no longer are allowed to race at their own venues,it does make you wonder if forcing clubs to move is the right path. Waimate is just half an hour from oamaru,but it looked like none of the general public from waimate turned up. Contrast that to if the races had been run at waimate,and you could have guaranteed the club would have received good local support as it always used to. A fine day always brings out the locals. And if you were a local waimate trainer/owner,part of the experience of having a horse is recognition from your local community. Its what leads to continued participation. Clubs like geraldine are the same. Clubs don't seem to have any financial incentive to promote on course attendance these days,and transferring more meetings to the same tracks predictably just dilutes the enthusiasm and energy needed to get people on course at the tracks who hold the meetings. When clubs like the aforementioned use low cost leased grounds, and nothing is gained from the facilities that the clubs had on the leased ground,have results shown that the positives out weigh the negatives.Does it make sense to transfer when the one day a year clubs still want to race locally. In the case of waimate they just had spent $400,000 upgrading everything just 5 years ago after an insurance payout. Wouldn't they have still gotten the same fields at either venue. Harness racing is no different to nearly all other sports in as far as having diminishing participation. For example geraldine had always fielded a senior rugby team,but now finds itself having to combine with another team.They still play half their senior games in geraldine,because they recognise that is what is required to maintain participation. Reality is change isn't always for the better.Nothing wrong with trying something different,its just a matter of recognising whether change worked,or whether it was better as it was.

You have been saying for years now that the nz tab ipolicy of discouraging winning punters from investing would one day cost the industry dearly. At the time you first said that i wasn't convinced,but from speaking to others and my own experiences , now believe you were right all along. for example i know someone(not me) who the tab's takeout of money invested through the TOTE would have been somewhere around $350,00 to $400,000 per annum not that long ago,which would have gone to the industry.(mostly harness). Then the tab had the bright idea not that long ago,well because this person might be making something like $80,000 a year on the ff,,the way to reduce that was to introduce an algorithm that would reduce the ff odds pay out and save the tab money because of that. The person was only making a small profit on the tote, but the tab gives punters rebates on % of turnover which means they in effect were making a reasonable profit from the tote investments.. What the TAB ignore is winning punters on the ff use their profit from ff betting to fund their betting on the tote..They also use their profits to fund investment in other forms of the industry. So the result of the tab doing everything they can to discourage this punter,the tab saved about $150,000 but lost the $400,000 in % of $ invested.on the tote. Now anyone with any sense would realise that the tab ,by their own policy,have reduced their income by about $250,000 per annum from just that one punter. That $250,000 could have been used to fund the harness industry where the bulk of the spend was done. We have people running the tab here who have been making decisions with no analysis of the impact on the profit/loss side of their business. Now you take the above example and start to include the many other punters(like myself), on differing scales who the tab has introduced barriers to prevent their profit on the ff betting. Then you look at how it has impacted their tote turnover. The whole thing is broken . Punters are being discouraged and the industry is and will pay dearly for such stupid policies.

Well done for trying to have anyone take action and be pro active in helping the sport,honest participants in Tasmania and the welfare of the horses that race there. Its easy for the likes of me to post anonymously on a harness chat site,but you backed up your convictions by at least trying to do whats tight and push for change for the better.

I'm not here to defend Archie butterfly,but clearly your comments are a totally inaccurate description of his articles on tasmanian harness racing. Aid and abet means to help someone do something illegal and wrong. Clearly he has been doing the opposite. And he is being proved in this case to have previously reported accurately. For example of a headline for one of his earlier stories was "a sport rort run by one-the man who will destroy it". seems Seems the wheels are in motion for that to come true. Also of note he is predicting more media coverage to come about what he has described as mr yoles barbaric animal cruelty practices.

Reading all that and watching the australian TV coverage, you would have to wonder how authorities ever let it become so bad. Gammalite has been telling us its bad for a while. People may either love or hate archie butterfly/peter profit,but most of the time he is on the money.I'm not a subscriber of his, but you can often read some of his stories if you goggle them. He has given the yole stable a thrashing on his website for a long,long time,but its seemed those who ran harness racing in tasmaina and australia just ignored what he said. He currently is suggesting more shocking media revelations/coverage is imminent . He often refers to mr yole as Ben (chainsaw) Yole. Apparently because of the fate that has often awaited the horses he trains. Probably the most ridiculous of comments came from the integrity unit who police the sport in tasmania. They are on record in that news segment as saying they "did not accept there was a serious risk of team driving" ,even when yole has every runner as he often does.That statement despite being given inside information from multiple sources from within the stable. Perhaps they need to have someone with actual integrity,investigate the integrity unit. The most obvious observation is whats obviously been occurring doesn't happen overnight.