Seems a bit OTT

[bloke 1,232]

Surely the time has come for The RIU to be monitored by an entity similar to The  Independent Police Conduct Authority.

With the  "Midget case" they were found to have exceeded their authority under the Bill of Rights  (freedom of speech) and appear to have ignored Bob Butt's freedoms with this debacle. Its disgraceful that they can behave as they wish and do not appear to be answerable to anyone. 

[awego 182]

Yep good idea, I'm sure they all have mates that need a job. How about to fund the new Racing Integrity Units Racing Integrity Unit they double the noms and acceptances fees and shave the balance from our stake money. 

After all it is extremely important, they've gotta keep everyone honest

[what a post 811]

What a strange world it would be if the majority of posters on this topic ran racing.   We would have the green light being given for jockeys and drivers to accept full books of drives and rides, then go out on drug and boozed filled binges the night before the races, then ring up next morning ,the day of the races, and say I cant make it as I have got the flu.  There would be no consequences whatsoever,apart from maybe tripping over the empties as they struggle to the door to tell the riu to "Piss Off",as advised by your leagle eagle,mr rumpole.                       I think it may be time for those who run this site to call in the RIU,and arrange for them to do drug and alcohol tests on those posting on this subject.  I think they would get a very high fail rate. 

[billy connolly 63]

You don't need to be that clever to make the grade as an RIU investigator / stipendiary steward etc. The current co chief stipendiary steward qualified for the job as a former stable hand in a trotting stable!

Most of us wouldn't have even answered the door for these imbeciles.

 

[Leggy 4,089]

6 hours ago, what a post said:

What a strange world it would be if the majority of posters on this topic ran racing.   We would have the green light being given for jockeys and drivers to accept full books of drives and rides, then go out on drug and boozed filled binges the night before the races, then ring up next morning ,the day of the races, and say I cant make it as I have got the flu.  There would be no consequences whatsoever,apart from maybe tripping over the empties as they struggle to the door to tell the riu to "Piss Off",as advised by your leagle eagle,mr rumpole.                       I think it may be time for those who run this site to call in the RIU,and arrange for them to do drug and alcohol tests on those posting on this subject.  I think they would get a very high fail rate. 

Going by your posts, I'm picking you would be the one most likely to fail.

[Trump 2,741]

Not sure who you represent "What a Post", but if somebody believes they have over-done it, don't you think it is the responsible thing to stay home rather than go to the races and drive or ride under the influence? If Damian Oliver had tested himself before going to the races at Warrnambool, he could have stayed home and avoided a months suspension.

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

Dont know about the rest of you but it is interesting to note that all the recent dramas involve North Canterbury . BB,CWJ and now LC. Or is it mere coincidence.

[gary1 361]

23 hours ago, rumpole said:

Correct they can turn up and knock on front door but to come  in they need consent and or a warrant

otherwise they should be told to just piss off

whats your take on this rumpole       i gather when you become licenced to ride you agree to the rules of racing   

Every Rider’s Licence which is issued shall contain, or be presumed conclusively to contain, a condition that the holder shall, whenever required to do so by a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator, permit a sample to be obtained from the holder by, or under the supervision of, a Registered Medical Practitioner or an Authorised Person. [Amended 1 December 

[Leggy 4,089]

49 minutes ago, gary1 said:

whats your take on this rumpole       i gather when you become licenced to ride you agree to the rules of racing   

Every Rider’s Licence which is issued shall contain, or be presumed conclusively to contain, a condition that the holder shall, whenever required to do so by a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator, permit a sample to be obtained from the holder by, or under the supervision of, a Registered Medical Practitioner or an Authorised Person. [Amended 1 December 

They also have the right to enter the premises under NZTR rules.

208 (h) to enter a Trainer’s Premises and access any facility (including a horse float) at reasonable times for the purposes of:
(i) requiring a Rider to permit a sample to be obtained by them pursuant to rule 208(f) above;

But the requirement to provide a sample is in relation to riding or carrying out a safety sensitive activity.

322 (1) NZTR may, on reasonable grounds, at any time review and impose conditions on any Licence, or cancel or withdraw or suspend any Licence including, but not limited to, if:
(a) a Rider, or any other Licenceholder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises, who when required by a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator to permit a sample to be obtained from him by or under the supervision of a Registered Medical Practitioner or an Authorised Person, refused or failed to do so at the time and place nominated by such Stipendiary Steward or Investigator; or [Amended 1 December 2013] [Amended 1 August 2014]

656 (1) A Rider who rides or presents himself to ride a horse, or any other Licenceholder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises shall thereby be deemed to have consented to a sample.

And the rules can not override any other Act.

31 Racing rules must not conflict with any Act or general law

(1) Any provision of any racing rules that is in conflict with any provision of this Act, any other Act, or the general law of New Zealand is invalid.

 

[gary1 361]

3 minutes ago, Leggy said:

They also have the right to enter the premises under NZTR rules.

208 (h) to enter a Trainer’s Premises and access any facility (including a horse float) at reasonable times for the purposes of:
(i) requiring a Rider to permit a sample to be obtained by them pursuant to rule 208(f) above;

But the requirement to provide a sample is in relation to riding or carrying out a safety sensitive activity.

(1) NZTR may, on reasonable grounds, at any time review and impose conditions on any Licence, or cancel or withdraw or suspend any Licence including, but not limited to, if:
(a) a Rider, or any other Licenceholder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises, who when required by a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator to permit a sample to be obtained from him by or under the supervision of a Registered Medical Practitioner or an Authorised Person, refused or failed to do so at the time and place nominated by such Stipendiary Steward or Investigator; or [Amended 1 December 2013] [Amended 1 August 2014]

656 (1) A Rider who rides or presents himself to ride a horse, or any other Licenceholder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises shall thereby be deemed to have consented to a sample.

And the rules can not override any other Act.

31 Racing rules must not conflict with any Act or general law

(1) Any provision of any racing rules that is in conflict with any provision of this Act, any other Act, or the general law of New Zealand is invalid.

 

as i see it they are quite within their right

[JackSprat 947]

So being at home laying in your sick bed is deemed to be a "Safety Sensitive Activity"!

[Leggy 4,089]

26 minutes ago, gary1 said:

as i see it they are quite within their right

Then your comprehension differs from mine (at least so far as the NZTR rules go).

As I see it, the trainer's explicit consent to enter the property didn't exist because they had no valid purpose if the purpose as stated was to seek a sample from someone sick in bed who clearly was not and had no intent to carry out a safety sensitive activity.

If that consent did exist, I doubt that the trainer's premises extends to a private residence on the same property, so I agree with David Butt on that.

Finally, they had no prior consent under the rules to seek a sample from someone sick in bed who clearly was not and had no intention of carrying out a safety sensitive activity such as riding and had already signaled that, so I agree with Rumpole, he could have told them to piss off.

Definitely OTT per the head post and probably illegal and in breach of the rules.

[gary1 361]

30 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Then your comprehension differs from mine (at least so far as the NZTR rules go).

As I see it, the trainer's explicit consent to enter the property didn't exist because they had no valid purpose if the purpose as stated was to seek a sample from someone sick in bed who clearly was not and had no intent to carry out a safety sensitive activity.

If that consent did exist, I doubt that the trainer's premises extends to a private residence on the same property, so I agree with David Butt on that.

Finally, they had no prior consent under the rules to seek a sample from someone sick in bed who clearly was not and had no intention of carrying out a safety sensitive activity such as riding and had already signaled that, so I agree with Rumpole, he could have told them to piss off.

Definitely OTT per the head post and probably illegal and in breach of the rules.

i see your point leggy but im unsure how they knew he was really sick in bed, i think you will find that the private residence can be entered,  also what if he was going to work horses later that day would that not be a safety sensitive activity my point is if you sign up to be jockey trainer driver then abide by the rules set out

[Guest 2Admin2]

50 minutes ago, gary1 said:

i see your point leggy but im unsure how they knew he was really sick in bed, i think you will find that the private residence can be entered,  also what if he was going to work horses later that day would that not be a safety sensitive activity my point is if you sign up to be jockey trainer driver then abide by the rules set out

He rang in sick - isn't that enough?  He only had one drive.

No they don't have the right to enter a private residence - although the RIU and Grim-stone might like to think they have the right - they don't.

[rdytdy 5,343]

I still am not sure exactly what he would have been charged with anyway even if he had been over the limit.

He had advised he was unwell and would not be attending the meeting and therefore would not be carrying out any activity that would put anyone's safety at risk. Therefore he has NOT "carried out, carrying out nor likely to carry out any safety sensitive activity. 

If they had arrived at the property and he was working with any horses then fair enough test, but to be roused from his bed, that should have been sufficient for them to leave it at that I would have thought.     

 

[Leggy 4,089]

3 hours ago, 2Admin2 said:

He rang in sick - isn't that enough?  He only had one drive.

No they don't have the right to enter a private residence - although the RIU and Grim-stone might like to think they have the right - they don't.

Agree. Trainer's premises are clearly defined in the rules as that part of the property where horses are quartered and trained, so unless he had one stabled in the living room.... or maybe was working one around the kitchen table, I'm pretty sure they have overstepped the mark there.

[gary1 361]

2 hours ago, 2Admin2 said:

He rang in sick - isn't that enough?  He only had one drive.

No they don't have the right to enter a private residence - although the RIU and Grim-stone might like to think they have the right - they don't.

how many people ring in sick that really are sick     i can remember one of my workers  wife ring up to say he was sick  and low and behold he was in the tote queue next to me at the races that same day and getting back to the reason stewards went there is that he had been  over the limit  once before and been suspended for it previously an they had reason to believe he was tipped off about the testing to be done at rangiora.            cant see nothing wrong with that

[Guest 2Admin2]

52 minutes ago, gary1 said:

how many people ring in sick that really are sick     i can remember one of my workers  wife ring up to say he was sick  and low and behold he was in the tote queue next to me at the races that same day and getting back to the reason stewards went there is that he had been  over the limit  once before and been suspended for it previously an they had reason to believe he was tipped off about the testing to be done at rangiora.            cant see nothing wrong with that

There is plenty wrong with it Gary.  He rang in sick and unlike an employee doesn't have an employee/employer contract relationship.  His contract was with the owner and trainer of the horse he was to drive.  He rang in sick - end of story.  Even if it was an employment contract issue an employer would have to prove that he had lied.  Generally unless specifically written into the employment contract the normal rule of thumb is a doctors certificate is not required unless it is 3 or more days.  A "mental health day" is considered nowadays as a valid reason for taking sick leave.  In an employment situation there are sick days written into the contract - if they are used up then it is the employers descretion to dock a day's pay.  Butt as a self employed contractor docked himself a driving fee - again end of story.  Also as a harness driver he probably does any trackwork on private property not on a public track as do jockeys.

[rdytdy 5,343]

14 minutes ago, gary1 said:

how many people ring in sick that really are sick     i can remember one of my workers  wife ring up to say he was sick  and low and behold he was in the tote queue next to me at the races that same day and getting back to the reason stewards went there is that he had been  over the limit  once before and been suspended for it previously an they had reason to believe he was tipped off about the testing to be done at rangiora.            cant see nothing wrong with that

I rang my boss to say that I wouldn't be in as I was sick. He said "You were off sick a couple of weeks ago also, just how sick are you?" I replied "well. I'm in bed with my sister."  

[billy connolly 63]

40 minutes ago, gary1 said:

how many people ring in sick that really are sick     i can remember one of my workers  wife ring up to say he was sick  and low and behold he was in the tote queue next to me at the races that same day and getting back to the reason stewards went there is that he had been  over the limit  once before and been suspended for it previously an they had reason to believe he was tipped off about the testing to be done at rangiora.            cant see nothing wrong with that

Sick, sick and sicker!

The reason stewards went there was to "wave the big stick" and waste more industry funds. They didn't even have the courtesy to at least ring Butt or his parents first. Even the police (in the majority of cases) give you at least the courtesy of a phone call if they want to see you.

If you were a license holder sir, they'd be straight around to your place demanding a drug / alcohol test, or is English not your spoken language???
 

[gary1 361]

53 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

There is plenty wrong with it Gary.  He rang in sick and unlike an employee doesn't have an employee/employer contract relationship.  His contract was with the owner and trainer of the horse he was to drive.  He rang in sick - end of story.  Even if it was an employment contract issue an employer would have to prove that he had lied.  Generally unless specifically written into the employment contract the normal rule of thumb is a doctors certificate is not required unless it is 3 or more days.  A "mental health day" is considered nowadays as a valid reason for taking sick leave.  In an employment situation there are sick days written into the contract - if they are used up then it is the employers descretion to dock a day's pay.  Butt as a self employed contractor docked himself a driving fee - again end of story.  Also as a harness driver he probably does any trackwork on private property not on a public track as do jockeys.

thanks for your reply but as i see it  the rule   states trainers premises 656 (1) A Rider who rides or presents himself to ride a horse, or any other Licenceholder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises shall thereby be deemed to have consented to a sample.

[Guest 2Admin2]

Just now, gary1 said:

thanks for your reply but as i see it  the rule   states trainers premises 656 (1) A Rider who rides or presents himself to ride a horse, or any other Licenceholder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises shall thereby be deemed to have consented to a sample.

But the point is he DIDN'T present himself.  He actually phoned in to say he wasn't going to present himself because he was sick!

[Leggy 4,089]

1 hour ago, billy connolly said:

 Even the police (in the majority of cases) give you at least the courtesy of a phone call if they want to see you.

That's because if they don't have a warrant, they need your consent in most circumstances.

[gary1 361]

1 hour ago, 2Admin2 said:

But the point is he DIDN'T present himself.  He actually phoned in to say he wasn't going to present himself because he was sick!

yes i can see your point but as i pointed earlier         the reason stewards went there is that he had been  over the limit  once before and been suspended for it previously an they had reason to believe he was tipped off about the testing to be done at rangiora.       so i think that gives them reason to check

[Guest 2Admin2]

2 minutes ago, gary1 said:

yes i can see your point but as i pointed earlier         the reason stewards went there is that he had been  over the limit  once before and been suspended for it previously an they had reason to believe he was tipped off about the testing to be done at rangiora.       so i think that gives them reason to check

Nup doesn't give them a reason.  End of story.