Police Raid Stables?? Oh Dear

[Rangatira]

53 minutes ago, hunterthepunter said:

there was no race fixing

do you feel there was race fixing cross codes

Edited September 25, 2018 by Rangatira

[Newmarket]

1 hour ago, hunterthepunter said:

you think so Newmarket?? so you think trainers were taking the class b drugs

To be honest, i cant see too many getting in the crap  for drug offences, even if guilty. 

But for race fixing, the net is cast very wide. I just cant see how some can still continue in the harness game, if of course proven guilty, which i am fairly certain will be the case. Just remember, it may not be that race fixing can be proven in all aspects of this, but what has been said, to who and what about, is not a good look. 

Worse times ahead, with cup week not far away, some owners may be looking for other trainers/ drivers

[hunterthepunter]

9 minutes ago, Newmarket said:

To be honest, i cant see too many getting in the crap  for drug offences, even if guilty. 

But for race fixing, the net is cast very wide. I just cant see how some can still continue in the harness game, if of course proven guilty, which i am fairly certain will be the case. Just remember, it may not be that race fixing can be proven in all aspects of this, but what has been said, to who and what about, is not a good look. 

Worse times ahead, with cup week not far away, some owners may be looking for other trainers/ drivers

let hope its all sorted before cup time

[Rangatira]

4 minutes ago, Newmarket said:

Just remember, it may not be that race fixing can be proven in all aspects of this, but what has been said, to who and what about, is not a good look. 

Worse times ahead, with cup week not far away, some owners may be looking for other trainers/ drivers

they cant out anyone based on it being not the best look the police are involved and it will be guilty or not guilty of race fixing what ever that actually is

don't see this being cleared up by cup week 2018

you must know something most here dont are you in possession of the smoking gun

[Nowornever]

12 hours ago, hunterthepunter said:

let hope its all sorted before cup time

Yes Cup time 2019

[Harness4All]

Given that these are the first court cases involving the Match fixing amendment to the Crimes Act I suspect it could take months to reach a conclusion in the courts. A good Defence counsel will be challenging and testing all the technicalities they can find. This was hurried legislation in late 2014 to have it in place before NZ co-hosted the Cricket World Cup in 2015. Had some criticism at the time which has still not been addressed since.

How this all started is of more concern to me at this time. If it was truly from a tip-off to the RIU then that suggests that the systems and process that are supposed to protect the integrity of the racing industry are not working and further similar events are possible/probable in racing & sports betting in the future.

[Noodlum]

12 minutes ago, Harness4All said:

Given that these are the first court cases involving the Match fixing amendment to the Crimes Act I suspect it could take months to reach a conclusion in the courts. A good Defence counsel will be challenging and testing all the technicalities they can find. This was hurried legislation in late 2014 to have it in place before NZ co-hosted the Cricket World Cup in 2015. Had some criticism at the time which has still not been addressed since.

How this all started is of more concern to me at this time. If it was truly from a tip-off to the RIU then that suggests that the systems and process that are supposed to protect the integrity of the racing industry are not working and further similar events are possible/probable in racing & sports betting in the future.

This process could take years.  If I was an accused and was banned from earning an income I would have my lawyer seeking injunctive relief ASAP.  The argument being innocent until proven guilty, prevented from earning an income therefore impairing the defendant's ability to defend themselves, if proven innocent the defendants will have suffered a penalty unfairly.

HRNZ and the RIU had better be careful with the bannings because effectively they have penalised the defendants WITHOUT ANY form of hearing.  

I would have thought that the proper process would have been to charge them under the racing rules first and then go through that process.  

[Rangatira]

9 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

HRNZ and the RIU had better be careful with the bannings because effectively they have penalised the defendants WITHOUT ANY form of hearing.  

what is hrnzs part in these bannings

[Noodlum]

5 minutes ago, Rangatira said:

what is hrnzs part in these bannings

They enforce the licence to train and drive.  RIU doesn't.

[Rangatira]

34 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

They enforce the licence to train and drive.  RIU doesn't.

so hrnz not involved at this stage

[Noodlum]

4 minutes ago, Rangatira said:

so hrnz not involved at this stage

YES they are.  Presumably they are enforcing the banning from being on a racecourse or have I missed something and they have revoked that ban?  Arguably if a trainer and/or a driver are banned from being on a racecourse then a significant amount of their work is restricted.

[Rangatira]

13 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

YES they are.  Presumably they are enforcing the banning from being on a racecourse or have I missed something and they have revoked that ban?  Arguably if a trainer and/or a driver are banned from being on a racecourse then a significant amount of their work is restricted.

riu placed the exclusion not hrnz

hrnz may well be sitting in the dark

Edited September 26, 2018 by Rangatira

[Noodlum]

Just now, Rangatira said:

riu placed the exclusion not hrnz

hrnz may well be sitting in the dark

I doubt it.  The RIU don't manage the licenses HRNZ do.

[Newmarket]

9 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

YES they are.  Presumably they are enforcing the banning from being on a racecourse or have I missed something and they have revoked that ban?  Arguably if a trainer and/or a driver are banned from being on a racecourse then a significant amount of their work is restricted.

Correct, this will go in for a long time. Easy to see which traners/ drivers are involved, they are the ones that are not allowed on course. A few missing from recent award night too. 

This will wreck them, i know several owners looking for new trainers. 

As for drugs, it may not be for personal use, could be used for something else

[Rangatira]

4 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

I doubt it.  The RIU don't manage the licenses HRNZ do.

RIU reviewing racetrack exclusions

Informant 24 Sept 2018 by Garrick Knight

The Racing Integrity Unit is reviewing the exclusion orders placed on numerous Canterbury licence-holders following their arrests as a part of Operation Inca.
RIU General Manager Mike Godber confirmed as much today but was not prepared to give any indications as to a potential timeline for when the reviews will conclude.
“They have asked us to review their exclusion notices and we are in the process of doing that,” he said.
“Until such time as we have completed them, I won’t be commenting any further.”

Edited September 26, 2018 by Rangatira

[Noodlum]

1 minute ago, Newmarket said:

Correct, this will go in for a long time. Easy to see which traners/ drivers are involved, they are the ones that are not allowed on course. A few missing from recent award night too. 

This will wreck them, i know several owners looking for new trainers. 

As for drugs, it may not be for personal use, could be used for something else

That isn't fair justice.  Remember Peter Moody.

[Noodlum]

1 minute ago, Rangatira said:

Informant 24 Sept 2018 by Garrick Knight

The Racing Integrity Unit is reviewing the exclusion orders placed on numerous Canterbury licence-holders following their arrests as a part of Operation Inca.
RIU General Manager Mike Godber confirmed as much today but was not prepared to give any indications as to a potential timeline for when the reviews will conclude.
“They have asked us to review their exclusion notices and we are in the process of doing that,” he said.
“Until such time as we have completed them, I won’t be commenting any further.”

For a start when the RIU say's "they" I betcha they mean the licensees have asked through their lawyers.  The HRNZ can't turn a blind eye as it isn't the RIU that issues licenses.  This is going to be very very messy.

[Rangatira]

1 minute ago, Noodlum said:

For a start when the RIU say's "they" I betcha they mean the licensees have asked through their lawyers.  The HRNZ can't turn a blind eye as it isn't the RIU that issues licenses.  This is going to be very very messy.

probably why the riu chose to exclude from on course only

[hunterthepunter]

On ‎19‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 8:13 PM, Kane21 said:

No, it's not legal to inject anything a day before a trial or race same here in NZ. The stable hands were drug tested before they left Chch one refused the test the other returned positive to P and Cannabis the trainers got the results when they were on the truck and therefore did not want to lose a Jewels race because of P very smart I would say after reading about Chris Waller's horses testing positive to Methamphetamine and being fined $30000. They were dismissed immediately. Do you think the stable hands took the owners investment into account whilst abusing themselves with drugs, they couldn't care less but the trainers obviously did. How would you feel winning a $200K race and losing it because the stable hand took P

I fined this post interesting one stable hand refused drug test and returned a positive so how did one of the training partners test go??

[Taku Umanga]

40 minutes ago, Noodlum said:

For a start when the RIU say's "they" I betcha they mean the licensees have asked through their lawyers.  The HRNZ can't turn a blind eye as it isn't the RIU that issues licenses.  This is going to be very very messy.

They haven't had their licences revoked (yet) which HRNZ is entitled to do - each licence-holder agrees to this when they sign their licence application every year.

The RIU has excluded the accused from attending racecourses (nothing to do with HRNZ) under section 34 of the Racing Act 2003 where they are doing so for "the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the conduct of horse racing and the integrity of racing betting".

That being the case, why in the world should the RIU allow the accused back on a racecourse until this mess is sorted out.

Public perception and the integrity of the industry should prevail over anything else.

Those bleating about innocence until proven guilty need to consider the bigger picture here.

[Rangatira]

12 minutes ago, Taku Umanga said:

They haven't had their licences revoked (yet) which HRNZ is entitled to do - each licence-holder agrees to this when they sign their licence application every year.

The RIU has excluded the accused from attending racecourses (nothing to do with HRNZ) under section 34 of the Racing Act 2003 where they are doing so for "the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the conduct of horse racing and the integrity of racing betting".

thanks dave i knew someone would explain it better than me

do you know if natural justice applies to organisations like the riu and hrnz

[Taku Umanga]

8 minutes ago, Rangatira said:

thanks dave i knew someone would explain it better than me

do you know if natural justice applies to organisations like the riu and hrnz

I think natural justice comprises two rules, the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing.

Can't see why these wouldn't apply to the RIU and HRNZ, but also haven't seen where either has breached the rules - the earlier naming of the accused was done by the media if memory serves correct.

I can't see how the exclusion from racecourses could be considered a breach of natural justice as the law allows it for the purposes mentioned in my previous post.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Taku Umanga

[hunterthepunter]

its there work place cant see why not a loud to the races workouts ect as if your in a job you would still go to work if on bail

[Integrity]

4 hours ago, Noodlum said:

This process could take years.  If I was an accused and was banned from earning an income I would have my lawyer seeking injunctive relief ASAP.  The argument being innocent until proven guilty, prevented from earning an income therefore impairing the defendant's ability to defend themselves, if proven innocent the defendants will have suffered a penalty unfairly.

HRNZ and the RIU had better be careful with the bannings because effectively they have penalised the defendants WITHOUT ANY form of hearing.  

I would have thought that the proper process would have been to charge them under the racing rules first and then go through that process.  

To have someone charged under two jurisdictions ie: the Police   & the RIU  would fall under the category of " double jeopardy " which means that the second Jurisdiction ( Police ) would have no grounds to try to prosecute the defendant's . The order of trial is correct as the RIU  have had an extremely poor track record at adhering to procedure . History illustrates this quite clearly .

 

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Taku Umanga said:

They haven't had their licences revoked (yet) which HRNZ is entitled to do - each licence-holder agrees to this when they sign their licence application every year.

The RIU has excluded the accused from attending racecourses (nothing to do with HRNZ) under section 34 of the Racing Act 2003 where they are doing so for "the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the conduct of horse racing and the integrity of racing betting".

That being the case, why in the world should the RIU allow the accused back on a racecourse until this mess is sorted out.

Public perception and the integrity of the industry should prevail over anything else.

Those bleating about innocence until proven guilty need to consider the bigger picture here.

Then why not test their evidence under the rules of racing?  Instead they have abdicated and gone to the police to lay criminal charges.