RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
JJ Flash

RIU/JCA Case Vrs H Habraken

Recommended Posts

Some will see this as victimisation whilst others see it as simply the 2 bodies doing their job. The defendant has clearly crossed the line in terms of misconduct IMHO and the RIU were correct in taking case to JCA. Imagine the outcry if they did not as it would send the signal that abusing officials is ok

Others may see it differently

 

Evidence – Informant

Witness - Mr Cameron Kirkwood (HRNZ)

[17] Mr Kirkwood is an employee of Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ). His evidential statement was admitted by consent.

[18] The essence of his evidence was that on the afternoon of Friday 25 September 2020 he identified a warning flag for the horse I EXPECT BETTOR, co-owned by Mr Habraken and his son Jon. The horse was nominated to Race in Heat 5 at the Pukekohe Workouts the following day. The warning was in place because part owner, Mr Jon Habraken was on the ‘Unpaid Forfeiture List’ and the horse was therefore ineligible to race in the workout heat.

[19] It was Mr Kirkwood’s evidence that he contacted Mr Habraken (Snr) and advised him the horse was unable to start. According to Mr Kirkwood, Mr Habraken responded by “yelling at me” and Mr Habraken told him that he would be taking his horse to the workouts. In response Mr Kirkwood said that he advised Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr John Muirhead.

[20] The horse I EXPECT BETTOR was removed from the workout heat.

[21] Mr Habraken was afforded but declined the opportunity to cross examine Mr Kirkwood via phone. However, in response he stated that on 17 September 2020 he notified HRNZ that his horse, I EXPECT BETTOR, was in work and believed that that notification should have raised a ‘red flag’ concerning the horse’s ownership, but he said, he never heard back from HRNZ and therefore thought it okay to proceed with the horse’s training preparation.

[22] Mr Habraken further commented that he believed the Pukekohe workouts are unofficial and inferred ‘officials’ therefore had no jurisdiction over the running of the workouts. In support of this claim he produced an email addressed to his wife from an unknown source which he said originated from HRNZ – the email included the following information:

“These workouts are UNOFFICIAL and NOT usually subject to stipendiary control. Harness Racing New Zealand Inc. advises that we are unable to verify any of this information. For any queries regarding workouts contact the club concerned: Auckland Trotting Club Inc.”.

[23] In response to this statement the Committee pointed out to Mr Habraken the provisions of Rule 714 which relates to Trial Meetings and Workouts. The rule provides that:

(1) These Rules so far as they are applicable shall apply to all trials meeting and workouts.

(2) A Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector may exercise any power or duty of a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector in respect of any matter arising at or in connection with a workout.

Witness – Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr John Muirhead (RIU)

[24] The Committee heard detailed evidence from Mr Muirhead, a Senior Stipendiary Steward. His evidence was as follows:

[25] Mr Muirhead said he has been employed in this role for 37 years and part of his role as a Stipendiary Steward is the running of Harness Racing workout/trials meetings under the Rules.

[26] He said on Friday the 25th September 2020, as a result of information received via phone from Mr Cameron Kirkwood (HRNZ) regarding Mr Habraken (a Harness Licence Holder), he learnt that Mr Habraken was ineligible to run his horse I EXPECT BETTOR at the Franklin Park workouts on the Saturday the 26th September 2020 due to his son, Mr Jon Habraken, being on the Unpaid Forfeiture List – (his son owns a share in the horse mentioned).

[27] Mr Muirhead said that this information, was later confirmed to him in an email from Mr Kirkwood. In response, Mr Muirhead said he left a message with Mr Habraken, who later responded. Mr Muirhead said he advised Mr Habraken that HRNZ had removed his horse, I EXPECT BETTOR, from the workout heat programmed for the next day and Mr Habraken indicated it was still his intention to start the horse despite being withdrawn. Mr Muirhead said he advised him that he should not attempt to do this as he would be in breach of the Rules. 

[28] Mr Muirhead said that he suggested a remedy to Mr Habraken namely, that he should apply to have his son’s ownership share transferred into his and/or his wife’s name, which would then allow him to continue on with the horse’s preparation.

[29] Mr Muirhead added that Mr Habraken’s demeanour during this conversation varied between being calm, angry, abusive and emotionally upset. He said that Mr Habraken, during this conversation referred to his son and his dealings with HRNZ, RIU and the JCA on a number of occasions and his behaviour was of such a concern to him that he took active steps to arrange welfare follow-up.

[30] Mr Muirhead told the Committee that the following day, Saturday 26th September 2020, he attended the workout meeting at the Franklin Park Training Centre in Pukekohe. He said that Mr Habraken was competing in Race 1 with his horse IDEAL LINCOLN and he noted another horse partially geared up in the next stall which he later confirmed as the horse I EXPECT BETTOR, the horse which was the subject of the phone conversation the previous day. Mr Muirhead said that he was concerned that Mr Habraken would attempt to start the horse as he threatened to do. He said under the circumstances, he deemed it prudent to obtain his audio recorder to capture the conversation between Mr Habraken and himself.

[31] After competing in race 1 Mr Habraken returned to his stall and he spoke to him concerning his intentions regarding I EXPECT BETTOR.

[32] This conversation was recorded, (produced as an exhibit) and played during the hearing. The conversation continued for some time during which Mr Habraken used the language, which was the basis of the misconduct, as alleged in the charging document.

[33] There was value in the Committee hearing the audio of taped conversation as it provided a good indication of the tone, nature and context of what was actually said by both parties to the conversation.

[34] We do not intend to repeat in detail everything that was said other than provide a brief summary as outlined below of the salient points relevant to the charge. This we believe provides an indication of the language alleged to have been used by Mr Habraken:

“F…ing bullshit”, “You can F….. sort that out”, “this “F….. thing is going out I told you this F….. thing is going out there”, “No – you’re not F….. listening”, “we haven’t F….. ignored it”, “It does F….. work like that”, “No – Get F….ed”, “ It doesn’t F….. matter about us”, “It F….. doesn’t matter”.

[35] Mr Muirhead said that Mr Habraken, was shouting when using the language complained of and he said it could clearly be heard by people in the vicinity.

Mr Muirhead said, I observed him during the remainder of the trials meeting from the Stewards viewing position and Mr Habraken did not attempt to start the horse in any of the remaining heats.

[36] Mr Muirhead said that after giving the matter some thought he lodged a complaint against Mr Habraken. Mr Muirhead concluded his evidence by adding that it is not standard practice for interviewees to be advised by Stewards that their conversations are recorded.

[37] Mr Habraken, in cross examination put a number of statements to Mr Muirhead. The thrust of those statements concerned the fact that he did not know his son, Jon, was on the Unpaid Forfeiture List.

Witness – RIU Investigator Mr O Westerlund (RIU)

[38] Mr Westerlund said that he interviewed Mr Habraken on Tuesday the 29th September 2020 and the interview was recorded with Mr Habraken’s knowledge. The duration of which was 35 minutes and a transcript was provided to the Committee.

[39] Mr Habraken indicated that he accepted the contents of the interview and but for some minor comments / amendments, Mr Westerlund’s evidence could be admitted by consent.

[40] Mr Habraken identified 3 changes that he sought to highlight arising from what he said during his interview, namely, (1) at page 4 for he wished to add that he did not know his son was on the Unpaid Forfeiture List; (2) at page 5 he had referred to his son’s fine (or order for costs) as a “misdemeanour” and wished to change the word misdemeanour to “penalty”; and (3) at page 6 he said that he meant to highlight that fact that his son, Jon, had a betting problem.

[41] Mr Westerlund advised the Committee that by way of explanation, Mr Habraken stated that it was the phone call from HRNZ that triggered his anger, i.e. the call advising that he was not permitted to race the horse at the workouts and the follow up phone call and the visit at the workouts by Mr Muirhead were part of his ongoing anger.

[42] The majority of the interview focused on Mr Habraken’s concern about the outcome of the case relating to his son, Jon who had been charged with aiding (a betting offence) by another licence holder.

[43] The Committee notes that it is clear from Mr Habraken’s interview responses that this has caused him some considerable and ongoing grief and anxiety. The Committee senses that this is at the root cause of his reaction to his encounter with Mr Muirhead and perhaps it goes some way to explain why he reacted in the manner that he did.

[44] Mr Habraken did not have any questions of Mr Westerlund in cross examination.

Evidence – Respondent

[45] Mr Habraken opened his case by stating that he has no trust in the ‘system’. He then made the following statements:

• HRNZ is the perpetrator as there was no ‘red flag’ concerning any issues with the ownership of the horse, I EXPECT BETTOR.

• There was no notification concerning the Unpaid Forfeiture List.

• John Muirhead should have handled the situation differently; and

• The workouts are not official, again referring to the advisory from the unknown source concerning the status of the workouts.

[46] Mr Habraken made further statements alleging he has been ‘set up’ by HRNZ to get at his son Jon and ‘they’ are trying to make an example of him. He continued to make a number of similar uncorroborated statements but at no time did he, in any meaningful way, address the substance of the charge, i.e. the language he directed at Mr Muirhead.

[47] Under cross examination from Mr Grimstone, when asked if he thought his behaviour was acceptable, Mr Habraken responded “not really”.

Witness – Mr B Hughes (Trainer)

[48] Mr B Hughes, a Licensed Trainer with more than 45 years’ experience in the Harness industry, gave evidence on behalf of Mr Habraken. It was his evidence that he was present in the stabling area when at the Pukekohe workouts.

[49] Mr Hughes said that, from 20 boxes away, he heard some of the conversation between Mr Muirhead and Mr Habraken. It was his view that “it should have been conducted behind closed doors, and it may have had a different outcome”.

[50] He added that he had no comment to make about what was said but believed that John Muirhead should have walked away, and it could have been handled in a more professional manner.

Summing up – Informant

[51] In summing up the Informant’s case, Mr Grimstone made the following submissions:

• That trials are covered by Rule 714 and Stewards do have jurisdiction.

• That the taped conversation is self-explanatory and is evidence that Mr Muirhead was just doing his job.

• That it is unacceptable that any Official is subject to the abuse, and such behaviour must be denounced.

• That the Committee should determine Mr Habraken’s behaviour to be misconduct.

Summing up – Respondent

[52] In summing up, Mr Habraken made the following submissions:

• That as a part-owner in the horse I EXPECT BETTOR, he should have been advised his son was on the Unpaid Forfeiture List.

• That there was no ‘red flag’ warning from HRNZ concerning the Unpaid Forfeiture List.

• That John Muirhead’s approach was heavy handed and he should have walked away.

[53] Prior to adjourning to deliberate Mr Habraken was asked if he regretted his behaviour on the day and in response he said, “of course I do”.

Exhibits

[54] The schedule of exhibits produced is as follows:

(a) Unpaid Forfeiture List – Arrears due to HRNZ produced by witness, Mr Kirkwood

(b) Audio recording of interview - Muirhead and Habraken produced by witness, Mr Muirhead

(c) Workout fields for 26.09.20 – produced by witness, Mr Muirhead

(d) Audio recording of Interview – Westerlund and Habraken produced by witness, Mr Westerlund

(e) Authority to prosecute letter – produced by witness, Mr Westerlund

(f) Email addressed to Catherine Nicola Habraken (details deleted) <……@hot.mail.com> concerning workouts produced by the Respondent, Mr Habraken

(g) Email attachment concerning the status of the horse IDEAL ZEN Heat 5 – submitted by the Respondent as part of his penalty submissions.

Decision and reasons

Decision

[55] The (Misconduct) Rule 303(2) provides that “No person or body who holds a permit or licence under these Rules and no owner, trainer, breeder, stable-hand, unlicensed apprentice or racing manager shall misconduct himself or fail to comply with any request, direction, or instruction of any Stipendiary Steward…..”.

[56] The elements of the charge against Mr Habraken that must be proved are therefore that:

(a) being a licensed trainer (under the Rules);

(b) he did misconduct himself on 26 September 2020 at Franklin Park Training Centre;

(c) by using abusive language towards Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr John Muirhead.

[57] After carefully considering the totality of the evidence and submissions of both the Informant and Respondent the Committee found that in the circumstances Mr Habraken’s repeated use of expletives, directed at Mr Muirhead does amount to misconduct.

[58] The Committee consequently finds the charge proved to the requisite standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Value Bell said:

Bunty, You will have the Grim Reaper Grimstone chasing you now. What is Cameron Kirkwood's job with HRNZ?

I believe it is registrations .

Under the horses info on Info horse it is Cleared for racing under the existing ownership.  

Therefore despite Snr's behavior / language  the horse should  have been allowed  to start. You can not have contradictory details in business and Snr being a licenced trainer  is in business . The RUI have conducted a business nuisance as such and have flouted NZ common law. No rule can overturn a common law.

Had the horse been declared not-cleared the RIU/stipes have every  right to stop the horse from taking to the track.

Had HRNZ sent a letter to the trainer that was in care of the horse that it was ineligible to run I feel that would have been sufficient to have avoided  this situation. 

If I was part of a syndicate and sometime through a prep of a horse, one of my co owners as little as say 5% ownership fell into that category I would be very annoyed and lost money .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From HRNZ website, workouts page.

DISCLAIMER: These workouts are UNOFFICIAL and NOT usually subject to stipendiary control. Harness Racing New Zealand Inc. advises that we are unable to verify any of this information. For any queries regarding workouts contact the club concerned: Auckland Trotting Club Inc

The "NOT usually" part creates some degree of doubt, surely.

Once again piss poor handling by the RIU, throwing their weight around. This could have been settled very quickly by HRNZ providing clarification for one of it's own IMHO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Navitas said:

From HRNZ website, workouts page.

DISCLAIMER: These workouts are UNOFFICIAL and NOT usually subject to stipendiary control. Harness Racing New Zealand Inc. advises that we are unable to verify any of this information. For any queries regarding workouts contact the club concerned: Auckland Trotting Club Inc

The "NOT usually" part creates some degree of doubt, surely.

Once again piss poor handling by the RIU, throwing their weight around. This could have been settled very quickly by HRNZ providing clarification for one of it's own IMHO. 

 

On 12/1/2020 at 8:00 AM, JJ Flash said:

Evidence – Informant

Witness - Mr Cameron Kirkwood (HRNZ)

[17] Mr Kirkwood is an employee of Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ). His evidential statement was admitted by consent.

[18] The essence of his evidence was that on the afternoon of Friday 25 September 2020 he identified a warning flag for the horse I EXPECT BETTOR, co-owned by Mr Habraken and his son Jon. The horse was nominated to Race in Heat 5 at the Pukekohe Workouts the following day. The warning was in place because part owner, Mr Jon Habraken was on the ‘Unpaid Forfeiture List’ and the horse was therefore ineligible to race in the workout heat.

[19] It was Mr Kirkwood’s evidence that he contacted Mr Habraken (Snr) and advised him the horse was unable to start. According to Mr Kirkwood, Mr Habraken responded by “yelling at me” and Mr Habraken told him that he would be taking his horse to the workouts. In response Mr Kirkwood said that he advised Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr John Muirhead.

[20] The horse I EXPECT BETTOR was removed from the workout heat.

[21] Mr Habraken was afforded but declined the opportunity to cross examine Mr Kirkwood via phone. However, in response he stated that on 17 September 2020 he notified HRNZ that his horse, I EXPECT BETTOR, was in work and believed that that notification should have raised a ‘red flag’ concerning the horse’s ownership, but he said, he never heard back from HRNZ and therefore thought it okay to proceed with the horse’s training preparation.

[22] Mr Habraken further commented that he believed the Pukekohe workouts are unofficial and inferred ‘officials’ therefore had no jurisdiction over the running of the workouts. In support of this claim he produced an email addressed to his wife from an unknown source which he said originated from HRNZ – the email included the following information:

“These workouts are UNOFFICIAL and NOT usually subject to stipendiary control. Harness Racing New Zealand Inc. advises that we are unable to verify any of this information. For any queries regarding workouts contact the club concerned: Auckland Trotting Club Inc.”.

[23] In response to this statement the Committee pointed out to Mr Habraken the provisions of Rule 714 which relates to Trial Meetings and Workouts. The rule provides that:

(1) These Rules so far as they are applicable shall apply to all trials meeting and workouts.

Seems its got everyone tied in knots, even HRNZ staff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JJ Flash said:

 

Seems its got everyone tied in knots, even HRNZ staff

And my question is;

I can see it from both sides, but what good does this do to anyone? It seems parts of our industry are hell bent on self destruction.

Yes, a lot of F bombs got dropped, but it should not have got that far in the first place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points....

1 )  I have often heard it said while at trials / workouts that trials are 'official' because they are under the rule of Stipe control whereas workouts are not.

This is clearly NOT the case....as stated in the decision.

2 ) Under the rules of Harness an person on the the Unpaid Forfeit list has very few , if any , rights in the Harness game. Could even to be stretched to say they should be no where near a racecourse ,trial or workout. 

This should be made abundantly clear in any correspondence etc.

It therefore is puzzling that a person on this list would put their name and signature on Horse Ownership papers.

And if they did , coz of hazy memory or passing of time then the person who handles this at HRNZ should have acted quickly and decisively with a reminder.

This situation should have been avoided.......the stipe must have known his intervention on the day would not go down well.....most folk getting ready to run a horse would drop a few F bombs.

Recording the conversation without proper warning is disappointing IMO.

Another way of reducing participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tasman man 11 said:

Two points....

1 )  I have often heard it said while at trials / workouts that trials are 'official' because they are under the rule of Stipe control whereas workouts are not.

This is clearly NOT the case....as stated in the decision.

2 ) Under the rules of Harness an person on the the Unpaid Forfeit list has very few , if any , rights in the Harness game. Could even to be stretched to say they should be no where near a racecourse ,trial or workout. 

 

Some reading fr you TM

 

701 (1) Save as provided in Rule 702 hereof no body or persons other than a Club duly registered under these Rules shall hold a race meeting. (2) Every official of every unregistered meeting and the owner, trainer and driver of every horse competing at such meeting shall thereby be disqualified during the pleasure of the Judicial Committee from:- (a) holding any office in any Club; (b) entering, nominating, starting, training, or driving any harness racing horse on the course or any training ground of any Club or Racing Club. (3) Every horse competing at any unregistered meeting and every horse owned within the meaning of these Rules by any such person as aforesaid and every horse thereafter becoming so owned by him while he remains so disqualified shall, while such disqualification continues, be disqualified from being entered, nominated or started for any race and prohibited from being trained on the course or training ground of any Club or Racing Club. (4) The Board shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the holding of any unregistered meeting comes to its knowledge, take all necessary steps to ascertain the names of all persons and horses disqualified pursuant to this Rule and notify the same in accordance with the provisions of Part XIII of these Rules. 702 (1) Nothing in Rule 701 hereof shall apply to:- (a) any race meeting duly held under the New Zealand Rules of Racing; (b) any trial meeting conducted by a Body approved by the Board; (c) any meeting conducted by an approved sports body or Gymkhana Club on an approved racecourse in conjunction with or under the control or supervision of a registered Non-Totalisator Club. Provided that the programme for the harness racing events conducted under (a), (b) and (c) hereof have been approved by the Board; (2) Events in which harness racing horses are engaged at Agricultural and Pastoral Association Meetings or at gymkhanas, picnic meetings or other functions not held on an approved racecourse shall be deemed to be exhibitions of harness racing only and shall not be subject to these Rules. 703 Where a Club holds for the purposes of any betting licence a meeting covering separate race days or nights such days or nights shall for the purpose of these Rules be deemed to be one meeting. 704 No Club shall hold a meeting at which the race betting operates unless licensed to do so by the New Zealand Racing Board. 1.8.05 1.8.03 1.8.05 705 A Club, Kindred Body or person conducting a race meeting, trials meeting or workouts meeting shall ensure adequate first aid assistance is available which shall not be less than that provided by the Race Meeting First Aid and Safety Regulations made by the Board. 706 Promptly after the conclusion of the last race on each day of racing, the Club or other body holding a race meeting shall ensure the Stipendiary Steward officiating at the meeting is provided with the official card or race book of the meeting showing such information as may be required from time to time by the Board for him to forward to the Chief Executive. The Club shall ensure that race results are entered in to Harness Racing New Zealand’s computer system from the official placings and net times return duly completed by the Judge and Timekeepers respectively. This return shall contain such information as may be required from time to time by the Board and shall be retained by the Club. CONTROL OF RACE MEETINGS AND TRIALS 707 (1) Until one hour prior to the advertised starting time of the first race of any day of a race meeting the Stipendiary Steward shall have the control of that meeting and be charged at all times with the duty of ensuring that the provisions of these Rules are applied and enforced in respect of each day of that meeting. (2) Subject to any provision of these Rules to the contrary any dispute as to the exercise or proposed exercise of the power, duties or functions of a Stipendiary Steward pursuant to sub-rule (1) hereof may be referred to the race day Judicial Committee for determination. (3) From one hour prior to the advertised starting time of the first race of any day of a race meeting until after the conclusion of the last proceeding which it commences to deal with on that day, or thirty minutes after the last race run on that day (whichever is the later), the Judicial Committee appointed for that day shall:- (a) hear all matters of a judicial nature which arise during and in relation to that day of racing and are submitted to it; (b) determine any question as to whether that day of racing or any part thereof should be postponed, abandoned or cancelled; (c) exercise the powers, duties and functions conferred or imposed on Judicial Committees by these Rules. 708 (1) Subject to Rule 707 and the provisions of these Rules relating to Stipendiary Stewards and the Judicial Committee, but without prejudice to their general powers of control, the Stewards shall have power:- (a) to make all such arrangements for the conduct of the race meeting as they think fit; (b) to postpone, abandon or cancel a race meeting at any time prior to the start of the meeting under the provisions of Section 45 of the Racing Act 2003; (c) Rule deleted 1.8.05 (b) of their initiative, or at the request of the Board or the Stipendiary Stewards, to hold an inquiry into any matter; (e) to determine, in such manner as they think fit, any matter arising in connection with the meeting for which no provision is made in these Rules and which has not already been determined by the Judicial Committee for that meeting. (2) No Steward shall act in the determination of any matter in which he is in any manner interested. 27.2.09 1.8.03 1.8.00 27.8.15 25.11.19 (3) The Stewards may appoint a deputy of any Steward and every such deputy shall, while so acting, be deemed to be a Steward. 709 (1) The following persons (in addition to those who may be excluded and removed under any other of these Rules, or under Rules made pursuant to section 34 of the Racing Act 2003) and horses shall be excluded from all places under the control of the Stewards:- (a) all persons and horses whose names appear for the time being in the List of Disqualifications in the Official Notifications of New Zealand Harness Racing or Thoroughbred Racing; (b) all persons whose names appear for the time being in the Unpaid Forfeit List of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, Harness Racing New Zealand or New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated; (c) all persons who have been declared by any recognised Harness Racing Club in any country other than New Zealand, or by the Stewards of any recognised Race Meeting held by any such Club, to have been guilty of any corrupt or fraudulent practice or serious racing offence in connection with harness racing so long as the penalty against such person remains in force; (d) all persons whose presence may be deemed undesirable; (e) all persons warned off its course by any Club, or by any Racing Club duly registered under the New Zealand Rules of Racing; (f) all persons whose names appear on the Unpaid Forfeit List of any racing or harness racing authority in any country other than New Zealand or are under disqualification there. (2) Notwithstanding that any person liable to be excluded or removed under this rule, or under any other authority, may have paid to enter the Club's Racecourse, or any enclosure therein, he shall not, by reason of such payment, be deemed to have acquired an irrevocable licence to go into or remain in such Racecourse or enclosure, and the Stewards, their officer or agent, including any Racing Investigator or Deputy Racing Investigator, may remove such person from such Racecourse or enclosure. 710 The powers of the Stewards shall continue after the meeting for the purpose of determining all matters arising during the meeting which by these Rules require determination by the Stewards. 711 All the powers conferred on the Stewards by these Rules may be exercised by the Committee of the Club. MARSHALLING AND PATROL STEWARDS 712 Deleted 28.7.2012 713 Deleted 28.7.2012 TRIAL MEETINGS AND WORKOUTS 714 (1) These Rules so far as they are applicable shall apply to all trials meeting and workouts. (2) A Stipendiary Steward or Racing Investigator may exercise any power or duty of a Stipendiary Steward or Racing Investigator in respect of any matter arising at or in connection with a workout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re name on papers - the Habrakens breed their own stock so the names on ownership papers would have been there (& registered) long before Jon was placed on the UF List.     I believe this should have been ascertained by HRNZ when he was placed on the list - a bit of shoddy bookwork by the authorities.      Therefore this situation would not have arisen .    Perhaps HRNZ did in fact tell the Habrakens to change the papers but they failed to do so.      Which does change the situation if this is so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eljay said:

Re name on papers - the Habrakens breed their own stock so the names on ownership papers would have been there (& registered) long before Jon was placed on the UF List.     I believe this should have been ascertained by HRNZ when he was placed on the list - a bit of shoddy bookwork by the authorities.      Therefore this situation would not have arisen .    Perhaps HRNZ did in fact tell the Habrakens to change the papers but they failed to do so.      Which does change the situation if this is so.

It still shows the horse was cleared to race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eljay,

I suspect there has been mixed messages and lack of cohesion in written policies and the checking of the what is written and who signs up for what.

You could clarify the workout 'rule' by checking what is written on the actual programme for the day......i recently had a total clean out.

I suspect it states that the workouts are UNOFFICIAL and not normally under stipe control.

I'll probably pass you at trots ,in front of big screen , 3 x paces from tote in your race night office !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what it says for Winton this week

 

DISCLAIMER:

These workouts are UNOFFICIAL and NOT usually subject to stipendiary control. Harness Racing New Zealand Inc. advises that we are unable to verify any of this information. For any queries regarding workouts contact the club concerned: Winton Harness Racing Club Inc

 

The words "NOT usually" cover a multitude of possibilities.    In fact the better wording would be (IMO) These workouts are Unofficial but may be subject to stipendiary control from time to time without notice .................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.