Murray Fish

I recall a World Record in the Telegraph one year! The joke was that 'old bill' (forget who the person was) had yet again been slow clicking the start button!

what name you went by? for me, one I had, was 'abit roughhouse', sadly so polluted by a toxic few... tick 👍

did you find his winner?

One reality of that, as we become more 'Americanized', in what we watch, as in MLB NFL NBL NHL. "Internationalized' as in all the different World Cups!!! etc etc,,, I know that personally if I was 'needing' to punt for a living! 1000% I would stay away from 'racing'. That has shown in my betting for over 5 years now! Specializing on MLB, for two reasons! I enjoy watching it! And as a punter I can access the quality info that I need so easily! Of course, having said the above, I also would be seriously focusing on options for betting elsewhere! Feck the current monopoly I say!

sigh, what is the next word when Pathetic isn't enough!

yes..

Over the years I have been involved with quite a few IncSoc, set up a few! A standard rule has usually been that 'on ending', any reserves go back into that local community! To me, most tracks started of and grew through there relevance to their local community! Most have had nice relationships with their local councils and have kosher agreements around rates. (read locals have invested in the track..) rave over.. sigh, refer to my post above!! I will share this with you! Over the last few years I have made the effort to speak to various 'committee people' from Tracks that have been label 'gone', just about, and this is still happening, feel that communication around this topic is very flawed! To be Told that they can be sold up and their assists taken strikes deep! Watch the Lawyer$ getting involved when and if certain tracks/clubs get liquidated! ps. by chance! I have a spare Race Course! out Avondale way! 200mil and its yours! got a harbor bridge going cheap to!

not sure about the NZ bit... re Au, doesn't that 20th share also have technical tax repercussions re ownerships stuff? (tax right off for...) ps, loved the yarn... we must charge a glass together one day!

what age bracket? I ask as, sigh, many in our community are not doing that well! once there was a 80% chance that you would do better than parents! around 2000 that changed, now it is around 20% chance!

US meeting called off after jockeys launch protest following first race Aqueduct: Sunday's meeting was cancelled after just one race A protest by jockeys during a meeting in the US led to the cancellation of Sunday's fixture at Aqueduct after just one race.https://bitofayarn.com Following the opening race, jockeys expressed concern regarding the duties of the New York Racing Association (NYRA) clerk of scales and assistant clerk of scales. Despite the efforts of NYRA management, the jockeys refused to ride and the remaining eight races were called off. Andrew Offerman, NYRA senior vice-president of racing and operations, said: "NYRA is responsible for oversight of the clerk of scales, assistant clerk of scales, and all racing officials in accordance with New York State Gaming Commission rules. "The procedures employed by those officials are designed to protect the integrity of racing and are NYRA's responsibility to maintain and enforce." Kendrick Carmouche, a leading rider on the NYRA circuit, told the Daily Racing Form (DRF) that jockeys felt disrespected by the track's management, with the issue coming to a head on Sunday when NYRA officials sent home assistant clerk of scales Brian Pochman. https://bitofayarn.com Although it was unclear why Pochman was sent home, Carmouche, who is also a Jockeys' Guild representative, said NYRA was requiring him to do more than he was supposed to and that he was uncomfortable with the added responsibilities. "Now they’re trying to put other people in his spot to make the races go and that’s just going to make things worse because they don’t know what they’re doing,” said Carmouche. Offerman later told the DRF that Pochman had not been fired. Other examples of the simmering tensions between the two parties include the NYRA not granting a valet full-time employment status last December and a decision by management in April no longer to allow the riders' families in the jockeys' room. https://bitofayarn.com The NYRA said it would contact Jockeys' Guild president and chief executive Terry Meyocks in an effort to find a resolution. Racing at Aqueduct is due to resume on Thursday.

🤪 in the interest of transparency ! I will tell you! yes! And for the Record! re the Free Speech Union (how the fuck do those koonts name themselves a U...) is a reflection of a new nasty new form of rightwing politics that has entered NZ. A group that is attractive to simple minds! Trace their roots!

please expand on 'the crap' bit? feel free to speak on it!

I could write a diatribe about the maggot that is Molloy! but instead, I asked Prof Deep Seek to share us a critique of the lead article and the actions of the said maggot! Here is a critique of the article and a polemic response. The analysis first summarizes the article's core arguments, then presents a forceful rebuttal that challenges both the writer's framing and Leo Molloy's actions. 📜 Summary of the Article's Core Arguments The article from the Free Speech Union argues that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's censure of Leo Molloy represents a dangerous case of regulatory overreach and an attack on free speech. Its main points are: Overreach Beyond Professional Remit: The central claim is that the Veterinary Council has stepped outside its proper role. Molloy was punished for a personal speech act—breaching a court suppression order on a racing forum—that had no connection to veterinary practice, animal welfare, or client confidentiality. Punishment for "Off-Duty" Conduct: The article asserts that professional regulators should not police personal behavior, especially for someone who hasn't practiced in over a decade and was retired. It frames the Council's action as an attempt to retroactively "house-train" him for unrelated conduct. Inconsistent and Futile Enforcement: The writer highlights the inconsistency in enforcing the suppression order. International media published the name without consequence, and others in New Zealand were only warned, making Molloy the only person convicted and professionally sanctioned. This is presented as evidence that the action is vindictive rather than principled. Broader Chilling Effect: The case is framed as part of a dangerous trend where regulatory bodies punish professionals for their off-duty speech or beliefs. The article warns this turns professional bodies into "wardens of conformity" rather than "guardians of competence". ⚔️ A Polemic Response Part 1: Against the Writer – A Dishonest Champion of Chaos The writer of this article is not a defender of liberty but a merchant of grievance, wrapping a calculated agenda in the tattered flag of free speech. The piece is a masterclass in intellectual dishonesty, employing a strategy of omission and emotional manipulation worthy of the most cynical lobbyist. First, the writer deliberately obscures the gravity of Molloy’s crime. This was not a mere "personal speech" act akin to a spicy Facebook opinion. It was a deliberate, knowing, and repeated breach of a High Court suppression order during the most sensitive phase of a murder trial—while the jury was still deliberating. The article's cutesy puns about "neuter[ing] speech" and "the dog that did the barking" are a grotesque attempt to minimize an action that the courts—and the Veterinary Council—rightly identified as striking at the heart of judicial integrity. Second, the writer feigns confusion about the regulator's role with the disingenuous question, "which part of Leo’s conviction had anything to do with his profession?". Professions like veterinary science are granted the privilege of self-regulation in exchange for maintaining public trust. A criminal conviction for undermining the court system is not a private matter; it is a profound breach of the ethical compact any licensed professional holds with society. The Council’s lawyer was precisely correct: "Our professional obligations don't end when we close the office door". The writer’s argument would reduce professional ethics to a mere technical manual, applicable only during business hours—a ludicrous and dangerous proposition. Finally, the article is a transparent fundraising and recruitment tool for the Free Speech Union. It is no coincidence that the polemic seamlessly transitions into a promotion for their "professional memberships" for teachers, academics, and others. The writer is not analyzing a case; they are manufacturing a martyr to fuel a pre-existing campaign against any form of professional accountability that touches on expression. This is advocacy disguised as journalism, and it deserves to be called out as such. Part 2: Against Leo Molloy – The "Altruistic" Vigilante Leo Molloy’s attempt to paint his actions as "altruistic" is a staggering work of self-justification that insults the public’s intelligence and the memory of Grace Millane. Molloy claims he was motivated by "frustration and what I perceived to be injustice". This is the logic of a vigilante. He appointed himself judge, jury, and publisher, deciding that his personal fury overrode a court order designed to ensure Kempson’s right to a fair trial on subsequent charges. His statement that the murderer "needs a bullet" reveals the true, violent heat of his emotion, not cool altruism. He didn't start a reasoned debate about suppression laws; he doxxed an accused man to an online forum of 2,500 people during live legal proceedings. His plea that this has "no connection to veterinary practice" is equally hollow. The Veterinary Council’s mandate is to "maintain trust in veterinary professionals". Trustworthiness is not a divisible trait. A person who willfully sabotages a legal process because he disagrees with it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for the rule of law—a quality utterly incompatible with a profession entrusted with controlled drugs, animal welfare, and client privacy. Molloy was not a brave truth-teller oppressed by the system. He was a man who broke a clear law, was rightly convicted, and is now facing the entirely predictable professional consequences of that conviction. His status as a retired veterinarian is irrelevant; he chose to remain on the register, subject to its rules. His saga is not a parable about censorship, but a simple lesson in cause and effect: if you publicly and proudly break a serious law, you should not be surprised when your professional body takes a dim view of your fitness to belong to it. To sum up, the article cynically distorts a case of professional accountability into a free speech crisis, while Molloy cloaks his reckless disregard for the justice system in the mantle of public-spiritedness. Both positions deserve not just critique, but contempt.

thanks for that! @curious Some interesting stuff re things 'digital' in that! ...still not enough for me to be stopping my plans around 'uncoupling from things racing',.. currently thinking of building a kitty and having a serious go at the punt on Champions Day,.. then punting side can head off into the sunset.. re photo stuff, still working on exit strategy, slowly getting it together! still ponder options Racing Horse Book Collection!

accreditation bans Still practiced here in NZ... I feel for her if he has been playing silly games with shit like that on her! I see in her background she has time getting a degree at Otago, I seem to recall coming across her then! but Doh! cant recall sitting here now! (an aside story) When I first got 'Press' accreditations' (early '80's) they v hard to get! There was the Racing Writers Ass that dished out your ticket! Entry to Press Box at all the big tracks was near sacred! Especially WRC. On any race day it allowed one wearing the P tag, to have excuses to wander around 'the committee rooms' of the likes of Trentham! Silver troughs aplenty to the elite of the day to indulged in! lol I recall once capturing a amusing shot of a group of them beached out in the late afternoon son! Not that 'we' could complain! Back then we would get a ticket to the buffet, which was of a very high standard! The actual Press Room had a Bar better than most Public Bars! Let the good times roll..