Rangatira Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 7 minutes ago, the galah said: No one is defending the possible race fixing,but some have clearly minimized the drug use,supply aspect. What I believe arsenic is getting at is the level of indignation expressed by many that the alleged corruption was even investigated. That is the overwhelming feeling I get when reading this and the other site. The apparent rage towards the riu and the police is there for all to see in so many comments. I can understand the greyhound folks,they are consistent. They believe certain matters and practices have not been investigated properly. But they are complaining,and always have,that the RIU should be more proactive. Now compare that to the harness racing. Its plain to see on this and the other website and on sites like harnesslink,this scandal has been an opportunity for every man and his dog to put the boot into the RIU,. And why,because they saw possible corruption on a scale they knew they did not have the resources to properly investigate, and passed it onto the police. Its utterly ridiculous. I don't buy this vile and hatred of the RIU existed prior to the current case. Now you get sites like harnesslink making personal attacks on the riu and harness racing leaders all to do with the current situation,settling on scores. Its a clear orchestrated campaign. And for all the wrong reasons. Im with arsenic on this one,Its extremely disappointing to see . being a lil boy i patiently await the final outcome of the court case relating to operation inca 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 3 hours ago, Rangatira said: just to be clear you should name the ones that are defending them Like me I’m sure you can see obviously having read all this thread who and who’s not in what corner. Very disappointing at the number of people who have shown support . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Arsenic said: Like me I’m sure you can see obviously having read all this thread who and who’s not in what corner. Very disappointing at the number of people who have shown support . are all the disclosures in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongOwner Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 To those cheerleads of the RIU and therefore JCA read the inconsistent decisions re Throughbred v Harness for the same charge . The Throughbred gets a 50% lower penalty than harness - they are not reading from the same penalty v’s crime book . Lets start too many jockey whips v’s drive whip fines . Different planet ! They have caused the distrust . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 1 minute ago, LongOwner said: To those cheerleads of the RIU and therefore JCA read the inconsistent decisions re Throughbred v Harness for the same charge . The Throughbred gets a 50% lower penalty than harness - they are not reading from the same penalty v’s crime book . Lets start too many jockey whips v’s drive whip fines . Different planet ! They have caused the distrust . i nominate brodie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 20 minutes ago, Rangatira said: i nominate brodie I will second that! Not the RIU fault re the blatantly stupid whip rule in harness! It is the clown at HRNZ that brought it in, without support just because he was able to! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, Brodie said: I will second that! Not the RIU fault re the blatantly stupid whip rule in harness! It is the clown at HRNZ that brought it in, without support just because he was able to! proudest moment 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 23 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said: Explain why, if you don't mind. Just out today... http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-ac-roberts-decision-datd-14-september-2018 Why did the RIU take an inquiry to the JCA for a reduction in fine from the Minor Infringement Table? It's not up to the RIU to determine what is a reasonable fine. That's a task for GRNZ (in the case of a Minor Infringement table) or the JCA (something covered by the table). If the trainer had a problem with the amount he was getting fined from the table, then it's his option to file for an appeal. Yet again, the RIU overstepping the boundaries for what must be a "favoured" trainer. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopia Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 Rumours were that the riu wanted to get rid of the jca. Leading up to the messiah report riu stewards were telling anyone near that the jca were 'gone' and theyd be in charge of all penalties....doesn't look that way in the messiah report tho?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taku Umanga Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 12 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Just out today... http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-ac-roberts-decision-datd-14-september-2018 Why did the RIU take an inquiry to the JCA for a reduction in fine from the Minor Infringement Table? It's not up to the RIU to determine what is a reasonable fine. That's a task for GRNZ (in the case of a Minor Infringement table) or the JCA (something covered by the table). If the trainer had a problem with the amount he was getting fined from the table, then it's his option to file for an appeal. Yet again, the RIU overstepping the boundaries for what must be a "favoured" trainer. Perhaps because a precedent had already been set and if they hadn't they would be dealing with an appeal? Reasons for Penalty [10] The Committee took into consideration that a fine of $150 had been imposed for a recent breach of this Rule where the facts of the case were very similar. [11] Mr Roberts had admitted the breach and had a clear record in regard to this rule. [12] After taking all factors into consideration, including the previous penalty in very similar circumstances, the Committee determined that a fine of $150 was an appropriate penalty in this case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 30 minutes ago, Taku Umanga said: Perhaps because a precedent had already been set and if they hadn't they would be dealing with an appeal? Reasons for Penalty [10] The Committee took into consideration that a fine of $150 had been imposed for a recent breach of this Rule where the facts of the case were very similar. [11] Mr Roberts had admitted the breach and had a clear record in regard to this rule. [12] After taking all factors into consideration, including the previous penalty in very similar circumstances, the Committee determined that a fine of $150 was an appropriate penalty in this case. A reasonable conclusion and supported by the information available Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 I'm not at all questioning the result. I am questioning the road to get to that result. If a precedent had already been set, then it's up to the trainer to bring that evidence before the JCA. I'll say it again, it's not up the to RIU to decide whether they think a fine in the minor infringement table is too steep or not. That is a guideline given to the RIU. The table is written in to the rules for a reason and that reason to keep those minor issues out of the JCA's hands & further burdening the system. If the trainer was not satisfied with what is in the table, then it's his & his alone option to challenge it. As for precedents, hypothetically, if I were to today take very recent photographic evidence of say nine other trainers (3 top line, 3 middle of the road & 3 hardly ever heard of) live baiting their greyhounds, which of those nine trainers would still be putting dogs around the track more than a year later? Would the RIU be claiming their hands are tied in all cases because they didn't act on the photos & a couple of days after I put them into their hands, I took another set of them and put the in front of the SPCA? In my opinion, the RIU are more corrupt then those who they are tasked with policing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Short Stuff Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 Is it true Yankiwi that an RIU person gave this trainer a signed letter saying it’s alright to bait?..That is the reason that they are not acting on the photos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 20 minutes ago, Short Stuff said: Is it true Yankiwi that an RIU person gave this trainer a signed letter saying it’s alright to bait?..That is the reason that they are not acting on the photos I've heard it rumoured. I'd be doubtful that one did exist. I would be more likely to believe that a tap on the shoulder & a verbal "ok" could have been given. I see nothing sort of thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: I've heard it rumoured. I'd be doubtful that one did exist. I would be more likely to believe that a tap on the shoulder & a verbal "ok" could have been given. I see nothing sort of thing... shouldn't all other riu types be aghast at this or would it be in the too far fetched basket Edited September 20, 2018 by Rangatira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Short Stuff said: Is it true Yankiwi that an RIU person gave this trainer a signed letter saying it’s alright to bait?..That is the reason that they are not acting on the photos An RIU person would have to be off their rocker, and I mean so far off their rocker there is no helping them if they gave a trainer a letter saying live baiting was alright. It is not a rumour, it is fantasy. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 On 18/09/2018 at 8:12 AM, Newmarket said: I thought Spicer has horses with trainer Nigel Mcgrath? So it makes sense does it not. Maybe those at the top are under suspicion also? i know at least one is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 On 19/09/2018 at 6:21 AM, Yankiwi said: Here's one example it goes further than inconsistencies, it goes as far as polar opposites. In the greyhound code not that long ago, a trainer in Chch had a bit of a meltdown & punched a hole in the wall after leaving the Steward room. He promptly paid for the repairs, yet the RIU charged him regardless (and fair enough). That same week (I believe) in Wanganui, a trainer threatened to slit another trainers throat right in front of a Steward. No charges filed (or passing information forward to the police). I mean really? A month or so after the events I questioned officials as to what the go was. The answer I received were that no charges were filed because the trainer that had received the threat didn't want to press charges. Isn't the RIU aware that it's not a requirement for anyone to complain to them first, before enforcing the GRNZ rules? At least within the Greyhound code, in the RIU's eyes, it seems it's not what someone had done, it's who had done it. because the trainer that it was said it to, was found it bit more poo than the threatening trainer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 heres my gripe i have with this , if top brass were told what exactly would they do with the info they had , and where and who would they be using it to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 18 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said: An RIU person would have to be off their rocker, and I mean so far off their rocker there is no helping them if they gave a trainer a letter saying live baiting was alright. It is not a rumour, it is fantasy. This person you are referring to goes to this persons for dinner on occasions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Arsenic said: This person you are referring to goes to this persons for dinner on occasions Does that actually mean anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 What. So you think it’s okay for an RIU stipe to be frequently at a trainers for dinner. Would have thought that any close friendship with a trainer would definitely be an absolute no no. Leaves the door open for all sorts of speculation , exactly what happening in this case. Pritty damn certain RIU bosses wouldn’t want or not happy . They must always keep distance between themselves and participants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cichlid Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 Yep, they should keep their distance and maintain Integrity at all times. I guess when Scotty Wallis a stipe at Christchurch moved in on a licensed persons girlfriend and then became engaged to her was an example of how much in tatters this R.I.U. is..and to top it off Scotty now dishes out instructions to the ex boyfreind of his wifes to be... The R.I.U. must be at least investigated and big changes of Integrity assured.The fact you have a General Manager who has less qualifications than at least his Investigators have yet has complete charge of authority over them is so suspect it aint at all funny. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 58 minutes ago, Arsenic said: What. So you think it’s okay for an RIU stipe to be frequently at a trainers for dinner. Would have thought that any close friendship with a trainer would definitely be an absolute no no. Leaves the door open for all sorts of speculation , exactly what happening in this case. Pritty damn certain RIU bosses wouldn’t want or not happy . They must always keep distance between themselves and participants. You are certainly correct in your views as one would think that they shouldn't socialise. Would that be in their contract? So they have dinner, RIU person writes a letter saying live baiting is ok. Pretty crazy. Is this a myth or have people seen the letter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 1 minute ago, cichlid said: Yep, they should keep their distance and maintain Integrity at all times. I guess when Scotty Wallis a stipe at Christchurch moved in on a licensed persons girlfriend and then became engaged to her was an example of how much in tatters this R.I.U. is..and to top it off Scotty now dishes out instructions to the ex boyfreind of his wifes to be... The R.I.U. must be at least investigated and big changes of Integrity assured.The fact you have a General Manager who has less qualifications than at least his Investigators have yet has complete charge of authority over them is so suspect it aint at all funny. is this after the ross neal episode 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.