Goodbye Lance

Quote:

Originally Posted by barny

Merry Xmas harness racing !! Long may you survive as the only truly honest form of racing :) hahahahahahahaha xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Maybe if you don't like it so much Craig and are so skeptical and untrusting of the sport,
you go find another!
No sport in the world is 100% clean or 100% without controversy or dodgy characters, take a current "scandal" recently in the papers re Ballroom Dancing...!!!
As long as efforts to eradicate cheats are being made, and they are, it can only be a good thing. But there will always be cheats or those who attempt to cheat in any endeavour, be it sport or even like your mates who cheat you on your little X-Box...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

School Holidays?

Can't be school holidays,you can't educate idiots!

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

Denny..
I go back to a point made previously..
The rule under which Mr Justice was charged and found guilty was created at the creation of the Racing Act 2003. This Act came with the introduction of NZ Bill of Rights which meant that Racing had to have a separate and independent Judiciary as do other sports.
The charge is one of absolute liability. The prosecution only has to prove the presence of a substance in the horses system. For this the only evidence they need to produce is an analyst finding of the prohibited substance at or above the threshhold level.
This they have provided.
How it got there is no critical to their case.
Who put it there is not critical to their case.
When it got there is not critical to their case.

The rule is quite specific...it just has to be there.
If they thought that Mr Justice had any knowlwdge it is likely that he would have been charged with a much more serious offence.

The legality of the rule relating to the charge has been through the courts previously.
The High Court previously examined the rule as part of a previous appeal.
The High Court dismissed all appeals to it in regard to the absolute liability rules and their decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The High Court in NZ will not reconsider the evidence as already presented.
They will only consider a Judicial Review looking at the prcesses and procedures under which the original hearing was held.

Under the rules evidential appeals can only be referred to the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
If he wants to have the case reheard he will need to appeal to them. Not the High Court.

Also No appeal to a higher court is possible on the findings of the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
as per Racing Act 2003

Teecee, thanks for post on this.......However given the things that are "Not critical to their case" what could a trainer do to clear his/her name. Surely the rule does deny natural justice and reasonable doubt, not just this case but any case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

Denny..
I go back to a point made previously..
The rule under which Mr Justice was charged and found guilty was created at the creation of the Racing Act 2003. This Act came with the introduction of NZ Bill of Rights which meant that Racing had to have a separate and independent Judiciary as do other sports.
The charge is one of absolute liability. The prosecution only has to prove the presence of a substance in the horses system. For this the only evidence they need to produce is an analyst finding of the prohibited substance at or above the threshhold level.
This they have provided.
How it got there is no critical to their case.
Who put it there is not critical to their case.
When it got there is not critical to their case.

The rule is quite specific...it just has to be there.
If they thought that Mr Justice had any knowlwdge it is likely that he would have been charged with a much more serious offence.

The legality of the rule relating to the charge has been through the courts previously.
The High Court previously examined the rule as part of a previous appeal.
The High Court dismissed all appeals to it in regard to the absolute liability rules and their decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The High Court in NZ will not reconsider the evidence as already presented.
They will only consider a Judicial Review looking at the prcesses and procedures under which the original hearing was held.

Under the rules evidential appeals can only be referred to the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
If he wants to have the case reheard he will need to appeal to them. Not the High Court.

Also No appeal to a higher court is possible on the findings of the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
as per Racing Act 2003

Teecee Mate I don't know were your coming up with this legal jargon from , you actually had me thinking you knew what you was talking about . that was until I read this http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/spor...217-1ozsm.html

Now for you to be right Lance Justice and a whole lot of New Zealand legal minds have got to be wrong . I've got to tell I would have found it very hard to believe that your JCA could not be challenged in the high court as you stated. The high court is not named for the height of the building it's because it is the highest court in the legal system.

If Teecee is correct then how lucky is David Waite http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=94626 that he trains in Australia

@ A Bit Dusty, Don't believe everything you read in the paper . The first part of that story in the "Brisbane Times" says SU was disqualified on Friday which is wrong, he was disqualified back in October, the trainers penalty was handed out on Friday. So I wouldn't trust the rest of the story to be correct !

Quote:

Originally Posted by gutwagon

@ A Bit Dusty, Don't believe everything you read in the paper . The first part of that story in the "Brisbane Times" says SU was disqualified on Friday which is wrong, he was disqualified back in October, the trainers penalty was handed out on Friday. So I wouldn't trust the rest of the story to be correct !

Hi Rick Mate I think you might be clutching at straws here, SU was officially disqualified on friday as the story stated , the racing tribunal disq him in oct but on appeal it went to the J.C.A who OFFICIALLY disqualified him on friday. Now the fact that a leading legal figure in N.Z has been Quoted in the story I doubt even the most uneducated of readers would Question its authenticity . I have also read the same statements from Mary-Jane -Thomas the solicitor in Question in another article in a N.Z paper . So using your logic that SU WAS OFFICIALLY DISQUALIFIED ON FRIDAY would that mean you will concede that the rest of the story is TRUE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY

Teecee Mate I don't know were your coming up with this legal jargon from , you actually had me thinking you knew what you was talking about . that was until I read this http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/spor...217-1ozsm.html

Now for you to be right Lance Justice and a whole lot of New Zealand legal minds have got to be wrong . I've got to tell I would have found it very hard to believe that your JCA could not be challenged in the high court as you stated. The high court is not named for the height of the building it's because it is the highest court in the legal system.

What I said...
The High Court in NZ will not reconsider the evidence as already presented.
They will only consider a Judicial Review looking at the prcesses and procedures under which the original hearing was held....

You said that you knew all about the decisions handed down. I now have serious reservations about that so I shall go back and show you that part of the verdict statement where the NZ High Court AND the Court of Appeal have rejected claims against the relevant rule and the JCA's interpretation of same...

Mr Lange drew further support for his submission from the Judgment of Panckhurst J in McInerney v Templeton & Ors (CP 187/98; High Court Christchurch; 10 November 1999). In that case Mr McInerney was the trainer of two greyhounds which returned positive tests for a drug following their winning of races at a greyhound race meeting in Christchurch in 1997. Mr McInerney as the trainer of the two greyhounds was charged with two breaches of R.138 (6) of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules which provided:
"Where the Judicial Committee finds that a greyhound taken to any racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race has had administered to it any drug, stimulant or depressant capable of affecting its speed, stamina, courage or conduct, the owner or trainer or other person who, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee was in charge of such greyhound, may be disqualified for any specific period or for life, his licence may be suspended and/or he may be fined and if the greyhound is disqualified the Judicial Committee shall make the appropriate placings of other greyhounds affected accordingly".
Previously R.138 (6) had incorporated a reasonable precautions defence by the inclusion of the words:
"…unless he satisfies the Committee that he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the administration of such drug, stimulant or depressant".
But that defence was removed from the Rule when it was amended in 1995 to the form set out above. Mr McInerney was found to have committed breaches of R.138 (6) as charged by a Judicial Committee set up under the Rules, that finding later being upheld by an Appeals Tribunal. In the course of the hearing before the Judicial Committee Mr McInerney's Counsel had submitted that R.138 (6) should be treated as akin to an offence of strict liability and susceptible to a defence that all reasonable precautions had been taken. The Judicial Committee rejected the submission and following its Decision being upheld by the Appeals Tribunal, Mr McInerney instituted Judicial Review proceedings in which, inter alia, the Judicial Committee's finding that R.138 (6) should not be treated as the equivalent of an offence of strict liability was challenged. In dealing with that submission Panckhurst J noted R.138 (6) was in the nature of what he called a "status offence"; that is an offence simply requiring proof (in this instance) of the fact Mr McInerney was the trainer or person in charge of the greyhound which had been taken to a race meeting when the fact, or circumstance, of the administration of a performance affecting drug to it was established. Panckhurst J considered that such an interpretation reflected the plain purpose of the Rule which was to ensure greyhounds competed on level terms and no dog had present in its system any drug capable of affecting its performance. Noting that against that purpose the Rule had been amended in 1995 to remove the reasonable precautions defence, Panckhurst J concluded:
"But accepting the Rule as it is now drafted, I see no basis for importing an absence of fault or due diligence defence."
One aspect of the Judge's reasoning was that under the relevant penalty provisions the Judicial Committee enjoyed what he called "an unfettered discretion" as to disqualification of the greyhound and the penalty to be imposed on the trainer or person in charge of the greyhound, noting it need impose no personal penalty at all.
Panckhurst J's view of how the Rule should be interpreted and applied was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal.

What MJ Thomas is quoted in the article referred in your post...
''We will seek a judicial review of the decision through the High Court,''

What I said....
Under the rules evidential appeals can only be referred to the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
If he wants to have the case reheard he will need to appeal to them. Not the High Court.
What MJ thomas is quoted in the article referred in your post...
They will also file an appeal with Harness Racing New Zealand's appeals tribunal.

I think the two pretty well tally..

Tee Cee if it helps, I think many people, such as myself, will agree that the rules have probably been applied correctly as they apply in New Zealand. I think you have provided a compelling argument as to why they have been correctly applied and I now agree with you. But that does not mean that the rules are good rules or lead to fair outcomes. THAT is my beef. I see they have tried to do everything by the book, and by doing so and getting such a ludacris outcome shows just how unfair the rules in NZ are. It is the rules themselves rather then their application.

Boy talk about confused.

The racing tribunal you talk about and the JCA are one and the same.
In NZ the JCA is the panel that hears and adjudicates charges brought by the tri code Racing integrity unit...i.e the stewards.
The stewards are the investigators and the prosecutors, the JCa are the judges.

Back in October the MEDIA were the only ones who erroneously disqualified the horse.
A verdict on the charges(GUILTY) was given at that time with time for both parties to make submissions to the JCA on appropriate penalties.
These were then considered by the panel and decisions made and orders on penalty for both the horse and trainer on Friday last.
A guilty finding in relation to the horse draws a MANDATOry disqualification which was handed down Friday last.