jess

For what it's worth - today I thought Stu looked the same as ever - neat and tidy. And Karen looked smart in a crisp little black and white sleeveless number. They must have the heat up in the studio to be comfortable in that style because it's the middle of winter and I know I still had a beanie on inside till I lit the fire - but hey - if it feels like summer to Karen - good luck to her!

What chance the rescheduled Egmont meeting will fly on Monday? - think they still have some precipitation to come .......

Aye, Ted. Sometimes, unfortunately, we girls can be harsh on our own. I don't see any harm in the issue being raised here and opinions aired - just surprised how remarkable so many found her appearance. As it happens I don't particularly like the "look" - don't think the hair suits her - but hey - if I want to hear what she has to say it wouldn't put me off tuning in - any more than an older balding fat man in an ill-fitting suit would put me off listening - if he was part of a compelling broadcast. And remember some say any publicity is good publicity ... wonder how the ratings will go next week when everyone tunes in to see what K F-E is wearing (or not wearing ) .... she might just have the last laugh!

Thanks for posting that screen-grab Mainland R. Yep - loud fabric - fair bit of skin for "a woman of a certain age" - more summery than the season suggests - and actually not particularly flattering - but - can't say I'm outraged, offended or bothered in any way. I do think that male and female presenters are treated unequally - ppl ARE much more likely to comment on a female's appearance, age, body shape - claim they're past their use-by etc. It doesn't take a raging femnist to quietly observe this is not equitable and is actually quite sexist ... Jess

I wish someone could post a link or screen shot - I never saw her and her appearance seems to have made such an impression, I feel I've really missed out on some sort of spectacle!

Questions for Mr Guy? 1. What's you name? 2. What year is it? 3. Where are you? 3. On what part of a horse would you find a mane? 4. Speak on the topic of NZ Racing intelligently-for 5 minutes (without reference to autocue, speech writer or ministerial adviser) 5. Speak on any topic whatsoever intelligently for more than 10 seconds (NB: autonomic audible responses such as sneezes, hiccups or burps will not qualify) 6 DId you notice anything unusual about the numbering of these questions Mr Guy? 7. What is you name again (trick question - checking for consistency of message - but plse note the hint provided courtesy of question 6 ...)

Hey Hesi - evidence for your glowing claims with respect to Mr Allen? I could well have have missed something in dispatches ... Cheers Jess

Such sadness for Ross' friends and family. And even more difficult given the circumstances. I've read the posts on this thread. And I would urge anyone reading this to both support people in their lives who they see may be struggling - but also not to assume there is a lack of support when someone makes this decision to take their life. This is often not the case. There is almost always a complexity of circumstances which prevail. There is little room for - or benefit from- blame and regrets. I cannot ease the sadness that those close to Ross will be feeling. But I hope that their grief soon gives way to an ability to celebrate what was special about him and to treasure his triumphs and the time they shared with him. Vale Ross.

Just makes him look more dishonest than ever IMO. So what exactly DID he think was in the bottle with that price tag, dodgey dealings, subterfuge, destruction of evidence and then him advancing less than forthcoming/fulsome evidence at the initial interview?

2A2 - one of the first things that struck me too - that this exercise was being headed up by the money man. I think we have a fair idea where this is heading. I smell token consultation and decisions already made and merely awaiting a rubber stamp. Toll the bell.

Only just checked out this thread - and didn't get to the last page before I felt compelled to post. Seems to me to be more of a #itch session than a healthy discussion/debate. Wonder if the #itch-ees could resort to PM'g each other if they just want to trade insults and niggle at each other? On one hand the rest of us can simply not read the thread - but if we're interested in the topic we have little option but to trawl through posts which are little more than point-scoring and personal attacks to find anything enlightening ... Just my thoughts ... J

Not sure I'd have anyone on a pedestal Hesi - but I understand the point you make. I imagine L O'S's reputation and legacy (for want of a better word) is jealously guarded - and understandably so. So do you think this training partnership is a good "fit"?

Huh? Was that response for me or Col, O-man?

Ashoka - I agree. I guess the nub of my previous post is that if you gonna play the game (and unfortunately - Midget has little choice) - you gotta know the rules. Otherwise winning or losing is merely left to chance. And the effort you put into the "game" may be ill-directed or ineffective - even if you in fact hold the winning hand! And the second point - which you have clearly also apprehended - is that if you know the rules and the standards to which the prosecution and the process is required to operate - then they can be held to account should they fail to meet those standards. Kind regards Jess PS: incidentally - who polices the "police" (RIU in this case)? At the risk of getting ahead of ourselves in this case - what would be the appellate body here or the means for seeking redress? For costs I'm sure a civil action could be undertaken. But what if there is a manifestly unjust outcome (decision)? How is this challenged within this jurisdiction?

Midget - I'm interested in how this process works. I presume you and your legal representative know intimately, the terms of engagement for this battle. For example, the standard of proof to be met by the prosecution, what obligations the prosecution has in respect of disclosure/discovery (eg. is a list of randomly mis-spelt horses' names sufficient to meet their obligations in terns of pre-hearing disclosure?) - this sort of thing. I think it's important that these matters are really clear to your side, as the defendant - so you know how to best win this battle - and also so you can take the appropriate action should it be indicated, in the event of a failure of the prosecutorial authority to meet its obligations or a spurious/vexatious prosecution (ie - seek costs). I imagine you have this well in hand however I thought I'd just mention it. All the best Midget. Jess (still shaking head in disbelief at what I believe is a petty and irresponsible use of limited resources by "leaders" of an industry battling for survival - let alone success or credibility ...)

I understand the exercise you `cafers are undertaking to help Morty and it's a worthy job you do (and it needs to be done for the purposes of defence) . When it comes to the proceeding, I assume the burden of proof lies with those who have brought the charge? What is the standard of proof required of the prosecution? Beyond reasonable doubt - or on the balance of probablilities? Rumpole?

The poor old feed merchants! The obvious scape-goat I guess - first port of call it seems when the trainer cops a +ve. That's early on - when the news breaks - but I don't see many follow-up stories along the lines "a-ha! - we told ya so - it was those bloody oats we were feeding - wouldn't you know it - riddled with anabolic steroids/cobalt/blue magic - who'd'a thunk it ....."

O'man: valid approach - well done. Abso-bloody-lutely! Can someone email these questions to the host? What chance they'd get asked do you think? They bloody well SHOULD be asked! J

Un-named? I didn't think you could race an un-named horse... But that's just the last couple according to Midget .. wonder why they were even added to the list?? (ever heard of the sayings - "calling all pockets" or "gilding the lily" ?) I presume then that all of the others are not only named - but have graced a racetrack somewhere, at a time when a certain gentleman's name was listed as owner. For wasn't that the claim - that he had raced 90 - or in excess of 90?

..................................... so that, my friends, was how I come to regard myself as the owner of the gelding I fondly refer to as number 72. ....... ah ......... and that brings us to number 73 I believe. Now this one never actually got to the races, despite showing immense early promise, due to a sad mishap which occurred at weaning. And while strictly speaking I don't appear on the original ownership papers of the filly, she was pretty much as good as mine because my aunty Bessie had a quarter share in her grand-dam and promised me when I was 12 that one day, if I visited often and mowed her lawns every couple weeks, and if she outlived the other shareholders, I could have a wee share in the first foal to be born to the mare's 3rd filly ("3" was Bessie's lucky number, you see) . And when I say my aunty Bessie - she wan't so much an actual aunty but she was a really good friend of my mother's. And when I say close - well - have any of you lived in a really small town, where the power supply often goes down ... ? ... But to get back to business here - and to be completely accurate - that's not my blood mother but my step mother - who married my dad after my real mum ran off with the clown to be a trapeze artiste in the circus. Well now - in actual fact - I'd always thought of this bloke as my dad but when I turned 21 and he got up to make the speech, I found out, somewhat distressingly, that he was actually my uncle - for I'd been begat by his brother in a moment of passion under the big top, prior to my mum leaving town on the on the broad back of the ageing circus elephant. And when I say circus ......

sorry Hesi .. I seem to have omitted the winking face when I inserted that onjectionable little phrase ... here ya go ...

"For mine" (as they say!) : Hosking obnoxious narcissistic puppet of the right wing. Henry also somewhat right of centre, with the redeeming feature of being, at times, ridiculously, infectiously funny.

Yes Bloke. That's just it isn't it? There could well even be some official charge or penalty or costs that would have been preferred if the boot had been on the other (Midget's size 8) foot .... ? - I can only imagine the meal that coulda/woulda been made of such a failure on the other side ... I am really disappointed that sanity has not prevailed before now. Is there anybody out there (come in VonS ... ... channeling R. Waters again) who can take this man (and I don't mean Midget) aside and tell him some (possibly unwelcome) home truths and set him on a more sensible path. We all make mistakes - react impulsively to things - take offence etc. But loading a whole lot more rubbish on top of an initial misjudgement merely amplifies the original error. To mix/reinvent a metaphor - two wrongs will only make a giant prat of anyone. All the best Midget. J

No sign of the 90 names being deilvered as promised? Isn't there a little irony there - considering what this whole action is about? Are we dealing with people we can consider "men of their word"? Yes "I" is for irony. And "I" is also for integrity ....

Well done team - didn't get to watch anything today so looked up the results just now. Good on you guys - I like seeing genuine horse lovers get the rewards and it seems to me Kirsty L. is one of those. Nice result for the CD hoop as well - good stuff, Kane. J