Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

it gets personal


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

If you don't know the process then how can you speculate?

What do you think happened? Why was she denied?

8 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

The point is it is HRNZ that grants the licence.

Do you not believe the RIU would have advised HRNZ? It would be a joke of a system if the RIU did not play a part in the approval of licences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Do you not believe the RIU would have advised HRNZ? It would be a joke of a system if the RIU did not play a part in the approval of licences.

No the RIU has no remit to determine who does or doesn't get a licence.  It would be more of a joke if they did have!

I can just see it now the RIU hiding in hedges to see if any new applicant knows someone they shouldn't.  There goes half the applicants straight up.

 

  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Noodlum said:

Exactly where is the RIU "side of the story"?  I would imagine there isn't an RIU "side of the story" as it isn't their call regarding the granting of a licence.  

The call is HRNZ's!

 

And I have heard 1 or 2 staff at HRNZ were part of the small team of the original INCA snitchers. 
They are not objective - nepotism ?

Appeal to appropriate Govt Dept - no one here is guilty of anything but whether RIU or HRNZ  but they make a moral call on someone who is one the best advertisements for the sport.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

It's not even a moral call.  There is NOTHING in the rules to deny the granting of the licence.

That's not correct. The rules of harness racing give HRNZ considerable latitude in the granting of licences. For example:

315 (3) (c): (The Board shall) in its discretion without assigning any reason therefore refuse to grant (a licence)...

https://infohorse.hrnz.co.nz/dochr/hrnz/MASTER-RULE-CHANGES-20-12-19.pdf

So they'll have had their reasons, and are entitled to act on those reasons, even if some don't agree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Basil said:

315 (3) (c): (The Board shall) in its discretion without assigning any reason therefore refuse to grant (a licence)...

Just as I said there is NO reason in the rules other than a rule that says they don't have to have a reason.

Hardly a fair rule is it?

Edited by Noodlum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said:

It is speculation. What else can I do. 

The information presented by the 'supporters' of Nicole Harris only give one side of the story. It breaks human rights and other NZ legislation? I don't think it is as simple as that so I speculated. Easy to attack the RIU etc but where is there side of the story?

so your saying a young person like Nicole can not get a start in life by renting a stable  off another ex trainer  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Noodlum said:

the RIU has no remit to determine who does or doesn't get a licence. 

So HRNZ works independently when granting licences? HTP is wrong when he asserts the RIU are on a witch hunt?

4 hours ago, Noodlum said:

I can just see it now the RIU hiding in hedges to see if any new applicant knows someone they shouldn't. 

Doesn't matter then if the RIU are hiding in the hedges, the outside toilet or anywhere to see what a new applicant is doing as you said they have no remit to influence HRNZ.

  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

So HRNZ works independently when granting licences?

As far as the rules are concerned that's correct.

10 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

HTP is wrong when he asserts the RIU are on a witch hunt?

Aside from the fact he didn't say"witch hunt" who would know as it appears HRNZ can decide for whatever reasons the seem fit.  Plus not tell anyone.

That isn't natural justice and as far as I know doesn't happen in any other industry.

14 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Doesn't matter then if the RIU are hiding in the hedges, the outside toilet or anywhere to see what a new applicant is doing as you said they have no remit to influence HRNZ.

Refer to my comment earlier in this post.  Has HRNZ given a reason?

You said the RIU SHOULD have a say.  Given there is no reason under the rules for HRNZ not granting a licence then we are left to speculate if the RIU is having an influence.  Just like you assumed they were.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

So it is as simple as that?

Why would HRNZ (not the stipes) deny her a licence when they should be encouraging every trainer they can get? 

Why isn't as simple as that?  She has a License to Train and can train for the general public why can't she be allowed the next step up?

If she isn't considered eligible for that licence will they revoke her current one using the same unknown reasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Noodlum said:

Aside from the fact he didn't say"witch hunt"

In the context of what HTP says generally about INCA, see the reasons for the CJ ruling, it is a witch hunt

 

1 hour ago, Noodlum said:

as it appears HRNZ can decide for whatever reasons the seem fit.  Plus not tell anyone.

 If that is the case then HRNZ are not a transparent body either. They must have a reason for not granting her a licence. Would you have any idea why that would be? 

I don't know the answer and my speculation is clearly off the mark as there is no reason for her not to get a licence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

In the context of what HTP says generally about INCA, see the reasons for the CJ ruling, it is a witch hunt

 

 If that is the case then HRNZ are not a transparent body either. They must have a reason for not granting her a licence. Would you have any idea why that would be? 

I don't know the answer and my speculation is clearly off the mark as there is no reason for her not to get a licence.

it is personal attack from Riu to anyone to do with that stable . what about the guy that has drove over 300 winners and trained over 120 winners had a beer one night and rang Riu next day they took his licence away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hunterthepunter said:

it is personal attack from Riu to anyone to do with that stable

But others say the RIU have no involvement in the decision to give a licence or not.

 

3 minutes ago, hunterthepunter said:

what about the guy that has drove over 300 winners and trained over 120 winners had a beer one night and rang Riu next day they took his licence away

I don't know what this is.

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...