Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Coming ×
Bit Of A Yarn

A Hypothetical Question of Some Importance


Chief Stipe

Recommended Posts

Hypothetical Question:

If one has been approached by someone to give evidence on another that shows the person to have committed perjury and possibly fraud does one hand it over?

Morally it would be the right thing to do but the associated noise and angst may well be intolerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SLB2.0 said:

If it's to do with the keyboard warrior Molloy, then yes, do it.

Well hypothetically assuming it was to do with that person - would the associated drama be worth it?

BTW I am inclined to agree with his assessment of the RIU.  Well perhaps not his extreme approach.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good question. Leo comes with drama and plenty of it. He enjoys it rather sadistically but he's an old man, so likely the only way to get his kicks.

The RIU isn't great, but it's like a bent priest suing another bent priest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nomates said:

You will know in your heart already which is the right thing to do . If it is the right thing to hand it over then the drama is secondary .

LOL.  I've been there many many times in my life and as old age creeps up I wonder.

As my lawyer said to me over a beer the last time we won a case - "Doug you may end up poor financially when you are sitting in that rocking chair reflecting you can always say 'I did the right thing'"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is the crux of the matter. One has a significantly more successful sister funding his behaviour, so he can just about get away with anything.

Also - whenever someone puts it to him, he replies with "come down to HQ and we'll fight".. Notice how it's always at HQ, where he employs bouncers and former washed up boxers to fight his battles?

He's almost as rubbery as the fish he dishes up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SLB2.0 said:

And that is the crux of the matter. One has a significantly more successful sister funding his behaviour, so he can just about get away with anything.

Also - whenever someone puts it to him, he replies with "come down to HQ and we'll fight".. Notice how it's always at HQ, where he employs bouncers and former washed up boxers to fight his battles?

He's almost as rubbery as the fish he dishes up.

 

Yeah I've actually had one of them threaten me on the phone during the McAnulty affair.

I doubt the little guy actually has any stamina.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. During one of my many "personal" stoushes with Leo, he sat at my table and asked me for some racing tips. He certainly didn't live up to the hype. I was expecting something to happen at least, but nothing.

Then, when he got home, he decided to post an attack on my character because I didn't give him the time of day to give him tips.

He is desperately trying to stay relevant by creating trouble for himself and others. Just imagine how successful he would be if he put his energy to good use. He might still see his kids with frequency, he might not have to close up every bar he's ever owned. He might not have a $250 weekly TAB spending limit. He might be able to put some plastic surgery into that disasterous mug of his.

The possiblities are endless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

 got away light I thought 

12 months DQ effective immediately 

$5k fine 

$10k costs 

Now I get 12 months holiday from racing, and I save $42k ( what I spent at Ellerslie on sponsorship & hospo last year )

Everyone’s a winner .... now roll on the conclusion of Inca so we can shine some light on it and see who was right and who was wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Hypothetical Question:

If one has been approached by someone to give evidence on another that shows the person to have committed perjury and possibly fraud does one hand it over?

Morally it would be the right thing to do but the associated noise and angst may well be intolerable.

If the instance of perjury and fraud involves a racing matter and not getting involved means the perpetrator gets away with what they have done , then not getting involved would be detrimental to the interests of racing. Anything a Judicial Committee rules is detrimental to the interests of racing is a serious racing offence.

Morality, associated noise, angst and whether those factors are intolerable are irrelevant considerations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another hypothetical question - given that the subject of the discussion is an 'unlicensed person '  what right does the RIU have to take any action at all?  And how can he be obliged to pay a fine and costs ?  surely, he can just give them the middle finger and walk away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Joe Bloggs said:

There are plenty over here that have been fined and warned off, they were owners mostly, so no pay fine, no racecourse attendance! for perpetuity in most cases.

I've always wondered why no one has every challenged a warning off in court.  In my mind freedom of association is a basic right.  

If they enforced this rule then there would be hardly anyone left on course.

 

screenshot-loveracing.nz-2020.07.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that NZTR hasn't got round to updating their rules of racing yet.  Maybe the little one could get off on a technicality.

The old Act:

34Rules controlling or prohibiting admission to racecourses

(1)

This section applies to any racecourse on the day during which racing is being held on that racecourse, whether or not it is, or forms part of, a reserve or other place for which there exists a right of public use or entry.

(2)

Subject to any enactment and the general law of New Zealand, racing rules may include separate rules controlling or prohibiting the admission of persons to any racecourse used by racing clubs registered with the racing code that made the rules.

(3)

Rules made under this section do not come into force until they have been approved by the Minister and published in the Gazette.

(4)

The rules may exclude any specified class or classes of person from entering a racecourse, either absolutely or subject to any special conditions, that may be set out in the rules.

(5)

However, subsection (4) applies only to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of maintaining public confidence in—

(a)

the conduct of horse racing; and

(b)

the integrity of racing betting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Act:

40Rules controlling or prohibiting admission to racecourses

(1)

This section applies to any racecourse on a day during which racing is being held on that racecourse, whether or not it is, or forms part of, a reserve or other place for which there exists a right of public use or entry.

(2)

Subject to any enactment and the general law of New Zealand, racing rules may include separate rules controlling or prohibiting the admission of persons to any racecourse used by racing clubs registered with the racing code that made the rules.

(3)

The rules may exclude any specified class (or classes) of persons from entering a racecourse, either absolutely or subject to any special conditions that may be set out in the rules.

(4)

However, subsection (3) applies only to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of maintaining public confidence in—

(a)

the conduct of racing; and

(b)

the integrity of racing betting.

(5)

Rules made under this section do not come into force until they have been approved by the Minister and published on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the relevant racing code.

(6)

A person who breaches any rule made under this section may be removed from the racecourse by any of the following persons:

(a)

a stipendiary steward or a racing investigator:

(b)

a member, officer, agent, or employee of the racing club or of the racing code with which the racing club is registered:

(c)

a constable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...