The Centaur Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I was going to contribute to the thread SLB started but its gone. Not only Molloy banned from racing but I have been banned from Channel X for replying to Michael Pittmans post. Here it is. 16 hours ago, uneasy said: All the best tomorrow Leo. I know at times you have upset many people including me BUT this charge against you takes the cake, if people were funding from their own pockets I have doubts this charge would ever have been laid let alone get to a hearing. I also know that over the years you have done a lot of good in assisting many people who have needed you and your knowledge, they appreciate that and will support you. 👍🏻 ------------- I agree with most of what you are saying. But there is another side to the story. What about the number of people Leo has turned away from racing. You have a high profile and following in racing so Leo won't denigrate you. That's not the case when Leo thinks he can get away with it here on Channel X. He has admitted he enjoys digging into someones background, twisting it and unfortunately people due to his racing and business involvement people will believe him. i.e if Leo says it then it must be true that seems to be the theme here. That's the problem. There is no right of reply here on Channel X simply because the moderator will not allow contra Leo postings. Take the case of Sunline Boy I won't mention his real name but persecution of him has persisted for well over a decade the last posting a particularly vile one which even the moderator saw fit to remove. About ten years ago I got together a bunch of Leo's postings and submitted them to NZTR. No one took any notice but when their own CEO was denigrated oh how quick they reacted. Had the problem been acted sooner then the industry would have been saved many thousands. Leo himself could have been saved a significant 6 figure sum. If the problem is not solved now it will persist with more wasted dollars 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 SLB2.0 has been threatened by lawyers. I've asked SLB2.0 to reconsider. My experience with these two it is all bullshit and bluster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLB2.0 Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Guys, I really don't want to be involved in this please. I've moved on. My gripe is with Leo, not Leigh. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I've had both abusive phonecalls and emails from Leo [ quite a few years ago ] one of the threats being that ' he will rub me out, I have friends in high places'. So, with that threat in mind, I showed some evidence to the Racecourse D at the time. A friend of mine, also on the end of some colourful vernacular, had the presence of mind to record the abuse on his phone and also played it to the same Racecourse D....who laughed. So, for that reason, I am pleased he has been 'muzzled' for now. But, from the other side of the fence, I can't see how the RIU have any jurisdiction at all over an unlicensed person. I don't get it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 He is an Owner. I think that gives them jurisdiction. I know it does in Australia. Also they have the power to ban anyone they like from a racecourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 2 hours ago, Freda said: I've had both abusive phonecalls and emails from Leo [ quite a few years ago ] one of the threats being that ' he will rub me out, I have friends in high places'. So, with that threat in mind, I showed some evidence to the Racecourse D at the time. A friend of mine, also on the end of some colourful vernacular, had the presence of mind to record the abuse on his phone and also played it to the same Racecourse D....who laughed. So, for that reason, I am pleased he has been 'muzzled' for now. But, from the other side of the fence, I can't see how the RIU have any jurisdiction at all over an unlicensed person. I don't get it. Page 29of 167RULES OF RACINGPART IAPPLICATION, INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONSAPPLICATION101(1)These Rules shall apply to all Races, Race Meetings and all matters connected with racing, and shall apply to and be binding on:(a)NZTR; (b) all Clubs and Club Committees; and agents, employees and officers of every such Club;(c) all Licensed Persons and others working in or about any racing stable, or in connection with the management, care, control or superintendence of racehorses and their training and riding;(d)all Owners, lessees and any persons comprising or having a legal or beneficial interest (either directly or indirectly) in an Owner, lessee or Legal Ownership Entity that is an Owner or lessee, or in a Legal Ownership Entity that has a legal or beneficial interest (either directly or indirectly) in an Owner or lessee under these Rules, and the Racing Manager, as applicable, thereof;(e)all persons seeking admission to or attending any Racecourse on which any Race Meeting is held;(f)all Horse Breeders;(g)every person who in any manner directly or indirectly, by himself or any other person on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, does or attempts to do any act or thing for the purpose of securing any right, benefit or privilege which he or any such other person is not entitled to receive under these Rules, or to evade any disability of any kind imposed on him or any such other person by or under these Rules;(h) every person who aids, abets, counsels or procures a breach of these Rules (and such person shall be liable to the same penalty as is provided for the actual breach);(i)every person who so acts as to bring himself within the purview of these Rules; and(j)all Judicial Committees and Appeals Tribunals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, curious said: Page 29of 167RULES OF RACINGPART IAPPLICATION, INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONSAPPLICATION101(1)These Rules shall apply to all Races, Race Meetings and all matters connected with racing, and shall apply to and be binding on:(a)NZTR; (b) all Clubs and Club Committees; and agents, employees and officers of every such Club;(c) all Licensed Persons and others working in or about any racing stable, or in connection with the management, care, control or superintendence of racehorses and their training and riding;(d)all Owners, lessees and any persons comprising or having a legal or beneficial interest (either directly or indirectly) in an Owner, lessee or Legal Ownership Entity that is an Owner or lessee, or in a Legal Ownership Entity that has a legal or beneficial interest (either directly or indirectly) in an Owner or lessee under these Rules, and the Racing Manager, as applicable, thereof;(e)all persons seeking admission to or attending any Racecourse on which any Race Meeting is held;(f)all Horse Breeders;(g)every person who in any manner directly or indirectly, by himself or any other person on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, does or attempts to do any act or thing for the purpose of securing any right, benefit or privilege which he or any such other person is not entitled to receive under these Rules, or to evade any disability of any kind imposed on him or any such other person by or under these Rules;(h) every person who aids, abets, counsels or procures a breach of these Rules (and such person shall be liable to the same penalty as is provided for the actual breach);(i)every person who so acts as to bring himself within the purview of these Rules; and(j)all Judicial Committees and Appeals Tribunals. Is there anyone not on the list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumbles Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Its no wonder nobody goes oncourse. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 OK, I get it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Personally I think these rules are archaic. They have been there since year dot. By banning people with a criminal record or people you deem to be "undesirable" from a racecourse it somehow maintains the integrity of racing! As I said in an earlier post I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged these rules in court. Theoretically anyone with a drunk driving conviction isn't allowed on a racecourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Yes, I agree, spanks of 'keeping out the peasants' . Anyway, with today's modern systems of communication, etc, one doesn't need to be on course to do, or organise, something nefarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy connolly Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 8 hours ago, Freda said: I am pleased he has been 'muzzled' for now. But, from the other side of the fence, I can't see how the RIU have any jurisdiction at all over an unlicensed person. I don't get it. What about the licensed trainers who've perilously abused officials/stewards over the years ? I have vivid memories of the late Ted Winsloe regularly abusing Southland officials, they would never take him on though as there wouldn't have been a race meeting without Winsloe ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bloggs Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 He's making written apologies on RC........call the paramedics! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just got a letter from Comic Dogs lawyer threatening defamation proceedings. It isn't exactly clear how he has been defamed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bloggs Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Are you pooing your pants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, Joe Bloggs said: Are you pooing your pants? No not at all. I have removed the disputed facts from the first post. Can't work out how I defamed him. Isn't clear in the communication either. Funny how he himself abuses people online and allows his little buddy to do the same but gets his knickers twisted when people call him out rightly or wrongly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Just got a letter from Comic Dogs lawyer threatening defamation proceedings. It isn't exactly clear how he has been defamed. He let defamation go under his watch all the time on the other channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 15 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said: He let defamation go under his watch all the time on the other channel. Only if it's "good for traffic"! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 15 hours ago, Joe Bloggs said: He's making written apologies on RC........call the paramedics! Yes but is it for real? If it is it just shows you what kind of show is run over there. If it is a legitimate apology then why isn't the thread locked to comments by posters? That's slack management if you ask me. You watch they'll change the status to the thread now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bloggs Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 Now here's a conundrum, If LM thinks he is maligned, and was confronted by a 'kangaroo court' he could sue through civil means for defamation. Not being allowed to use the truth as a defence leaves me somewhat dumbfounded. It breaks and confronts the very meaning of civil liberties. As the defendant in a brought action, civil liberty defines your right to legal representation, otherwise the prosecutor becomes judge and jury, which under Westminster law, is totally illegal. Having a missus that was a legal secretary to an eminent legal eagle is a big help.......thanks Honey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 22 minutes ago, Joe Bloggs said: Now here's a conundrum, If LM thinks he is maligned, and was confronted by a 'kangaroo court' he could sue through civil means for defamation. Not being allowed to use the truth as a defence leaves me somewhat dumbfounded. It breaks and confronts the very meaning of civil liberties. As the defendant in a brought action, civil liberty defines your right to legal representation, otherwise the prosecutor becomes judge and jury, which under Westminster law, is totally illegal. Having a missus that was a legal secretary to an eminent legal eagle is a big help.......thanks Honey. You are making an assumption that what he is posting is actually the truth. I would bet that what actually happened is he was told that he had to confine his defence to the one he was charged on. Not use the opportunity to stand on a soap box and grandstand about every other crime he perceived has happened. With regard to not using the truth as a defence again he has probably twisted things to suit his agenda. Who has seen a complete copy of the charge other than a precis from the little fella? Unless one knows then quite possibly attempting to prove someone actually IS a racist xyz may not be a defence. Anyone seen a complete unedited copy of the original post and the entire thread? Based on my past experience there tend to get edited and/or deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bloggs Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 Yes, I'm guilty of assumption......I should know better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 10 hours ago, Joe Bloggs said: Yes, I'm guilty of assumption......I should know better. Joe - I've posted the two JCA decisions. Reading these gives a different perspective to what we have been told be the defendent. NO EVIDENCE was produced in support of his demand for Gendall to be excused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 Would it be fair to say that Justice Gendall "dismantled" the little fella not the other way around? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Centaur Posted August 4, 2020 Author Share Posted August 4, 2020 Gendall has been around for quite some time. No way he was going to put up or be outsmarted by self a appointed smart a***. Just to put the record straight. The heading of this thread gives the impression I was banned on Channel X. Actually I have been unbanned. The tribunals decision has been devastating on Molloy. Don't believe the "I'm not worried" bit. The money not the issue but credibility yes. The word is it won't help Molloy's breach of suppression order hearing. 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.