Special Agent

Yip. I find it amazing talking to staff from stables around the country to hear the matter of fact conversation about what is administered on a regular basis. As trainers we have both known would tell you, a lot of what is given to the horse is more for the confidence of the trainer. Nothing will substitute the horse's ability.

A few phrases out of the Silenced doco include:- Abusive Power Uncomfortable Knowledge Informed Consent

Unbelievable a Royal Commission can have a long list of relevant topics which are outside the scope of the inquiry. Am I correct in saying Chippie cannot now be asked any questions relating to Covid, even under the Information Act, because he stood down as the Covid Minister?

No. I am merely pointing out how ridiculous it would be for a Te Akau employee to knowingly administer to a horse racing a prohibited substance within the withholding period on purpose, in full view of CCTV cameras. The stables you have been associated with must have only employed infallible people. 20 years in racing isn't a long time, unless you are 20.

https://vimeo.com/810368027

So, are you saying despite the fact the senior staff member knows there are security cameras operating she thought it a good idea to drug the unbeaten two year old with a non performance enhancing substance to test if the swabbing system is working?

For the most part New Zealand is hard to beat as a place to grow up, live and train race horses. Hong Kong does not appeal to everyone. Good on anybody who not only gives it a go but, is successful doing so. I would imagine Jamie would be streets ahead of many earlier international trainers when it comes to customer service and satisfaction.

Te Akau are not innocent because the horse returned a positive. The application was in error, so not an intentional breach of the rules. They will be dealt with in the same manner as any other licence holder. Most stables co-operate with the RIB in these circumstances because it is not in their best interests to be obstructive. Unlike the usual law of the land where you are innocent until proven guilty, in racing the complete opposite applies as you are deemed by RIB to be guilty from the get go and it is a mission to convince them otherwise. I am ready to be shot down but, talk to anyone who has been charged and you will soon realise this to be the case. As far as CCTV footage is concerned, I would imagine Te Akau (or any other stable for that matter) installed cameras for the safety and security of their horses, staff and business. The fact that a mistake has been picked up is an added advantage and of benefit to the RIB in particular cutting down investigation resources and time. Towns and cities around New Zealand have CCTV systems that are monitored live and in delay mostly by volunteers. If some think Te Akau should be viewing camera footage daily from their numerous barns, imagine the training fee increase to cover the cost. It is a shame this positive swab has to be so public. It has happened, the horse will be disqualified, connections will be penalised, one win comes off the trainer's and jockey's tallies, move on. It's not the first positive in New Zealand and won't be the last.

Yes, if licensed to NZTR you are in an awkward position. New Zealand has certainly gone to the dogs. I see Jacinda has donated some of her clothes to Te Papa. I wonder how many like me feel like setting fire to those clothes, preferably with her in them? Now the ads on radio have moved onto the flu jab. How much crap do you want to put into your bodies?

The Adam Creighton article in The Australian is another to emphasize the realisation of just how stupid those were who were intent on following the Covid vaccination route, like sheep. Judging by what is happening in courts NZTR should brace for any action taken against the organisation. The regulations enforced by NZTR and treatment of licence holders was not in line with the Covid Response Act.

I am with you on the whip rules. One extra strike of the whip by a strong rider in a tight finish, I think is significant and would be breaking the current NZTR rules, with the jockey maybe being penalised but the race result unchanged. My point is that, depending on who you talk to, it's okay to break some rules but not others.

How do you feel about being beaten by a cheating jockey who has had the advantage on the day of their horse responding well to an extra strike of the whip?

The jockey fines reflect the stake level.

I'm not sure how long alcohol has been detectable here, about 20 years in the United States. I don't think the American authorities use the INCA method of investigation. They seem content with catching cheats but, the main motivation appears to be deterring illegal behaviour.

Yes, disgusting. INCA was an expensive exercise. Maybe racing licence holders are easy targets for former policemen after serving time in the police force. IQ testing should be compulsory for the entire industry with all licence holders, administrators and enforcers required to be above an acceptable threshold for entry. Then we wouldn't see all these dumb things happening. There wouldn't be many of us left.

So, 30ml - 60ml of vodka quietens a 500kg racehorse down. How much vodka would it take to shut a yappy date up?

I have a feeling Sheryl may have been an apprentice jockey before getting involved in harness. As to her success rate I'd have to look it up. It does seem an awful act to try and catch someone doing something wrong by hiding in the stables. Why couldn't the pre race check commence with an introduction and a shake of the hand? If Sheryl was guilty, the RIB Investigator was good at their job and a decent person, the horses would still have been scratched. The method seemed inappropriate. It is not a murder mystery for entertainment.

This whole situation is clearly a shocker. I wouldn't be paying any consultancy fees.

I've followed most of these cases fairly thoroughly at another time. Cases can be won or lost on wording. As far as the guidelines stated are concerned as Justice Peters points out legally this is a contentious issue as it seems these guidelines are not readily accessible to those in the industry. To compare the Wigg situation with the Luxton case, the latter was also caught red handed with a syringe in the horse's mouth at the racecourse, told to stop but refused. The Luxton fine was $1,000. So back to the wording. As I understand it of the four original grounds for review only one was satisfied by Justice Peters, thus only one was sent back to the RIB for reconsideration, namely that the penalty was disproportionately severe. Again, as I understand it this means that is the sole piece of wording that can be reconsidered by the RIB. I believe that means if the RIB was to compare penalties of like with like the Luxton case would be most apt as both were caught, and I'll quote your "red handed", administering using syringe not a full clear day from the race. That is the rule being used so, the charges under that same rule need to be the comparison. The case and Tribunal are over where evidence was given. The High Court ruling is that the disproportionately severe penalty issued must be reconsidered by the RIB. Nothing else is on the table, only the severity of the penalty compared to others who have been penalised under the rule. So, taking Richards and McKenzie out of the equation now does that not mean that Wigg should be compared to Luxton and her fine should not exceed $1,000?

I did too. We must work out of a different book Nod because apparently it's use is widespread.

Yes, I get all that and accept it was $1,500 fine, not $1,000. It is the severity of the penalty in comparison to other cases that is the only consideration going back to the RIB so, let's take Jamie Richards out of the equation. Look at the Peter McKenzie case then. Happy Star won TWO races a week apart with cobalt in his system. Peter was fined $6,000 compared to Sheryl's $10,000. Sheryl's horses were not presented at the races so, she was found administering B Boost which is bought over the counter at many feed places, not performance enhancing (there is actually no science to prove cobalt is performance enhancing either but, that is another matter), within the 24 hour window prior to a race. In Peter McKenzie's case the owner was penalised as were the punters who backed the runners which were subsequently promoted. Sheryl Wigg's horses did not race so, the only only penalised party is Sheryl. Sheryl broke the 24 hour administering rule. All of the other trainers listed in the decision have also broken the rules, whether intentional or not, and some I know are still pleading injustice. To the general public, with the Wigg horses scratched, they are none the wiser of the situation unless they read the juducial reports. Most of the other cases involve disqualifications and change of placings. What is worse for racing's image? I will be interested in the final outcome and revised penalty decision, because that is all that is being looked at. NB: I only know of Sheryl Wigg and do not know her personally.

I can't answer those questions but, they definitely need answering. How many times have we been told racing administrators are going to be transparent? We do not want to hear such phrases as commercially sensitive. I have no time for Cameron George.

I think as Justice Peters in the end only judged on the disproportionately severe penalty it is fair to compare Sheryl Wigg's fine to the fines imposed on other trainers, including Jamie Richards. I believe the crux of the matter is that Sheryl was fined $10,000 for administering a non performance enhancing substance not one full day before racing, her horses were scratched so WERE NOT PRESENTED TO RACE. Jamie was fined $1,000 for presenting a race winner with prohibited substance morphine in it's system. Justice Peters has referred the penalty decision back to the RIB for reconsideration. As the lower penalty threshold precedent has been set for Jamie Richards at $1,000 for a horse testing positive to a prohibited substance post race, natural justice would suggest the penalty for Sheryl Wigg where her horses were not presented to race could only be $1,000 or less.

These questions need to be pumped into the right channels. I can't stress enough that the Racing Minister has the final sign off. I don't think it is good enough for him to hope due diligence has been done by someone else. He must have a host of researchers and advisors who can find answers for him, just as long as he is asked the right questions.

Good competition is the crucial for the survival of any sport or business. I don't think Te Akau has got to a stage where they are monopolising the racing industry yet, they dispose of quite a few horses on Gavelhouse that don't quite meet their standards. Some of these high priced creatures get another opportunity in a different environment. There's a multi faceted aspect to this, "lesser" trainers get to work with horse breeds they normally wouldn't, and because a change in scenery and different training approach can work the oracle with some horses the horse can get a revival, the trainer gains confidence and further opportunities, and the racing interest in another area gets a boost. It must be frustrating to continually be placed to Te Akau or worse still be balloted or eliminated when their horses with more points take preference over your's in the CD. Unfortunately that is just the way the cookie crumbles, as long as we are all playing on an even playing field. Records are made to be broken and I can't see how any excitement this creates, especially to mainstream media, is a bad thing for racing. Racing needs outfits such as Te Akau. This should never be at the expense of smaller entities. I'd like to think we are cheering all stables on at every type of venue. We need everyone already involved, and more, to survive and strive.