Taku Umanga

Not the first time that's been said to be fair .... or was it that I thought I knew everything .... hmmmmm?

Surely it's time for HRNZ to rescind some licences

Wallis and Hackett

Especially since he got warned for the same thing at Cambridge on 9 November ..... different rules depending on who you are methinks! Warnings: Race 2 Z Butcher (MUSTANG SALLY) [Rule 869(4)] - Driving in a manner likely to cause interference. MUSTANG SALLY - Driver Z Butcher was cautioned in regard to the manner he eased the pace after reaching the lead passing the 1800 metres inconveniencing trailing runners.

Posted on the Harness Owners Facebook page https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/tricks-of-the-trade-how-epo-used-for-blood-doping-a-horse/#disqus_thread

Or Ricky May's thrashing of Inky Lord when he won - the replay shown yesterday was a real example of excessive whip use.

I must be one of the few that has never watched this show

http://www.harnesslink.com/New-Zealand/Fwd--Owners-and-Trainers-Newsletter-November-2018

Got 6

The Police do not produce evidence at the first appearance - they lay an information which only outlines the ingredients of the charge ..... that is why most first appearances result in a remand without plea. If the accused pleads guilty on the first appearance the Police will produce a summary of facts at that time and the matter will be dealt with. Anyway, that's how it was done in the hundreds of times that I attended Court .... albeit a few years back.

I doubt that any evidence would have even been presented on the first day so my guess is that Mr Z is wrong

I reckon - all trainers that have a horse return a positive swab should insist that samples be taken from boxes AND the horse latrine to see if any contamination can be attributed to that. Seen plenty of blokes relieving themselves in there.

Update on Raceday Exclusions 24 October 2018 By Michael Guerin Two of New Zealand harness racing’s biggest names could know by the end of the week whether than can resume driving on raceday. The Judicial Control Authority heard submissions from two horsepeople as well as representatives of the Racing Integrity Unit in Christchurch yesterday about the exclusion notices served on the pair. The exclusion notices were issued after a number of Canterbury properties were raided and arrests made in September but the names of those charged and the exact nature of the charges are subject to suppression by court order. The horsepeople involved have been allowed to train and drive at workouts and trials but not raceday and they, listed as Mr X and Mr Y at yesterday’s hearing, are seeking to have those exclusions lifted so they have return to driving at race meetings. The JCA reserved their decision but it is expected that decision could be released before the end of the week or next week at the latest as one of the most important times in harness racing, New Zealand Cup, looms. While only two of the horsepeople facing charges argued against their exclusion notices yesterday if the JCA rules in their favour and they return to race driving it is expected the exclusion notices for all those charged will be lifted until their charges are heard, more than likely not until next year. A court date has been set for later next month to determine whether the suppression of names and the exact charges remain.

Was given a final warning for racing manners. Different thing from being unruly from mobile. Perhaps it's gone good enough from the mobile lately to gain entry back into the draw?

Trainer Name: Robert Dunn NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club Inc Hayden's Meddle Race 6 7:40pm Thu 11 Oct 2018 NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club Inc Woodstone Race 7 8:11pm Thu 11 Oct 2018 NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club Inc Pro Surfer Race 9 9:10pm Thu 11 Oct 2018 Auckland Trotting Club Inc Chevron Supreme Race 8 9:20pm Fri 12 Oct 2018

John Dunn too

Driving at the trials today ..... https://infohorse.hrnz.co.nz/datahr/trials/100396tr.htm

No guilty pleas according to the reports I've read

I see your point - under the new race-fixing legislation perhaps they should be ..... but it appears almost all positives are dealt with using the "presenting" charge where "intent" is not one of the ingredients of the offence. I think someone would need to be charged with "administering" to be covered by the criminal legislation too.

Personally I'd rather the Police and Courts deal with criminals than the RIU and JCA.

..... and why not? Race fixing and supplying drugs are criminal offences.

I think natural justice comprises two rules, the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. Can't see why these wouldn't apply to the RIU and HRNZ, but also haven't seen where either has breached the rules - the earlier naming of the accused was done by the media if memory serves correct. I can't see how the exclusion from racecourses could be considered a breach of natural justice as the law allows it for the purposes mentioned in my previous post.

They haven't had their licences revoked (yet) which HRNZ is entitled to do - each licence-holder agrees to this when they sign their licence application every year. The RIU has excluded the accused from attending racecourses (nothing to do with HRNZ) under section 34 of the Racing Act 2003 where they are doing so for "the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the conduct of horse racing and the integrity of racing betting". That being the case, why in the world should the RIU allow the accused back on a racecourse until this mess is sorted out. Public perception and the integrity of the industry should prevail over anything else. Those bleating about innocence until proven guilty need to consider the bigger picture here.

Perhaps because a precedent had already been set and if they hadn't they would be dealing with an appeal? Reasons for Penalty [10] The Committee took into consideration that a fine of $150 had been imposed for a recent breach of this Rule where the facts of the case were very similar. [11] Mr Roberts had admitted the breach and had a clear record in regard to this rule. [12] After taking all factors into consideration, including the previous penalty in very similar circumstances, the Committee determined that a fine of $150 was an appropriate penalty in this case.

Yep - that tactic is often used by defendant's in court - attack the process used and those bringing the prosecution ..... but in this instance it is the Police prosecuting - not the RIU!