curious

It's interesting if you look at the Ellerslie figures above, turnover is well up but turnover per starter well down. Oncourse also down. Not sure what to make of that.

Yes and I suppose it also depends what you mean by "quality of the racing". Best horses, fuller fields, more competitive?

Yes. Quite right. Prohibited from driving too, so probably not a good idea for riders.

Your logic. If for medical reasons it would be to make them fit (or more fit) to ride wouldn't it?

Oh I see how you are reading that now but you are right. Some have.

Did I say any had been?

Do you think these will get spirited away too?

Dismissal: On September 8, 2015, the Judicial Control Authority (JCA) dismissed the serious racing offence charges, labeling the evidence "bordering on the hopeless".

Who else has tried it?

There are some individuals that are active participants in the industry that constantly make degrading and abusive comments" You keep saying this but where's the evidence? @Chief Stipe you say you hide them, presumably because they are that in your opinion. And @hesi, if you "draw a line". Where? And how do you action or enforce it? Otherwise, it's just a further meaningless waste of time.

Totally agree. At the time I posted in that Mortygate thread on the Caf "the credit lies entirely with Mr. Morton, his supportive wife, and his advocate. I was but a spare part."

No. I've said that repeatedly. It's another autocratic attempt by NZTR to shut down criticism instead of listening and engaging and responding. There are heaps of wonderful hard working people doing a fantastic job at NZTR just as there are at the coalface of racing. This stuff just undermines their efforts. Can't re-litigate the Morton case here. I doubt NZTR will test that precedent. As I said that would be bloody stupid. They wisely chose not to appeal at the time.

From the report on the Morton case. And the introductory words he used - "came across as" - made it plain he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to. McKechnie's words from the decision and prior, as Morty has said here. As I said. Try again.

It certainly does and was in the Morton case. It's not a private company but one performing a "public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law." Try again.