mcgrath decision

[Chief Stipe]

One question that I hope someone can answer is why weren't HRNZ a respondent?  Only the RIB were.

At the end of day it is HRNZ that grant the license and it is the HRNZ rules that are being addressed.

[the galah]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

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.

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.

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?

whether mcgrath would or wouldn't have been successful on appeal is debateable,but we do know the adjudicators were wise and legally experienced people and their original judgement reflected that.

When you say the latest hearing was more an appeal against the original sentence,that was a concept clearly rejected by the appeal judges.

mcgrath's cousel may have treated it like that,but he got it wrong.

Mcgraths cousel i think,like his supporters at HRNZ,have become too personally involved and have lost perspective. 

Parole the word you use/steps needed to be undertaken to resume ones career,whatever you call it .

i think they are there. Its just a matter of HRNZ using common sense and applying them at the appropriate time.

Hrnz did not use common sense when granting mcgrath permission to break in after such a short period of time. If anything you could argue HRNZ abused the spirit of the rules by doing that.

It was pointed out at the latest hearing that even if mcgrath's had have won the case and had the disqualification ended,it did not mean he would automatically be granted a licence to train again.

But given HRNZ"s past decision making it appears they are happy to bend over backwards for someone who breaks the rules and has connections with those in authority.

That wasn't a good look which ever way you cut it.

anyway,If and when he is successful in a subsequent appeal in the future,that would be the appropraite time for HRNZ to take the transitional approach to mcgraths return.That would be the time when he should be granted approval to break in and pre train,with  conditions that should he have no rule breaches say within 12 months,then he could say train a team of no more than 10 racehorses,then in another 12 months he could become fully licensed again.

There needs to be common sense applied and they need to have people at hrnz making decsions about mcgrath who have no conflict of interest.If they did that,then it would help mcgrath be perceived better.

Edited May 28 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

43 minutes ago, the galah said:

whether mcgrath would or wouldn't have been successful on appeal is debateable,but we do know the adjudicators were wise and legally experienced people and their original judgement reflected that.

That may well be the case with regard to the adjudicators however I've seen it in many cases before where racing defendants have not legalled up soon enough and have not challenged.  Often when they do they go in to the fight with a barrister or KC that doesnt understand racing. 

Often due to an unwritten perceived plea bargain type deal I.e. if I plead guilty or don't fight I'll get a lesser  sentence.

Unfortunately McGrath panicked initially and made things worse.  In some ways that is understandable because of the recent modus operandi of the Feds.

He then gave up the fight and retrenched.  Again that is not surprising when he would have been fully aware of the extraordinary costs incurred by those already fighting the RIB.

If McGrath had been a union man perhaps the union would have helped because a sentencing precedent set can affect anyone else in the future.

Note the Harness and Trainers Association were completely missing in action.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

When you say the latest hearing was more an appeal against the original sentence,that was a concept clearly rejected by the appeal judges.

It wasn't clearly rejected.  Arguably the final judgement is somewhat poorly constructed on the reasons for the decision.

It really is a good example of tautology and semantics.  

McGrath essentially was asking for the cancellation of his disqualification after having completed 4 years of his 8 year sentence.

If the Tribunal had agreed to do that then effectively it would have been the same as an appeal producing a sentence reduction.

What is clear to me is that the rules under which the application was made are unclear as are the grounds under which a decision can be made.

If the rule(s) intent is to provide relief after rehabilitation akin to parole then they fail to meet that intent.

Subsequently I can't see how anything will change for the Tribunal adjudicators in another years time.

1 hour ago, the galah said:

Hrnz did not use common sense when granting mcgrath permission to break in after such a short period of time. If anything you could argue HRNZ abused the spirit of the rules by doing that.

It was pointed out at the latest hearing that even if mcgrath's had have won the case and had the disqualification ended,it did not mean he would automatically be granted a licence to train again.

Where HRNZ has erred majorily is in not defending their actions or challenging their rights with the RIB.  Not to mention of course that they have yet to rewrite their rules to remove ambiguity amongst other failings.

Once McGrath's finished his sentence then it is HRNZ's decision to issue a license NOT the RIB's.  The RIB may lodge an objection but I'm not sure if the rules allow that.  Common justice would support McGrath being relicensed afterall his sentence was 8 years NOT life.

Wouldn't a better option be for the industry to grant a supervised parole period before the 8 years is up?

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

There needs to be common sense applied and they need to have people at hrnz making decsions about mcgrath who have no conflict of interest.If they did that,then it would help mcgrath be perceived better.

Like Michael House?  

Where are you going to find anyone with no conflict of interest?

Wouldn't a better solution be for HRNZ to get off their arse and work with the industry associations and groups and rewrite the rules and guidelines so that they are workable and above all back and white?

The rules are based on this puritanical concept that racing needs to be held to a higher standard than the rest of society in order to maintain its "social licence".  A term I might add that hasn't be around very long in the history of racing.

That's where the industry shoots itself in the foot.  It tries to achieve a standard that the rest of society isn't accountable to with normal everyday people.  So it will fail time and time again especially when there are those involved that can't achieve in the lower standards enforced elsewhere.

In the real world rather than in this artificial construct McGrath would have had to have committed a far more heinous crime than he did for 8 years and would have been paroled in 4.

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

It wasn't clearly rejected.  Arguably the final judgement is somewhat poorly constructed on the reasons for the decision.

It really is a good example of tautology and semantics.  

McGrath essentially was asking for the cancellation of his disqualification after having completed 4 years of his 8 year sentence.

If the Tribunal had agreed to do that then effectively it would have been the same as an appeal producing a sentence reduction.

What is clear to me is that the rules under which the application was made are unclear as are the grounds under which a decision can be made.

If the rule(s) intent is to provide relief after rehabilitation akin to parole then they fail to meet that intent.

Subsequently I can't see how anything will change for the Tribunal adjudicators in another years time.

Where HRNZ has erred majorily is in not defending their actions or challenging their rights with the RIB.  Not to mention of course that they have yet to rewrite their rules to remove ambiguity amongst other failings.

Once McGrath's finished his sentence then it is HRNZ's decision to issue a license NOT the RIB's.  The RIB may lodge an objection but I'm not sure if the rules allow that.  Common justice would support McGrath being relicensed afterall his sentence was 8 years NOT life.

Wouldn't a better option be for the industry to grant a supervised parole period before the 8 years is up?

as i quoted earlier,the decision said this.....

 

On 26/05/2024 at 7:53 PM, the galah said:

 

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

 

 

But is says they did reject they should review the origanal penalty.

They specifically say they..... cannot review the unchallenged(no appeal) decision of the judicial committee.

can't be much clearer than that.

I agree ,given mcgrath's counsel and it seems the rib focused on the justification of the original penalty,you would have to think they thought it was an appeal of the orignal decision.

that never made much sense for a rule to be written in a way that usurped the function of the original appeal process.Was it hrnz or counsel for mcgrath who got that focus bit wrong or maybe a bit of both.

perhaps the current decision will have clarified its function for fututre applications.

Even calling them an appeal committee gives the impression it was an appeal against the original sentence.It seems a somewhat misleading name.

the current adjudicators wouldn't have named themselves,it would have been done by hrnz sothey should be responsible for the lack of clarity prior to this case?.

 

you make some good points in your last 3 posts though.

Edited May 28 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, the galah said:

But is says they did reject they should review the origanal penalty.

They specifically say they..... cannot review the unchallenged(no appeal) decision of the judicial committee.

But that's where the judgement is not very clear.  If they couldn't revisit the original decision then why refer to it length?  They were being asked to cancel it.  

You tell me from the Judgement what were the reasons for not cancelling it?  

[Chief Stipe]

10 minutes ago, the galah said:

that never made much sense for a rule to be written in a way that usurped the function of the original appeal process.Was it hrnz or counsel for mcgrath who got that focus bit wrong or maybe a bit of both.

The rule and guidelines are not clear regardless of the inaction of HRNZ or the actions of McGrath's counsel.

11 minutes ago, the galah said:

perhaps the current decision will have clarified its function for fututre applications.

Impossible if the rule is unclear.  If anything they have shown that it isn't worth trying to get a penalty cancelled under the current rule.

However for arguments sake if this occurred in a Court the counsel would argue that the intent of the rule is based on what the original formulators wanted I.e. they would refer to Parliamentary debate and what the debate intended the law to be.

Obviously the rule had an intent but this judgement doesn't make it any more clearer.

[Nowornever]

On 27/05/2024 at 2:38 PM, Chief Stipe said:

Does it really give you confidence in the RIB?

I never had any to start with.

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

But that's where the judgement is not very clear.  If they couldn't revisit the original decision then why refer to it length?  They were being asked to cancel it.  

You tell me from the Judgement what were the reasons for not cancelling it?  

They refered to it at length because that was a summary of the main thrust of mcgraths lawyers case.

thats what they do,sum up what was presented to them.

Basically my reading of the decision is once they rejected they should re litigate the original sentence,that only left mcgraths case with he was remorseful ,rehabilitated and he had served 4 years.

Basically not much to halve an 8 year penalty.

Hall,mcgraths lawyer,was strongly critical of the RIB's submission but the adjudicators said halls submissions were not accurate or helpful.

So the adjudicators clearly found the RIB submissions were a more accurate and appropriate summary of what should happen.

I understand there will be times the RIB deserves criticism,but clearly this isn't the case here.

So its all well and good to jump on the anti RIB band wagon,but people need to pick more accurately when its appropriate.

 

Edited May 28 by the galah

[Newmarket]

On 27/05/2024 at 2:27 PM, 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 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.

Very good post, I don’t agree with you all the time but do this time. 
 

Has McGrath done his time, how long is too long? Let’s be honest, been some pretty dodgy shit in harness over the years, most swept under the carpet. So I see no worries to see him start back out working for someone with limits placed. 
 

You mention Michael House, not a fav of mine but I have heard another story similar to yours, so he gets a thumbs up for me. 
 

And while we are at it, I always thought the way the David Walker disqualification was way over the top, talented guy yet never rode in a race again.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

They refered to it at length because that was a summary of the main thrust of mcgraths lawyers case.

thats what they do,sum up what was presented to them.

Basically my reading of the decision is once they rejected they should re litigate the original sentence,that only left mcgraths case with he was remorseful ,rehabilitated and he had served 4 years.

Basically not much to halve an 8 year penalty.

Hall,mcgraths lawyer,was strongly critical of the RIB's submission but the adjudicators said halls submissions were not accurate or helpful.

So the adjudicators clearly found the RIB submissions were a more accurate and appropriate summary of what should happen.

I understand there will be times the RIB deserves criticism,but clearly this isn't the case here.

So its all well and good to jump on the anti RIB band wagon,but people need to pick more accurately when its appropriate.

 

Your post is as unclear about the reasons as the judgement is.  You make suppositions and inferences based on your interpretation.  A good judgement makes the reasons clear and beyond equivocation.

[TAB For Ever]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

But that's where the judgement is not very clear.  If they couldn't revisit the original decision then why refer to it length?  They were being asked to cancel it.  

You tell me from the Judgement what were the reasons for not cancelling it?  

Get with the program Chief.

Earlier you said MMcKechnie  , in charge of the Judgement ,is a very experienced litigator etc. He is .

Now  you have picked holes in MHouse's contribution to all this ,plus his ability as a trainer , plus those of us who have supported the end result here and the way it all handled  , plus ignored the positive post re MHouse and ignored commenting on a poster who slapped hearsay compliments on NH and denigrated MH terribly with hearsay insults and now you trying to criticise the RIB for their role etc etc.

I think you a fan of NM....yes ,he was once an outstanding trainer with a good record and great future ahead of him. He trained for prominent owners and punters.

But the facts are....in mid 2000's he was caught tubing 2 x horses ...a serious offence ...considered cheating ...and DQ'd for 18 months .He MAY have been unlucky ,it MAY have been his first time at this !

When that shocking INCA enquiry struck he was prominent in a RACE fixing charge , unsure the turn of events but he was DQ 'd from driving for 6 months....did any bells ring in his head ?Top driver BOrange was on hand at his stable [drinking beer] when Stipes visited NM and BO treatment of the stipes earned BO a heavy reprimand and fine.This about the time that NM was caught tubing horse[s] the charge that led to the 8 year DQ.

On top of the stench of INCA , this DQ for 8 years stunned Harness racing  in NZ,the bad publicity stressed an Industry was in chaos , and its integrity in tatters.

Martin VB of The Press in particular wrote several stories damaging harness. The NM one stressed what a promising ,talented and successful horseman NM was and not long before he had trained the Derby winner [ Sheriff ,from memory] Three trainers and or drivers were interviewed by MVB and each were dismayed by his need to cheat , when he had such talent and results. One of them was MH who was very complimentary , but all three clearly had had a gutsful cos everywhere they went people were casting aspersions on their industry.

NM's stocks were obviously as low as they could reach and understandably he slunk off to keep a low profile and take his medicine of being a cheat and dishonest and hoping that if any passion still there after 8 years he could start again ,and be forgiven and I'd certainly welcome him back with support etc. Time heals.

Then other cases arose and the MKerr one was also a shocker ...The Press got on to that and Kerr senior was quick to say he had no time for the RIB .......the blame game again , poor us ! Turns out MK was many things incl a Fraudster.

So that quick and rough summary may help explain why those trying to earn an honest living in the industry really have had enough ....you can keep blaming the Administration for all the Industry's setbacks but surely there are times when the Participants need to act appropriately , play fair and square and show some integrity.

Forget personal interests and conflicts for a while !

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Your post is as unclear about the reasons as the judgement is.  You make suppositions and inferences based on your interpretation.  A good judgement makes the reasons clear and beyond equivocation.

 

For petes sake.

for example I have quoted the same thing about 3 times now from the judgement.

yet you still say,where do they say that.

honestly

to me its clear as day

To you,well your still lost in the fog.

 

[Chief Stipe]

9 hours ago, the galah said:

 

For petes sake.

for example I have quoted the same thing about 3 times now from the judgement.

yet you still say,where do they say that.

honestly

to me its clear as day

To you,well your still lost in the fog.

 

The judgement is as clear as mud.  It says "for the reasons anove".

List the reasons as direct quotes!  You are reading stuff that isn't there.  You do it constantly!!!

Your posts are long enough at the best of times it should be a breeze to quote succinctly what the exact reasons are.

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

The judgement is as clear as mud.  It says "for the reasons anove".

List the reasons as direct quotes!  You are reading stuff that isn't there.  You do it constantly!!!

Your posts are long enough at the best of times it should be a breeze to quote succinctly what the exact reasons are.

whatever.

when it comes to me saying the judgment says something,i can't go wrong because i can just refer you to the part where i have said it says that.

opinions/interpretations is mostly what we do on here,but understanding what words from a decsion mean is not over complicated. 

Only once did you give a specific example of something i had said,that you say the judgment did not say.To which multiple times i quoted the words where it did say that,then you ignore that and still say it didn't. 

 

Edited May 28 by the galah

[Rangatira]

On 26/05/2024 at 5:03 PM, the galah said:

whats the mcgrath application got to do with operation inca?

I seem to remember a lack of communication between "the unit" and HRNZ surrounding INCA

[Rangatira]

On 27/05/2024 at 9:21 AM, 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. 

Michael House was often rumoured as such a fueler His recent affidavit doesn't allow me to disbelieve those rumours.

[Chief Stipe]

4 hours ago, the galah said:

whatever.

when it comes to me saying the judgment says something,i can't go wrong because i can just refer you to the part where i have said it says that.

opinions/interpretations is mostly what we do on here,but understanding what words from a decsion mean is not over complicated. 

Only once did you give a specific example of something i had said,that you say the judgment did not say.To which multiple times i quoted the words where it did say that,then you ignore that and still say it didn't. 

 

Then let's do this step by step.  

How many clear reasons were given in the Judgement?

What is the first clear reason mentioned?  Don't refer to the judgement just copy and paste the text.

Good luck!!

[Gammalite]

4 hours ago, the galah said:

when it comes to me saying the judgment says something,i can't go wrong because i can just refer you to the part where i have said it says that.

opinions/interpretations is mostly what we do on here,but understanding what words from a decsion mean is not over complicated. 

You guys (Chief mainly lol 😅) are confusing the hell out of the topic. In any tribunal hearing submissions are made and a judgement is filed. All court procedures do a similar thing. Not everyone is always telling the truth either. (Bit like a Parliament sitting really 😆) Often the correct decision might not even be reached  due to faulty presentation or evidence .

But at the end of the day someone might go home a winner, BUT some just have to try again , appeal again, pay the fine, go to jail , Do a DQ, face the missus or any other similar horrible fate . and cop it sweet.

As someone said on here earlier All those that do the crime (in this case cheat the rules) you should do the time? . 'Set Penalties ' should be in place. (like traffic infringements are) but often don't seem to be in horse racing ? for some reason. (even in courts of Law that happens too) so that muddies the waters IMO. 

 

 

[the galah]

3 hours ago, Rangatira said:

I seem to remember a lack of communication between "the unit" and HRNZ surrounding INCA

You would know there was a very obvious reason for that wasn't there.

 

They would have to have been stupid to make the same mistake twice.

3 hours ago, Rangatira said:

Michael House was often rumoured as such a fueler His recent affidavit doesn't allow me to disbelieve those rumours.

Fueler is by defintion i suppose anyone that keeps something burning..

So being dscribed as a fueler can be interpretted as being a good thing if the fuel they are supplying is accurate,or someone trying to do the right thing if they believe they are supplying information that they believe to be accurate.

 

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Then let's do this step by step.  

How many clear reasons were given in the Judgement?

What is the first clear reason mentioned?  Don't refer to the judgement just copy and paste the text.

Good luck!!

Not going to play this game anymore.

Read the judgment. the answers are there .

Just put your fog lights on to help you. 

 

[Chief Stipe]

4 hours ago, the galah said:

Not going to play this game anymore.

Read the judgment. the answers are there .

Just put your fog lights on to help you. 

 

That's the point you can't because the judgement is poorly structured and open to far too much interpretation which is clearly apparent in your responses.

If the Judgememt was clear then you would have no latitude to make the suppositions or assumptions that you have. 

I suspect you know that hence your reluctance. 

[Rangatira]

On 28/05/2024 at 10:55 PM, the galah said:

To you,well your still lost in the fog.

Well related is our Chief

Full to Lost in the Rain and Lost in the Flood

[Chief Stipe]

4 hours ago, Rangatira said:

Well related is our Chief

Full to Lost in the Rain and Lost in the Flood

But not Lost in Space!