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 yesterday at 05:27 AM 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.

Https://bitofayarn.com

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.

 

[curious]

19 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

So it's a structural problem.  Fix it 

It's not so much a structural problem in my view. It's an organisational thinking and behaviour problem that denies, dismisses and now even tries to shut down input from participants. So, they continue to walk at all levels. They stop breeding racing, punting or move to other jurisdictions to do so.

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, curious said:

It's not so much a structural problem in my view. It's an organisational thinking and behaviour problem that denies, dismisses and now even tries to shut down input from participants. So, they continue to walk at all levels. They stop breeding racing, punting or move to other jurisdictions to do so.

Well that's where we differ - in my opinion they are trying to shut down the abusive behaviour of a minority.  I think you have taken it personally when the Letter was not pointed at you.  Hopefully the letter is a warning shot to those miscreants.

However there are underlying structural issues that need to be dealt to.  Let's face it if it was all going swimmingly well then there wouldn't be any abusive behaviour.  Although a couple of them would bitch regardless.

I've been appalled at the behaviour of some.  A friend of mine bought into their first horse two years ago and was really enjoying the experience but sadly has already seen the dark bitchy side from a dark few.  

Yes there are a few individuals in administrative positions in the formal organisations that need to be pensioned.  Not because of their longevity but because of their attitude and an unwillingness to address the structural issues they largely created.  

[Murray Fish]

20 hours ago, curious said:

20 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

20 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

To be fair I've only seen two people stand up in the last 2 decades.  

 

I have stood up, at those meetings, being short of statue! you might not have seen me! but definitely would have Heard me! Also, re  the 'unsafe tracks', brought it up and made it known to MPI. Blackballed and alienated for doing so...

 

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Murray Fish said:

I have stood up, at those meetings, being short of statue! you might not have seen me! but definitely would have Heard me! Also, re  the 'unsafe tracks', brought it up and made it known to MPI. Blackballed and alienated for doing so...

 

What years?  I can't imagine you being abusive though. 

[curious]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Well that's where we differ - in my opinion they are trying to shut down the abusive behaviour of a minority.  

What do you define as abusive behaviour? 

That is only mentioned in the code of conduct with respect to a person in a position of power or responsibility taking advantage of participants in a vulnerable position which is more what their open letter seems to be doing.

[Murray Fish]

28 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

What years?  I can't imagine you being abusive though. 

I used to go to all the Public Discussions  held at Wingatui and Forbury early this century! There might have been close to 500 at the first Wingatui one! The Numbers seem to halve for each new one!  Last one was the at Forbury when J Allan was there! I did 'overtalk' him.  He didn't seem to take it to heart and would always reply in full to any emails I sent his way!   I have pointed our before, the average horse person does tend to be on the conservative side of life!   Not to many will speak up in a public forum etc.  Normally they will form groups afterwards and talk things through amongst themselves!  I note that when we went to two southern meetings! Spoke to at least 20 people, all had serious histories with ownership and breeding etc, all got fired up! Just about all are slowly exiting the industry, par for the course! 

Re MPI, that was mostly about 4 years ago when there was a spate of 'sending the jockeys around to prove the track was not safe', The opened a File on the Industry, meaning serious stuff if any serious H&S injuries be happening... sigh 

[Murray Fish]

On 11/07/2025 at 11:27 AM, curious said:

Not in my view. They have got better at discontinuing meetings when tracks prove unsafe, but not much at determining they are unsafe before sending horses and riders out to test them at racing speeds and conditions. What do you think?

   Speaking to the head stipe down this way, I Know that he is serious about having tracks that are safe!   

Re how can you know that a track is safe before the 1st.

It seems to me that there is a bit if a logical conundrum    to over come!  If you send them around and that proves that the track is Not Safe! then logically have you not practiced safe H&S?  If you say send x riders and horses around before the first and that proves that they tracks is not safe, then again unsafe H&S?  Also, if is before the 1st, how many do you send around so that a decent representative part of the track is covered?  Will the problem be solved by having a  mounted Robot weighted to the average jockey to pre test! again, how many do you send around?  Who provides the horses for any testing?  hence a serious conundrum in ever play!

Does head office just provide large insurance polices for the riders and just send them around!

What I do know! is that at certain tracks there were 'known' areas of x tracks that there were problems! Having the ear of certain trainers and riders I know that to be a fact! Then we have the old chestnut of many don't want to stick their heads above the parapet!  one trainer who did speak up felt he got way to much flack for doing so, so stopped doing so!

[Chief Stipe]

40 minutes ago, curious said:

What do you define as abusive behaviour? 

That is only mentioned in the code of conduct with respect to a person in a position of power or responsibility taking advantage of participants in a vulnerable position which is more what their open letter seems to be doing.

Take Colin Wightman for example.  Surely the administration have an obligation to protect their employees from the outlandish abuse he dishes out.  Sure he handed in his license so he could do that but he is still an owner and still can be seen in the stables on racedays.

[curious]

3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Take Colin Wightman for example.  Surely the administration have an obligation to protect their employees from the outlandish abuse he dishes out. 

Why don't they do that then? You still haven't defined what is and isn't abusive?

[Murray Fish]

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Take Colin Wightman for example

needs to be taken around the back of the bike shed  and given a bit of the old *#*$#$&**(#

6 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Surely the administration have an obligation to protect their employees from the outlandish abuse he dishes out. 

do they read it?
 

Sadly, he has a serious case of Infantile Disorder,  as yet! I'm not to sure that there is a cure for that sort of thing!  

The silver lining, is that he thrown some serious $$$$ at the game!  

[Murray Fish]

On 11/07/2025 at 8:01 AM, Chief Stipe said:

Colin Wightman aka @Transparency for example does it frequently.

his take on this letter:

 

Colin Wightman ·

Follow

All-star contributor

  · sroetpnoSd2hgy8u5lt06am0:9a fu 7406u4gg00aJ1iu1ti181t9l1 m0u  · 

 

The subject is “Adherence To Racing Codes Of Conduct”, an un-signed letter put out by the NZ Racing Industry Board (RIB) this afternoon, likely in response to the criticism they have taken from the awful decision made at Wellington in that jumps race that they were ultimately responsible for. Oddly enough, they have used our Code body NZTR to distribute their threat to those who might “abuse” them, whether it’s “verbal, physical, written, digital or psychological”. In other words .. if you bring the RIB and its Stipendary or Judicial control into question, you’re a naughty boy. The letter is addressed to anyone who is involved in the industry, including those who financially underwrite it. Yes, owners. I find the letter very interesting in many ways because it essentially defies people’s rights to participate in what is suppose to be a democratically run country where people have a given right to Freedom Of Expression in the same way that Stakeholders have a right to question the performance of our code bodies (incorporated societies) and legislative authorities such as the RIB who shall be as accountable as anyone else, including members of Parliament. For those of you who have read the letter (someone might like to post it here) it cuts out Greyhound Racing in its references as to who now makes up racing in NZ. Deliberate, or not, I don’t know. When I see letters like this I chuckle because RIB took away the rights of owners to appeal a Raceday decision which is a serious breach of natural justice and the Bill Of Rights. So when I see wording to the effect of “code of conduct” we know it applies both ways .. those underwriting the industry (owners) and those powered to have partial authority over it being NZTR and the RIB. It’s all about having INTEGRITY .. using .. not abusing those powers and applying the Rules Of Racing in keeping with our greater laws. Which reminds me of another classic example of legal breaches is where the 2 horse codes have worked with Winston to push through new legislation to create a TAB monopoly, eliminate offshore competition, where a deal was done with Entain that if the codes ‘paid’ Winston enough to push it through that Entain would find $100 million to reward them. Integrity in racing? Are you kidding me? We have laws that criminalise this type of commercial behaviour contained in the Commerce Act 1986 under many sections, including S36D. So it’s all very well the RIB threatening those who voice their rightful opinion on “digital” platforms .. but if it’s TRUE .. it’s bloody TRUE. If those of us who underwrite the industry with our horses aren’t happy with those running the show, then we have every right to bring exposure to the many shonky happenings we see on a regular basis that the RIB turn a blind eye to .. including the little property dealing fiefdom going on there at Trentham. My question to those reading the RIB letter .. do you see it as a threat against your rights to express your opinion? <ends>

[Chief Stipe]

26 minutes ago, Murray Fish said:

his take on this letter:

 

Colin Wightman ·

Follow

All-star contributor

  · sroetpnoSd2hgy8u5lt06am0:9a fu 7406u4gg00aJ1iu1ti181t9l1 m0u  · 

 

The subject is “Adherence To Racing Codes Of Conduct”, an un-signed letter put out by the NZ Racing Industry Board (RIB) this afternoon, likely in response to the criticism they have taken from the awful decision made at Wellington in that jumps race that they were ultimately responsible for. Oddly enough, they have used our Code body NZTR to distribute their threat to those who might “abuse” them, whether it’s “verbal, physical, written, digital or psychological”. In other words .. if you bring the RIB and its Stipendary or Judicial control into question, you’re a naughty boy. The letter is addressed to anyone who is involved in the industry, including those who financially underwrite it. Yes, owners. I find the letter very interesting in many ways because it essentially defies people’s rights to participate in what is suppose to be a democratically run country where people have a given right to Freedom Of Expression in the same way that Stakeholders have a right to question the performance of our code bodies (incorporated societies) and legislative authorities such as the RIB who shall be as accountable as anyone else, including members of Parliament. For those of you who have read the letter (someone might like to post it here) it cuts out Greyhound Racing in its references as to who now makes up racing in NZ. Deliberate, or not, I don’t know. When I see letters like this I chuckle because RIB took away the rights of owners to appeal a Raceday decision which is a serious breach of natural justice and the Bill Of Rights. So when I see wording to the effect of “code of conduct” we know it applies both ways .. those underwriting the industry (owners) and those powered to have partial authority over it being NZTR and the RIB. It’s all about having INTEGRITY .. using .. not abusing those powers and applying the Rules Of Racing in keeping with our greater laws. Which reminds me of another classic example of legal breaches is where the 2 horse codes have worked with Winston to push through new legislation to create a TAB monopoly, eliminate offshore competition, where a deal was done with Entain that if the codes ‘paid’ Winston enough to push it through that Entain would find $100 million to reward them. Integrity in racing? Are you kidding me? We have laws that criminalise this type of commercial behaviour contained in the Commerce Act 1986 under many sections, including S36D. So it’s all very well the RIB threatening those who voice their rightful opinion on “digital” platforms .. but if it’s TRUE .. it’s bloody TRUE. If those of us who underwrite the industry with our horses aren’t happy with those running the show, then we have every right to bring exposure to the many shonky happenings we see on a regular basis that the RIB turn a blind eye to .. including the little property dealing fiefdom going on there at Trentham. My question to those reading the RIB letter .. do you see it as a threat against your rights to express your opinion? <ends>

Pretty tame for @Transparency aka Wightman.  Perhaps he has too much invested now.