mcgrath decision

[the galah]

the appliaction  to allow n mcgrath to resume training was dismissed.

But the published decision did have some interesting things.

I found it interesting that HRNZ had at one point agreed to allow mr mcgrath to break in and gait horses. 

What was interesting about that,was it was acknowledged that the approval was done without any consultation with the Intergrity unit.

Now call me cynical,but don't those associated with HRNZ sometimes consult with  the integrity unit and ask them for imput on matters of far, far less significance than the mcgrath case.

What was going on with hrnz there?

was it because the integrity unit would have opposed that.

Seems a major double standard by those at hrnz.

Turned out mcgrath didn't take up the breaking in of horses as he was upset by the adverse publicity.

interesting that mr mcgrath would not want to bring adverse publicity upon himself and the industry.

So you have to wonder,given he thinks of the negative consequences for that,how did he get a different mindset for the cause of the predicament he finds himself in.Thats interesting.

The trainers and drivers association didn't provide support or otherwise to his application.

Robert dunn obviously provided a reference to support mr mcgraths application and the finding noted he is a prominent figure in harness racing.

Interesting that those hearing the case would call him a prominent figure,but when it came to michael house providing an affidavit that opposed the application,they described him as someone speking as an individual.

So if they describe house like that,then who was dunn speaking for, as i thought he is also only one person,the definition of an individual.  I thought those hearing the case used confusing language there.

good on dunn and house for both going on record.Especially House given that he may be speaking for the majority,but the majority is often preferred not to be heard.

At the end of the day,it must have cost mr mcgrath a lot to have that hearing and he may have to pay costs.

Hes only try6ing to do whats best for himself and his family so you can't blame him for that.

But somehow you would think the people advising him have given him some bum advice.

perhaps he will l;earn from this hearing and approach it in a way next time where he may have more success with a similar application at a more realistic time.

Edited May 25 by the galah

[Newmarket]

Not surprised the ones supporting McGrath….

[Chief Stipe]

Not surprised those NOT supporting McGrath.  Gives everyone a clue about lots of things.

[the galah]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Not surprised those NOT supporting McGrath.  Gives everyone a clue about lots of things.

the hearing does give us some clues about things,

it showed people with influence and standing will try and use that to assist someone they know and like.

personally i may not agree with their thinking the disqualification should be halved,but i find it understandable that people supporting mcgrath would do that.

then again i could say,what say the facts were the same,but the personality was not mcgrath and instead some hardly known small timer.

Well i know the answer to that,Sorry small timer,go away,we don't care.

Which is why i give kudos for michael house being willing to be named as opposing the application.

House has clearly looked at the application,taken out the personality side of it,and expressed his opinions based on whether someone who gets disqualified for 8 years should get the sentence halved..

Now those hearing the case obviously came to the conclusuion that they didn't need to know what house thought.

I suppose they made it clear that they weren't influenced by house from their wording,but they would have read what he said.

At the end of the day those making the decision clearly didn't think now was an appropriate time to tamper with the original sentence.Maybe it will happen in the future.

But i think the hearing should be seen as having dealt with the facts,irrespective of the personality. 

which of course is how everyone should hope it would be,whatever side you were supporting.

Edited May 26 by the galah

[Rangatira]

19 hours ago, the galah said:

What was interesting about that,was it was acknowledged that the approval was done without any consultation with the Intergrity unit.

Didn't this questionably named unit have some involvement in Operation Inca ?

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Rangatira said:

Didn't this questionably named unit have some involvement in Operation Inca ?

whats the mcgrath application got to do with operation inca?

would mcgrath have been caught milkshaking his horse if not for the fact he was under more scrutiny because of operation inca?

Are you saying the the integrity unit can be used to put pressure and cause stress to certain people on the whim of someone with connections to hrnz,but can't be asked for an opinion on a disqualified person getting there licence back?

 

[Walt]

Nigel made some serious errors of judgement along the way but is a sterling guy who has owned his errors and worked incredibly hard to be the best man, father and partner it's possible to be.

What was it that Jesus about he is without sin cast the first stone?  As I've said previously, the last person that lived his life without making an error ended up being nailed to a cross. 

On the subject of being crucified. That's exactly what's happened to Nigel and it's deeply personal. It's my contention the penalty imposed on Nigel is out of proportion and the unwillingness to give him credit for everything he's done since and exercise discretion and forgiveness is riddled with self preservation and revenge.

Inca may not be directly involved but I believe the humiliation of costly blunders and reputational damage made via Inca has a role to play to my eye. 

We know who supported Nigel with his application but the eggplant that made a submission against Nigel is not so well known. That holier than thou person is a trainer I once respected despite the number of people over the years that have told me what a prick he is. 

His submission was viewed by the panel. I believe the ramblings made in that submission were deemed of no value or merit whatsoever and promptly transferred to the equivalent of a garbage bin.......where it belonged

I wish Nigel the very best and applaud him for owning and learning from his errors and evolving into the superb human being he is now. At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later that will be acknowledged and rewarded. 

[Gammalite]

A very harsh (long ) penalty was imposed on McGrath. there must of been some underlying reason for this. almost 4 times the normal milkshake penalty. 

Robert Dunn had a few blemishes himself back in the day with substances , so can probably understand the predicament that Nigel has found himself in.

I'm All for 'Serve ya time' then get on with it. you are removed from horse contact while DQed. Nothing wrong with reducing the term if the board agrees to it . esp for being manifestly excessive in a way. you can only try.

Speaking of tries. The Bronco's just lost just now in the NRL (and the Brissy Lions too in the AFL the dills 🙄) and so it's up to my mates from down the road (REDCLIFFE Dolphins) to knock off the NZ Warriors at Mt Smart , which has just started , to get some QLD redemption back. 

Fins Up 😆

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Walt said:

Nigel made some serious errors of judgement along the way but is a sterling guy who has owned his errors and worked incredibly hard to be the best man, father and partner it's possible to be.

What was it that Jesus about he is without sin cast the first stone?  As I've said previously, the last person that lived his life without making an error ended up being nailed to a cross. 

On the subject of being crucified. That's exactly what's happened to Nigel and it's deeply personal. It's my contention the penalty imposed on Nigel is out of proportion and the unwillingness to give him credit for everything he's done since and exercise discretion and forgiveness is riddled with self preservation and revenge.

Inca may not be directly involved but I believe the humiliation of costly blunders and reputational damage made via Inca has a role to play to my eye. 

We know who supported Nigel with his application but the eggplant that made a submission against Nigel is not so well known. That holier than thou person is a trainer I once respected despite the number of people over the years that have told me what a prick he is. 

His submission was viewed by the panel. I believe the ramblings made in that submission were deemed of no value or merit whatsoever and promptly transferred to the equivalent of a garbage bin.......where it belonged

I wish Nigel the very best and applaud him for owning and learning from his errors and evolving into the superb human being he is now. At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later that will be acknowledged and rewarded. 

I'm not going to knock nigel mcgrath as a person.

sounds like you know him and have a high opinion of him.I have no doubt he has the qualities you speak of. Good on you for supporting him as i think loyalty is a very important in life.

But as to casting the first stone.

Well i can tell you, its been obvious the lengths mr mcgrath went to win and if you had raced against him and been beaten because you know you played by the rules and he didn't,your sympathy as regards the predicament he finds himself in,well lets just say most won't have much.

Also,you can do both like him and admire many of his obvious qualities as a person,but at the same time recognise that he needed to be penalised for what he was doing.

people need to differentiate the two things and not lump things into one category.

I put m houses views in that category and your criticism of m house to me is totally unwarranted on this matter.

From the people i speak to,what m houses says most of the time,the vast majority totally agree with.I think hes far more in touch with grass roots participants thinking.

And even when people don't agree with what he may be saying,they respect him because they see him as someone willing to not be cowered into towing the line or the turning a blind eye.

You know,when it comes to mr house,i think people in a group will criticise him,as if its what they think they should be seen saying,but when your having a one on one conversation with those very same people they will actually express opinions similar to his and indicate they respect him.

But i think you need to read the decision in full.

it said,"this tribunal should not and cannot review the unchallenged decision of the judicial committee.Much odf the material filed for mr mcgrath was critical of that decision. The only way that decision could be challenged was to formally appeal."

The tribunal pointed out mcgrath never took any steps to appeal the original sentence.

 

Edited May 26 by the galah

[Gammalite]

7 minutes ago, the galah said:

The tribunal pointed out mcgrath never took any steps to appeal.

so this tribunal was not there to deal with an appeal against the length of his sentence.

Well that's a surprise he didn't do that.  when originally given the Penalty. Many do appeal.

Robert and John Dunn even got their caffeine 'fine' halved by appealing . so you can get a result if you present a good case. 

For McGrath, Not against the charges but at least should of appealed against the severity of the penalty. He might of got somewhere then.? must be doing it tough the poor bugger to go through this latest process.

[the galah]

11 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

Well that's a surprise he didn't do that.  when originally given the Penalty. Many do appeal.

Robert and John Dunn even got their caffeine 'fine' halved by appealing . so you can get a result if you present a good case. 

For McGrath, Not against the charges but at least should of appealed against the severity of the penalty. He might of got somewhere then.? must be doing it tough the poor bugger to go through this latest process.

yes easy to have symapthy for that aspect of it.

But reality is he made the decision to put himself through this stressful process and was why he had to present a strong and compelling case.Especially if he was expecting to overturn such a high profile decision.

so he got it wrong and was that a surprise? surely not. 

Personally i think it very telling that the nz harness trainers and drivers association chose not to make any submissions.

Thats a clear indication that they were not willing to go on record as supporting this application.

no doubt that is because they realised just how contentious and strongly some people feel about the rule breaches involved .

Edited May 26 by the galah

[Walt]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

I'm not going to knock nigel mcgrath as a person.

sounds like you know him and have a high opinion of him.I have no doubt he has the qualities you speak of. Good on you for supporting him as i think loyalty is a very important in life.

But as to casting the first stone.

Well i can tell you, its been obvious the lengths mr mcgrath went to win and if you had raced against him and been beaten because you know you played by the rules and he didn't,your sympathy as regards the predicament he finds himself in,well lets just say most won't have much.

Also,you can do both like him and admire many of his obvious qualities as a person,but at the same time recognise that he needed to be penalised for what he was doing.

people need to differentiate the two things and not lump things into one category.

I put m houses views in that category and your criticism of m house to me is totally unwarranted on this matter.

From the people i speak to,what m houses says most of the time,the vast majority totally agree with.I think hes far more in touch with grass roots participants thinking.

And even when people don't agree with what he may be saying,they respect him because they see him as someone willing to not be cowered into towing the line or the turning a blind eye.

You know,when it comes to mr house,i think people in a group will criticise him,as if its what they think they should be seen saying,but when your having a one on one conversation with those very same people they will actually express opinions similar to his and indicate they respect him.

But i think you need to read the decision in full.

it said,"this tribunal should not and cannot review the unchallenged decision of the judicial committee.Much odf the material filed for mr mcgrath was critical of that decision. The only way that decision could be challenged was to formally appeal."

The tribunal pointed out mcgrath never took any steps to appeal the original sentence.

 

It appears you're choosing to read things in a way that supports your perspective Galah and allows you to point fingers. 

Not appealing the original decision is not necessarily relevant. Judges and panels etc are well known for pulling anything out of a hat to justify their stance.

A fair old percentage of people on the receiving end of severe sentences in the courts appeal the sentence or conviction.....or both. Occasionally, some just accept harsh penalties for a list of reasons that may include their guilt, humiliation, shame they feel over their offending etc. I'm not saying any of those apply to Nigel just putting possibilities on the table. Should they spend an unreasonable amount of time suffering after they have owned their offending and gone to great lengths to be a very good man with a lot to offer? 

As you know, another high profile trainer made some serious errors but addressed the issues and went on to continue being a respected trainer winning dozens of group one races worth millions of dollars. 

As for Mr House. Never met him but unsure about your claim that the vast majority agreeing with his views. Have you run a survey? We are discussing his vindictive holier than thou stance toward Nigel and him wanting to kick the man while he's down. That is shithouse in my book. I do know multiple trainers and owners in the game and it's confronting to hear from so many over the years that can't stand him on a personal level. 

As for you advising me to read the report in full. Do you honestly think I'd say what I'm saying without reading the farking report? 

This statement of yours about "respect" is questionable.

"You know,when it comes to mr house,i think people in a group will criticise him,as if its what they think they should be seen saying,but when your having a one on one conversation with those very same people they will actually express opinions similar to his and indicate they respect him"

 

Being a vindictive person toward a good man that has paid such a high price for his errors but has worked extremely hard to put them right is not something I believe is worthy of respect. Do you know what he actually said about Nigel? It was so out there the panel saw no merit in it whatsoever and discarded it. That may be worthy of respect in your eyes but it sure as fark isn't in mine or numerous others I know.

Some of what you say is fair but a lot does not marry up with my understanding of what is reasonable to the extent it sounds at least in part like you're talking out of your arse. That's disappointing as I'd previously enjoyed reading some of your input. 

Misrepresenting facts is not a trait well received at my end. I certainly never suggested Nigel shouldn't be punished for his serious errors. The question I raise concerns what is a reasonable punishment and should we factor in all the work Nigel has done in recent years to be the man he is today? 

You and I differ on this important issue and that's ok but don't bullshit me about my criticism of a vindictive stance toward Nigel on this matter being unwarranted. 

What does this statement of yours mean? 

"As for Mr House. Never met him but dispute your claim about the vast majority agreeing with his views"

Where did I say that? What I actually stated was relating to the number of people in the game that have told me over the years what a prick he is. 

You seem to be in equal parts a cheerleader of Mr House and a Nigel McGrath hater. 

I hate what Nigel did and so does he......but he's a good man who's paid a very high price. I believe that when a man owns his serious errors, is extremely remorseful and has done everything possible to put it right, he at least deserves a fair hearing without vindictive finger pointing. 

This will be my last say on this matter or any other matter at least for a while. I have something I must attend to that will keep me out of action from tomorrow. 

I wish Nigel well. He messed up and knows it but how many fingers should they chop off to potentially satisfy revenge or avoid highlighting their own previous failings with the Inca debacle? 

Edited May 26 by Walt

[the galah]

10 hours ago, Walt said:

It appears you're choosing to read things in a way that supports your perspective Galah and allows you to point fingers. 

Not appealing the original decision is not necessarily relevant. Judges and panels etc are well known for pulling anything out of a hat to justify their stance.

A fair old percentage of people on the receiving end of severe sentences in the courts appeal the sentence or conviction.....or both. Occasionally, some just accept harsh penalties for a list of reasons that may include their guilt, humiliation, shame they feel over their offending etc. I'm not saying any of those apply to Nigel just putting possibilities on the table. Should they spend an unreasonable amount of time suffering after they have owned their offending and gone to great lengths to be a very good man with a lot to offer? 

As you know, another high profile trainer made some serious errors but addressed the issues and went on to continue being a respected trainer winning dozens of group one races worth millions of dollars. 

As for Mr House. Never met him but unsure about your claim that the vast majority agreeing with his views. Have you run a survey? We are discussing his vindictive holier than thou stance toward Nigel and him wanting to kick the man while he's down. That is shithouse in my book. I do know multiple trainers and owners in the game and it's confronting to hear from so many over the years that can't stand him on a personal level. 

As for you advising me to read the report in full. Do you honestly think I'd say what I'm saying without reading the farking report? 

This statement of yours about "respect" is questionable.

"You know,when it comes to mr house,i think people in a group will criticise him,as if its what they think they should be seen saying,but when your having a one on one conversation with those very same people they will actually express opinions similar to his and indicate they respect him"

 

Being a vindictive person toward a good man that has paid such a high price for his errors but has worked extremely hard to put them right is not something I believe is worthy of respect. Do you know what he actually said about Nigel? It was so out there the panel saw no merit in it whatsoever and discarded it. That may be worthy of respect in your eyes but it sure as fark isn't in mine or numerous others I know.

Some of what you say is fair but a lot does not marry up with my understanding of what is reasonable to the extent it sounds at least in part like you're talking out of your arse. That's disappointing as I'd previously enjoyed reading some of your input. 

Misrepresenting facts is not a trait well received at my end. I certainly never suggested Nigel shouldn't be punished for his serious errors. The question I raise concerns what is a reasonable punishment and should we factor in all the work Nigel has done in recent years to be the man he is today? 

You and I differ on this important issue and that's ok but don't bullshit me about my criticism of a vindictive stance toward Nigel on this matter being unwarranted. 

What does this statement of yours mean? 

"As for Mr House. Never met him but dispute your claim about the vast majority agreeing with his views"

Where did I say that? What I actually stated was relating to the number of people in the game that have told me over the years what a prick he is. 

You seem to be in equal parts a cheerleader of Mr House and a Nigel McGrath hater. 

I hate what Nigel did and so does he......but he's a good man who's paid a very high price. I believe that when a man owns his serious errors, is extremely remorseful and has done everything possible to put it right, he at least deserves a fair hearing without vindictive finger pointing. 

This will be my last say on this matter or any other matter at least for a while. I have something I must attend to that will keep me out of action from tomorrow. 

I wish Nigel well. He messed up and knows it but how many fingers should they chop off to potentially satisfy revenge or avoid highlighting their own previous failings with the Inca debacle? 

Walt,when does the timeframe happen where you come to describe someone as vindictive,holier than thou and wishing to kick a man when they are down kick in?

I ask that question because this was widely reported 18 months ago when HRNZ made a decision to allow mcgrath to break in horses.A decision at the time suppoerted by the same people who supported him this time.

"Trainers bombarded the board of hrnz with emails and letters demanding the decision be revisted.Some say the the issue has brought unhappiness with industry leadership to a head...........Robert dunn ,a board member was asked for comment but did not respond.."

Mark jones was quoted he had "never seen the industry stand up so strong together against something that isn't right".

"no one has anything personal against nigel. Whoever supported this has let the industry down...it sends completely the wrong message"

"If they are going to make an exemption for nigel,they have to do it for others. Who's next"

 

of note,that was not even as significant as an apllication to half his disqualificion.

I'm sure you get my point walt,that is, Its not unreasonable to express an opinion,when asked,that someone should not have their disqualification halved.

it doesn't make you the things you descrobed m house as for having that opinion.

as to reading the decision.

yes i had assumed you had read the decision.

But i had also assumed,rightly or wroongly, you had preconceived thoughts on his original penalty,knew the current application had been dismissed then read the decision and after you had  read the first  part,you would have been thinking was does mcgrath have to do to catch a break,so when it came to what i personally consider was the most omportant part of the decsion,the reason why they dismissed the appeal,you didn't place the significance to it that it warranted.

Thats why i specifically suggested you read that part.

Anyway. ,i sincerely hope whatever it is that you say you will focus on in the near future goes well for you. I look forward to you getting back to having spare time again to express your opinions on here,which i always enjpy reading. 

Edited May 26 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

@the galah you are naive if you don't think there are factions within the industry.  Unfortunately some kept fueling INCA out of bitterness and jealousy rather than substance.

Harness Racing has always been like that.

Michael House is an average trainer at best. 

[The Major]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

@the galah you are naive if you don't think there are factions within the industry.  Unfortunately some kept fueling INCA out of bitterness and jealousy rather than substance.

Harness Racing has always been like that.

Michael House is an average trainer at best. 

4th on the premiership table,far better than average I would suggest!

 

[Chief Stipe]

12 minutes ago, The Major said:

4th on the premiership table,far better than average I would suggest!

 

24 wins from 247 starts?  Hardly above average.

Barely reaches 0.2000 UDR at the best of times.

Barely earns more than $1,200 per start.

Anyway you've made 14 posts on BOAY the majority of them promoting House.  What's the connection?

Hell you even promoted him to take over as CEO of HRNZ.  I'd suggest reading how the judiciary described his recent affidavit that he's got Buckley's chance!

[The Major]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

@the galah you are naive if you don't think there are factions within the industry.  Unfortunately some kept fueling INCA out of bitterness and jealousy rather than substance.

Harness Racing has always been like that.

Michael House is an average trainer at best. 

4th on the premiership table,far better than average I would suggest!

 

[the galah]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

@the galah you are naive if you don't think there are factions within the industry.  Unfortunately some kept fueling INCA out of bitterness and jealousy rather than substance.

Harness Racing has always been like that.

Michael House is an average trainer at best. 

Whenever did i say there weren't factions within the industry.

In fact i even quoted mark jones in the post right before yours,where he said.....never seen the industry stand up so strong together against something that isn't right...

so if i'm quoting that it indicates i'm illustrating the industry is often divided on many issues.

I'm not a cheerleader for m house,nor want to be.

But as the major has pointed out,house is currently 4th on the premiership.

In fact hes finished in the top 4 for the last 7 years.

your a tough judge chief.

i suspect you wouldn't be calling him that if he said things you agree with.

i wonder what you think of the other 502 trainers who finish behind him? 

Edited May 27 by the galah

[The Major]

29 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

24 wins from 247 starts?  Hardly above average.

Barely reaches 0.2000 UDR at the best of times.

Barely earns more than $1,200 per start.

Anyway you've made 14 posts on BOAY the majority of them promoting House.  What's the connection?

Hell you even promoted him to take over as CEO of HRNZ.  I'd suggest reading how the judiciary described his recent affidavit that he's got Buckley's chance!

He couldn't be any worse than the lot who have been running the show lately.Huge payouts made to 3 of them for leaving,authorised by themselves, so I've been told by a board member who is very unhappy with what has been going on!

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, The Major said:

4th on the premiership table,far better than average I would suggest!

 

He's only had one major win in the last 3 years!  Even @the galah would struggle to say House was an elite trainer.  @the galah gets all hot when the All Stars drop below UDR 0.3500!  House has never ever got close.

On all standard measures House is average at best.

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, the galah said:

But as the major has pointed out,house is currently 4th on the premiership.

In fact hes finished in the top 4 for the last 7 years.

your a tough judge chief.

FFS @the galah use your favourite measure the UDR and House is distinctly below average.  One major win in the last 3 years - a listed race at Kaikoura.  Averages stuff all stakes winnings per starts and only clocks up winners because he chases lower grade races all over the country!  

[Chief Stipe]

16 minutes ago, the galah said:

i suspect you wouldn't be calling him that if he said things you agree with.

I would because I'm not a hypocrite.

16 minutes ago, the galah said:

i wonder what you think of the other 502 trainers who finish behind him? 

Really on that basis you'd rank House above Mark Purdon, Cran Dalgety, the Williamson's, Herlihy?  I know who I'd send my expensive yearling to!!!

[Chief Stipe]

16 minutes ago, The Major said:

He couldn't be any worse than the lot who have been running the show lately.Huge payouts made to 3 of them for leaving,authorised by themselves, so I've been told by a board member who is very unhappy with what has been going on!

Hearsay.  Any proof?  

[The Major]

I was told personally by a current board member,and this was confirmed to me by a prominent trainer who knew exactly what the three 6 figure payments amounted to.I don't know if this information is available to the public or how to access it from HRNZ,so I guess you have to call it Hearsay.

[the galah]

32 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

FFS @the galah use your favourite measure the UDR and House is distinctly below average.  One major win in the last 3 years - a listed race at Kaikoura.  Averages stuff all stakes winnings per starts and only clocks up winners because he chases lower grade races all over the country!  

I don't know chief.

this topic has gone off on a bit of a tangent,but it happens sometimes i suppose.

Like i have said .Your hard to please.

I know a couple of trainers who i speak to from time to time who have had horses with house and they have earned substantial amounts. They aren't top liners but very handy horses.

i have spoken to them in the past and briefly asked them what they thought of house and they have said nothing but positive things.

comparing michael house with mark purdon is unfair.

On one hand you have a trainer with millionaire owners who move on any horse that they don't consider capable of competing at high levels.Then you have house who takes on horses of varying abitlities,often at the lower end,and plots a course with them to reach their maximum earning potential.

On one hand you have a trainer who mostly runs in races with the high stakes,races that don't generate profit from turnover.

on the other hand you have a trainer who is recognised as providing the most horses to regularly race, in the races around canterbury that keep the industry going,the races that generate profit from turnover compared with stakes paid.The very races that help fund the high stake races .

You don't have to agree with what he says and you can think hes average if you want. I don't agree,but surely even you can see how important he is to the industry and why he has every rite to express opinions.

I'm putting the michael house cheerleader pom poms back in the closet where they belong now. I have used them too much today already i think.

Edited May 27 by the galah