Reefton abandonment - 5 January 2023

[Chief Stipe]

Can we keep this Topic on Topic, please?  It is an important one.

[curious]

25 minutes ago, Reefton said:

if I could round up enough ex jockeys who were there on the day and/or watched the video it might be a goer I guess

The fact that NZTR paid out the full meeting fees without question

Jeff McLaughlin being an ex stipe who dealt with the Coast tracks over and over

And an opportunity to question Oatham and Clement. 

Worth thinking about

 

I think they really have to make a decision and there, witnesses can attend by teleconference. Might be someone in the community if not the club who could advise further. I'm sure it's within their jurisdiction and as you suggest a means of getting some accountability. H&S should not prevail over negligence. Happy to help how I can.

[Reefton]

1 hour ago, curious said:

I think they really have to make a decision and there, witnesses can attend by teleconference. Might be someone in the community if not the club who could advise further. I'm sure it's within their jurisdiction and as you suggest a means of getting some accountability. H&S should not prevail over negligence. Happy to help how I can.

Thanks Brent

Will message you

[Freda]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Can we keep this Topic on Topic, please?  It is an important one.

I thought we were...a bit of levity now and again doesn't hurt...but yes, it is important.  

[Reefton]

Next chapter

This is a 'review' of the RIB actions that day.  I received it in response to the previous letter to the Chair and Minister. Astonishingly the Chair had passed it to one of the people(Clement) who had been complained about to deal with.  Sort of like the Cops asking the offender to conduct the investigation.

Since it was unclear who completed this 'review' I asked  and was told a Brian Dickey(or Dickie) a barrister.  Notably he did not put his name to it and to my knowledge he did not consult one outside party(not bloody one!).  One suspects he talked to Oatham and Clement and dutifully reported what they had to say.

I take particular exception to the 'intemperate accusations' statement  late in the 'review'. I deal in facts not unsubstantiated observations or claims.

Makes me laugh to hear the RIB have acted in a 'professional' manner.  They made up facts to justify their position for God's sake.  Is that professionalism?

Final - Summary of the review of abandonment at Reefton 5 January 2023.pdf

[Reefton]

I might add when I asked how much this 'review' cost they refused to divulge

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Reefton said:

Since it was unclear who completed this 'review' I asked  and was told a Brian Dickey(or Dickie) a barrister.

https://www.bankside.co.nz/members/brian-dickey

Brian Dickey

Barrister

brian.dickey@bankside.co.nz

+64 21 967 516

+64 9 379 0802

LinkedIn Profile

Practice Areas

Criminal law and regulatory investigationsCivil and commercial litigation and dispute resolution

Bio

Brian is a Barrister at Bankside Chambers working with a small number of premium clients. He was previously Crown Solicitor at Auckland (Te Rōia Matua a Te Karauna ki Tāmaki Makaurau), overseeing the prosecution of serious crime in the Auckland region, and personally leading those prosecutions of particular national or regional significance or interest.

 

He has 30 years’ experience in major commercial and civil litigation and dispute resolutions and commercial regulatory litigation and advisory, at all levels of the courts system. He led his first High Court trial aged 23 and first murder trial in 2002.

 

Before being appointed Crown Solicitor in 2015, he spent several years focusing on commercial litigation and white-collar crime, including the run of significant finance company cases arising after the Global Financial Crisis. He has been a member of the Serious Fraud Office panel of prosecutors since 2010. Brian is a patron of New Zealand Police Recruit Wing 321.

 

In addition, Brian has always maintained a small group of private clients, whom he advises on contentious matters. He has a background in significant civil litigation particularly those involving Companies, Securities and Insolvency law.

 

Brian joined MC in 1994 and became a partner in 2000. His whakapapa includes Waikato-Tainui (Ngāti Maahanga) and Croatian ancestry.

[Chief Stipe]

Just now, Chief Stipe said:

https://www.bankside.co.nz/members/brian-dickey

Brian Dickey

Barrister

brian.dickey@bankside.co.nz

+64 21 967 516

+64 9 379 0802

LinkedIn Profile

Practice Areas

Criminal law and regulatory investigationsCivil and commercial litigation and dispute resolution

Bio

Brian is a Barrister at Bankside Chambers working with a small number of premium clients. He was previously Crown Solicitor at Auckland (Te Rōia Matua a Te Karauna ki Tāmaki Makaurau), overseeing the prosecution of serious crime in the Auckland region, and personally leading those prosecutions of particular national or regional significance or interest.

 

He has 30 years’ experience in major commercial and civil litigation and dispute resolutions and commercial regulatory litigation and advisory, at all levels of the courts system. He led his first High Court trial aged 23 and first murder trial in 2002.

 

Before being appointed Crown Solicitor in 2015, he spent several years focusing on commercial litigation and white-collar crime, including the run of significant finance company cases arising after the Global Financial Crisis. He has been a member of the Serious Fraud Office panel of prosecutors since 2010. Brian is a patron of New Zealand Police Recruit Wing 321.

 

In addition, Brian has always maintained a small group of private clients, whom he advises on contentious matters. He has a background in significant civil litigation particularly those involving Companies, Securities and Insolvency law.

 

Brian joined MC in 1994 and became a partner in 2000. His whakapapa includes Waikato-Tainui (Ngāti Maahanga) and Croatian ancestry.

Surprise surprise!!!  Clearly has strong links to the Auckland Area Police as a past Crown Solicitor in Auckland.

[Shad]

20 hours ago, Reefton said:

You pulled one of those Reefton Trentham stunts yourself did you not Morty?  You and the late great John Carran had a horse called Meadowlands(?) that won at Reefton then cleaned up during Cup week?

It's a long way from a great racetrack but you are dead right the action is bloody close.  And it most certainly has not proven an unsafe venue over my time.  A horse called Brave Jack lost its life there but it was a simple misfortune and one of Pitty's (I think) fell there three or four years back after clipping heels, and there was the spectacular pilot error Raelene Fraser incident after the finish.  Prior to that I reckon Mouse falling off on the bend out of the straight thirty years ago?

I am not particularly proud of the track itself but I am proud of the way it is prepared and presented  and when the likes of John Oatham turn up and make a prick of themselves it pisses me off

 

 

Was there to witness those even some years back, poor old brave Jack, these thing just happen, and also the gold dust incident which certainly was pilot error, again the club penalized again by way of having to shift the winning post, which wouldn't been a cheap exercise, I to was disillusioned with the abandonment of last year, and I only traveled to be there, feel for the owners and trainers who incurred the cost of getting there as well, you've you've fought a hard battle to get any explanations or justice, but at the end of the day have been worn down by the system and whole process, and the powers that be just don't care about the small clubs as we all know. Can remember scotch mist winning on the course some years ago, like brutus was by balios from memory and also won a big race up north, both trained by the late Ray Harris who supplied many a horse to the coast meetings many years ago, certainly had a big team back in the day.

[Reefton]

59 minutes ago, Shad said:

Was there to witness those even some years back, poor old brave Jack, these thing just happen, and also the gold dust incident which certainly was pilot error, again the club penalized again by way of having to shift the winning post, which wouldn't been a cheap exercise, I to was disillusioned with the abandonment of last year, and I only traveled to be there, feel for the owners and trainers who incurred the cost of getting there as well, you've you've fought a hard battle to get any explanations or justice, but at the end of the day have been worn down by the system and whole process, and the powers that be just don't care about the small clubs as we all know. Can remember scotch mist winning on the course some years ago, like brutus was by balios from memory and also won a big race up north, both trained by the late Ray Harris who supplied many a horse to the coast meetings many years ago, certainly had a big team back in the day.

Yes I've been worn down Shad but they have not heard the last of me and this incident yet

I intend to review the 'review' and Messrs Oatham, Dickey and Clement might not necessarily enjoy the read.

Funny thing is when you correct them on something they never respond.  For instance they never elaborated on me querying the 'multiple slips' and 'inconsistent surface' claims they made.  Curious pointed out that Clement has been careful not to say that horse slipped - if it did not slip then what justification have they for saying the track was dangerous?

Since that 'review' I have had an email crack(its coming) at Clement and in particular regarding this Dickey bloke denying Moseley told Mark Davidson, David Walsh and I one after another after race 1 that that track was as good as gold.  I invited him(Clement), since Mr Dickey says that did not happen, to have Mark Davidson put his hand on the Bible and declare that it did not happen(because I will put my hand on the Bible readily and say it did and I also have a witness who heard it as well).  Needless to say Clement did not take up the invitation.

 

 

 

 

[Reefton]

Shifting the post was as much to do with my old mate Judy Lawson being fined for easing up prior to the post than the Gold Dust thing.  It was slightly around the corner and Jude stopped riding and got run down for third.  It wasn't satisfactory and had to change but didn't cost much.  We can't complain about that.  There was also a lot of white paint applied to the outside fence after Gold Dust leapt over it and got halfway to Christchurch up the Lewis Pass road.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Reefton said:

Since that 'review' I have had an email crack(its coming) at Clement and in particular regarding this Dickey bloke denying Moseley told Mark Davidson, David Walsh and I one after another after race 1 that that track was as good as gold.

I wonder would Terry stand by saying that to the 3 of you? That's a big part of the weight of evidence that your anonymous reviewer is reporting. I'm guessing David would. Was he at the so called consultation with jockeys (in his role as apprentice mentor and safety advisor)?

[curious]

Also, who was the licensee who triggered the track safety review by expressing concerns about its safety to one of the stipes?

[Reefton]

4 hours ago, curious said:

Also, who was the licensee who triggered the track safety review by expressing concerns about its safety to one of the stipes?

no idea.  Didn't see that suggestion or claim

[Reefton]

4 hours ago, curious said:

I wonder would Terry stand by saying that to the 3 of you? That's a big part of the weight of evidence that your anonymous reviewer is reporting. I'm guessing David would. Was he at the so called consultation with jockeys (in his role as apprentice mentor and safety advisor)?

Well he repeated the same thing over and over first to Mark Davidson then to David Walsh then to me.  I had already asked him after he and David Walsh walked the track before the races and he said no problem the either.  To be fair I think Terry Moseley is a good bloke(not that i know him well) so am not looking to drag him into controversy.  Same with Mark Davidson - in my limited dealings always found him to be a decent friendly guy.  But the suggestion that what was said between them was not actually said is outrageous.

1 minute ago, Reefton said:

no idea.  Didn't see that suggestion or claim

As I stated MIss Hannan was quite desperate to find some evidence of a slip.  Whether it was her?

[Reefton]

7 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Well he repeated the same thing over and over first to Mark Davidson then to David Walsh then to me.  I had already asked him after he and David Walsh walked the track before the races and he said no problem the either.  To be fair I think Terry Moseley is a good bloke(not that i know him well) so am not looking to drag him into controversy.  Same with Mark Davidson - in my limited dealings always found him to be a decent friendly guy.  But the suggestion that what was said between them was not actually said is outrageous.

 

Put it this way - I do not believe either of them would tell lies - why, in this case, would they?

Therefore I would imagine that neither of them was consulted in this 'review' and that accordingly whatever went on between them is not on the record.

 

[curious]

13 hours ago, Reefton said:

Well he repeated the same thing over and over first to Mark Davidson then to David Walsh then to me.  I had already asked him after he and David Walsh walked the track before the races and he said no problem the either.  To be fair I think Terry Moseley is a good bloke(not that i know him well) so am not looking to drag him into controversy.  Same with Mark Davidson - in my limited dealings always found him to be a decent friendly guy.  But the suggestion that what was said between them was not actually said is outrageous.

Well I agree with that. The reviewer seems to have made no attempt to talk to any of these people or verify what the stewards both on the day and subsequently, say is the evidence. on the other hand I think some aspects of the review are quite good in that they clearly grasped what was and was not the contentious issue, i.e. the evidence base or lack thereof for the decision, along with a small win for you in that they smacked the hand of the RIB to provide hard evidence e.g., photos and recordings, of the evidence supporting the abandonment decision.

In that respect it is very surprising that there is no mention of any consultation with Walshy as the SI safety advisor, nor that he was there to support apprentices who may have been intimidated in the context of the stewards' consultation with jockeys.

Edited August 1, 2023 by curious

[curious]

13 hours ago, Reefton said:

no idea.  Didn't see that suggestion or claim

That's because to my surprise, it doesn't appear to have been mentioned by either the stewards' reports nor the reviewers'. In 7.1 of the latter, the reviewer sets out what is described as the 'relevant part of the protocol'. Oddly, that omits the key part which is that the policy must be triggered by a licenceholder expressing concern about the safety of the track.

The Track Safety Review process commences when a licensee present at the meeting notifies the stipendiary steward in charge of the meeting that the track surface is or may be unsafe to ride upon and that he or she wishes the steward to begin a Track Safety Review.

There is no report of that happening. Instead, the report suggests that the stewards themselves raised the question of track safety but I don't think that is their role. The report cites the Rule 602(1) which states what the stipes' role is.

"determine any question as to whether that day of racing or any part
thereof should be postponed, abandoned, or cancelled;"

It seems their role is to determine any question of track safety and decide the outcome. The report suggests they have not only determined the outcome but raised the question themselves when that is the role of a licence holder. They have then determined their own question. Seems a very odd process to me as reported.

Edited August 1, 2023 by curious

[Reefton]

5 minutes ago, curious said:

That's because to my surprise, it doesn't appear to have been mentioned by either the stewards' reports nor the reviewers'. In 7.1 of the latter, the reviewer sets out what is described as the 'relevant part of the protocol'. Oddly, that omits the key part which is that the policy must be triggered by a licenceholder expressing concern about the safety of the track.

The Track Safety Review process commences when a licensee present at the meeting notifies the stipendiary steward in charge of the meeting that the track surface is or may be unsafe to ride upon and that he or she wishes the steward to begin a Track Safety Review.

There is no report of that happening. Instead, the report suggests that the stewards themselves raised the question of track safety but I don't think that is their role. The report cites the Rule 602(1) which states what the stipes' role is.

"determine any question as to whether that day of racing or any part
thereof should be postponed, abandoned, or cancelled;"

It seems their role is to determine any question of track safety and decide the outcome. The report suggests they have not only determined the outcome but raised the question themselves when that is the role of a licence holder. They have then determined their own question. Seems a very odd process to me as reported.

 

 

Hell Curious thanks for your diligence!  My problem is I have a business to run and racing doesn't put food on the table or pay my mortgage(not that there is to much of a mortgage anymore).  I tend to brush over things and not pick up the minor technicalities.  That review of course is long and tedious and I need to concentrate properly but time is the issue.  As it goes on and on they wear me down since of course my enthusiasm level for the industry is lower and lower by the day.

Can I be bothered going through it paragraph by paragraph and refuting it bit by bit?  Good question

[Freda]

11 minutes ago, curious said:

That's because to my surprise, it doesn't appear to have been mentioned by either the stewards' reports nor the reviewers'. In 7.1 of the latter, the reviewer sets out what is described as the 'relevant part of the protocol'. Oddly, that omits the key part which is that the policy must be triggered by a licenceholder expressing concern about the safety of the track.

The Track Safety Review process commences when a licensee present at the meeting notifies the stipendiary steward in charge of the meeting that the track surface is or may be unsafe to ride upon and that he or she wishes the steward to begin a Track Safety Review.

There is no report of that happening. Instead, the report suggests that the stewards themselves raised the question of track safety but I don't think that is their role. The report cites the Rule 602(1) which states what the stipes' role is.

"determine any question as to whether that day of racing or any part
thereof should be postponed, abandoned, or cancelled;"

It seems their role is to determine any question of track safety and decide the outcome. The report suggests they have not only determined the outcome but raised the question themselves when that is the role of a licence holder. They have then determined their own question. Seems a very odd process to me as reported.

Odd indeed.

The cynic might think that not one  of these folk have the faintest idea about anything pertaining to rules or  integrity, and also have comprehension difficulties.

 

[Freda]

2 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Hell Curious thanks for your diligence!  My problem is I have a business to run and racing doesn't put food on the table or pay my mortgage(not that there is to much of a mortgage anymore).  I tend to brush over things and not pick up the minor technicalities.  That review of course is long and tedious and I need to concentrate properly but time is the issue.  As it goes on and on they wear me down since of course my enthusiasm level for the industry is lower and lower by the day.

Can I be bothered going through it paragraph by paragraph and refuting it bit by bit?  Good question

There are few better trainspotters than Curious.

[Reefton]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Well I agree with that. The reviewer seems to have made no attempt to talk to any of these people or verify what the stewards both on the day and subsequently, say is the evidence. on the other hand I think some aspects of the review are quite good in that they clearly grasped what was and was not the contentious issue, i.e. the evidence base or lack thereof for the decision, along with a small win for you in that they smacked the hand of the RIB to provide hard evidence e.g., photos and recordings, of the evidence supporting the abandonment decision.

In that respect it is very surprising that there is no mention of any consultation with Walshy as the SI safety advisor, nor that he was there to support apprentices who may have been intimidated in the context of the stewards' consultation with jockeys.

They could not produce hard evidence if they wanted to as none existed.  Re David Walsh I am not sure he was invited in when they spoke to the riders either before or after the first race.  Given his vast knowledge you might have expected him to be invited out for the track inspection???  After all he has not hesitated in the past to be critical of or course(he was not this time I might add)

[Chief Stipe]

Some background to Clement.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/over-and-out-deputy-commissioner-mike-clement-retires-recalls-42-years-on-the-front-line/EMOXQQSQVEFY2JI7Y2GUGYY4LA/

[Reefton]

35 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Some background to Clement.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/over-and-out-deputy-commissioner-mike-clement-retires-recalls-42-years-on-the-front-line/EMOXQQSQVEFY2JI7Y2GUGYY4LA/

Hmmmmmmmm..........

So one of NZ's ex top cops calls in one of NZ's ex top prosecutors to do a 'review' of the conduct of his new employing organisation

I wonder if they regularly worked together in their former roles??  I wonder if they enjoy friendly relations??

Hmmmmmm.......

 

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Hmmmmmmmm..........

So one of NZ's ex top cops calls in one of NZ's ex top prosecutors to do a 'review' of the conduct of his new employing organisation

I wonder if they regularly worked together in their former roles??  I wonder if they enjoy friendly relations??

Hmmmmmm.......

 

Probably yes to both of your questions.  But isn't that indicative of NZ? More so nowadays?!

Regardless of that, the report has to be argued on its merits not any perception of bias.  There are some positive recommendations in the report but also some obvious inconsistencies.  I find it odd that not one recording was made of the conversations nor was one photo taken of the track where it was allegedly unsafe.