jess

Goodness me. Recently got an owner's settlement account from NZTR. The trainer and I will have to polish up the crystal ball so we can try to predict weather and track conditions better during these winter months (because meterologists don't always get it right - and as for the reports from clubs of what their track is rated at nom.s time - well you all know how that goes ....) Bottom line - just shy of $300 to nominate and withdraw. Hard to see why so much money needs to be drained from an owner when the cost of the exercise to NZTR is so small. Isn't this a bit like what the banks got into trouble for a while back? - charging a whole lot for dishonor fees when the true cost to the bank was a tiny fraction of what they were stinging the account holder for? (I think class actions against the banks ensued and were successful) Speaking of withdrawing - I feel the time is nigh to withdraw from the whole game. I'll probably see out my current team and call it a day. It's just too financially punishing with such little hope of reward. I'd originally hoped to resume breeding. Still love my horses - and racing - but the head is starting to hold sway over the heart. I don't think I'll hang in there too much longer. J

You speak of "the stroke of a pen" Biff .... And they say the pen is mightier than the sword .... Sadly the ego (of some) is mightier than commonsense and reason ...

Your first para.s make this sound like the prosecution is as much a personal vendetta as anything else. Not a good look eh. It certainly is interesting that none of us has heard about any other individual being taken to task in this way by the organisation for poking fun at/expressing scepticism/doubting etc the veracity of the 90. How come????? The lawyers ALWAYS win. Whatever the result. They get paid. Handsomely.

Gotta start somewhere big guy! And at least then you'll be able to get backstage to see your ponies on raceday .... Considering the amount of people who have commented on the magical number - it's a wonder they didn't launch a class action ... but nah - just poor ole Midget as far as we can see ...

You licensed in NZ 2A2? If so, be afraid. Be very afraid. Isn't this all so absolutely bloody ridiculous. An utter disgrace. Please advise, when you know Midget (if you don't mind), where/when this hearing is to take place.

The hearing - is it a "closed court" - or will there be a public gallery to accommodate supporters, interested parties and journalists? Given all the circumstances leading up to and culminating in this hearing - I think the actual hearing is likely to be something you'd have to see to believe (I'm still shaking my head in disbelief and amazement that this prosecution is being pursued ..) On a related matter - I suggest as part of modern justice, it's likely at least one support person for the defendant would be permitted to sit alongside him.

Have been pondering "raced", "owned" and logical interpretations thereof ... I've reflected on my own participation. I have both owned horses outright and had shares of various sizes in others - some racing leases, others ownership shares (nowhere near 90 in any form). I realise, on thinking about it, that I don't say I own the ones I just have shares in - I might say I have a small interest in them - or have a small racing share - and have even been known to refer to laying claim to little more than a few hairs of its tail! Perhaps it comes down to the accuracy with which we use the English language. Or perhaps at times it is about the impression one wishes to create by one's use of the language ... And if in fact this is what it comes down to - why do we find ourselves witnessing this current sideshow? Anyhow. Enough about my trivial forays into matters racing ......... OK - so: if we accept this statement about the 90 was made - and subsequently that comment/surprise was expressed by some (Midget not being the lone piper there, by any stretch of the imagination) in response to that comment - Does anyone really believe that there was not a more simple, gentlemanly, timely, fiscally responsible, mature, reasonable, proportionate and constructive solution to be had - than what we are currently witnessing?

Thanks.

Excuse my ignorance Trak - is that how this all started - a claim in his CV?

Many of us agree Trakdap that is a valid matter to ponder. It may be couched as a breach of some global, "catch-all" rule of racing, however many would see it essentially as a defamation case. And as I said previously - the aggrieved party chose to utter the words - neither the utterance or the claim itself are founded on the basis of the office he holds. These are the words of an individual - made of free will (some would possibly characterise the comments as boastful). Therefore, many would see that if to pursue the matter through litigation is his preference - then he should be writing the cheques for legal services - again - as an individual. We are stakeholders in this industry. We contribute money to its functioning. Maybe it's a long bow to say it's our money they're spending on this prosecution - but is it not coming out of the bucket of money most of us would prefer to be spend in other ways within the industry? Reminds me a little of those who go round flipping off the comment that "go'ment" should pay for this and that. It's not the bloody government guys - it's us - the tax-payers. But at least - no matter our grizzles re politics - that outfit is still a democracy - a flawed one perhaps, but a democracy nevertheless ............

I have no doubt that the aggrieved party believes he can support the contention that he "raced 90". Otherwise we would not have seen the charge laid (after how many months of this nonsense??) I'm not sure how this (second) charge has been laid or set out However it is clear - even from what discussion has been had on this thread - that that small phrase means entirely different things to different people. In the end, if natural justice is followed, a charge based solely on the accuracy (or otherwise) of the phrase will (should) fail, I believe, as the whole issue is too subjective and open to a broad range of interpretation. This is, I imagine - obvious to most people - and yet a charge has been brought nevertheless???? Consider the timing. Consider the other charge laid prior against the same individual. Consider the individual who has been targeted (just one of any number who have expressed scepticism). Consider the scathing,critical comments, publicly aired, of others, which appear not to have resulted in prosecution. Consider the performance in recent times of office-holders and the organisation. Consider the criticism of the latter from a wide variety of quarters and the general disquiet (despair?) expressed about the state of the industry by a great many stakeholders. Consider the impact of the publicity in relation to this prosecution on others who may be tempted to put their heads above the parapet. I invite you to judge for yourselves the reasons behind the charge. Sad & shameful days. Sad & shameful indeed.

Geez Biff - Don't want you to think of me as some weird cyber-fan/stalker/cougar but I keep reading posts from you tonight that A. make so much sense and strike a chord B. display credentials which can't help but lend some authority/credibility to the stated opinions More power to you Biff. Your contribution here is appreciated. Cheers J

Good on ya for a glass half full Biffo - but what makes you think, going on past history, that we'd get a better one? Frying pan?? Fire?? I know - I know. I probably need Prozac .... just feeling a little disheartened currently with the state of things ... Best regards J

Do they work on Mon/Tue/Wed/Thu?

SNAP! Just the phrase I thought of Bloke when Des' name came up in this context ... "bite the hand that feeds you" .... (now Bloke - is that a case "great minds think alike" - or "fools never differ" ) More charitably though - maybe Des is just one of those people who is simply so averse to conflict and keen to be everyone's friend - or just so jolly "vanilla" - he just doesn't even really have strong opinions (let alone elect to share them) I don't know him personally but he does seem a pleasant fella ...

Hard to argue against Insider ... so I'm not! However the NZ racing scene is a pretty small gene pool soooo ....

The test would be - what happens when you text back thanking them very much for their SMS and inviting their jock to ride your 7y/o mare (showing some promise you say - 18 starts for a 3rd last season ...) in the $7,000 maiden 2000m at Woodville on a heavy 11 track. How many would be courteous enough to even reply?

May need some "exposure" too, I'm thinking Midget. I'm thinking of a credible journo who is interested in airing the matter - a David and Goliath type of tale - the imbalance of power - where (who) exactly this attack is coming from - how well the industry is currently being run - the priorities which seem to prevail - the recent history of "events" at head office/the boardroom/HR - and how one of the battlers could be "broken" by a prosecution I have heard characterised as ........... (deleted in case they line me up to join you in the dock - plse insert your own adjectives, `cafers). Hope you're up for some photo opportunities Midget. A picture speaks a thousand words. And everyone likes a lovely horse pic (- not so much a middle-aged man swilling champagne/scoffing sausage rolls ....) Enough here. I have recently learned the sinister significance of some of that innocuous lot who show up so euphemistically/innocently on this forum as "guests" ....

Sorry - I don't get it. Why is it chuckle-worthy? Is Midget in fact a millionaire? Would Midget not approve such an initiative? Or is the whole thing no more than a bad dream (otherwise known as a nightmare) and this ridiculous prosecution never was (or has been withdrawn, after powers that be came to their senses). Sorry to be slow on the uptake - but it doesn't seem such a ridiculous/amusing proposition to support Midget's cause?? Rgds J PS: Rumpole - you are well situated to assist, surely. I have a feeling you will have been in communication with the Midge, to lend the benefit of your expertise .....

Guys - Biff n Hedley - no argument here. You're talking to the soft idiot who has two paddock ornaments currently - one of whom is 25yrs of age - was not a champion - but is much loved. She eats me out of house and home - is rugged - ploughs up the paddock in winter when she has flash-backs to her racing days and eats the grass of 8+ sheep. And she will continue to do all of this until she can no longer enjoy a roll in a lush sward of grass (and get back up again), chew on a net of the best red clover hay & gallop around her 5 acre paddock (where I can keep an eye on her from the kitchen ....). And I agree - the owner this thread relates to could do a helluva lot better for the horse, from what I read. But I'm just trying to be a realist. You guys - and I - might give our retirees a gold card to see out their days - but I'd rather a horse was put down than spend the rest of its days eating weeds beside a railway line, with no shelter, no rugs, no farrier, no worming, no vets, no caring owner - and no prospect of anything better.

If the horse's conditions (and prospects for any improvement in these) are as dire as depicted (retired in 2011 they say) - maybe the owner should man up and either export/suitably re-home him - or have him humanely destroyed. Sadly some people who are racing fans are not horse lovers (regardless of the riches they have reaped from the horse's performance over the years). PS: I do confess to a little unease when I hear people talk about champions deserving this or that - I understand if a horse has been a top performer, the owner will likely have a soft spot for it - but all horses deserve to be humanely treated - even if this means euthanasia in the event no suitable and caring home can be found for him/her.

Thanks Ashoka. Just the type of high quality post we've come to expect (and enjoy) from you. And a point made more clearly by you than I - that they are not Midget's bosses, as such. I ask myself, given the extensive press this whole "90" thing has attracted - why has Midget been singled out to be prosecuted? What makes his comments worthy of litigation whereas I have seen no evidence of any other being brought to book for their comments on the same matter? Is it an attempt to load him with charges and/or bolster the original count laid? If so, that approach ill-behoves them. I also note this whole thing has arisen from what appears to be a comment made by an individual who happened to hold a certain position at the time - but the comment was made as an individual. From my understanding, he chose to tell the world he raced a large number of horses. He did so of his own volition-speaking for himself - as his own entity - not as the office-holder (I'm presuming he pays for these horses himself - and NZTR doesn't foot the bill). It is my belief that if he has now taken umbrage at the response to his comments - the redress he seeks should be pursued as an individual - not lumped in under an NZTR rule, with NZTR picking up the prosecution and paying the lawyers - and for that matter - taking the risk (of costs being awarded against them). Kind regards Jess

Hi N - yep I thought that was what you were alluding to - I probably should have attached a "tongue in cheek" emoticon to my post #5 .... Cheers J PS: you raise a valid point in your last sentence N1MUE - re criticising ones "bosses" (probably a loose term in this current matter but broadly speaking ...) but do you think this is the best way to address/resolve it? Do you think it could have been better dealt with? Does it put you in mind of a walnut being cracked with a sledgehammer?

Hi N - does it make any difference whether I am or am not?? I am surprised the administration is pursuing this in this manner. If anyone thought the original charge had any merit - then what do you think about the second - re the 90? I think the administration may take on some risks in electing to follow this course of action. These include, IMO, risks in relation to perception/image/credibility. I have witnessed situations in the past (unrelated to racing) where people poke the bear and the bear swats back in a wholly disproportionate fashion. Because he's bigger, angrier and he's a bully. The example I'm thinking of (no names; no pack drill) was an administration where the leader's ego outrated his competence by about 3:1 and he had become insecure. The business was significantly underperforming and many of the employees unhappy. The leader set his sights on one of his minions (who had had the temerity to criticise/offer solutions to the business' woes) and went after him. Was there a happy ending? Well - the little person temporarily got shafted but a year later the leader was gone and the persecuted individual had won a legal action against him. Sadly the business (not the individual) paid the penalty awarded out of company coffers - oh -and also forked out the salary for the gardening leave the "leader" was granted before the umbilical cord was finally cut and knotted. And the other thing that happened in the example I allude to - is that not only was an individual harried and hunted for being outspoken - but it was done very publicly - the equivalent of a shot fired over the bow for everyone else - ie.- "look what's gonna happen to you if you criticise the great & poweful ones". The business' image was tarnished - not by the original comments of the employee - but by their response to it. Back to the current matter - the comment has been made to me that the first charge tended to make the outfit look like bullies. The second - well - that's when I'm told the sniggering and derision began in earnest. You may have your own opinion as to the validity of those observations. But I really do fear that far more damage may be done by the action taken - than by the original words that are being prosecuted. Regrettable. And avoidable. Entirely avoidable. Regards J