Reefton abandonment - 5 January 2023

[Reefton]

5 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

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.

The topic of photographic evidence did come up on the day.  Not sure who from but given the NZTR decrees from the months immediately before(a la Awapuni and Riccarton) it was mentioned as being of importance to get and provide photo's of track issues.  I will guarantee you had they found anything the camera would have been out quick smart.

I was shell shocked with what was going on and not quick enough off the mark that day(probably any other day for that matter)

AND as I said Chapman Fenwick Oatham and Garry Foskett had all inspected that track in the month or so before.  Other than Garry(who was there to help put the new rail, up) I wasn't there but he was glowing in his praise for its presentation and none of the others complained.

[Chief Stipe]

27 minutes ago, Reefton said:

I will guarantee you had they found anything the camera would have been out quick smart.

Exactly which suggests they didn't find anything clearly visible.  All of the Stipes would have had industry funded high end smart phones with them.  The natural reaction to seeing something would be to take a photo. 

[curious]

3 hours ago, Reefton said:

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

Don't think I'd do that. Probably just raise a question about what appear to be the two or three most glaring omissions and inconsistencies.

[curious]

3 hours ago, Freda said:

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.

 

It certainly is strange and if as reported, they didn't in fact even begin to follow the due process outlined by the rules and the review policy, it definitely lends weight to Reefton's conspiracy theory.

I also note that there seems to be no comment from or about trainers. No expression of concern about the track and no sign of any consultation with them in the decision making. Were any trainers in on the post race track inspection?

Edited August 2, 2023 by curious

[Reefton]

2 hours ago, curious said:

It certainly is strange and if as reported, they didn't in fact even begin to follow the due process outlined by the rules and the review policy, it definitely lends weight to Reefton's conspiracy theory.

I also note that there seems to be no comment from or about trainers. No expression of concern about the track and no sign of any consultation with them in the decision making. Were any trainers in on the post race track inspection?

Nobody was even told it was going on.  It was only chance I was out and about and noticed them walking down the track. Jumped the fence and ran after them.  Jeff McLaughlin didn't know nor anyone else.  Presumably not David Wash either.  Plenty of trainers looked at it afterwards and of course anyone with the slightest experience of racing could see the real reason for the horse losing its footing

The guy had a fixation with closing all three Coast meetings down.  I think he was lucky someone at Kumara didn't hang one on him he annoyed them so much the day before.  Mind you one of my Life Members wanted to flatten him too.  Abused the shit out of him but by then it was too late. He saw his chance at Reefton and seized it

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Reefton

[curious]

On 1/08/2023 at 12:07 PM, Reefton said:

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 213 kB · 8 downloads

Did you receive a letter from the Chair accompanying this or what?

[Reefton]

13 minutes ago, curious said:

Did you receive a letter from the Chair accompanying this or what?

Shit no

All letters come from Clement. She just hands anything on to him even when it stated clearly that he had committed a serious breach of the rules of racing(with obvious and irrefutable proof).

I am not quite sure what her idea of independence is but it seems you could accuse him of being an axe murderer and she would pass it to him to handle. 

 

[Reefton]

3 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Shit no

All letters come from Clement. She just hands anything on to him even when it stated clearly that he had committed a serious breach of the rules of racing(with obvious and irrefutable proof).

I am not quite sure what her idea of independence is but it seems you could accuse him of being an axe murderer and she would pass it to him to handle. 

 

Mind you she might be in the click with Dickey as well.  When you read that thing a couple of weeks back about Justice Bill Wilson and the carry on over his association with that Allan Galbraith(it involved Rich Hill Stud) it is pretty clear they all inhabit the same cesspool these KC's and barristers(even judges).  She is currently prosecuting that White Island case for Worksafe so works as a prosecutor for the Crown as well.

[curious]

46 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Shit no

OK. So you've had no reply from McDonald to the letter you sent her? Can you post that letter from Clement? It is presumably the next step to respond to that then or maybe follow up with her, especially since the Minister referred the matter to her?

Edited August 2, 2023 by curious

[Reefton]

2 hours ago, curious said:

OK. So you've had no reply from McDonald to the letter you sent her? Can you post that letter from Clement? It is presumably the next step to respond to that then or maybe follow up with her, especially since the Minister referred the matter to her?

Oh sorry no there was no letter wot the review - just an email saying here is the review

 

I then sent two further letters to her just asking (1) who did the review, which(if any, outside parties were consulted and what the terms of reference were and (2) what the review cost(they declined to answer

the second response is pretty irrelevant but the first is as follows(it was actually an email not a letter)

 

Good morning Brian

 

The Chair of the RIB Board has referred this request dated 2 July 2023 to me for a response which follows. 

 

Abandonment of Reefton race meeting

 

While the RIB is not subject to the Official Information Act 1982 as suggested in your letter, below are the answers to the questions you raise, namely:

 

1. The author of the external review is barrister Brian Dickey.

 

2. No one outside of the RIB was approached for comment as it was a review focused on the manner in which the Steward’s applied the rules, policy and protocols of NZTR.

 

Noting that this matter has been proceeding for some time and in the interests of looking towards the future, I would like to suggest we meet to have a discussion, with whomever else you consider it appropriate to meet with.  I will be in Canterbury for an unrelated purpose on Friday the 21^st of July and I could travel earlier with a view to driving to Greymouth to meet with you on Thursday the 20^th if you consider this a worthwhile option.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Mike Clement Chief Executive Racing Integrity Board m: +64 21 846 569 e: mike.clement@rib.org.nz

 

[curious]

Ok. So, did you then decline that meeting offer?

[Reefton]

2 hours ago, curious said:

Ok. So, did you then decline that meeting offer?

That is when I bollocked him about essentially wasting my time.  ie what is the point of a meeting if you will not accept that your organisation is in the wrong

this is the email

'Hi Mike

I find it highly extraordinary  and unsatisfactory that you, as someone who clearly has a bias in all this and who has been the subject of a serious complaint about their clear (and undeniable) breach of the rules of racing, continues to deal with it.  Given your Chairperson is a KC I would have thought she would have an appreciation of the concept of independence. 

 

Clearly this Brian Dickie has been badly misinformed by parties with a vested interest in protecting their own butts and that will be exposed in my forthcoming letter.   Common sense would dictate that anyone doing a review of what went on seeks outside evidence to assess the accuracy of the information they have received and the appropriateness of the actions taken by those under examination.  I am not surprised no name was affixed to the review  - I would highly embarrassed to produce that effort myself.

 

You are making an utter fool of yourself and your organisation by continuing this charade in trying to protect Oatham.   You fail to appreciate that there were several highly qualified former riders(Walsh, Skelton, McCann, Walker and others) and highly successful Trainers(Pitman, Rae, Parsons) on course that day and  yet not one of them was consulted by this Dickie person?  This is not like a Police investigation where the events need to be examined for evidence - half the South Island racing fraternity  and several North Island as well -  were in attendance and they know what they saw.   By continuing to deny the facts and indeed at times manufacturing evidence - 'other horses slipped' and 'Moseley did not breach the careless riding rules' for instance - not to mention this claim that Moseley did not tell Mark Davidson that track was Ok immediately after the race - you are seriously bringing your organisation into disrepute.

 

This evidence is there for all to see in the race video and the stewards report of the day.  It is irrefutable and of course I was personally in attendance when the desperate and unsuccessful search was going on for this slip mark.  At the time I had no idea of the fact that there was a breach of riding standards that had taken place and hence my comments to Oatham on return to the birdcage still not knowing the truth.  One might also enquire why Club representatives and the likes of Michael Pitman and, particularly, David Walsh were not advised of and invited to the track inspection - I had to invite myself when I saw them heading down the straight.  Jeff McLaughlin our CEO is a former Stipe himself with vastly more experience of West Coast Racing and tracks than has John Oatham - why was he not advised?

 

I am happy to make all of this public if the RIB does not want to face up to its shortcomings in this unfortunate affair(and that covers all three days of that West Coast Circuit I might add) but will probably elect, at this stage, to approach the Ombudsman given the disinclination of the RIB to engage on this.  Not that the Club or I have particularly much faith in the Office of the Ombudsman on this - in this day and age the RIB will, I know, squeal 'Health and Safety' and  the conclusion will be a forgone one(despite there being no evidence whatsoever of Health and Safety issues).

 

I am aware of NZTR's concerns at the RIB behaviour on the day as well and of course they paid us our full race day payments despite threats to Clubs producing substandard racing surfaces in the month's prior.

 

The facts are these:

 

1) Oatham tried to stop each of the three West Coast meetings in that five day period.

2) Moseley clearly breached the rules of racing with aggressive tactics between the 400 and 250m marks of that race one at our meeting and this breach went unmentioned let alone punished.

3) Moseley clearly indicated his approval of the track to Stipendiary Steward Mark Davidson, jockey mentor David Walsh and myself immediately after weighing in from race one on January 5th.  If you wish to dispute that lets have Mark Davidson put his hand on the Bible and deny it(because I am happy to do the same to confirm it).

4) No slip or skid mark was able to be found on the bend into the straight that day because none existed.  I am happy to summon multiple witnesses to attest to that.

5) There is no video evidence to substantiate the 'other horses slipping' claim from the RIB letter of 11 January and indeed no mention of more than one horse slipping nor of the particular horse(Madison Rose) slipping more than once.

 

In dispute is that the riders were 'consulted' on the abandonment.  One senior rider told me directly and another implied they were simply told that the meeting was abandoned.  Comment has also been made about the number of times riders were called to the Judicial room prior to the start of racing in what would appear a clear attempt to intimidate particularly younger riders about the state of the track.  Just because there is a shower of rain does not automatically make a track slippery and our track people were VERY careful to prepare that track to take the forecast rain.

 

I see little point in you coming to the West Coast to meet me given your reluctance to accept the irrefutable facts of the day.  Apart from anything else you would need to set aside a full day to do so given the distance involved and the potential road conditions on mountain passes at this time of year.  if however you do wish to come over I suggest that a meeting with all the West Coast clubs is in order so that Oatham's  behaviour over that five day period can be discussed.  I also believe that, as a minimum, David Walsh and Michael Pitman be invited to attend via zoom along of course with our CEO.

 

The alternative is that you 'swallow a dead rat' and officially recognise what everyone else knows and extend a public apology to the Club and stakeholders for the unfortunate events of the day and promise to take steps to ensure that this sort of RIB instigated debacle does not happen again.  It does you and your organisation no credit to continue to defend the indefensible and you might wish to contemplate the saying 'When you are in a hole stop digging'.

 

It may be unpalatable but there is no shame in admitting a mistake. 

 

I look forward to your advice

 

regards

 

Brian Molloy

President RJC'

[curious]

That pretty much sums it up as I see it. No reply I take it?

[Reefton]

26 minutes ago, curious said:

That pretty much sums it up as I see it. No reply I take it?

He replied all right but just in a resigned fashion - essentially 'well the offer(of a meeting) is there and it is your call whether you take  advantage of it'

What would be the point of a meeting if this guy will not face the truth.  It is pretty obvious he himself knows this was a debacle but he is obliged to back up his man.  By admitting a mistake he is basically saying Oatham is a prick and made  a mess of this thing.  Hardly a way to heighten staff morale?

Clement does appear to be the meat in the sandwich here(though given his salary that goes with the job) but at the end of the day he has a trail of debacles that the RIB have been at the heart of and he should be taking steps to stop this sort of thing happening.  Look at the Riccarton thing - how many horses 'blundered' at the start on the first two days?????  Yet not a mention of an inspection of the start points or any oversight of the track preparation prior to the Saturday? And on one of NZ racing's biggest days of the year?  It defies belief

Maybe it is a lack of specialist knowledge of racing issues that is Clement's problem but if you are in the job you have a responsibility to get yourself up to speed.  AND he needs to remember that so often their actions are recorded on TV and monitored by people who really do know the industry.  It isn't like his copper days when most of the work goes on behind the scenes - fart at the wrong time in the RIB job and everyone knows about it!

 

 

 

 

[curious]

OK. I'd pursue the meeting then. Obviously, with you and Jeff, and as you propose, Walshy and Pitty if they are willing by video link. He did say in his original offer of a meeting "with whomever else you consider it appropriate to meet with."

[Chief Stipe]

I suggest too that you meet with Clement.  On the two occasions that I needed to talk with him I found him more than reasonable.  He also appeared to be genuine.

Bear in mind that he has taken over a structure that in my opinion is flawed and inherited staff that he has not chosen.

I'm also not sure that the Board is all that good either although there are a couple I think are OK.

All that said I would have thought two years in Clement would be chain sawing some of the dead wood out.

[Chief Stipe]

Some interesting stuff in that judgement about how the RIB are operating.

$7,500 in costs applied for with no supporting documentation?!

[Reefton]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Some interesting stuff in that judgement about how the RIB are operating.

$7,500 in costs applied for with no supporting documentation?!

The arrogance of thinking that you are the be all and end all in NZ Racing and simply can do whatsoever you wish without consequence

Sort of like deciding that you are going to abandon a raceday then once a race is run declare, with no evidence whatsoever, that the track is unsafe.

[curious]

3 hours ago, Reefton said:

The arrogance of thinking that you are the be all and end all in NZ Racing and simply can do whatsoever you wish without consequence

Sort of like deciding that you are going to abandon a raceday then once a race is run declare, with no evidence whatsoever, that the track is unsafe.

Didn't they decide they were going to run a raceday, then change it and abandon it after one race with no further evidence than what they had earlier? Btw, were a horse or horses galloped on the track that morning?

Edited August 7, 2023 by curious

[Chief Stipe]

56 minutes ago, curious said:

Btw, were a horse or horses galloped on the track that morning?

What time did it start raining?

[curious]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

What time did it start raining?

I don't think they are quite sure.

The stewards' report says "With the weather becoming showery during race morning the track was inspected by Stewards with senior riders prior to Race 1. Following this inspection, a meeting was held with all riders with the decision made to continue with the programme.

The abandonment report says "Around 45 minutes before the start of Race 1, steady rain began to fall, with Stewards undertaking an inspection of the track with senior rider representatives.

Edited August 7, 2023 by curious

[Reefton]

3 hours ago, curious said:

Didn't they decide they were going to run a raceday, then change it and abandon it after one race with no further evidence than what they had earlier? Btw, were a horse or horses galloped on the track that morning?

Yes there would have been.  There were probably 30 horses staying on the course(including all of Pitty's and John Blackadders) so bound to have been.  As I said we had put tonnes of water on because we had had 6 days of 30plus degree temperatures and we knew the forecast was for rain on the  day.  We had the irrigation going within half an hour of the end of the trots and it didn't stop for four days. 

[Reefton]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

What time did it start raining?

Well it was sort of skiffy rain early then a bit of drizzle 45 minutes before.  Certainly not steady rain(well not what we call steady rain - more a drizzle).  Even then when Oatham marched out with a probe thing to check the track one of my life members wanted to go out and stick it somewhere unnatural.  But the track was set up to handle the moisture because it had been heavily watered.

There was nothing bloody wrong with the track.  Moseley said so twice including three times in succession after he won the first(to Davidson to Walsh and to me)

By the time it was abandoned the sun was coming out and it was stinking hot again.  Reefton can get frigging hot in the summer(And bloody cold in winter)