Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

curious

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,140

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    166

 Content Type 

Everything posted by curious

  1. curious
    I don't really see how the proposed new clause makes any difference to the current rule. This was tested rather frivolously a decade ago in the Morton case which concluded that he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to. And to quote McKechnie that "Action before the Judicial Control Authority must be with reference to the conduct of racing or behaviour by licensed persons which goes beyond the expression of criticism or scepticism. We do not consider those boundaries have been crossed."
  2. curious
    Any person covered by the rules isn't it?
  3. curious
    Where do you get the zero tolerance for jockeys and trainers? Is it different for other licence holders?
  4. curious
    Well the rule for drug testing is about any licence holder performing a safety-sensitive activity. Whether that is a jockey, trainer, strapper, work-rider or whatever doesn't matter. I personally think it should also cover non-licence holders such as starters and assistants for example.
  5. curious
    Hmmmm... He didn't have a +ve test but failure to appear for testing surely has to be treated as +ve. The primary purpose of D&A testing is H&S. So, you would say that a jockey say with a +ve breath test on race morning should be allowed to continue to ride until they have been charged and undergone due process?
  6. curious
    It's a good story boner. I did the reverse not too long ago in an online auction. Didn't bid expecting the other party to. Nek minute the hammer comes down and neither of us have it! Only consolation it probably saved the expenses on another slow horse.
  7. curious
    Exactly. NZTR in their wisdom have applied almost all of it to stakes. Some of that in advance thanks to a deal with TABNZ to that effect and all despite the Messara recommendation for infrastructure spend during the 6 years while they were closing tracks.
  8. curious
    And you could argue that Pinn's right elbow is out as result of him trying to steer his horse back onto the line she is trying to push him off. One of those pics look like she's trying to give Billy a cuddle!
  9. curious
    Oh dear. I thought you were only banned from posting naughty pics.
  10. curious
    There's a difference between a DQ which is possible, and a suspension which is likely. He seems to have worsened the penalty by pleading not guilty and only providing frivolous and largely unbelievable evidence to support his defence.
  11. curious
    Yes. NZTR hold that money and pay directly to winning owners. It doesn't get paid to clubs, only the race day operating related funding. Clubs can't use it for anything else. https://nztr.co.nz/sites/nztrindustry/files/2025-11/Funding Policy for NZ Thoroughbred clubs 2025 2026 Season 28 November 2025 v2.0.pdf See 4.0
  12. curious
    I bet the staff were lining up to lead that bloke in!
  13. curious
    I would have thought that delays in testing or retesting, especially if influenced by power would be "anathema" to all in the industry including you? Or do you have no concern for human or equine H&S?
  14. curious
    Well it used to be funded by clubs themselves from their wagering revenue. Since bulk funding came in, NZTR now distribute that to clubs, however they have dictated that funding be used almost entirely for stakes, thus removing clubs' funding for infrastructure.
  15. curious
    Because it is incumbent on NZTR to fund that and they don't.
  16. curious
    So that would rule out clubs like the CJC because it doesn't operate on freehold land of its own? Aside from that though, how do you see that your proposal would improve industry revenue?
  17. curious
    Hindsight is always 20/20. So, what is you better model for the next decade or two? Put it up so we can consider and debate it. I think you'd agree that the current and proposed ones don't and won't work.
  18. curious
    A lot of expenses may have been deferred but the industry lived within its means. Since then, we have increasingly paid out more to codes than we have earned, bankrupting the TAB and requiring a taxpayer bail out and the sale of that. As you noted above, more tracks with less racing required less frequent significant maintenance. I don't think the principle of living within our means and not having to beg steal and borrow to exist fails as a model. If you have a better one, what is it?
  19. curious
    Why? Can't you just reduce stakes to a level that provides sufficient additional revenue for infrastructure. That's how it worked until 20 years ago.
  20. curious
    What is untrue?
  21. curious
    What measure of participation are you using when you say that?
  22. curious
    So, isn't wagering the primary source of revenue which funds safe tracks and facilities as well as stakes?
  23. curious
    Well if you have better data or analysis on the correlation between turnover and stakes supporting your view that they are unrelated, please post it. At this point your restraint appears to be due to you having no evidence to the contrary.
  24. curious
    Did you not see the graph for 24/25 season that I posted in the Ellerslie thread?
  25. curious
    I've met one of them. Seemed a nice enough genuine chap. So @Chief Stipe, are you going to tell us what the story is that have got so very wrong?
×
×
  • Create New...