Rusty

And because I am such a great guy, and would make a good friend for butcher, I have an idea. I'm also an ideas man (to steal a line from the movie, The Castle). Butcher - or any other restricted punter for that matter; How about posting your tips on this forum for us to follow during a heat of a KPC? It would be a bit of a coincidence if one (or two, or three of the BOAY gang) entered a team in a KPC heat, and then followed the tips posted on here during the heat. And then just so happened to take their advice and place a few bets on the suggested horses. Let's try and beat the TAB at their own game. Anybody up for it? I am sure suitable and mutually beneficial "arrangements" could be made if you know what I mean. And if you dont, go read the greyhound forum.

Surely you have "a friend" that would like to enter? And "your friend" could listen to what you like in each race. And if you do not..... would you like to be "my friend"? I'm friendly. And like receiving tips.

It would be good to see a small "B.S" in the formguide next to the horse's name. "B.S" = Blood Spun.

Haha nice, yeah I know mate.

What is this "darkside channel" you speak of? Is it one of those R18 channels that Sky TV offers? One of those ones where it costs $18.99 per 24hr viewing period? Or so a friend tells me anyway. I only ask, as you mentioned something about getting impressive results. Asking for a friend.

Are they Govt employees? I am.not saying you are wrong, just saying I am unsure about that. The state services commission said they are not Govt employees. Comes back to that question as to who owns the TAB? If they were Govt employees they would be answerable to the public... and one could ask questions, and attempt to obtain information under the Official Information Act. Probably easier just using the Aussie betting agencies!

I never got a response from my tweet to thad taylor at the TAB.... Wasn't really expecting one to be fair.

Haha Newmarket you get the "dollar each way" award. You said one thing (they will get 2 wins), but then undid the nostrodamus work, by saying steer clear of the hot pots! The 2 winners paid $1.80 and $1.50!

Yes, I do recall you saying that. An excellent observation to keep im mind for her drives.

I was very impressed with Craig Rail today. Extremely accurate and clearly knows one end of horse from the other. Not a bad tipster too, especially as he has only been here 5 minutes. Well done Craig, keep up the good work.

Dead right. Maybe driving to instruction?

I think he will get one winner, Arden Roanoke.

It will be interesting to hear commentator Craig Rail call the card at Forbury today. I wish him all the very best. He has sure done his homework listening to him on the radio this morning. Happy - don't let me put you off First Son but I fear he may end up being pushed back too far on the rail. "All dressed up and nowhere to go" for want of a better term. I think The Red Robber may have the go button pushed from the mobile arm, but hopefully Sheree can steer him home for ya.

When being interviewed it is very common (especially leading into or at the start of the spring racing) to hear trainers say: "He (or she) will need the run in this." Have a listen to Radio Trackside's starting gates in the next dozen or so Saturday mornings and you'll hear it all the time. It doesn't soley apply to the gallops either, it is just as common in the harness code. These days most people are time poor and I pity the poor punter that misses this key information. It almost needs a new abbreviation in the form guide, with an asterisk and "NTR" next to the horses name. NTR - NEEDS THE RUN. I'm just joking, but not really.

I 100% agree with everything you said Jess. The rules of racing (in both codes) need to change, where relegation can occur due to excessive, improper or inappropriate use of the whip. Until this happens, jockeys and drivers will forever be up on whip charges. Nothing surer. Currently stewards cannot relegate a winner or placed runner, based on whip use. The rules must surely change, however I am more hopeful than confident.

Haha the horses or the horsemen? Dammit Newmarket, look what you've done. Got that song stuck in me head; "My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, And they're like, it's better than yours. Damn right it's better than yours."

Would be interested in the thoughts of the Racing minister. On why a punter has to jump through hoops to collect their big payout after putting on a few gold coins. Hopefully common sense prevails sooner rather than later and that type of situation can return to normal transmission. I doubt it will, but here is hoping.

Exactly. 100% correct. They (the TAB) could have said that, and perhaps they did try that (I have zero sources at the TAB), but by the end of the negotiation period, it didn't result in that. Brodie on the money (how much money was that Brodster, more than $1,000 haha just jokes mate).

And just for point of clarification those bloody things referred to as "guidelines" and "policies", are different to legislation. But we all knew that. Us punters are a smart bunch haha

The DIA want to identify money launderers. That is an undisputed fact. The TAB monitor and then restrict certain successful punters. That is an undisputed fact. Not all possibilities and outcomes need to (although if it was up to me, they would) be written into legislation (or into an Act). There are always grey areas within any Act, and that's why there will always be a need for lawyers. In this case the figure of $10k is mentioned within the Act. But there is nothing in the Act to say the figure may be $1000 for TABs. This is why I asked my good friend that investigates this stuff for the DIA about it recently. My opinion is that the two agencies have joined forces in a partnership, not only because the Act says they must in a collaborative fashion, but they have each gone a step further than what the legislation allows for, in an attempt to get a bit more "bang for their buck" with this arrangement. It is a bit like "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Both agencies are getting the intel they want out of this, for their own different purposes and benefits. Having said that, it is not illegal for them to do this. Nowhere anywhere does it make it an offence. At that end of the day, what they (DIA and TAB) are doing, is not illegal under the Act. Both agencies, especially the DIA have an almost bottomless pit of financial resources to throw at it, which includes their legal team, to double check everything is above board. This legislation didn't pop up overnight either. The Privacy Act has a dozen principles that must be followed. I think principle numbers 1 and 11 from memory must be adhered to with this situation, mainly on the TABs behalf on how they handle personal data. The thing is, we are buggered and they have got us by the short and curlys. If one doesn't like it, one can only suck it up or walk away as there is nothing anyone can do to get any change from the current process.

Hit the nail on the head.

One of my good mates works at DIA and specifically within the AML CFT compliance unit. I bailed them up over lunch today and asked about this $1k v $10k issue. Apparently it (the $1,000 figure) was a deal struck between the TAB and the DIA. Originally the DIA wanted it to be $500!!! They settled on $1,000. We both have an employment background working with a lot of different legislation. There is no breach of the Act here with the TAB doing what they are doing. Pissing a lot of their customers off, yes perhaps, but not a breach of the legislation. Nothing in the Act to say they cannot do what they are doing.

The vet that gave the clearance to run, needs to be replaced. Everyone in their field of employment makes mistakes (noone is perfect except for Blair Orange). But sometimes when the mistakes made are so bad, their employment or contract is terminated. That is what needs to happen here.

Speeding Spur 4th. Dexter Dunn won.