curious

I stand corrected on this. I was relying on the head post but when I read the original, I see there is actually a change to the existing rule as well as the addition.

Did it ever occur to you @Thomass that one of the reasons you might be a mug punter is that you let gossip from trainers influence your assessment of a horse's chance?

No I thought you were. So you've been abused by him?

Oops that should have read busyness.

I frankly don't know anyone who has. Is that a yes? You have?

Huh? Are you trying to prove yourself wrong?

The industry doesn't employ them though nor pay them. How do you think it would go down if it were made a requirement of a trainer's licence?

Isn't there something hypocritical about the above? You are attacking individual posters based on your assessment of their personality and motives. Why? Because you don't agree with the opinions they express?

Yet that is generally recommended by organisational social media experts. What do you think they should do instead? Ignore it even if they think it is having a negative impact on them?

I'm advised by NZTR that due to their business, the survey results will be addressed in March.

If he HAD crossed the line, he would have been close to being found guilty wouldn't he. Same thing.

Last October Ballesty said in The Rundown "We recently distributed an NZTR Stakeholder Survey and received more than 1,300 responses. We appreciate the valuable input from across the industry and look forward to sharing the results in due course. " To me, 3 or 4 months seems a long "due course"

NZR may have some structural issues to resolve but they have one of the strongest balance sheets in world rugby and had a positive cashflow in FY24, the latest year reported. I don't think they'd even come close to NZTR as the poorest performing organisation in NZ sports.

It's all part of the new transparency and consultation strategies. Strategic Plan 2024–2028 : “an unwavering commitment to honesty, transparency, and moral principles.”

If you'd read the minutes of the pre-hearing meetings and the input from the JCA on the human rights position and Morton's rights, you wouldn't say that. The hearing was a facade for Purcell and the RIU's egos. and a bloody expensive one at that which is probably why they haven't gone there again and won't. They can't enforce a rule that the law precedes. So, they just try to scare people with their facile missives and rule changes and not listen to or hear stakeholders.