kilcoyne 191 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 Watch out. The law ie BORA doesnt protect you all. Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v A J Taylor - Penalty Decision dated 8 January 2021 - Chair, Mr R G McKenzie — Judicial Control Authority (jca.org.nz) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevy86 2,681 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 59 minutes ago, kilcoyne said: Watch out. The law ie BORA doesnt protect you all. Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v A J Taylor - Penalty Decision dated 8 January 2021 - Chair, Mr R G McKenzie — Judicial Control Authority (jca.org.nz) 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. Pam Robson 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_gee 409 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 he failed to provide a drug test and got the resulting concquences move along nothing to see here Pam Robson and napier 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
slam dunk 1,317 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevy86 2,681 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 2 hours ago, slam dunk said: Taylor made a clear case he was being unfairly victimized. Please explain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukkledragga 229 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 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 JJ Flash 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
napier 339 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 Just get rid of another druggie please JJ Flash 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southland 91 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rum 1,833 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 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 . JJ Flash 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Robson 1,536 Report post Posted January 12, 2021 If he had taken the test - as required of any licence holder - even if positive, he may have received a lesser penalty, possibly involving counselling/rehab, and further testing , than what he now faces. Silly boy. JJ Flash and Leggy 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilcoyne 191 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rum 1,833 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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 . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_gee 409 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tauhei Notts 1,403 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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. Pam Robson and JJ Flash 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,007 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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”. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukkledragga 229 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_gee 409 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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 JJ Flash and Pam Robson 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rum 1,833 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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 . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukkledragga 229 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
slam dunk 1,317 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rum 1,833 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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 . ADM 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnyTom 1,519 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 Our dear parted friend Rumpole would have loved the case, would have walked all over them kilcoyne 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevy86 2,681 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_gee 409 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Robson 1,536 Report post Posted January 13, 2021 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. ADM, Insider, shaneMcAlister and 1 other 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...