Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

Davey Ellis puts his Big Boy Pants on


Thomass

Recommended Posts

So everyone, unless you're blind, realises how good Davo is for the Industry and the numerous newcomers he's introduced..

That doesn't excuse him from his behaviour when he wants to get his way though...'winners' are usually like that...

Late 2019 when a Stewards Inquiry at HQ found his horse up against his very good friend Brendan Lindsey's horse..Dave forbade his Jockey Sam Collett from giving evidence...Integrity?  Who wants all the facts on the table when your friend's involved?

So this week he INSISTED...even though Rule 913 (1) forbids lay personall from appearing and speaking...that he should sit in at the JCA inquiry and offer his advice...

The JCA relented for some weird reason...ohhhhh...maybe they were impressed by his Big Boy Pants??

Anyway after his Champion Jockey, MVP, protected species, Opee...is up on 2 charges and likely to miss Kraka Mill night...Davo comes up with a whole bunch of fake news to 'help' the JCA panel out...

J Fawcett...a Class A Jockey with over 1500 race day rides is suddenly "a very inexperienced Apprentice"....

Never mind Opee's twice riding carelessly on a Premier day...a bit like a League player head high tackling 2 players in one game...them having to leave the field and therefore weakening the teams chances...

....na..it's all about his Jockey and the loss of service to himself

Davo needs to back off, follow the rules, and let the Integrity process take its course..without FAKE NEWS...thanks Dave


 That in relation to this charge the interference was the result of a very inexperienced Apprentice Rider and which made things look worse.  
 That the Committee should take into account the Race Sponsors, the TAB and the Industry as a whole who may be affected by Mr Bosson incurring a suspension.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave ellis is not good for racing, he is all take, take, take and puts very little back in to the industry. What happens to the horses that dont make his high grade? Don't see many sold on to the smaller trainers that where ludicrously outbid the first time around. Te akua is actually a drain on nz racing in my opinion!

  • Like 1
  • Bad Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Freda said:

The JCA should put their own big boy pants on and uphold the rules.

Cmon Freda, you know it's all about alumni status and Davo would've hitched his pants up to prove he went to a 'big' pants school....

The JCA went "respect" and bent over as far as they could without disappearing up their derrières 

916 (1)

Subject to sub-Rules (2) and (3) of this Rule, a person shall not be represented by Counsel or a lay advocate at any hearing held by a Judicial Committee in respect of a matter which arises on a Race day and which is held on that day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thomass said:

He made 'representations' on behalf of Opee to mitigate his sentence...

aka 'representing' Boss

Wrong again just like you were last time.  Of course you only selectively quoted from the JCA ruling.  Ellis WAS NOT representing Bosson.

In addition, Mr D Ellis (Te Akau Principal), sought permission to be present auldt the hearing(s). There were no objections raised by Stewards. Mr Ellis was advised by the Committee of, and he accepted the provisions of Rule 916(1), which prohibits Counsel or Lay Advocate representation at a raceday hearing. The Committee did however afford Mr Ellis the opportunity to sit-in on the hearing as an interested party and to provide some general commentary in relation to penalty. In this regard we were all clear and accepting on what role Mr Ellis could reasonably and realistically play in this hearing without overstepping the intent or spirit of Rule 916 (1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mere semantics 

Ellis made a 'presentation' as to penalty...oh and commented on the overreaction of the "very inexperienced apprentice" contributing to Opee's carelessness...

So he sought to 'represent' Opee by ameliorating the interference...

By presenting FAKE NEWS

Maybe his pants should include a note from Mommy to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing butt the truth in future?

He presented so he therefore 'represented'

Nothing could be clearer

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nostradamus said:

Dave ellis is not good for racing, he is all take, take, take and puts very little back in to the industry. What happens to the horses that dont make his high grade? Don't see many sold on to the smaller trainers that where ludicrously outbid the first time around. Te akua is actually a drain on nz racing in my opinion!

A few from Te Akau in the latest Gavelhouse  sale and others have been trhu on a regular basis.

  • Like 1
  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Wrong again just like you were last time.  Of course you only selectively quoted from the JCA ruling.  Ellis WAS NOT representing Bosson.

In addition, Mr D Ellis (Te Akau Principal), sought permission to be present auldt the hearing(s). There were no objections raised by Stewards. Mr Ellis was advised by the Committee of, and he accepted the provisions of Rule 916(1), which prohibits Counsel or Lay Advocate representation at a raceday hearing. The Committee did however afford Mr Ellis the opportunity to sit-in on the hearing as an interested party and to provide some general commentary in relation to penalty. In this regard we were all clear and accepting on what role Mr Ellis could reasonably and realistically play in this hearing without overstepping the intent or spirit of Rule 916 (1).

I have no issues with David Ellis being present and him giving some invited commentary so long as others are afforded the same opportunity in a similar situation

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

 I have no problem either.  However not many seem as motivated to actually ask for the opportunity.

Perhaps they might do so now a precedent has been set? Or, if it isn't a precedent, then it is an uncommon occurrence that is more likely to happen again now it has been highlighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chimbu said:

Perhaps they might do so now a precedent has been set? Or, if it isn't a precedent, then it is an uncommon occurrence that is more likely to happen again now it has been highlighted.

It probably is done regularly just that Thomass only focuses on David Ellis and Te Akau.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mumbles said:

A few from Te Akau in the latest Gavelhouse  sale and others have been trhu on a regular basis.

Yes 2 Savabeels amongst them , someone might get a bargain , they were only cheap ones at any rate $350k & $440k at the yearling sales :0

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

 I have no problem either.  However not many seem as motivated to actually ask for the opportunity.

Lets face it, its been ongoing since NY day when the trainer made a comment the industry would be worse off without him on karaka million night. 

Surely if they are doing their jobs correctly in the first place(judiciary) , the appeal shouldn't be required. It'll set a poor precedence if he is let off , but I won't be surprised if he is.

Not sure what the problem is they have the best jockeys in the country at their beck and call anyway , so someone else will just miss out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Huey said:

Yes 2 Savabeels amongst them , someone might get a bargain , they were only cheap ones at any rate $350k & $440k at the yearling sales :0

The ROI would be unbelievable Huey, but then again, if I was looking to minimise my tax [legitimately] I couldn't care a less.....silly as that sounds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/01/2021 at 2:21 PM, Chief Stipe said:

It probably is done regularly just that Thomass only focuses on David Ellis and Te Akau.

I'm not surprised you're CONFUSING Interference protests to Informations laid against Jockeys

The intent of Rule 613 is clear....

NO LAY ADVOCATES allowed ....for very good reasons as Big Boy Pants showed...

He plain lied about a Class A Jockey with over 1500 race day rides as being a "very inexperienced apprentice"

..after previously BANNING his other Jockey giving evidence at an Inquiry...

These JCA hearings are meant to be conducted under the utmost INTEGRITY to find the best outcome under the Rules...ok?

How can they allow Big Boy Pants to speak when he obviously isn't interested in upholding that absolute requirement?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thomass said:

..after previously BANNING his other Jockey giving evidence at an Inquiry...

 

Thomass if you keep repeating this "Big Lie" then you will be restricted.  No matter how often you tell it it won't make it true.  Not only that but we have traversed the in's and out's of that episode ad nauseum and it was over 12 months ago!!!!!!!  The only thing worse than Fake News is OLD Fake News.

4 hours ago, Thomass said:

The intent of Rule 613 is clear....

NO LAY ADVOCATES allowed ....for very good reasons as Big Boy Pants showed...

We all accept that you have a literary challenge in trying to express yourself but even your obvious dyslexia doesn't excuse you from quoting the wrong rule.  Rule 613 refers to a horse not be able start wearing bandages or sharp shoes!

The Rule you are referring to is Rule 916(1) and as detailed in the JCA judgement as follows:

On 8/01/2021 at 11:19 AM, Chief Stipe said:

In this regard we were all clear and accepting on what role Mr Ellis could reasonably and realistically play in this hearing without overstepping the intent or spirit of Rule 916 (1).

 You could draw a corollary between BOAY allowing you to speak and the JCA allowing Mr Ellis to speak.  The courtesy may be granted but whether anyone actually takes notice to a degree that oversteps the rule(s) is not going to happen.  Case Closed - move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTH are you talking about?

Mick Guerin even investigated this whole case and came to the conclusion on WI that "somebody is lying"

Clearly Ellis forbade Collett from giving evidence

The Information indicated that the Protest had been instigated by Mr P Richards on behalf of the connections of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE. However, Mr Ellis the Principal of Te Akau Racing told the Committee that he did not wish to pursue the protest.

Mr Ellis advised the Committee that he and Ms Collett, the rider of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE, had nothing to say in relation to the alleged incident.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Thomass said:

WTH are you talking about?

Mick Guerin even investigated this whole case and came to the conclusion on WI that "somebody is lying"

Clearly Ellis forbade Collett from giving evidence

The Information indicated that the Protest had been instigated by Mr P Richards on behalf of the connections of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE. However, Mr Ellis the Principal of Te Akau Racing told the Committee that he did not wish to pursue the protest.

Mr Ellis advised the Committee that he and Ms Collett, the rider of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE, had nothing to say in relation to the alleged incident.

 

FFS Thomas we litigated that exact same stuff on here the first time you banged on about over a year ago.  Move on.

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...