Crackthewhip

Police Raids

588 posts in this topic

The obvious reason why there should be no suppression orders is because the finger will and is being pointed at  parties not involved..

For example anyone reading the fields in the paper or internet last week would have noted all the big names not there and put 2+2 together.   

Amongst those names not driving was Gavin Smith.  Well Smith was obviously just having some type of holiday,and  like some others would have  unfairly come under suspicion.

The other point ive seen mentioned which seems misleading and an attempt to minimize the situation, is the reference to the amount to be gained by those committing the alleged fraud ,as if  because its not much over $1000 its not a big deal. 

Well that's a  total misrepresentation. People who say that completely ignore the fact that the combined tote,f/f and overseas betting on any race often is around $100,000 or more. Take a horse like johnny white at Nelson. A warm favourite. He would have been carrying a heck of a lot of that $100,000.   Hundreds,probably thousands of punters,plus the owners would be ripped off if that race was used as an example of a race being fixed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, what a post said:

Amongst those names not driving was Gavin Smith.  Well Smith was obviously just having some type of holiday,and  like some others would have  unfairly come under suspicion.

Kurow Harness Racing Club Inc at Oamaru RacecourseSunday, 19 August 2018

Race 9G Smith(LOCKSMITH)
[Rule 869(2) & Whip Regs (f)] - Manner used whip prior to the 400 metres. (3 days).
Suspended from 24/08/2018 until 09/09/2018 inclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, what a post said:

The obvious reason why there should be no suppression orders is because the finger will and is being pointed at  parties not involved..

For example anyone reading the fields in the paper or internet last week would have noted all the big names not there and put 2+2 together.   

Amongst those names not driving was Gavin Smith.  Well Smith was obviously just having some type of holiday,and  like some others would have  unfairly come under suspicion.

The other point ive seen mentioned which seems misleading and an attempt to minimize the situation, is the reference to the amount to be gained by those committing the alleged fraud ,as if  because its not much over $1000 its not a big deal. 

Well that's a  total misrepresentation. People who say that completely ignore the fact that the combined tote,f/f and overseas betting on any race often is around $100,000 or more. Take a horse like johnny white at Nelson. A warm favourite. He would have been carrying a heck of a lot of that $100,000.   Hundreds,probably thousands of punters,plus the owners would be ripped off if that race was used as an example of a race being fixed. 

 

Well think J Mac"s bet was only $5000 but they threw the book at him and his wasn't fraud, nor a police charge. These guys (if proven) will be going out big time.

And as Tim indicted earlier the Awards should be cancelled otherwise they will be a laughing stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you have watched Johnny White on the first day at Nelson drew wide three deep should he have stayed out there I personally think he drove it ok the way he did I would like Tims version of the drive as he has probably watched more races than the rest of race cafe put together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lee270744 said:

How many of you have watched Johnny White on the first day at Nelson drew wide three deep should he have stayed out there I personally think he drove it ok the way he did I would like Tims version of the drive as he has probably watched more races than the rest of race cafe put together.

Personally I thought It was hard to believe a driver of Andersons ability could drive it so poorly. After reviewing the replay I concluded he wasrt trying. I know someone who had a good bet on it who thought the same..The trackside presenter described it as an unbelievable, just unbelievable drive.  It was the subject of a thread on one of the harness chat sites(,not started by me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now we move to the next chapter of this sordid affair. Should those arrested but presumed innocent until found guilty be allowed to ply their trade until they have their final day in court. Lawyers apparently on the case already challenging the standowns

For mine It raises more questions than answers and appears to be without precedent in terms of RIU and JCA. Plus ,one has to establish the basis of their employment, sole trader, contractor etc as employment law may be brought into the defenses case.

Share this post


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

Personally I thought It was hard to believe a driver of Andersons ability could drive it so poorly. After reviewing the replay I concluded he wasrt trying. I know someone who had a good bet on it who thought the same..The trackside presenter described it as an unbelievable, just unbelievable drive.  It was the subject of a thread on one of the harness chat sites(,not started by me)

I agree.  Even coming around the home bend, he seemed intent on allowing every runner inside him to flush him wider and wider - not even to mention the early and middle stages of the race.

I've never been much of a fan of the two-day meetings.  Seem to have to be 'in the know' for which horses are just there for a look on day one.

 

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fartoomuch said:

Lawyers apparently on the case already challenging the standowns

For mine It raises more questions than answers and appears to be without precedent in terms of RIU and JCA. Plus ,one has to establish the basis of their employment, sole trader, contractor etc as employment law may be brought into the defenses case.

5

Interesting points FTM. Membership status? Membership T&C's? In simplistic terms, various acts pre-exist, however, industry participants accept the conditions of membership when they sign on the bottom line. Renewal of membership reinforces acknowledgment and acceptance. There may be situations where a challenge is warranted but in this instant, the challenge places industry integrity into chaos. Division among participants contributes to the chaos. It is in everyone's best interest including the accused to have this matter concluded quickly. To draw this situation out only causes personal and financial harm to those facing charges. There are remedies available to any person wrongly accused and acquitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Emotive said:

Interesting points FTM. Membership status? Membership T&C's? In simplistic terms, various acts pre-exist, however, industry participants accept the conditions of membership when they sign on the bottom line. Renewal of membership reinforces acknowledgment and acceptance. There may be situations where a challenge is warranted but in this instant, the challenge places industry integrity into chaos. Division among participants contributes to the chaos. It is in everyone's best interest including the accused to have this matter concluded quickly. To draw this situation out only causes personal and financial harm to those facing charges. There are remedies available to any person wrongly accused and acquitted.

You make some very relevant points Emotive in what is a messy affair. You also got me wondering in terms of the conditions of the respective licenses that HRNZ issue. What are the do's and dont's with respect to such licenses.

What i find to be of paramount importance is that the integrity of the sport and betting there on has been severely compromised. Betting confidence is everything in gambling, tainted products take a long time to recover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racing: Move to challenge race meeting bans

13 Sep, 2018 5:00am
 3 minutes to read
Harness racing returns to Addington tomorrow night despite a crisis in the industry. Photo / Supplied
Harness racing returns to Addington tomorrow night despite a crisis in the industry. Photo / Supplied
NZ Herald
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

High profile harness horsepeople banned from going to the races look set to challenge that today.

All of the industry participants charged under Operation Inca last week, which saw several horsepeople arrested in Canterbury, were issued with race meeting bans.

Although their notice of exclusion from race meetings is overseen by the Racing Integrity Unit, that role was actually secondary because most were banned from attending racing meetings under their bail conditions.

But those conditions were lifted by the courts when many of those charged had their first hearings on Tuesday, meaning they are free to apply to the Racing Integrity Unit to have their exclusion notices withdrawn and be able to attend the feature Addington meeting tomorrow night.

 

Herald sources suggest at least some of the lawyers acting on their behalf may seek for the RIU to allow them to work at race meetings until their cases are heard.

New Zealand racing has little precedent for these cases.

With most of those charged denying the allegations in court and the consensus being at least some are going to defend them, the cases are certain to drag into next year and potentially much longer.

Some could be asking if it is fair the horsepeople involved can have a major source of income taken away while still presumed innocent but there will also be those suggesting they must stay banned for the good of the industry.

That decision appears to lie with the RIU and they would not comment yesterday on the exact process to have the exclusions lifted.

Often serious RIU matters go before a Judicial Control Authority panel but that looks unlikely here.

The ban doesn't just apply to race meetings but to trials and workouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Neave decided on Tuesday that bail conditions banning the group from racecourses were not necessary because they were covered by orders imposed by the Racing Integrity Unit.  He imposed the non-association orders with co-defendants sought by the Crown, but said that issue might be reconsidered later.

Ok so Judge Neave ONLY removed bail conditions banning the accused from racecourses on the basis that they were covered by Orders imposed by the RIU.

Non Association orders with co-defendants still applies. Are the RIU to waste industry money to hire extra security/stipes to monitor/enforce the Non Association court orders at Addington and the work outs?

If the RIU lifts the bans on the accused, then the Police will just seek for the bans to be reimposed back on bail conditions at the next court hearings on October 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Virtual.Stipe said:

Judge Neave decided on Tuesday that bail conditions banning the group from racecourses were not necessary because they were covered by orders imposed by the Racing Integrity Unit.  He imposed the non-association orders with co-defendants sought by the Crown, but said that issue might be reconsidered later.

Ok so Judge Neave ONLY removed bail conditions banning the accused from racecourses on the basis that they were covered by Orders imposed by the RIU.

Non Association orders with co-defendants still applies. Are the RIU to waste industry money to hire extra security/stipes to monitor/enforce the Non Association court orders at Addington and the work outs?

If the RIU lifts the bans on the accused, then the Police will just seek for the bans to be reimposed back on bail conditions at the next court hearings on October 2.

Pretty sure RIU are not that stupid and that they will want to protect their own integrity re banning orders.

Im thinks that this HRNZ rule covers the major bases

" 324 (1) The Board may, in its discretion, at any time cancel, withdraw, suspend, or impose, amend or delete any conditions or restrictions upon any licence for such period during the currency thereof as it thinks fit, giving seven days notice of its intention to do so. "

Very broad rule but yet  specific enough for the current situation i would have thought but im not a lawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fartoomuch said:

And now we move to the next chapter of this sordid affair. Should those arrested but presumed innocent until found guilty be allowed to ply their trade until they have their final day in court. Lawyers apparently on the case already challenging the standowns

For mine It raises more questions than answers and appears to be without precedent in terms of RIU and JCA. Plus ,one has to establish the basis of their employment, sole trader, contractor etc as employment law may be brought into the defenses case.

Australian precedents in Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board verses Jack, Turnbull, Bartley and Pitt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kotare_Hunter said:

Australian precedents in Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board verses Jack, Turnbull, Bartley and Pitt

Possibly but potentially different race rules and jurisdictions???

As i said earlier, very messy situation and im not sure RIU have the personnel to take this to its conclusion without some sort of cock up. In that respect its good that Cops are running the program IMHO

Share this post


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

Personally I thought It was hard to believe a driver of Andersons ability could drive it so poorly. After reviewing the replay I concluded he wasrt trying. I know someone who had a good bet on it who thought the same..The trackside presenter described it as an unbelievable, just unbelievable drive.  It was the subject of a thread on one of the harness chat sites(,not started by me)

There was a chap on here who said he would have had a large slice of the place six I see it paid $410. Tell me what you thought of Natalie Rasmussen's drive on Princess Tiffany in the first race at the last Jewel Meeting not that dissimilar to Matt Andersons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lee270744 said:

There was a chap on here who said he would have had a large slice of the place six I see it paid $410. Tell me what you thought of Natalie Rasmussen's drive on Princess Tiffany in the first race at the last Jewel Meeting not that dissimilar to Matt Andersons?

Miss Rasmussen"s drive,Just one of those tactical judgment errors. Nothing sinister . There is a huge difference in split second decisions, and decisions where you have minutes to think about.like the nelson race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, what a post said:

Miss Rasmussen"s drive,Just one of those tactical judgment errors. Nothing sinister . There is a huge difference in split second decisions, and decisions where you have minutes to think about.like the nelson race.

Or if the result was pre ordained and arranged....:rcf-tongue-2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lee270744 said:

There was a chap on here who said he would have had a large slice of the place six I see it paid $410. Tell me what you thought of Natalie Rasmussen's drive on Princess Tiffany in the first race at the last Jewel Meeting not that dissimilar to Matt Andersons?

Nat engaged driving tactics that she thought at the time would give PT the best chance of winning the race. 

Matt on the other hand clearly didn't want to try and give his horse the best winning chance (eg going back at the start, to near last, then wide etc).

Bloody hell, a blind man could see all that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I do wonder about, how can you have race fixing involving only 2 drivers in the race? What about all the other starters? There is no guarantee that one of them isn't going to come along and win. It seems rather odd to me. Race fixing presumes that most of the drivers would be in on it. Otherwise it's nearly as much a gamble as betting on a straight race anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rusty said:

Nat engaged driving tactics that she thought at the time would give PT the best chance of winning the race. 

Matt on the other hand clearly didn't want to try and give his horse the best winning chance (eg going back at the start, to near last, then wide etc).

Bloody hell, a blind man could see all that. 

Sorry I thought both drivers pulled back to the rear one won the other ran seventh had the placings been reversed would Nat be had up for match fixing? Btw I await the answer before making an appointment at Spec Savers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Belinda said:

The one thing I do wonder about, how can you have race fixing involving only 2 drivers in the race? What about all the other starters? There is no guarantee that one of them isn't going to come along and win. It seems rather odd to me. Race fixing presumes that most of the drivers would be in on it. Otherwise it's nearly as much a gamble as betting on a straight race anyway.

You are 100% correct B. Does anyone think 2 footballers can fix a football match? An ex-driver who probably features in the top 10 all-time winning drivers said exactly the same thing it would take more than 2 drivers to fix a race.

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