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

Interesting JCA Decision

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, kilcoyne said:

Why is it "interesting"? Seems pretty straightforward and justified to me or am I missing something? Surely your" rights" in a civilised society are somewhat correlated to your "lawful" behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mr_gee said:

he  failed to provide a drug test  and got the resulting concquences  move along nothing to see here 

Taylor made a clear case he was being unfairly victimized. Its irrelevant what type of safety zone he was working in. Clear case of miscarriage of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems obvious to me that he might as well be a druggie, the penalty would be the same.I have to put up with this crap every day on every building site " random" drug tests on" safety critical workers"(broom pushing labourers) The cops cannot random test for drugs but they do for alcohol and the law relating to drunk drivers has been tested in a real court ,the penalties have been well established and do not automatically cost you your livelihood,you only test the drivers not the passengers, with drug testing everyone is at risk and a refusal is as bad as a positive test and can make you unemployed AND unemployable as his evidence in this case demonstrates.There is no doubt drug testing is needed but it should be more in line with the law relating to alcohol in all workplaces 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A critical issue here appears to be the random testing selection process. Mr Taylor’s lawyer has asked for details of the process but I didn’t read anywhere that the lawyer was satisfied with the info provided. In my opinion TDDA run a reputable process for this sort of thing so something does look a bit odd. Perhaps he will appeal on the basis of one of the agencies involved (RIU or TDDA) has not following due process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they wanted was to piss test him as is part of his holding the licence conditions ,  for 3rd time in about four years big bloody deal  , he needs to grow up and piss  in the pot , why don't people like him get a bit of perspective in life , piss in the pot man and move on .

Decent enough trainer though,  keeps some old horses in form and running well, got old Selfie going OK before this incident ,  and had few other horses he got decent years out of so he knows his stuff , hope he grows up and comes back .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all seem to be missing the point. He has rights under the Bill of Rights Act which have been denied to him. So a law, passed by NZ Government, ratified by the United Nations, has no bearing on decision by the JCA, (a quasi legal authority). Let's just throw the legal system in the scrap heap and its every man for himself. WElcome to Trumpville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kilcoyne said:

You all seem to be missing the point. He has rights under the Bill of Rights Act which have been denied to him. So a law, passed by NZ Government, ratified by the United Nations, has no bearing on decision by the JCA, (a quasi legal authority). Let's just throw the legal system in the scrap heap and its every man for himself. WElcome to Trumpville.

So explain the bill of rights act as it relates to drug testing in workplace , I'd love to know as I have pissed gallons for testing over the years ,all my mates over the years are  tough and wise enough to see the pot piss in the pot without making a fuckwit of themselves . He called a lawyer didn't he , most normal people just get on with it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kilcoyne said:

You all seem to be missing the point. He has rights under the Bill of Rights Act which have been denied to him. So a law, passed by NZ Government, ratified by the United Nations, has no bearing on decision by the JCA, (a quasi legal authority). Let's just throw the legal system in the scrap heap and its every man for himself. WElcome to Trumpville.

go to   real world and  have a job you be sacked  if you refused  sounds like aaron needs grow up 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A.J. Taylor put the racing industry to considerable unnecessary expense.  He was very fortunate that the Racing Integrity Unit did not seek costs from him.  I believe they should have sought costs.

In 2021 the Racing Industry must not just be squeaky clean, but it must look, to all of its numerous vocal critics, to be squeaky clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mr_gee said:

go to   real world and  have a job you be sacked  if you refused  sounds like aaron needs grow up 

You are missing the point. He is and was NOT an employee.

The obvious point of distinction is that a Licenceholder is not an “employee”. In addition, and more importantly, a Licenceholder under the Rules of Racing is engaging in a “Safety Sensitive Activity”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Rum said:

So explain the bill of rights act as it relates to drug testing in workplace , I'd love to know as I have pissed gallons for testing over the years ,all my mates over the years are  tough and wise enough to see the pot piss in the pot without making a fuckwit of themselves . He called a lawyer didn't he , most normal people just get on with it .

Rights,what rights? My experiences in regard to this issue in the construction industry are  that legally you have rights but if you use them you get sacked, no 3 warnings, no positive test and no job.Bullying and threats are the norm and how much safer are building sites as a result? I have asked sitesafe ,project managers etc. are things improving or not, or are you just  anti drug zealots and not improving safety at all,show us the numbers.My job is dangerous with or without drugs as are jobs in racing so we have for years now kept track of accidents and incidents and the stats would show if drugs were a problem over and above any normal expectations.I think those numbers do not back up the percieved need for drug testing just so a labourer can push a f&€¥ing broom,but I don't know as they won't use them to prove me wrong. Drunk drivers are treated far better than this guy, who never tested positive, drunk drivers get a fair go in court and most people facing drug testing in the workplace get nothing that resembles fairness, all in the name of safety,well ,are things getting safer as a result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Leggy said:

You are missing the point. He is and was NOT an employee.

The obvious point of distinction is that a Licenceholder is not an “employee”. In addition, and more importantly, a Licenceholder under the Rules of Racing is engaging in a “Safety Sensitive Activity”.

yes but if your a b class trainer you signed the contract you must understand and abide by rules of racing

 

 

how thick can he be  doesnt need be a emloyee  you just have abide ,  hence drug tests are given  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Nukkledragga said:

Rights,what rights? My experiences in regard to this issue in the construction industry are  that legally you have rights but if you use them you get sacked, no 3 warnings, no positive test and no job.Bullying and threats are the norm and how much safer are building sites as a result? I have asked sitesafe ,project managers etc. are things improving or not, or are you just  anti drug zealots and not improving safety at all,show us the numbers.My job is dangerous with or without drugs as are jobs in racing so we have for years now kept track of accidents and incidents and the stats would show if drugs were a problem over and above any normal expectations.I think those numbers do not back up the percieved need for drug testing just so a labourer can push a f&€¥ing broom,but I don't know as they won't use them to prove me wrong. Drunk drivers are treated far better than this guy, who never tested positive, drunk drivers get a fair go in court and most people facing drug testing in the workplace get nothing that resembles fairness, all in the name of safety,well ,are things getting safer as a result?

 Those that  pay the piper calls the tune , he wants the licence he needs to be drug tested as part of the rules required to hold the licence  , he refused , he takes his punishment .  Iam quite happy for drunk drive penalties to be ramped up too so comparing one to the other don't make no difference . 3 times in 4 or so years he's been asked , hardly victimisation  , imho he has a victim mentality or at least that illness where people think others are out to get them , he ain't that important like the vast majority of us .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, chevy86 said:

Please explain

Its fairly obvious Mr Taylor was targeted because  in the eyes of the RIU he was "fortunate" to escape with a negative previously. In other words the RIU never really accepted the negative. Offcourse if someone feels they are being unfairly targeted they will react and from there ego and hot heads from both sides spill over.  That's why there are rules and procedures that BOTH sides no just one side have to follow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Nukkledragga said:

My point of view is that a lot of this discussion is anti drug but I am more pro safety.It seems that "safety" is being used to justify bullying and denying people's legal rights. 

Iam anti drug , but I respect your viewpoint , my reasoning is it's their ball so play by their rules or find another outlet for fun .

Like I said before I respect him as a trainer , he appears very kind on his horses as he gets some miles out of them and they win a few too , so I do hope he returns  some time as won a bit off Electronic Motion and Milk It two old stagers I enjoyed seeing get a win .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, slam dunk said:

if someone feels they are being unfairly targeted 

 

What absolute crap. Piss in the cup, come up with a negative, and THEN you MAY be able to say you are being unfairly targeted. Until then it is just another conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, kilcoyne said:

You all seem to be missing the point. He has rights under the Bill of Rights Act which have been denied to him. So a law, passed by NZ Government, ratified by the United Nations, has no bearing on decision by the JCA, (a quasi legal authority). Let's just throw the legal system in the scrap heap and its every man for himself. WElcome to Trumpville.

under the bill of rights would never class a b cass trainer why,   he signed that he aggreed to all the rules of nz racing      so sorry he has to abide  employee or not  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, all licence holders are obliged to comply with drug testing, too bad if you don't like it.  As said earlier, their ball game, play by their rules.

But what has been overlooked in this discussion is the reality of having a drug habit.  To acquire the goods, you need dealers.  And there,  there is the risk of coming into contact with some very unsavoury characters.    Heavy pressure to pay up - or even start dealing  - is a very real threat.  We are in a gambling industry, there can be no justification for any involvement whatsoever, whether or not safety is an issue.

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.