• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Leggy

  1. Ummmm... still on the to do list? https://loveracing.nz/OnHorseFiles/Downloads/Report to NZTR.pdf
  2. I was actually told the same and that it was possibly a rabbit burrow or similar' If so, how come the track staff, stipes and maybe a few jocks who walked the track that morning didn't see it? Secondly, why did they not take 10 minutes to fill it it in and compact it? And, yes, I'm talking through my pocket because my bet in the race was seriously compromised as a result of the incident and they didn't give me my money back. Fortunately, no horses or riders died as a result of the crash test dummy system.
  3. https://loveracing.nz/RaceInfo/49703/1/Race-Detail.aspx It's there but doesn't report what I was told the issue was..
  4. Why does that surprise you? I don't get it.
  5. How so? Not quite sure of the relevance of being a stipe to governance of the industry. Has some other more relevant strengths and capabilities that are appropriate and useful though. Could sort a lot of shit out in the next few months with MIA et al. out of the way.
  6. Probably not. I got the one with his details.
  7. Doubt it. The last time I tried to do so by OIA, all financial information was redacted, even some that had already been publicly released. Won't waste my time again.
  8. O Bosson (QUATTRO QUINTA) – Admitted a breach under Rule 648(5) in that he weighed in 0.8kgs heavier than what he weighed out. O Bosson was fined the sum of $1000.
  9. You should know by now that the hard questions are either not answered or answered with considerable obfuscation. Not worth asking them imo. More of the same we have had for many years though possibly now worse. Transparency? I don't think so.
  10. Yes. Though I wouldn't really mind if we actually had a Pattern.
  11. Think it's the NZ Pattern Committee these days.
  12. This wasn't bad either if you want to think about his big two milers.
  13. As p4p said, a judicial review has nought to do with racing. It is not about the original case itself whatever that may be. It is a review of the legal process to decide whether that was conducted appropriately or not.
  14. OK, I didn't see that. It's not on their completed review page.
  15. That was thrown out and the police presented a completely new recasting of the case which the jury accepted. Be interesting what the newish Criminal Cases Review Commission have to say about it all. The fat lady still has to sing.
  16. Yeahh though the science of the CNS forensics remains a bit dubious for mine.
  17. Except it's not a molehill but a very important mountain that it appears needs climbing by someone. You can't have NZTR, the RIU or the JCA running roughshod over human rights. So I'd be giving him a high five for climbing this one and standing up for the latter. Joining the "piss in the pot, pass no issue" chorus is just perpetuating the bullying imo.
  18. Being of good character has nothing to do with it. The quation is whether or not the request for a drug test amounted to unreasonable search and seizure as he claimed in which case he has the right to decline. The Rules of Racing cannot override that.
  19. Not sure about that. Just a guess but I'd say at least half the key participants in the racing industry have an alcohol or other drug habit. Dealing those does not make them unsafe to participate. I'd say safety is paramount. Use or dealing is not an industry concern unless participants want help with that.
  20. Rubbish. The rules of racing do not and can not override the BORA, either in their written form or their application. I think it would be interesting if he appealed. I hope he does. The JCA decision seems to have avoided the BORA questions raised by citing the Rules of Racing. Questions about whether or not he was randomly selected or otherwise and whether that meets the BORA standard of reasonableness are not clearly addressed imo.