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

Interesting JCA Decision

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mr_gee said:

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  

Rules of Racing can't surplant the Bill of Rights. Just like a tenancy contract can't over ride the Tenancy Act.

There is no point arguing about safety zones, racing rules etc before clearing the arguments presented for BORA. The judicial process in this case has not done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pam Robson said:

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.

If you want to target drugs then do it properly and leave it up to the cops.If you want safety then study the stats and target the areas that need it  ,random drug tests are not targeted at anything by their very nature.There are druggies and there are accident victims where is the  proven link nowadays, the public has wised up with drinking and drugs( the road toll used to be 3 times bigger) the benefits have already been gained, now we just have dinosaur ex cops crusading through our workplaces with no added benefit as far as drug use reducing or safety increasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mr_gee said:

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  

Rubbish. The rules of racing do not and can not override the BORA, either in their written form or their application. I think it would be interesting if he appealed. I hope he does.

The JCA decision seems to have avoided the BORA questions raised by citing the Rules of Racing. Questions about whether or not he was randomly selected or otherwise and whether that meets the BORA standard of reasonableness are not clearly addressed imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thnks Leggy Finally someone is getting the point of this post. BORA provides for the basic Human Rights of each individual. To deny someone those rights is illegal and the JCA in their decision did that. If he was an "employee" and was subjected to a drug test random or  not he still has rights. Even  If you get a speeding ticket, the summons has to say the name of the person accusing you of speeding

I did an employment case about 18months ago where the employer couldnt prove that the testing procedure was "random" only based on the fact that the employee had been stood down some 2 years earlier for a positive test and they ended up paying $40,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pam Robson said:

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.

Not sure about that. Just a guess but I'd say at least half the key participants in the racing industry have an alcohol or other drug habit. Dealing those does not make them unsafe to participate. I'd say safety is paramount. Use or dealing is not an industry concern unless participants want help with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2021 at 2:39 PM, 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”.

so heres a question if it breeches  the bill of rights , then  legally  what legally describes a person of good character   which he agreed to signing up to become a b trainer holder license  

 

 

if hes breeching  it   then yup he deserves everything he got 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Not sure about that. Just a guess but I'd say at least half the key participants in the racing industry have an alcohol or other drug habit. Dealing those does not make them unsafe to participate. I'd say safety is paramount. Use or dealing is not an industry concern unless participants want help with that.

It is a concern if coercion to produce a particular result is applied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mr_gee said:

so heres a question if it breeches  the bill of rights , then  legally  what legally describes a person of good character   which he agreed to signing up to become a b trainer holder license  

 

 

if hes breeching  it   then yup he deserves everything he got 

Being of good character has nothing to do with it. The quation is whether or not the request for a drug test amounted to unreasonable search and seizure as he claimed in which case he has the right to decline. The Rules of Racing cannot override that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kilcoyne, about two hours ago.

$40,000 and I am sure that a person with your ethical standards would be very proud of that.  I would be so ashamed that I would continue to use a pseudonym.

Can you not see that that it is the actions of fleas like yourself that hinder the economic growth of our country.  I have advised numerous people that they must not take on extra staff as there are parasites like Kilcoy who will crucify them if they make one minor mistake.

Business is all about taking calculated risks.  I have taken many calculated risks.  Like, I would never back a Volksraad horse over two miles.  But sometimes I get it wrong.  Torlesse stuck it up my chutney.  And if my insurers insisted that to maintain my great insurance premiums I must do some expensive random drug tests, then clients of Kilcoy would be top of the list as only a dope addict would deal with a person like him.  It is called risk mitigation.  It has been my experience that carrying out expensive dope tests on some quiet God botherer is a waste of time and money, just like backing a Keeper horse on a fast track in an Aussie group one event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pseudonym, I'm prepared to put my name up if you want to check the decisions of the court cos it's up there already. How about you put yours up on this site or are you just an internet troll with nothing better to do So you are ashamed cos you still use a pseudonym. Let me sat a a prayer for you to help admonish your sins. For the first 30 odd years of my career I put 15 murderers in prison but thats a risk I take cos they may have got away with it. Dope dealers (innumeralble) but thats a risk they take. The point I have been making is that there are laws in this country that have to be followed namely BORA that that JCA have decided that dont count. It doesnt matter that he may have used drugs in the past, there is nothing in the claim that suggests that he was under the influence on the day they asked him for a sample.

Consider this, (from their point of view)

12 months ago you received a parking ticket which cost you a $20 fine.

3 months later you then receive a further ticket for overparking (whether or not you were over the limit) but that ticket was given to you based on the fact that you had a previous ticket for the same offence so you were obviously planning on overparking again so in order to save time you get a ticket anyway. Would you pay for the second ticket???? After all you would be considered to be a "Serial Offender???"

 

And by the way, your insurance will not cover you for breaches of legal statutes when it comes to employment disputes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, kilcoyne said:

Pseudonym, I'm prepared to put my name up if you want to check the decisions of the court cos it's up there already. How about you put yours up on this site or are you just an internet troll with nothing better to do So you are ashamed cos you still use a pseudonym. Let me sat a a prayer for you to help admonish your sins. For the first 30 odd years of my career I put 15 murderers in prison but thats a risk I take cos they may have got away with it. Dope dealers (innumeralble) but thats a risk they take. The point I have been making is that there are laws in this country that have to be followed namely BORA that that JCA have decided that dont count. It doesnt matter that he may have used drugs in the past, there is nothing in the claim that suggests that he was under the influence on the day they asked him for a sample.

Consider this, (from their point of view)

12 months ago you received a parking ticket which cost you a $20 fine.

3 months later you then receive a further ticket for overparking (whether or not you were over the limit) but that ticket was given to you based on the fact that you had a previous ticket for the same offence so you were obviously planning on overparking again so in order to save time you get a ticket anyway. Would you pay for the second ticket???? After all you would be considered to be a "Serial Offender???"

 

And by the way, your insurance will not cover you for breaches of legal statutes when it comes to employment disputes

 

Not quite the same with parking ticket , it's like he over parked the warden said move on mate or you get a ticket but he stayed parked after a clear  warning . Piss in the pot , pass no issue . He's made  a mountain out of a mole hill. How many tests each year , how many make a big issue of it . Not many . I am sure many many at Riccarton would have rolled their eyes and muttered what an absolute wally he is .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill of rights...what a crock of shit. Just get rid of the druggies as i have previously posted.

Aaron is one of them as is Waddell and Lammas ( and they are not alone )

The bleeding hearts keep going back to the Bill of Rights etc..etc. Everyone in the game knows who they are - time to get tougher on the parasites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Red Rum said:

Not quite the same with parking ticket , it's like he over parked the warden said move on mate or you get a ticket but he stayed parked after a clear  warning . Piss in the pot , pass no issue . He's made  a mountain out of a mole hill. How many tests each year , how many make a big issue of it . Not many . I am sure many many at Riccarton would have rolled their eyes and muttered what an absolute wally he is .  

Except it's not a molehill but a very important mountain that it appears needs climbing by someone. You can't have NZTR, the RIU or the JCA running roughshod over human rights. So I'd be giving him a high five for climbing this one and standing up for the latter. Joining the "piss in the pot, pass no issue" chorus is just perpetuating the bullying imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Leggy said:

Except it's not a molehill but a very important mountain that it appears needs climbing by someone. You can't have NZTR, the RIU or the JCA running roughshod over human rights. So I'd be giving him a high five for climbing this one and standing up for the latter. Joining the "piss in the pot, pass no issue" chorus is just perpetuating the bullying imo.

He don't know the half of bullying , bullying is a 16 year old army recruit getting his arse kicked , or his bed thrown out a 3rd story room cause it's not made right , he's a grown man asked to piss in the pot , not Che Guevara freedom fighting .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kilcoyne, you ask if I am prepared to put my name up.  A number of the posters, whom I see around the tracks,  call me Tauhei, because they have forgotten my name.  I am Stephen J. Lindsay, retired chartered accountant of 18 Kowhai Avenue, Morrinsville; a man who knows that an imbecile of your nature could not practise law in my town for more than  two years, because by that time everybody would understand the despicable ethics you employ.  An MBIE search will reveal the companies of which I am a director.  Such a search will not reveal the inter vivos and substantial testamentary trusts of which I am a trustee; a number of which arise from my time in practice as a chartered accountant; trusts that the settlors, and in the case of the testamentary trusts, the beneficiaries, still want me as a trustee as I will not take any shiiite from a reprehensible person such as yourself.  My earlier post is 100% right on; dingbats of your nature do more to hinder the economic growth of our country than any dongbeater Labour Party politician.

Although I have a good knowledge of binomial theorem, a knowledge of verbs conjugated with etre, can count to 80 in Greek,  have a good knowledge of the Bruce Lowe numbering system of thoroughbred families and a good knowledge of cyclical quadrilaterals, my information technology skills are inadequate for me to change my pseudonym from Tauhei Notts to that of my actual name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He passed in Sept 2016 , in approximately 1500 days until Nov 2020 they asked him twice more , so about 1497 days  they didn't ask him  , so three times in total ever , they are really onto him , he needs to check the dung piles they might have put a UC operative in there breathing through a straw to jump out and ask him again 3 years.   If that's the biggest thing thats has ever been asked of him  he can thank the Lord because he's had a good 44 years.  

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.