An Open Letter from NZTR, HRNZ and the RIB

[Assange]

20 hours ago, curious said:

That's all a bit bizarre from where I sit.

The letter says To all participants, members, volunteers, employees, suppliers, and supporters of
New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing and Harness Racing New Zealand.

I struggle to see how the likes of members and supporters are necessarily bound by the rules of racing.

Perhaps the RIB are planning some more powers. Wouldnt be surprised. There are a lot of ex cops there.

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

I disagree.  Your post prompted me to read the letter again and in my opinion the letter makes a strong statement about the extreme abuse some individuals are resorting to.

I just hope they act against the worst offenders.

 

.

your looking at it as a letter that deals with abuse.

i  look at it differently.

i'm saying look beyond the letter and analysis where the trail started..

in other words..  .1)underperforming or ineffective governance ...2) leads to dissenting opinions being expressed,....leads to... 3)inapproapriate language....4) leads to the letter.

take away the  first factor and theres no need for the letter.

if they don't address the root cause,( number 1),then you will still continue to get 2 & 3

Edited 6 hours ago by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, the galah said:

i'm saying look beyond the letter and analysis where the trail started..

in other words..  .1)underperforming or ineffective governance ...2) leads to dissenting opinions being expressed,....leads to... 3)inapproapriate language....4) leads to the letter.

take away the  first factor and theres no need for the letter.

@the galah there is no excuse to become abusive.  When you do you lose the argument straight away.  What I've found is there are a lot of big talkers online some of whom are licensed some are not BUT they don't work together and use the structures and official avenues available to them to make change.

Many don't even attend.  

[curious]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

@the galah there is no excuse to become abusive.  When you do you lose the argument straight away.  What I've found is there are a lot of big talkers online some of whom are licensed some are not BUT they don't work together and use the structures and official avenues available to them to make change.

Many don't even attend.  

Most have long since given up on those avenues. Years, if not decades ago.

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, curious said:

Most have long since given up on those avenues. Years, if not decades ago.

So it's a structural problem.  Fix it 

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, curious said:

Most have long since given up on those avenues. Years, if not decades ago.

Stop accepting mediocrity and worrying about what THEY might do to you.  To be fair I've only seen two people stand up in the last 2 decades.  

[curious]

1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said:

Stop accepting mediocrity and worrying about what THEY might do to you.  To be fair I've only seen two people stand up in the last 2 decades.  

Who are they? And where on earth did you get the idea that I am the least bit worried about what anyone might do to me?

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, curious said:

Most have long since given up on those avenues. Years, if not decades ago.

You're an intelligent articulate man why don't YOU write an Open Letter in response?  I'm happy for you to post it here.

[curious]

5 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

You're an intelligent articulate man why don't YOU write an Open Letter in response?  I'm happy for you to post it here.

I thought you just suggested that we should respond through existing official channels?

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, curious said:

I thought you just suggested that we should respond through existing official channels?

Do both.  Use every available channel.  You are on most social media sites.

[curious]

OK. I'll put a quick initial response here, hopefully critical but constructive. Probably won't bother with any formal channels.

[curious]

I've already almost written my response, so will get it up in due course. Was trying to decide whether to send it to the RIB and NZTR or post it on social media. I doubt it will get a response from authorities though. I think I've already articulated my reaction to this sort of behaviour anyway.

 

[curious]

Open letter response to the recent open letter from the RIB, NZTR and HRNZ.

Racing’s Call for Respect Risks Sliding into Authoritarianism

By curious.

An open letter recently issued by the Racing Integrity Board, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, and Harness Racing New Zealand aims to promote respect and professionalism in the racing industry. It outlines a unified stance against behaviours such as online abuse, public harassment, and negative commentary, and calls for all participants to model integrity and support one another.

On the surface, the letter expresses admirable goals: protecting individuals' wellbeing, creating a safe environment, and upholding the dignity of the sport. But when examined more deeply, it raises serious concerns about how far central authorities are willing to go to control speech, enforce conformity, and discourage criticism. In the name of promoting unity, the message risks veering into authoritarianism.

Central Control over What Can Be Said

The letter promotes a singular, top-down vision of acceptable conduct—defined by governing bodies and enforced through disciplinary means. While civility and respect are important, when leadership dictates what constitutes “supportive” or “negative” behaviour, and equates the latter with moral failure or professional risk, the result is a chilling effect on open dialogue. Dissenting opinions—even those voiced in good faith—may be rebranded as harmful or abusive.

This is not inclusivity; it is control.

Vague Standards, Broad Powers

The letter cites “online abuse,” “unwanted attention,” and “negative behaviour” without defining them. This ambiguity gives the authorities wide discretion to determine what crosses the line. One person’s whistleblowing could be another’s misconduct. One person’s critique of governance might be labelled as “eroding trust.”

Authoritarian regimes often thrive in such grey areas, where boundaries are not defined by law or principle, but by the mood of those in charge.

The Threat of Punishment

The letter makes clear that disciplinary action—including removal from participation—is on the table for those who breach these ill-defined standards. Without transparency about how such judgments are made, who hears them, or what recourse individuals have, this becomes less about justice and more about control. It fosters an atmosphere where people are less likely to speak out—for fear that their words might be misinterpreted as misconduct.

The racing industry already operates in a tight-knit environment where reputations are hard-earned and easily destroyed. Introducing threats of punishment for loosely defined behaviour further concentrates power in the hands of a few, while silencing the many.

Emotional Appeals as Tools of Compliance

Finally, the repeated use of emotional language—“let’s stand together,” “lead with integrity,” “we all deserve to feel safe”—while seemingly benign, carries a deeper implication: that anyone who resists or questions the narrative is an outsider, undermining unity and progress. In authoritarian environments, emotional appeals are often deployed to equate obedience with virtue, and dissent with disloyalty.

This framing discourages necessary friction and fosters an unhealthy culture of silence, in which genuine concerns or systemic issues are swept under the rug for the sake of "harmony."

A Better Way Forward

Respect in racing is vital. But respect must also be extended to those who speak out, ask hard questions, or challenge the status quo. If the industry truly wants to build a safe and inclusive culture, it must begin with transparent, democratic processes—not top-down decrees.

There is a clear and present risk that the good intentions behind this letter could slide into an authoritarian approach to industry governance. Rules must be fair, specific, and consistently applied. Dissent must not be mistaken for disloyalty. And integrity must mean more than compliance—it must include courage, openness, and accountability at every level.

Otherwise, New Zealand racing may find that in its effort to silence a minority, it has silenced the very voices that could have helped it grow.