Stewards Info NSW

The following directions and resolutions emanated from the HRNSW Board Meeting yesterday, effective immediately.

1. Stewards intend to be more stringent and fine drivers for talking while on the racetrack in association with the Australian Harness Racing Rules

2. Stewards intend to be more stringent and fine drivers for contacting marker pegs in association the Australian Harness Racing Rules

3. Following intensive research HRNSW has expanded its strategy with regards to freezing swab samples in the expectation that testing protocols for a number of substances, including ITPP, is imminent

Welcome to everyone's favourite Game Show

RULE....OF....THE....WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!

Now here's your host....Damon Killian!
http://dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/re...1078446216.jpg
WHO DO YOU LOVE? WHO...DO....YOU LOVE?

1 outa 3 ain't bad I guess Fred. :rolleyes:

Talk or clip the pegs and you're gone but...

...interfer with another horse & go on to win or run in the money history shows you'll invariably be allowed to keep the race/your place cheque?
Why is it that all of a sudden this focus is placed drivers talking on the track or clipping pegs, that is deemed to be more of a priority than the Board similarly instructing the Stewards to use the full extent of the current rule book by way of either relegating or disqualifying horses that have caused interference during a race? Ground Control to Major Tom. Can you hear me Major Tom? Fair dinkum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

...interfer with another horse & go on to win or run in the money history shows you'll invariably be allowed to keep the race/your place cheque?
Why is it that all of a sudden this focus is placed drivers talking on the track or clipping pegs, that is deemed to be more of a priority than the Board similarly instructing the Stewards to use the full extent of the current rule book by way of either relegating or disqualifying horses that have caused interference during a race? Ground Control to Major Tom. Can you hear me Major Tom? Fair dinkum.

I know that one should address the minor problems as well, but not before addressing the major ones. Bit like planting the bulbs before preparing the garden bed in my books!
Take more action in regards to drugs and interference and our sport may just rise from the mire of it's latest scandal with brighter prospects. We are all disgusted with episodes like Vertigal's placing in that infamous Gold Tiara Final!

The Member for Blayney has the Floor. Well said.

I think this is excellent but where was it announced? Can't see it on harness.org.au....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

I think this is excellent but where was it announced? Can't see it on harness.org.au....

It was released here : http://www.hrnsw.com.au/hrnsw-media-release307.html

Also here: http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=93490

Thank you. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by strong persuader

I know that one should address the minor problems as well, but not before addressing the major ones. Bit like planting the bulbs before preparing the garden bed in my books!
Take more action in regards to drugs and interference and our sport may just rise from the mire of it's latest scandal with brighter prospects. We are all disgusted with episodes like Vertigal's placing in that infamous Gold Tiara Final!

I guess this is what Board's do when trying to avoid an elephant that has been around for enough time now to start being bored with sitting in a corner and in all probability is doing the rhumba round the board table.

If I you were a trainer that was using ITPP to treat your team. You know the test is coming it may be 5 months it may be 5 years. Would you stop using it now or keep going and collect as much money as you can now??

They are freezing swabs and say a trainer has 20 frozen swabs they all come positve will this be treated as twenty positives or one??

Let's say some of the leading stables and big name trainers are found to be using ITPP do you think that they will be charged or just told not to use it any more and the files hidden away never to be seen again.

It apears to me that the last thing harness racing needs is a major swab story involving big name trainers. They are happy to just catch a few no namers for TCO2 to look like there doing there but to keep the races clean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiny

It apears to me that the last thing harness racing needs is a major swab story involving big name trainers. They are happy to just catch a few no namers for TCO2 to look like there doing there but to keep the races clean.

They've already got a major swab and bribe story with big players involved, yet no mention of it at all at the HRNSW board meeting. I would have thought it would have been the most pressing issue? They'd prefer to focus on coming down hard on drivers contacting marker pegs instead by the looks.

As for ITPP, its out there, and if and when a test becomes available to detect it, what will it cost to test dozens upon dozens of frozen samples months and months later? It wont happen, and if it does only a fraction of samples will be spot tested.

I think you're right, its funny how small trainers are going down for TC02's for seventh placings in the bush yet the big players who are using ITPP continue on their merry way, along with those embroiled in the swabbing and bribing scandal.

They must have one mighty big broom and a hell of a lot of carpet down there at HRNSW headquarters in Bankstown.

I think we may have herd the last of the swab and bribe story

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rainmaker

They've already got a major swab and bribe story with big players involved, yet no mention of it at all at the HRNSW board meeting. I would have thought it would have been the most pressing issue? They'd prefer to focus on coming down hard on drivers contacting marker pegs instead by the looks.

As for ITPP, its out there, and if and when a test becomes available to detect it, what will it cost to test dozens upon dozens of frozen samples months and months later? It wont happen, and if it does only a fraction of samples will be spot tested.

I think you're right, its funny how small trainers are going down for TC02's for seventh placings in the bush yet the big players who are using ITPP continue on their merry way, along with those embroiled in the swabbing and bribing scandal.

They must have one mighty big broom and a hell of a lot of carpet down there at HRNSW headquarters in Bankstown.

Your on the right trail boys.....

They are ignoring the big players much like Admin does here by deleting comments made in a public forum.
Protection is the key word here.....

It wasnt all that long back that comments on here regarding some trainers with positives were left on here as well as pictures with captions.........An even playing field for all is required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel

It wasnt all that long back that comments on here regarding some trainers with positives were left on here as well as pictures with captions.........An even playing field for all is required.

You are right, and as you are also aware a BIG effort has been made to clean this forum up in recent months because the drivel that was being said on here was getting out of control. Just because this is a public forum does not mean you can say what you want. If you don't like the rule, don't post on here and don't keep opening new accounts. It's not that hard. It's not about "protecting" a select few industry participants from criticism. It's about making sure Harnesslink doesn't get sued for defamation and keeping the quality of the forum up in general. No-one is getting special treatment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rainmaker

They've already got a major swab and bribe story with big players involved, yet no mention of it at all at the HRNSW board meeting. I would have thought it would have been the most pressing issue? They'd prefer to focus on coming down hard on drivers contacting marker pegs instead by the looks.

Its been that way for decades and nothing has changed hence the reason Harness racing has the bad name its got but dont blame the battling trainers because they always seem to get the short straw while the Elite seem to do as they please.

As for ITPP, its out there, and if and when a test becomes available to detect it, what will it cost to test dozens upon dozens of frozen samples months and months later? It wont happen, and if it does only a fraction of samples will be spot tested.

I think you're right, its funny how small trainers are going down for TC02's for seventh placings in the bush yet the big players who are using ITPP continue on their merry way, along with those embroiled in the swabbing and bribing scandal.

Funny isnt it how the battlers struggling to stay afloat are always the ones caught while the bigger stables wouldnt think of juicing up their team:p or could it be they are a protected species with different rules to play by.

They must have one mighty big broom and a hell of a lot of carpet down there at HRNSW headquarters in Bankstown.
maybe a sweep of the boardroom would reveal more than meets the eye :confused:

only solution is to clean out the present board and start again anew

This thread is a joke and I am actually embarrassed to be participating with the exception of Fred Hastings the rest is rubbish.

In relation to the ongoing investigation when will you learn it is going to take TIME.

In relation to drug testing the authorities are doing their best as are the labs again it is going to take TIME.

If you are stupid enough to use a substance that it easily detectable you will get caught now.

In relation to the two other rules, they race too tight in NSW we all know it, but if the stewards were came down on it and starting fining drivers for travelling too close to the pegs by hitting them there would be an outcry about revenue raising this rule will assist to lessen interference to some degree .

This announcement simply gives the drivers a warning before action is commenced that is a good move.

I do not like the other rule about talking on the track it is stupid because "one goers" or" help" are not worked out on the track it happens long before that if it happens but it is a perception rule and you would be shocked how many complaints the stewards get about this rule not being enforced. Again when it is enforced the call goes out revenue raising.

You should know VVV you are always accusing the previous ruling body of such things.

This is dumb thread, dumb comments and I may not have helped by adding mine but for everybody's sake be patient and let HRNSW do the job and when the goalposts have been moved for whatever reason do not bag them for at least telling everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thevoiceofreason

this thread is a joke and i am actually embarrassed to be participating with the exception of fred hastings the rest is rubbish.

[vvv] some of it is, some of it is certainly not.

in relation to the ongoing investigation when will you learn it is going to take time.

[vvv] could not agree more. That has been my repeatedly stated position, as you know full well.

in relation to drug testing the authorities are doing their best as are the labs again it is going to take time.

[vvv] ...and the sun rises in the east & sets in the west. You're stating the obvious here because..........?

if you are stupid enough to use a substance that it easily detectable you will get caught now.

[vvv] good. I don't doubt this. 'twas not always so however.
that so many people are still very, very ticked off is, at the very least, understandable, however inaccurate or misplaced their anger may, from time to time, be. All things considered, i am quite amazed that so many people have taken the news they got back in august or thereabouts as well as they have done. That was not the point of the posts that i have made to this thread, however.

in relation to the two other rules, they race too tight in nsw we all know it, but if the stewards were came down on it and starting fining drivers for travelling too close to the pegs by hitting them there would be an outcry about revenue raising this rule will assist to lessen interference to some degree .

[vvv] why not address interference itself instead of continually dancing around the rule like a bunch of pommies around a maypole?
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch...ay/maypole.jpg

this announcement simply gives the drivers a warning before action is commenced that is a good move.

[vvv] here is where we begin to diverge. For more years than i care to remember stewards across australia have had the opportunity to come down hard on racing interference but they have repeatedly chosen to place it in the too hard basket and aim up on a series of comparitively minor infractions instead. their continued extreme reluctance to fully embrace relegation/setback/disqualification in direct response to interference has had me absolutely baffled and has done for decades. You can't hang your hat on perception rules such as talking on track or whip use or changes of tactics whilst at the same time ignoring interference. The duplicitous nature of that stance is unsustainable.

i do not like the other rule about talking on the track it is stupid because "one goers" or" help" are not worked out on the track it happens long before that if it happens but it is a perception rule and you would be shocked how many complaints the stewards get about this rule not being enforced.

[vvv] how tied up in knots are we going to get ourselves before we realise that perception does not neccessarily = reality????
the labor party is no longer in office here in nsw so there is no need to continue with a reactionary come manage by crisis approach. There's no need to do pretty much anything in order to at least be seen to be doing something. This is a classic sussex st. Machine men approach. Karl bitar would no doubt be proud that the tradition continues, however 'in longer-term destructive' that it may ultimately be.

again when it is enforced the call goes out revenue raising.

[vvv] i certainly didn't mention revenue raising, though others may well have. Rather i made fun of the announcement because to my mind, despite the efforts of successive boards to ignore its presence... The interference elephant continues to sit in the corner of the room. If an announcement had been made to the effect that the board was instructing the stewards to crack down on racing interference you would have heard the cheers for miles.

you should know vvv you are always accusing the previous ruling body of such things.

[vvv]??? Always accusing??? Of such things??? If you're going to make stuff up 'bill'...if you're going to create straw men to knock down...then at the very least be a little more creative in trying to sell to me my shortcomings & those of my position on such issues.
i do not back away from the fact that i've long bagged the utter debacle that was the deplorable, lamentable & thankfully now well & truly defunct ghrra...their faults were many, varied & extensive in nature, but as far as i can recall a criticism of revenue raising was never, ever one of the rockets that i aimed at that organisation. if you can show me evidence to the contrary then i appologise profusely in advance. if not, then perhaps you might see your way clear to do us both a favour & drop the 'such things' routine?

this is dumb thread, dumb comments and i may not have helped by adding mine but for everybody's sake be patient and let hrnsw do the job and when the goalposts have been moved for whatever reason do not bag them for at least telling everyone.

[vvv] as i said above, parts of it are, parts of it are not. It appears you're in the 'ignoring the elephant' camp as far as interference goes. Obviously i am not.

vvv

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

vvv

I am far from soft on on interference as you know I just do not agree with relegation and never will so debate over on that issue it was under the GHRRA that penalties for such infringements went from a $100 fine to a suspension from driving in races but perhaps you forget that significant change.

On reflection I may have misunderstood one of your previous posts about where the money had gone under the GHRRA so I will cop that on the chin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

I am far from soft on on interference as you know I just do not agree with relegation and never will so debate over on that issue it was under the GHRRA that penalties for such infringements went from a $100 fine to a suspension from driving in races but perhaps you forget that significant change.

On reflection I may have misunderstood one of your previous posts about where the money had gone under the GHRRA so I will cop that on the chin.

So which steward(or ex-steward) are you MR Williams???

Quote:

Originally Posted by thevoiceofreason

i am far from soft on on interference as you know i just do not agree with relegation and never will so debate over on that issue it was under the ghrra that penalties for such infringements went from a $100 fine to a suspension from driving in races but perhaps you forget that significant change.

[vvv] how you can you be at once 'far from soft on interference' and 'not agree with relegation and never will'?
surely that's akin to the down with capitalism/let's occupy wall st. Crew sitting around bagging free enterprise whilst sending messages to each other on their i-phones?
if far from soft = merely fining & suspending drivers then that's still soft, imo.
the only way you make a real impact is to take the horse down & take the race away. Anything less is just window dressing.
still can't understand why you continue to wrap the ghrra. Going from a fine to a suspension was their way of Karl Bitar-ing the relegation discussion that was going on that the time. Be seen to do something when in reality, it was nothing.
undaunted, you're still flying their flag. It's inexplicable from my perspective.
your knowledge of harness racing is too extensive...so that pretty much rules out you being john coughlan incognito :p. I'm trying to think of who else was there at the time. The timing of some of your posts is rougly equivalent to that of someone now living & working in macau. :rolleyes:

on reflection i may have misunderstood one of your previous posts about where the money had gone under the ghrra so i will cop that on the chin.

[vvv] no dramas. Age will do that to all of us eventually.
next time you're lying in bed watching the discovery channel and i appear on the screen, be sure to think of me fondly. ;)

vvv

Quote:

Originally Posted by CEdwards81

So which steward(or ex-steward) are you MR Williams???

Chris, please...what an impertinent question. Mere mortals such as ourselves must go by our real names whilst those esoterically distant from the lives & concerns of ordinary people are apparently awarded 'Alias' status. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

Chris, please...what an impertinent question. Mere mortals such as ourselves must go by our real names whilst those esoterically distant from the lives & concerns of ordinary people are apparently awarded 'Alias' status. :p

Such cynics Chris and VVV just because I realise you are not a fan of the GHRRA, VVV or sometimes, and I repeat sometimes agree with the efforts made by the current board and at times the GHRRA does not mean I am not who I purport to be.

I keep trying to tell you the current rule by my reading does not allow relegation and even if it does it it is not policy in Australia not just NSW, also New Zealand where it is a rule it is hardly ever used there are however many suspensions for causing interference.

You do not have to be a steward or ex steward to read the rules they are free on the net so I can afford them.

There is no one more ordinary than me as I wait for my pension each fortnight.

I did not realise you were a TV personality but to be honest and please do not be too offended but to see you pop up in my bedroom larger than life is something that I think would scar me dramatically I hope it is a sight I never see. Which Channel is it again i will change my Foxtel subscription to insure it does not happen.

I am off to watch Bossy Munsie and Bruce on seven to watch the cup. Hope you will not be on there as well

This "who are you?" Is getting old, especially when the same answer is being given. It's not like multiple aliases are being used....

Justdoit, Justdoit, wherefore art thou...Justdoit?

True, but at the same time it is also a matter of principle Tahn.
It reveals the much vaunted 'real names' policy as being Harnesslink Harness Forum's answer to the NSW Change Of Tactics rule...the nature of its application being similarly 'mercurial'. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

True, but at the same time it is also a matter of principle Tahn.
It reveals the much vaunted 'real names' policy as being Harnesslink Harness Forum's answer to the NSW Change Of Tactics rule...the nature of its application being similarly 'mercurial'. :rolleyes:

I can't see how it is a matter of "principle" when you have no proof that VOR's name is otherwise :)

As you, similarly, have no proof that it is.
If I had to hang my hat, I think it's Adam Fairley. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

As you, similarly, have no proof that it is.
If I had to hang my hat, I think it's Adam Fairley. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

He is a good man Adam Fairley happy to be confused with him.

I was actually hoping for Sean Connery, George Clooney or Tom Cruise but you can not have everything.

My guess is Roger neighbor he's on the pension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiny

My guess is Roger neighbor he's on the pension.

[VVV] He'd certainly be getting on a bit.
Roger would be sporting a Zimmer Frame by now wouldn't he? :rolleyes:
http://idostuff.co.uk/Images/Zimmer%...0temporary.JPG

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

As you, similarly, have no proof that it is.

Yes, but I'm not the one harping on that he isn't who he says he is! :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sNRmWWw1yX...-in-sand-2.JPG
:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiny

My guess is Roger neighbor he's on the pension.

I hope it is not Roger Neubauer. The disgraced former steward who was under ICAC investigation for race fixing as well as betting on horse racing and having an owning interest in a pacer with a close friend of his. And the same Roger Neubauer who was caught wining and dining with at the time disqualified repeat offender Peter Morris in Chinatown? If so I would be listening to nothing the bloke has to say, especially in regards to the current swabbing and betting scandal in NSW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sNRmWWw1yX...-in-sand-2.JPG
:rolleyes:

This must be a photo of VVV's reaction when Harness Racing Australia removed his much loved relegation rule a few years ago, thanks for posting it confirms my suspicions.

It appears to me that you're verging upon a Regulatory form of Julia Gillard there VOR.
In the same way that she & her Eco-Marxist cronies so deplorably seeks to deny the democratic will of vast majority of the public with regard to her disgracefully undemocratic introduction of a Carbon-dioxide Tax, you seem to revel in the fact that the vast majority of the Harness Racing Industry has thus far been repeatedly denied its view on the significant worth of relegation/setback/disqualification as a direct & very effective stewarding response to racing interference...but of course, Mother knows best. :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

It appears to me that you're verging upon a Regulatory form of Julia Gillard there VOR.
In the same way that she & her Eco-Marxist cronies so deplorably seeks to deny the democratic will of vast majority of the public with regard to her disgracefully undemocratic introduction of a Carbon-dioxide Tax, you seem to revel in the fact that the vast majority of the Harness Racing Industry has thus far been repeatedly denied its view on the significant worth of relegation/setback/disqualification as a direct & very effective stewarding response to racing interference...but of course, Mother knows best. :confused:

Unfortunately they all want it until it effects them.... then like most other rules it should not have been used now.

Like Julia Gillard someone put HRA in power and this decision was made years ago if you are right and most want it back where is the Australia wide push and one last question if it is such a great rule why don't NZ use it.

Stewards info

N.Z does not follow H.R.A.rules L J did not get time for
positive SU still aloud to race while inquiry was still on
not like in Australia depends on what horse it is I suppose
talk about unfair

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregcattell

N.Z does not follow H.R.A.rules L J did not get time for
positive SU still aloud to race while inquiry was still on
not like in Australia depends on what horse it is I suppose
talk about unfair

Why would anyone expect New Zealand to follow the Australian Rules they have to work within there own framework it has nothing to do with which horse it is.

Ditch the board

Here`s just another small example of the distain Board menbers ( in particular, Les Bentley, as President of Bankstown HRC) have for trainers. The disfunctional Committee of Bankstown Harness Racing Club have just advised trainers and residents of the `Monster Fireworks Display 12th November`.
Without any regard for the welfare of resident horses, this laughable lot have approved this potentially disastrous action on behalf of the Annual Muslim Show.
Yet another example of conflict of interest by HRNSW, and some board members.
How this lot survives is beyond me.
A few years ago, I lost a very good horse through one of these fireworks displays, (Doug Bromac; 20+ wins) when he crashed through a fence in fright.
How people can sell themselves for a plate of sandwich`s and the illusion of power is sad.
The sooner they go the better. Martin Herbert, Trainer/Driver/ Breeder/ Owner

Martin thats amazing these people can let this happen knowing what a horse can do to itself and others when spooked.