Noodlum

Yeah typical Grimstone approach. Hide in a hedge and catch someone riding trackwork on a private track and then get them fined $500! You'd think the RIU had better things to do. WOW what a crime of the century! Riding a horse on a private track - no bets - not threats the integrity of racing! You are a supercilious twat!

Oh the irony when it was Grimstone and Neal that went for Walker. Both the epitome of virtue and integrity!

You're a low life. Where is your proof he was addicted to pokies? Or are you just quoting some media beat up? Why couldn't he continue to ride trackwork even if it was confined to a private property?

How often do you and Grimstone meet up?

It's irrelevant and just shows the type of person you are.

You're the thick one. I suppose you support head to head betting for non placed horses. A type of betting that flies in the face of many racing rules. You are the dumb arse that doesn't get it. You rant on about whipping yet expect a horse that is well down the field to be ridden out hard just so some numpty punter bet on it to finish ahead of another loser? Did the RIU and JCA condemn the TAB for offering such bets? Where's the bloody integrity in that?

The same RIU/JCA that have made a reputation out of being inconsistent in their rulings. Shouldn't cleaning their own act up be a good start for racing integrity. FFS you bang on about them every bloody day and then try to have a bob each way. Bit like your post-race blueprint.

Why? Why can't individuals who err have a second chance? Did you know Eddie? Why quote someone who is dead? Just shows what a low life YOU are.

Why isn't as simple as that? She has a License to Train and can train for the general public why can't she be allowed the next step up? If she isn't considered eligible for that licence will they revoke her current one using the same unknown reasons?

As far as the rules are concerned that's correct. Aside from the fact he didn't say"witch hunt" who would know as it appears HRNZ can decide for whatever reasons the seem fit. Plus not tell anyone. That isn't natural justice and as far as I know doesn't happen in any other industry. Refer to my comment earlier in this post. Has HRNZ given a reason? You said the RIU SHOULD have a say. Given there is no reason under the rules for HRNZ not granting a licence then we are left to speculate if the RIU is having an influence. Just like you assumed they were.

You need to be a BLM protestor to congregate in any number.

Walker effectively got life. Even in Australia you don't get that. FFS what does it have to do with integrity when he rides a horse for a friend on a private track? Zilch!

More chance of getting run over.

Just as I said there is NO reason in the rules other than a rule that says they don't have to have a reason. Hardly a fair rule is it?

It's not even a moral call. There is NOTHING in the rules to deny the granting of the licence.

Selective caring. Bit of a bitch if you needed surgery or cancer treatment in the empty hospitals!

You can bludge like that by just reading without posting crap.

No the RIU has no remit to determine who does or doesn't get a licence. It would be more of a joke if they did have! I can just see it now the RIU hiding in hedges to see if any new applicant knows someone they shouldn't. There goes half the applicants straight up.

If you don't know the process then how can you speculate? HTP may well be wrong and doesn't understand the process either or the RIU did stick their oar in. The point is it is HRNZ that grants the licence.

How would HRNZ know? How would they know if ANY disqualified person was working on a property? It has nothing to do with the RIU - the decision is made by HRNZ. Why not suspend her Licence to Train if they have justifiable concerns? Under that license she can still train 5 horses - and according to the poorly written rule they can be owned by anyone.

Exactly where is the RIU "side of the story"? I would imagine there isn't an RIU "side of the story" as it isn't their call regarding the granting of a licence. The call is HRNZ's!

So he got done she didn't. You are right they have no way of knowing or determining her intentions - they can only assume in good faith that her intentions are honourable. You seem to be prevaricating on your position. One post you say if she got a license it would be a mockery and now you are saying that the determination of her intent is a questionable process.

That hasn't been stated anywhere yet so would be speculation. Is he banned from attending ALL racecourses and training establishments?

How is it "obvious"? Is SHE suspended? If not then why can't she get a public license? As far as I know they can't "suspend" a property.

So a trainer disqualification disqualifies a dedicated horse training property? That doesn't seem right. Or will anyone who is friends with a disqualified person will also be restricted? What were the reasons given for not approving the upgrade in the license?