Special Agent

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.

Yes exactly. Comedic, spoof or slapstick. All are apt descriptions of this current madness.

It is hard to believe we are expected to think this is all a great deal. Money is supposedly going to materialise out of thin air with Entain able to magic up funds. HOW??!! I may be missing some important revelation but, to summarise the reports of the day as I see it:- 1. Cameron George thinks the partnership is exciting and can only make the industry thrive but, cannot yet divulge the secret parts of the agreement. 2. Bruce Sharrock thinks the partnership is what New Zealand has been waiting for but, needs to reserve final judgement until it is known how it will effect racing. 3. Kieran McAnulty is unable to make an informed decision until he has considered all of the information and is certain due diligence is complete. This is poppycock!! Are these adults in charge of a multi billion dollar industry from whom we are supposed to be following advice? Maybe a couple more blinks and it will be Cheshire Cat, Hatter, Alice and Queen of Hearts stepping up to the plate.

It doesn't seem like a real decision has been made, it's more like a discussion paper. The older I get the less balls people around me seem to have. Who knows how half of these people get on anything resembling a racing board and what credentials they supposedly have. Then the bastards all hide behind an expensive consultancy exercise. It is not good practice to look back as we must be moving forward with ideas and innovation but, for goodness sake only halfwits do not learn from their mistakes. If time and effort had gone into past appointments maybe funds might not have been pissed up against the wall. Not only that but, incompetents were given a free rein and extended contracts. If the Racing Minister, who has the final say on this, is not enlightened we will only have ourselves to blame.

A few tall poppies maybe.

I interpret this differently to some on here. If I had a kick from a horse sufficient to break my leg and couldn't sleep because of the pain the fact that voltaren had not been prescribed for me would not stop me taking some pills out of someone elses bottle. I think it is irrelevant whether it was prescribed or not. If the drugs are in the system they have been administered.

As the Racing Minister has the final word on this does anyone know if he has any thoughts of his own, or is it just an influenced rubber stamp?

I would like my colours on either of them.

Have you noticed that nobody anywhere (not just racing) can put out a schedule or programme first bang without errors? People of today cannot spell, have bad grammar and cannot proof read any detail. It used to drive me nuts. After a while you start to relent and slip into the comfort of "who cares" about a few mistakes. Gone are the days of a sharp blow over the knuckles for not listening or concentrating.

I am so over the flashy shit we have been subjected to over the past 5-10 years. I can't stand the flourishing of the whip at the line to the extent of the jockey nearly falling off (such a bugger for the owner to be landed with a photo of that for a life time), the bullshit jockey interviews and the crying. All young jockeys could take a leaf out of this down to earth bloke's book. Some owners might only win the one race with their horse so that race becomes their Melbourne Cup and should be treated with the respect it deserves.

Absolutely!! There is enough to sort out in racing without dabbling in the fluffy stuff. This doubling up of jobs is a doubling up of egos. Racing would continue without media and marketing. I'm not saying it would be the best in the world but it would continue. To think it matters who is presenting the races and what post race programmes are running is important is madness. How about not letting jockeys ride until they are competent, getting the track surfaces and horse facilities right and making sure there are enough horses in the first place to compete. It seems to me the cart is being put before the horse and the emphasis is on the wrong areas. Administration is top heavy, there are too many in influential positions more interested in moving real estate than "the product and core business", and to put it simply the whole shooting box needs stripping back to basics. Just my opinion. Horse training and racing has pretty basic components that outside influencers are over complicating.

More than 30% of RIB investigations relate to licence holder behaviour .... I'm not sure how to react to this. If you think about what RIB investigates, how much is investigated outside of what licence holders say and do? I can only think of ownership discrepancies and patrons oncourse on a race day but, I may need enlightening. NZTR and the RIB have the power to not relicence. If the Code of Conduct regulations is going to aid in non relicensing I wonder what numbers will look like moving forward. Racing is fast paced and sometimes volatile.

Does form analysis fit into what NZTR should be doing? I thought NZTR was the national horse racing administration, not a betting agency. The articles and videos seem odd to me too for an organisation which should primarily be for licence holder information. I believe these guys are sons of Donna Logan and Steve Davis respectively.

It seems a new broom sweeps clean as the list of employees includes a heap of new names from a year ago. Was Marty Burns superfluous to needs or was his role disestablished? Either option means pretty much the same thing but, I wonder what the thinking was behind him no longer being there.

As you have pointed out it is not always about the sometimes small amount of sponsorship money. It is how you are treated, being made feel a little bit special and included, and the word of mouth advertising you are going to provide on behalf of that club and the whole racing industry. That brings us to "culture" which has been created by you and people like you. Move over Tharsha, Honestjohn already has credentials I'm guessing will outstrip any you have on paper.