Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 13 minutes ago, The Major said: 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 current board member can't have much integrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 7 minutes ago, the galah said: comparing michael house with mark purdon is unfair. You made the comparison by referring to the 500+ other trainers below House on the premiership. Over a third of House's wins have been at Manawatu! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAB For Ever Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 23 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: 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. I think MHouse is in a different 'league' as a trainer to the top ones with the 'rich' owners who provide the wellbred expensive untried yearlings to be trained. To me MHouse is a committed horseman who is very knowledgable with a lot of experience. To me he is a battler with 'flair' and a bit of shoestring innovation. He takes cast-offs ,older horses and gives the horse and their owners an extended life in racing. He travels extensively and almost single-handedly provided Manawatu Harness the opportunity to continue racing by transporting horses there at some very difficult times. He also helped boost fields in both Southland racing and Auckland racing. He enjoys good success with a lot of 'cast-off' type horses. I see him as a 'grass -roots' battler , a great country clubs supporter ....the type so often praised on here !!!!!! He obviously has strong personal opinions and resents 'cheating' in the industry and doesn't mind saying so in public. Good on him I say...... IMO no need to turn on him and challenge his integrity and credentials. From what I hear there are many in the industry who support his strong stance on cheating , cos like him they understand the negative impact it has on Harness's integrity. And he proven a good mentor too , his son being a talented horseman and nice kid. IMO poor form to put knife into MHOuse for speaking out against a repeat offender ! 1 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 10 minutes ago, the galah said: 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. Cry me a river @the galah ! You're telling me that House deserves accolades for turning up all round Canterbury with average horses in below average races! So we should promote mediocrity for the good of Harness Racing - Yeah Na! Of course he has a right to express his opinions but he was put up to by the RIB and I suspect one individual. The one individual who has driven most of the INCA garbage and who has a reputation for dubious witness statements. The Tribunal no doubt quite rightly described House's affidavit as follows: The RIB provided an affidavit from a License Holder Mr Michael House. This opposed the application. Mr House uses emotive and at times extravagant language. He speaks simply as an individual. The Tribunal attaches no weight to the affidavit. Surely that is a big negative for House, the industry and his acolytes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 16 minutes ago, TAB For Ever said: IMO poor form to put knife into MHOuse for speaking out against a repeat offender ! He was a patsy for the RIB and according to the Tribunal made a hash of it. A forlorn hope I know but wouldn't it be great to see a formal inquiry into the costly mess that INCA turned out to be. Especially seeing witness and Informant statements. It would be great if someone posted House's affidavit. It would be even more interesting to find out who from the RIB approached House and presumably vetted his affidavit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Cry me a river @the galah ! You're telling me that House deserves accolades for turning up all round Canterbury with average horses in below average races! So we should promote mediocrity for the good of Harness Racing - Yeah Na! Of course he has a right to express his opinions but he was put up to by the RIB and I suspect one individual. The one individual who has driven most of the INCA garbage and who has a reputation for dubious witness statements. The Tribunal no doubt quite rightly described House's affidavit as follows: The RIB provided an affidavit from a License Holder Mr Michael House. This opposed the application. Mr House uses emotive and at times extravagant language. He speaks simply as an individual. The Tribunal attaches no weight to the affidavit. Surely that is a big negative for House, the industry and his acolytes. No,no negative at all. 13 minutes ago, TAB For Ever said: He obviously has strong personal opinions and resents 'cheating' in the industry and doesn't mind saying so in public. Good on him I say...... IMO no need to turn on him and challenge his integrity and credentials. From what I hear there are many in the industry who support his strong stance on cheating , cos like him they understand the negative impact it has on Harness's integrity. tab forever sums it up well as relates to that. Its the fact he was willing to express his opinion,knowing he was representing a point of view held by many,but also knowing he would cop criticism for doing so. 12 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: He was a patsy for the RIB and according to the Tribunal made a hash of it. Your a funny man chief. Calling house a patsy. doesn't patsy mean someone who is easy to cheat or take advantage of. If he were a patsy he would have not taken a stance where he expresses strong opinions against cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 I find the character assassination both unnecessary and extremely distasteful. Surely it should be possible to have an 'adult' discussion without ripping people to shreds? I knew Nigel way back when he was a lad working for D.G. A very good friend of mine actually gave Nigel his first driving success. He is likeable, personable, and great fun socially. But he has pushed the boundaries and has to bear the penalty for that. That doesn't make him an axe murderer or a child molester - but if you were competing against him at certain times, you may not think so kindly of him. Michael is a different kettle of fish altogether. He has dragged himself up by the bootstraps from nothing - no legendary trainer's footsteps for him to step into. As the owner [ now] of the Prebbleton Veterinary Clinic - formerly owned/developed by the well-respected John Shaw - he recently authorised some podiatry work on one of my horses who has significant foot problems. This is gonna cost, I said to him. Does the owner have the funds? he wanted to know. Who is the owner? me, I said. short answer, no. Off he went with his phone stuck to his ear and I heard him say, we'll do this pro bono. The gallopers he trains are also hand-me-downs, and he does a better than fair job with them too. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 I don't have a problem with House but I do have a problem with whoever at the RIB engaged him to write an affidavit. House's mistake was to write it. Of what benefit was it to the case? Of what benefit was it to House? Of what benefit was it to the Industry? In my opinion it reeks of the stench of the motivation behind the INCA affair. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 21 minutes ago, the galah said: Its the fact he was willing to express his opinion,knowing he was representing a point of view held by many,but also knowing he would cop criticism for doing so. We don't know what opinion he expressed other than the Tribunal considered it to be poor and of no consequence. Don't you see a degree of desperation on the RIB's part to present House's affidavit as evidence? Does it really give you confidence in the RIB? Afterall it is very clear in a legal context what an affidavit is. I remember very clearly being admonished by a Judge for presenting opinion rather than fact in my first attempt at writing and filing one. Didn't make that mistake again. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 15 minutes ago, Freda said: I find the character assassination both unnecessary and extremely distasteful. Surely it should be possible to have an 'adult' discussion without ripping people to shreds? I'm not sure where the character assassination of House has occurred in this thread but didn't he open himself up to criticism by filing an "emotive and extravagant language" affidavit? Who was doing the character assassination in that instance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAB For Ever Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: He was a patsy for the RIB and according to the Tribunal made a hash of it. A forlorn hope I know but wouldn't it be great to see a formal inquiry into the costly mess that INCA turned out to be. Especially seeing witness and Informant statements. It would be great if someone posted House's affidavit. It would be even more interesting to find out who from the RIB approached House and presumably vetted his affidavit. Yes ,all that would be of interest.....but let's not overlook that a repeat offender here ,possibly in search of success/money and with no thought to his career ,family and fellow Industry participants maybe thought he above all of that and repeated dishonesty which he had previously been heavily penalised for ! He received less than a maximum disq . so should have felt lucky. What if MHouse was put up to this....but judging by the description it was poorly presented so he obviously wasn't helped with that aspect ! YES, Inca was an absolute mess......a total disgrace it handled so badly , and it has galvanised many Industry participants against the RIB......deserved too IMO. But the offender in this ,NM , got his support from family , friends and those helping redemption....so hardly independent...I'd say closely conflicted ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: We don't know what opinion he expressed other than the Tribunal considered it to be poor and of no consequence. Don't you see a degree of desperation on the RIB's part to present House's affidavit as evidence? Does it really give you confidence in the RIB? Afterall it is very clear in a legal context what an affidavit is. I remember very clearly being admonished by a Judge for presenting opinion rather than fact in my first attempt at writing and filing one. Didn't make that mistake again. In my opinion,clearly your analysis is missing the blatantly obvious. the two decisions made in respect of mcgrath, being given permission to break in 18 months ago and the recent appeal. The most obvious thing is who is mcgrath listening to? Because whoever it is, is giving him some very poor advice. imagine encouraging mcgrath to seek permission to break in without ever having an understanding of the emotional stress,the negative press ,the cost ,the negative social media and very importantly how such approval would be perceived by other licence holders and the wider industry. Talk about reading the room wrong. the one thing mcgrath seems to place very high value on is ironically his respect amongst his peers. yet there he was,given advice to do something and no one thought to seek out what his peers thought or how it would be recieved. What were hrnz and mcgraths advisors thinking when giving him approval to break in so early in his sentence? do they care about the guy or not. Then the latest application. You would have thought ,having been publically humiliated to a degree with the first thing,his advisors would have wanted to protect him from the same stresses this time and at least learnt from the previous mistakes. He should only ever have been put through the latest hearing on the understanding of his application being a good thing to win. but that wasn't the case. again supported by the same echo chamber ,same lack of foresight. hell,you can't but have a degree of sympathy for the bloke just because of that. so once again hes comes out losing and once again people who supported him will deflect with things like personalities that didn't support him or dragging operation inca into the conversation. The whole things rather pathetic really. If mcgrath were to ask me,i would give him this advice. Don't listen to your current advisors. Sure,loyal support from them will be very valuable when he does make his come back and their intent should be appreciated,but they have a track record of giving you bad advice when it comes to these matters. When mcgrath makes his next application ,which he should in a couple of years,get the support of his peers like mark jones and use someone like that to set up something where he can discuss getting the support of the trainers and drivers association,create proper dialogue with thr RIB and stop treating them as the enemy,its not helping him,and just be transparent and up front with everyone.. Then his application will very likely be granted and while it may not please everyone,those who still opposed it won't mame a song and dance about it ,as their issue with him was always related to his actions,not his personality. Edited May 27 by the galah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAB For Ever Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: I don't have a problem with House but I do have a problem with whoever at the RIB engaged him to write an affidavit. House's mistake was to write it. Of what benefit was it to the case? Of what benefit was it to House? Of what benefit was it to the Industry? In my opinion it reeks of the stench of the motivation behind the INCA affair. To use one of your favourite responses Chief....do you have proof of this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 2 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: YES, Inca was an absolute mess......a total disgrace it handled so badly , and it has galvanised many Industry participants against the RIB......deserved too IMO. Which is evident in the RIB case to the Tribunal in the McGrath application. Forget about who is advising McGrath WHO advised House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, the galah said: When mcgrath makes his next application ,which he should in a couple of years,get the support of his peers like mark jones and use someone like that to set up something where he can discuss getting the support of the trainers and drivers association,create proper dialogue with thr RIB and stop treating them as the enemy,its not helping him,and just be transparent and up front with everyone.. You definitely are naive. Surely you are not suggesting that those who have similar views to House are going to change their minds nor that THEIR opinion actually matters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 6 minutes ago, TAB For Ever said: To use one of your favourite responses Chief....do you have proof of this ? It was in the Judgement which you obviously haven't read. Not only that I pasted the relevant paragraph from the Judgement above. The RIB presented House's affidavit as part of their evidence. Do you think it just fell off the back of a truck or it was delivered by the tooth fairy? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 13 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Which is evident in the RIB case to the Tribunal in the McGrath application. Forget about who is advising McGrath WHO advised House? The RIB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: You definitely are naive. Surely you are not suggesting that those who have similar views to House are going to change their minds nor that THEIR opinion actually matters? you call me naive quite a bit. naive isn't accurate. i think you find me irritating at times,so just call me that.I won't take offence to that.. When you talk about their opinions. I guess you mean other industry participants who thought it would be sending the wrong message if they were to halve the 8 year sentence. reality is integrity issues and peoples perception of how they are dealt with, is very important in my opinion. As to people changing their minds you say. i haven't been talking about people changing their minds. in that respect,i've been talking about people who think mcgraths sentence of 8 years was at the high end of the spectrum and would have no issue with it being reduced to say 6 years. Not halving ,that was never going to be successful and thats exactly how it played out wasn't it. But serving 75% of his sentence seems to fall within the realms of reasonable. thats as i see it.always have. thats why i predict he will be back in two years. good luck to him when he does. thasts why i support the hrnz rule, which if applied properly,creates leeway for someone to transition back into the sport through progressive steps.hrn Edited May 27 by the galah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gammalite Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: We don't know what opinion he expressed other than the Tribunal considered it to be poor and of no consequence. Don't you see a degree of desperation on the RIB's part to present House's affidavit as evidence? Does it really give you confidence in the RIB? Afterall it is very clear in a legal context what an affidavit is. I remember very clearly being admonished by a Judge for presenting opinion rather than fact in my first attempt at writing and filing one. Didn't make that mistake again. House is an experienced Horseman. He knows what is going on and (hopefully) operates within the rules all the time. he races in both islands and is well known to nearly all involved long term in the Industry. I would of thought his point of view would be an acceptable opinion. You must be happy with Robert Dunn's Chief? you haven't mentioned it much. Don't forget that witnesses in court proceedings every day , a groomed by the prosecution or the defense to come up with stuff advantageous to their case, even if knowing the applicant/defendent is guilty. A lot of the time the final decision might come as a reduced sentence , as mentioned by the Galah in the previous post. It seems he (McGrath) shows some remorse, is a good horseman (that NZ need at present state) , is a good bloke by all reports (so nothing wrong with fellow competitor's giving character reference surely?) and received a far too hefty sentence. I guess( like Alford and Jones got too ) the long Disqualifications put a Real Stop to the cheating , as people in the industry now , will be thinking twice or 3 x even before trying anything , or their time in the industry could be ended. Some schmucks still try milkshakes in Aus. we have about one a month on average from desparado's trying to keep up. The year out is obviously not enough to deter them (cause it's still happening) so for that reason , Well done Nz RIB for dishing up the long sentences. 😉 no-one cheating there now in NZ in recent times ? lol 😁 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, the galah said: When you talk about their opinions. I guess you mean other industry participants who thought it would be sending the wrong message if they were to halve the 8 year sentence. Opinions are irrelevant and not considered in a Tribunal or any court for that matter. 1 hour ago, the galah said: in that respect,i've been talking about people who think mcgraths sentence of 8 years was at the high end of the spectrum and would have no issue with it being reduced to say 6 years. Not halving ,that was never going to be successful and thats exactly how it played out wasn't it. Opinions again. Irrelevant. However if 8 years was manifestly just in the first place then that's what his term will be. 1 hour ago, the galah said: thats as i see it.always have. thats why i predict he will be back in two years. good luck to him when he does. thasts why i support the hrnz rule, which if applied properly,creates leeway for someone to transition back into the sport through progressive steps.hrn They won't as long as the RIB continues their stance. I gather for you to have this view you believe that the initial sentence was unjust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAB For Ever Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: It was in the Judgement which you obviously haven't read. Not only that I pasted the relevant paragraph from the Judgement above. The RIB presented House's affidavit as part of their evidence. Do you think it just fell off the back of a truck or it was delivered by the tooth fairy? You guessing Chief and rather naive of you to look for some desperate 'gap' in my comments which you trying to decipher for error ! Of course I read it......the summary is laced with implication that NM was a repeat offender who had been caught cheating previously ,been proven to be dishonest and had shown little respect for the Industry and his penalty was not excessive ! The bottom line / end result is that MHouse's affidavit carried no weight.....but it got a mention ,the summary stressed it was from an individual...so he only representing himself ,he not a policeman or writing as an Association committee member or a spokesman of a group ...but they read it.....it had emotive and extravagant language. So it carried no weight but they heard/read it. Knowing a little about MHouse I would expect it to be 'outside the square' ,up front and to the point. Passionate even ! The report makes this very clear ! The tribunal members ,both experienced long-time racing folk would know that MHouse was a credible 'spokesman' who was not afraid to put his neck out to make his point VERY CLEAR .......no weight but I'd bet a strong message of opposition came across ! And RIB probably had little say in what he wrote. They unlikely to find any Licensed horseman willing to write a supporting affidavit giving specifics and FACTS. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 12 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: I gather for you to have this view you believe that the initial sentence was unjust. No. i have faith that when it comes to length of penalties,the adjudicators know exactly what they are doing. 8 years ,not challened at all by appeal,was the sentecnce,so i believe that to be fair.. read the original decision,which i just did again,it seems very fair. But the logic i apply is. its obvious 8 years is a long sentence. I accept mcgrath today has made changes. In particular i accept hes more genuinely remorseful and has done proper self reflection on appropraite standards he must uphold to be a trainer. While the original adjudicators gave him some credit for that at the time,they stated in their decision that they only gave him a small credit due tio the mitigating factors. Also,in my opinion,at the time of the original sentence his actions thereafter were more an indication of someone upset by the predicament they found themselves in than genuine someone rejecting what they had done. So given,how mcgrath has progressed in his remore and rehabilatation,i believe it logical that it is reasonable to give greater weight to that aspect. So its reasonable for any future appeal hearing, to factor that in when deciding whether that future date is an ok time to allow him back.I think they should and will the factors i have mentioned never warranted the sentence being halved though. Just the wrong time,and i thought that should have been pretty obvious before he even tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 9 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: You guessing Chief and rather naive of you to look for some desperate 'gap' in my comments which you trying to decipher for error ! Of course I read it......the summary is laced with implication that NM was a repeat offender who had been caught cheating previously ,been proven to be dishonest and had shown little respect for the Industry and his penalty was not excessive ! The bottom line / end result is that MHouse's affidavit carried no weight.....but it got a mention ,the summary stressed it was from an individual...so he only representing himself ,he not a policeman or writing as an Association committee member or a spokesman of a group ...but they read it.....it had emotive and extravagant language. So it carried no weight but they heard/read it. Knowing a little about MHouse I would expect it to be 'outside the square' ,up front and to the point. Passionate even ! The report makes this very clear ! The tribunal members ,both experienced long-time racing folk would know that MHouse was a credible 'spokesman' who was not afraid to put his neck out to make his point VERY CLEAR .......no weight but I'd bet a strong message of opposition came across ! And RIB probably had little say in what he wrote. They unlikely to find any Licensed horseman willing to write a supporting affidavit giving specifics and FACTS. More back flips in that post than the Cirque du Soleil!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 9 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: The bottom line / end result is that MHouse's affidavit carried no weight.....but it got a mention ,the summary stressed it was from an individual...so he only representing himself ,he not a policeman or writing as an Association committee member or a spokesman of a group ...but they read it.....it had emotive and extravagant language. Bollocks as the Judge said to me opinion carries no weight in a Court of Law. An affidavit is a legal document that sets out clearly the facts in support of your case. Nothing more. It is obvious that the RIB had contact with House either before and or after the affidavit was written. It is a serious indictment on both parties that the affidavit was presented as RIB evidence. Surely there is ample experience at the RIB to have either coached House in writing the affidavit or chosen to not present it. It was presented as RIB evidence NOT as an individual. The Tribunal members have extensive legal experience and treated the affidavit with the disdain it deserved. 9 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: So it carried no weight but they heard/read it. Only because they were obliged to read it as it was presented as evidence by the RIB albeit I'd say nerfariously. 9 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: The tribunal members ,both experienced long-time racing folk McKechnies day job is as a very experienced litigator. That is far more relevant than his hobbies. 9 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: would know that MHouse was a credible 'spokesman' who was not afraid to put his neck out to make his point VERY CLEAR But in his affidavit House clearly showed he wasn't credible hence it was ignored. 9 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: no weight but I'd bet a strong message of opposition came across ! The legal professionals I know have an innate ability to completely ignore the irrelevant and not be influenced by it. 9 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: And RIB probably had little say in what he wrote. Are you suggesting they didn't even read it before they presented it as evidence? Even more sloppy. Are you suggesting House rang the RIB and said I'll write an affidavit in support of your case? Even more dodgy. 10 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: They unlikely to find any Licensed horseman willing to write a supporting affidavit giving specifics and FACTS. Correct. They found House to give evidence but he didnt have any. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 25 minutes ago, the galah said: 8 years ,not challened at all by appeal,was the sentecnce,so i believe that to be fair.. That was McGrath's third mistake not appealing. The fact he didn't appeal doesn't add weight to it being right as you infer. 28 minutes ago, the galah said: its obvious 8 years is a long sentence. I accept mcgrath today has made changes. In particular i accept hes more genuinely remorseful and has done proper self reflection on appropraite standards he must uphold to be a trainer. There appears to be no concept of parole in the rules. It is more of an appeal against the original sentence and is heavily skewed towards justifying the original sentence rather than rehabilitation. Perhaps that is unjust given we allow the concept of parole and rehabilitation in higher Courts. 30 minutes ago, the galah said: So its reasonable for any future appeal hearing, to factor that in when deciding whether that future date is an ok time to allow him back.I think they should and will Which he can do again in 12 months. Not that it carries any weight but do you think House's emotive views will have cooled down by then? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.