Sign in to follow this  
Leggy

Is Bartley now trying to cover his arse in the cobalt saga?

7 posts in this topic

35 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Reading this article it appears to illustrate the lengths administrators will go to sabotage investigations that involve trainers they believe are above the law,  That appears to be the point of the article is it not?  In nz we know It was reported that a galloping administrator did  the same in the infamous blue magic scandal in nz.   There is nothing new in this ,we all know there is often one rule for some and another rule for others in many situations we encounter as we live life.  Of course administrators can use their power to influence cases both big and small depending on personalities. It  is wrong whenever this happens and should be condemned whether they are helping or persecuting licence holders,is that not the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an outrageous article.

Who tipped Bartley off about the three positives a month before it all blew up ? and why would anyone tip him off unless it was to arrange and orchestrate tainted stories ?

It can't have been the lab because samples are just numbered containers, they're not labeled with a name.

And why does he feel the need to protect Bailey ? If Bailey hadn't leaked anything he was secure because his phone records etc.. would've stood scrutiny.

This last point is perhaps the most compelling, if Moody wasn't tipped off before the stewards raided his stable ( he wasn't, it was the other two who had advance warning because their cases followed in sequence ) why did the stewards find no evidence of pharmaceutical cobalt or any links to Tom Brennan and his vet clinic ?

Methinks the scum is under a bit of pressure here, as is Bailey, and they're trying to cover their arses as Leggy suggests.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the O'B and Kav cases, it is clear now that Bartley tipped off Moodie, who tipped off Moody, who tipped off O'B and Kav, thereby giving them time to cover their tracks, including allowing Brennan to utilise the Flemington dumpster. The question is, who tipped off Bartley? It smells like it was Bailey and Bartley's announcement is determined to protect him. If it wasn't Bailey, who indeed was it? Without that in the open, it continues to appear that Bartley is lying through his teeth and scrambling for cover in order to protect the pair of them. His coming out only makes that suspicion more raw IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, what a post said:

Reading this article it appears to illustrate the lengths administrators will go to sabotage investigations that involve trainers they believe are above the law,  That appears to be the point of the article is it not?  In nz we know It was reported that a galloping administrator did  the same in the infamous blue magic scandal in nz.   There is nothing new in this ,we all know there is often one rule for some and another rule for others in many situations we encounter as we live life.  Of course administrators can use their power to influence cases both big and small depending on personalities. It  is wrong whenever this happens and should be condemned whether they are helping or persecuting licence holders,is that not the point.

The description of the rules is termed mandatory for some but if the same rule applies to a racing executive  " of sorts " then those same rules can be interpreted as permissive .

Double standards are very common in the galloping code therefore it couldn't be termed a level playing field as has been experienced by the author .

Former Chief Racecourse Inspector John McKenzie previously was instrumental in the dissuasion of a MAF Criminal Investigation involving criminal actions against our horses .  

An abuse of his position was then followed by a circulation of manufactured untruths by him at our expense to multiple personnel and all done with an agenda in our absence or knowledge at the time .    

The Number 2 Bryan McKenzie wasn't much better in favour of  circulating slander rather than dealing with the issues at hand .

Protectionism is rife within  NZ Racing is you belong to the protected species .

The same tilted playing field extends to " club " level  which adheres to the same unwritten guidelines who couldn't provide an honest answer when requested to do so .

Manufactured untruths  are a part of their " mantra " when it suits  which leads to the RIU who like to appear legitimate but when direct questioning is involved the nearest rock is sought for cover .   

Then there's NZTR at the helm and what have you got , a broken industry which epitomizes New Zealand Racing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this