NZRacing

The TAB should be held to account and made to repay customers every debit card fee they charged customers. Banks were made to do that on similar situation and the TAB should be treated no differently. Years of screwing their customers on non existent fees yeah we are celebrating that fact.

Read this story and weep while remembering that Bayliss was appointed along with his ex Banker mates to TAB management a year prior to the story's date (2013). Excerpt from story below: All banks contacted said they did not impose a fee for merchants accepting debit card payment. ($#%k me) https://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/8397528/Retailers-hit-card-users-with-unjustified-fees So no banks imposed a fee for debit card fees yet the NZ TAB lied to customers saying the $2.15 was a fee to recover the cost imposed by banks as merchant fees on debit card transactions. Lied and committed fraud by claiming non existent fees and they want customers to come back and bet with them yeah right. Low life thieves. A fee set to increase profits as no doubt Bayliss and his mates had no idea or clues on how other to do that in the wagering world.

The TAB operate like some power companies who offer great deals to customers who have accounts with rival companies but the loyal customers who have been with them for years don't get looked after. When that loyal customer gets approached by another Company with a better deal than they currently have and agree to sign up once they advise their old provider they are moving as getting better looked after then and most times that Company comes back and says we will match them but the as they say the horse has bolted and Customer says $%^& you. Talk to many punters and they say they were dirty with the TAB's customer service and get better looked after overseas and have no intention of ever again giving their hard earned to the NZ TAB. They can make more excuses than a jockey but the bottom line is a monopoly situation run by clueless Senior management of the Racing and Wagering Industries over the past 12 plus years made the TAB a lazy and complacent Organisation who has focus and direction.

During Bayliss's role as the NZ TAB he and his ex Banking mates he appointed as GM's introduced the credit/debit card fee as a form of revenue. Merchant fees that Companies charge to customers are only supposed to recover the cost that Banks charge the companies to perform the transaction. All Bookmakers and overseas TAB's along with Casinos incur the cost themselves. Last years Financial Results stated Merchant Fee Expenses were $5.7 million and were recovered with the Credit/Debit Fee charge to customers. Yes it's good for customers on a cost that many punters loathed paying. Getting charged a fee for funding ones account to then be further taxed when generating turnover to fund the operations of a Company = getting bent over. Most customers would be saying its not the amount but the principle. So the good news is it's gone after it should never have got introduced the bad news is exactly how are the TAB going to find $5.7 million to balance the cost now there are no longer card fees. In 2018 Research by Retail NZ found that Merchant Fees were on average 1.6% of the transaction of a credit card and 1.2% for debit cards. High volume card transactions Companies receive discounted charges on transactions fees. Customer on the above % merchant fee charges on a $20 purchasing : Credit card =.32 cents, Debit card = .24 cents and NZ TAB $2.15 which equates to just under 11%. High volume TAB customers eg Elites don't get charged the fee which I agree with but its the poor average Joe Punter who was getting it stuck up them and basically subsiding the no charge to Elites and adding to the TAB profit. Companies can charge a set fee for merchant fees eg the TAB but they must be able to justify the cost vs fee charged. In Previous years Financial Accounts Merchant fees as they should have been due to the cost were separately listed in Expenses. $1.00 no money back only that this years Financial Accounts the cost will be hidden in Expense stated as other expenses. If you can't work out why don't ever consider a job in accounting. The TAB are trying to make out they are the good guys but the bottom line is if they didn't make the changes some serious questions would have been asked by the Commerce Commission. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/125098570/government-to-introduce-law-to-tackle-merchant-fees-saving-businesses-up-to-74m#:~:text=“We are also capping the,stay at 0 per cent.”

Interesting information on milk-shaking from Australian Harness racing website. https://www.harness.org.au/hra/papers/TC02Q-A.HTM?fbclid=IwAR14ISe2LDIHyMpzle10hDdA6UuFobT15mZ_8AfCuywDU56mTG3TPDt890Q

I think bicarbs makes a big difference along with the added booster as I saw the end results but in saying that I am no chemist. Before it became a banned practice to tube horses on raceday I knew a couple of trainers who were as they called it back then milk-shaking. Granted It didn't make the horses go quicker it just made them keep going at the same pace without weakening. Often back then you saw winners sitting parked for the entire trip and the leader would weaken and the parked runner would win. One trainer had a maiden I remember had no recent form but trialed well and he thought it could win but he tubed it with bicarbs just to give it an added edge and it led up and kept up a strong run to the line and won easily. Was never tubed again and never first 4 placed again.The glucose mixed in may have been the kicker, I am pretty sure Lance Armstrong got done for using a substance closely associated to the milkshake mixture. Best juice to use is elephant juice but these days no show of masking it. Years ago they used snake venom how someone came up to inject horses with that to win races still astounds me. The worst practice I can recall reading about was removing the horses feet tendons so they never felt any pain over the final stages Chief Stipe I am not disputing your call re no difference as I said above no expert on the matter but one can only think it might give an edge when you have witnessed the start and end result of using it.

$50,000,000 plus another 17 million a year to amp up the Paddy Power share price and the system pricing logarithm gives better odds for top 3 than top 2. Every raceday you see this occurring and you want punters to bet with you because you give them a fair price ha. Anyone who bet on the fav in the race below Top 2 should have had a pop-up message appearing saying 'please bend over when placing your bet. "You risk being 'arbitraged' by people around the world who are looking for value" - hardly any risk when there is no value.

Are you living under a rock or maybe employed at the DIA? Have you never seen a breath testing road check? If you haven't that's where they get you to blow into a machine which is used to 'monitor' drivers to determine if they have an alcohol level above a limit. Obviously not all over the level are addicted but you read many cases where a driver has been done numerous times and get sentenced which does = addicted drinkers. Once upon a time you could smoke in any establishment. Today if you are that addicted that you need a cigarette you have to leave a bar or restaurant. Staff monitor to ensure patrons comply with the law = monitoring. Once you could bring through Duty Free a carton of smokes now its one packet which is once again monitored.

and legislation change for the Racing Minister it's not hard to work out why the Industry was less than a week to having to cease trading due to insolvency unless the Government bailed it out. COVID 19 had nothing to do with the crap they were in as the damage was done pre-covid'. The story below shows just how nil the DIA are due to no knowledge or understanding of the Racing and Wagering industry. Every poker machine since 2006 has had electronic monitoring (EMS) software installed which means the DIA can sit in the office (onsite audit checks used prior) and monitor gaming machine operations, ensuring the integrity of games and the accurate accounting of money. Another reason it was introduced was to assist in alerting activity that would need to be looked into in order to comply with the Gambling Act 2003 to minimise harm caused by gambling. So for 12 years the EMS has been operating and then for the first time the DIA prosecute a publican for failing to take all reasonable steps to identify a problem gambler. The DIA proudly issued a press release in which then gambling director Chris Thornborough said it “signals our strong focus on protecting people from gambling harm ... we will not stand by and watch as venues ignore patrons showing signs of problem gambling”. I would sack the Gambling Director for coming up with a look at us bullshit story. He says the DIA will not stand by and watch venues ignore patrons showing signs of problem gambling for %$%^%^ sake that's what these clowns are employed to do and why every pokie machine was made to have a monitoring system installed. The only reason they prosecuted the publican was because a problem gambler's son went to them to complain that the publican kept letting his father lose $500,000 over three years. The DIA couldn't identify a problem gambler by reading reports that they receive in order to comply with the Gambling Act. Does anyone actually believe that this is the first time that a person in 14 years has lost a fortune due to problem gambling on poker machines. It just rubber stamps what is stated above that the DIA has no clues on wagering and problem gambling. The only monitoring they seem to capable of is of a clock to see when its 10:00am,noon and 3:00pm to take their breaks. Another idiot quote - if the DIA had carried out due diligence and had any clue they would have picked it up before been approached by the family member.I would sack this idiot as well. He says the evidence was considered to be strong enough to mount a problem gambling prosecution and then you read that the Judge thew the case out of Court two days into the trial as he said the DIA’s problem gambling policies were too inadequate to sustain a conviction. %$^K me they can't identify any problem pokie gambling in 14 years by reading reports and then when a person gives them information relating to the job they are employed to do they can't get a result because they produce weak no idea gambling policies. You couldn't make it up ha and here they are doing Policy to turn the Racing Industry around. Hollywood wouldn't buy the story as they would say the public wouldn't believe that how they operate. Those problem gamblers % figures above and yet the DIA in 14 years doesn't make one conviction using their resources within their Department. Nothing short of a totally embarrassing situation and the Ministers of Racing and the DIA need to be asking some serious questions such as "what the %$^& have you lot been doing over the last 14 years". I will be copying and pasting this post and emailing those Ministers above and saying if you believe that your Department is operating efficiently and delivering results in order to be representing you well as Ministers then you may as well consider employing the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy to join the DIA. The story is below and if your involved financially in the Racing Industry read it and weep as while the DIA continue to be involved it's %^$%ed. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/125968902/an-avoidable-tragedy-a-problem-gambler-blew-his-life-savings-then-dropped-dead?fbclid=IwAR3BJeloXF2otWyMtOh8LxrUasg_8OU9d7VU-tMZK6mnuvE41MYBfENNjLg

Interesting to see NZTR have done what they should have from day 1. It was bullshit to falsely advertise a 10k stake, the game is hard enough without having 7% clipped from winning stake money. If you won a race and were paid $400 less in winning stake on principal should be hitting NZTR to pay it. Owners shouldn't be penalised due to a race field safety limit. Cambridge June 30th 10k maiden winning stake. Race safety limit 12 runners (full field started). Cambridge July 14th 10k maiden winning stake. Race safety limit 12 runners (full field started).

Please stop quoting what that clown JJ posts. Thankfully I have him/her on ignore but sadly that doesn't stop having to see his/her diatribe of dribble when quoted. At least reading above he/she has come out of the closet as the NZ TAB's number 1 cheerleader.

I see they are paying starting money 5th to 10th now not 5th to 14th. At least that will stop NZTR clipping the ticket in a situation like Cambridge Synthetic track when field size is limited to 12 runners. False advertising a stake at 10k when the most they will payout is $9,600 and the bottom line is the Stake advertised should show only stake money paid 1st - 4th placed runners.

Sorry nomates I was been sarcastic.

Rules of NZ Racing - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary expressed or implied elsewhere in these Rules, a sum of money credited to a horse in respect of a particular Race shall not be deemed to be stakes unless such sum is so credited solely on account of such horse having been placed by the Judge (or, in the case of an inquiry resulting in a change of placings, by the Adjudicative Committee) in a stake bearing place in that Race. A sum which is intended to be credited to a horse in a particular Race merely on account of that horse having started in a Race shall not be included in the stake advertised for the Race and such sum, when credited or paid, shall not be deemed to be stakes. Rating 65 Benchmark* 2000m - $10,000 ($5,400, $1,500, $700, $400, $200, $200, $200, $200, $200, $200, $200, $200, $200, $200) So NZTR contravene their own rules by including starting money in the stakes advertised and credit starting money as prizemoney. Word is they are not looking at increasing maiden stakes yet from 12 months ago maiden stakes paid eg 1st to 4th are now down by 20%. Luckily for owners costs are down by the same %. There are only two reasons someone would race a horse in NZ either they have too much money or they hate money simple as that.

Racing Code Funding Confirmed For 2020/21 Friday, 26 June 2020, 2:13 pm Press Release: Joint Press Release The Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA) today advised New Zealand racing codes of forecasted funding in 2020/21 of $139.6m which is the same level as was budgeted for the 2019/2020 season before the impacts of COVID19. This is despite fewer thoroughbred and harness races planned for the upcoming season.

2020/21 first 6 month financials below.

Your right I was reading it wrong but $#%^ me they can put the exact date in for a trial but not an actual raceday. Whatever way you look at it the betting platform is a piece of crap.

Tough bugger this one starts 3 times in a day twice. One of the horses races on May 19th winner was Benson Boys form info says it actually won on the 12 May last year no win on 19th. Never seen before a runners formline showing obvious signs of a glitch like this.

https://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article/australian-bank-blames-bookmaker-for-betting-binge-143142

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/17/ladbrokes-wooed-problem-gambler-then-paid-victims-1m

The sad part is there are a lot like Kerr who need help but don't want to admit that they need help. The financial loss's that Kerr's actions has impacted onto his owners,friends and others was obviously bad and he should have fronted the JCA as that would at least showed some remorse. The 50 odd that were financially impacted from Kerr's action should form a joint action group to seek possible financial recompense from the two betting companies he lost heavily to. And invite any others who may have suffered financially also. One of Kerr's family members or a close friend needs to join also as you would need info on certain matters verified or given. Reading between the lines a half decent lawyer with some gambling Northern Territory regulation knowledge would be a warm favourite to win. A lawyer in NZ with decent racing and gambling knowledge using the right areas to back his claims be favourite option also.

The NZ TAB and any other NZ operated gambling organisation has stringent procedures to follow with regard to prevention of problem gambling,even more so when they are a Crown Entity with a NZ monopoly presence. Kerr became a Junior Driver in 2009 18 year old and that is the year he opened a NZ TAB betting account. In December 2014 Kerr was fined $650 for taking a 4 bet multi to return $6,221 which included a horse he was driving. Kerr stated he was unaware of the rule change in April of that year which barred drivers from betting on his race drive or any other race runner. Kerr had an obligation to familarise himself with that new rule or any others that impacted on his driver and training licensing. Broke the rule through his own negligence and owned up to it. The following statement from the JCA makes one wonder when they make a statement like the one below in justifying a decision on a the above rule breach do they gather their words of wisdom from people in the industry eg owners,trainers & punters or do they gather it at their weekly knitting club meetings. They have to stitching us up quoting this: If a driver could only bet on his runner in a race there won't be any concerns from owners,trainers or more importantly punters if the driver has his hard earned on himself to win. Public confidence and integrity won't be harmed. If a Trackside presenter said to a driver in the race preview lead up comments "how confident are you that you can win the race" and he turned around and said "I have $500 to say I will". Any punter watching will be adding him into any exotic or other bet they are taking. Driver bet rubber stamps 100% public confidence on integrity on this runner. Also a great way to weed out the drivers who are poor race judges. Unbelievably if a trainer has a $1.50 favourite in a race and he thinks it can't win as either travelled badly, didn't eat up or worked like it is going to need an oxygen mask at the 100m and his mate has a $10 shot who tells him we will beat you tonight the $1.40 fav trainer if a punter will have something on his rival. Your rule change involves both trainers and drives from betting in the race. A NZ Thoroughbred trainer once came on Trackside and when asked about his runners chances played it down after it won the race crowed he cleaned up. Different code but same end result integrity and public confidence hit hard. The Betting Expert claims Kerr opened and closed NZ TAB accounts from 2009 - 2016. The above betting situation was in 2014 and the bet was placed in Kerr's NZ TAB account. He has actively been betting with the NZ TAB now for 5 years very strange and can't fathom why a person would do that. If the NZ TAB allowed Kerr to do this for whatever reason whats the reasoning behind the following quote? Betting Expert ha the above comment is nothing short of embarrassing and piss poor in providing factual evidence to support his claims. The JCA Panel has shown neglect in responding to the claims presented. The charges on Kerr relate to the previous two years of betting involving around $1,000,000. The JCA Panel was told in 2016 Kerr stopped betting with the NZ TAB. They are saying the Betting Evidence received may have relevance relating to possible financial issues of Kerr. One relevance which may be relating to financial issues was the opening and closing of TAB accounts. If the Betting Expert is saying this why did the NZ TAB allow this to happen? The JCA was happy to quote the previous 2 years of Kerr's betting with Ladbrokes so to support this open/close financial impact as possible relevance you have to state the figures of loss's each year. If I am on the JCA panel I am asking the Betting Expert why didn't you request the figures from Ladbriokes for 2016-17? Umm those figures of any loss's may also have relevance to proceedings. Then I would ask him Kerr ceased betting with the NZ TAB in 2016 you have stated those years he did showed a pattern of possible financial issues due to open/close of accounts. Surely as a Betting Expert all drivers,jockeys and trainers are tagged on the NZ TAB's betting system you monitor for integrity reasons so when a trainer/driver like Kerr after 7 years of showing patterns of possible financial issues relating to his gambling dissappears of the radar you request your contacts in the Australian betting Industry such as Labrokes who as you state the NZ TAB has a formal agreement to tag Kerr on their system and advise accordingly. This was the year Kerr became a driver as well as driving so red light there. How can you possibly ascertain precise numbers when your only quoting the last 2 years which is obviously due to the owners who finally had enough and blew the whistle. The reply the concerned person received 9 years ago after informing the NZ TAB that they were concerned his betting was out of control and he needed to be offered addiction guidance was nothing short of unbelievable. 100% Kerr is responsible for his actions but if the NZ TAB was allowing him to open and close accounts which the betting Expert said could have had implications on his financial situation and they let him load his account and blow his money and never approached him after getting approached from a concerned person as well as seeing a pattern of which may lead to possible financial implications under the Gambling Act and Racing Acts they are stuffed. He can claim the Gambling harm caused by the NZ TAB breaching Acts has mentally impacted on his mental health. The PC anti gambling Brigade would love to be reading about it. Ladbrokes will also be held accountable by the Gambling Commission in Aussie. The KYC there involves bookmakers knowing a customers occupation and his round about salary so in a situation where a bank manger is on roughly 100k a year and he blows hundreds of thousands in a year if the bookmaker doesnt react as required they in the gun big time. The fact the NZ TAB has the 2016-17 Ladbrokes figures and no notification loss wise is a concern. 59. The seriousness of the totality of the Respondent’s actions over an extended period, affecting multiple owners/clients, involving very substantial amounts of money, with egregious, appalling breaches of duties of faith and fiduciary obligations. The respondent can also be replaced with a couple of betting organisations. I wonder when his family realised his gambling was at the problem addiction stage. They say those badly addicted lie well to mask the seriousness of their problem and if family members cant read these warning signs and he gets no prevention and harm help he is basically $$%$$# https://fobcms.tab.co.nz/sites/default/files/2020-12/Harm_Prevention___Minimisation_Policy_2020.pdf

100% I know someone contacted the NZ TAB to inform them that they considered Kerr had a gambling problem that needed urgent addressing. This was made when Kerr was a teenager Junior Driver. Sadly as we all know the end result now but it's clear that the NZ TAB didn't agree with the person who made that call. Obviously the so called Betting Expert and NZ TAB knew better. I would hasten to say Kerr was never approached by the NZ TAB otherwise this would have got mentioned in the JCA report. You wouldn't as a responsible gambling host after a customer was contacted regarding possible gambling problems allow them to close and re-open betting accounts. The TAB had a moral obligation to help, if not for any other reason than to cover their own bases.

I don't believe the RIU Betting Analyst should be regarded as an expert. A betting expert would have picked up the supposed betting activity of those involved in Operation Inca. The media were told the Police instigated Operation Inca not the RIU. A betting expert would have picked up unusual betting activity (that was reported in the media) either here in NZ or by using contacts with Australian Bookmakers who we are told they have a formal agreement with. One person was supposed to be the money man placing the bets so something should have been picked up here in his NZ Betting through the TAB or using the formal agreement with Australian Boomakers which must include any unusual betting activity and patterns of large scale betting. Once info was received in November 2020 that Kerr had lost close to $1,000,000 in two years he immediately should have had a visit from the RIU Kerr stopped betting with the NZ TAB in 2016 so why were the three years following eg 2017-18 not included in the request. I think we can conclude he didn’t not bet during those years. His betting activity and loss's between 2009 and 2016 with the NZ TAB should have being advised to the JCA as this would have shown if he had a problem with his gambling during that period. During those years he was a Junior Driver so any worrying betting activity would have or should have set off the alarm bells. If his betting during the period he bet with the NZ TAB was out of control and he wasn’t approached by the NZ TAB as the Gambling Act states he should have being then the NZ TAB needs to held accountable and those people he owes money to could have legal grounds to look for the NZ TAB to seek monetary recovery. The Betting Expert states Kerr between 2009 and 2016 had opened and closed a number of accounts with the TAB. There must have being a reason for Kerr to do that and one would think the NZ TAB would seek to find out why he was doing this. Did he open and close accounts from time to time knowing his betting was out of control. Surely a NZ TAB customer opening and closing a number of accounts with them must have raised alarm bells. Kerr’s gambling addiction didn’t just pop up in 2019 and 2020. The evidence of facts state that dishonesty of syndicated ownership in horses in his care was between 2017 and 2020. He stopped betting with the NZ TAB in 2016. I believe Kerr’s betting levels were out of control when betting with the NZ TAB. This was conveyed to me by a couple of people involved in the Industry who personally knew Kerr. If this was indeed the case why did the NZ TAB as according to the so called Betting Expert allow Kerr to close and open numerous accounts. I don’t believe he was identified and dealt with as is required under the Gambling Act for measures to be taken when a betting customer is showing signs of having a gambling addiction. Once he stopped betting with the NZ TAB the RIU Betting Expert should have made contact with his Australian counterparts and bookmakers asking to be notified if this person started betting and losing large sums of money. In 2019 he lost 320k and he doubled that loss in 2020. In 2019 this so called Formal Agreement between NZ and Australian Bookmakers should have resulted in a call eg you need to follow this up as it appears one of your young trainers is betting well beyond his means. Why didn’t the JCA request Kerr’s NZ TAB betting account details on loss’s on each year from 2009 to 2016? If he was betting beyond his means and losing large sums each year and he wasn’t approached or had his account closed due to gambling concerns then the NZ TAB has contributed towards his demise by not handling the matter as it needs to be under the NZ Gambling Acts law relating to what is required in this type of situation. Bookmakers and TAB’s in Australia in the past have been heavily fined and restitution had to be paid back to Companies who were badly financially impacted because one of their employees stole from them to bet with Bookmakers to lose large amounts of money which was way out of proportion to what they were earning. It looks like the RIU only requested information from Australian Betting outlets once they had received complaints about Kerr’s conduct with his owners. It’s bullshit that it took that to happen rather than Ladbrokes informing NZ Authorities that maybe this Industry person needs to be looked into. Great Formal Agreement. Obviously one can't condone what Kerr did to his owners but Gambling Addiction is seen to be the same as Drug addiction. Both addictions lead a person in many cases to lie,steal and commit fraud to feed these addictions. I wonder if Kerr was offered Gambling Addiction help here in NZ. Two questions need to be answered although I have no doubt the first one is affirmative. 1. During the 7 years Kerr bet with the NZ TAB did his loss's far outweigh his means of income and if so what was each years total loss 2. If the above did happen at what point in time was he approached by the NZ TAB as the Gambling Act required them to do in order to inform him that they have major concerns with his betting levels and loss's and offer him help for possible gambling addictions. If they didn't offer him help when clear signs of problem gambling was evident they were guilty of feeding his gambling addiction to the point where it finally spiraled out of control 10 years later. NZ Betting Rules in part state: (j) comply with its obligations under the Racing Act 2003 relating to problem gambling, harm prevention and minimisation. Pursuant to the Privacy Act 1993, an Account Holder has the right to view and correct personal information held by the Board. (i) Personal information may be disclosed by the Board to third parties in connection with any of the purposes stated under this rule provided that the recipient of the information is subject to an obligation of confidentiality in relation to the disclosed information. Racing Act states: 65HRegulations relating to exclusion of problem gamblers from Agency venues and racecourses (1)The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations— (a)prescribing 1 or more procedures to enable an Agency operator or a racing club to identify problem gamblers: (b)prescribing procedures for prohibiting identified problem gamblers from entering a Agency venue or racecourse: (c)prescribing procedures for removing a person who an Agency operator or a racing club has reasonable grounds to believe is a problem gambler: (d)ensuring that access to Agency venues and racecourses by identified problem gamblers is restricted: (e)prescribing 1 or more procedures that must be completed by a problem gambler as a condition of re-entry to a Agency venue or racecourse. (2)Regulations made under subsection (1) must— (a)specify the grounds on which a person may be identified as a problem gambler: (b)set out the steps to be taken to identify a person as a problem gambler: (c)prescribe the persons (including the qualifications of those persons) who are authorised to perform specific functions in relation to identifying and excluding problem gamblers: (d)set out the rights, including the rights of appeal against specified decisions, of a person who is subject to the procedure.