Be sure to watch Four Corners on Monday night

[broncobrad]

Bugger, I just wrote a thesis in reply but it took so long I got logged out and lost it. It was brilliant too Brad, take it from me, absolutely brilliant it was.

Yeah, that gives me the irrits when that happens too. That 4 Corners expose was pretty light weight and old news. It did certainly highlight tho' that the stewards are always at a disadvantage with their investigative powers and if the police don't get on board, then obtaining evidence in cases proves extremely difficult. And we are talking about two stewards who were as tough as they come, Des Gleeson and Sherriff Shreck.

[Triple V]

Yeh, I thought it was a fair bit of a nothing as a program, a beating of the bushes to see what if anything flew out.
Reading the tea leaves, there's a pretty fair old pissing contest going on behind the scenes between the VIC Police and the TB Stewards.
There was a lot of positioning and some associated arse covering going on there & clearly everyone wants to grab the bouquets & duck all the brickbats.
I kept getting these mental images of the old Keystone Cops Show.
Where there is wagering there is always money to be made and where there's money to be made there'll be people looking to make it and that should come as no surprise to any of them.
They all took their eye off the ball & now they're calling foul? Gimme a break. If this amounts to much more than a hill of beans I'll be surprised.

[little fish]

I'd have deleted what you posted there too Barry only that I have recently removed myself from such duties. It's one thing for you to re-post what has been written in a newspaper. It is another thing entirely to then toss your two Bob's worth in over the top of that....which is what you did. Like every single one of us, the man is of course entitled to the presumption of innocence. Like it or lump it, that is the way our legal system works.....and that God for that.

I will reply to this - because what you have written is RUBBISH.

The 1st message I wrote you MIGHT have a point - so will let that slide. But the 2nd message I only made 3 statements of FACT. Those being 1. Sequenzia is a threat to the integrity of racing. 2. Sequenzia was part owner of Em Mcguane which was on EPO. 3. Sequenzia is part owner of Sushi Sushi.

I then wrote, 'Make of that what you will.'

Please tell me how any of that is slanderous? Which part of what I wrote is going to put the future of this website in jeopardy?

I know you will probably delete this post, but I would appreciate at least PM outlining what exact words of the above constitute grounds for being deleted.

Do you actually have a defined criteria or is it just whatever you don't like doesn't stay?

[Triple V]

Rubbish eh? Hey Trooper, it might have escaped your gaze but I didn't delete it...however I would have if Tony didn't and if Tony didn't then someone else would have. Like it or lump it. I really couldn't give a bugger. As for criteria, it was Justice Stewart who said it best when pondering the definition of pornography but it's essentially the same thing. To paraphrase him 'I can't define it...but I know it when I see it'. I'm somewhat blissfully not a Moderator here anymore and so henceforth you'll have to refer questions to my esteemed former colleagues.

[teecee]

I dont intend to get into a slanging match over this.
The posts deleted from this thread by me are some of the most glaring obvious cases of defamation I have read on this website.
It is fine for you to post quotes from newspapers and ABC telvision programs. They said it and it is for them to back up their claims or for them to use their not insignificant resources to fight any legal actions.
The additional comments added by the poster are an inference against the character of a person and the overall connections of a horse.
The inference that a loss of form by the horse when racing in NSW is also suggestive of foul play when no such supportive evidence was produced.
These are comments posted originally on this site making this website and its owners liable to legal action. I dont intend for that to happen.
Further posts have been a rehash or repeat of the same theme with the exception of the post critiquing the views of the poster about his view of the moderator.
As the poster does not know the moderator then such comments also are grossly defamatory.

Not so long ago people who posted such defamatory comments or for that matter breached the rules of the forum were banned from the forum. I have in recent times tried to avoid this action putting the comments down to ignorance or hysteria in the midst of heated debate. Some of the comments made over the past few weeks lend me to the view that some people are just not capable of showing maturity at offering a reasoned view.

I make no apology for the deletion of these posts and will continue to delete anything which is either specifically or by inference defamatory. I dont intend either to leave them here for all and sundry to read and make judgement on, nor to stimulate discussion about.

The unsubstantiated claims keep coming so I need to get back to cleaning out this thread.

[Triple V]

G'day Barry,

Please see the last sentence of my previous post.

Jaimie

[Triple V]

Well said Tony.

[teecee]

I will reply to this - because what you have written is RUBBISH.

The 1st message I wrote you MIGHT have a point - so will let that slide. But the 2nd message I only made 3 statements of FACT. Those being
1. ....Mr Name....... is a threat to the integrity of racing.
This is a claim made by you. You wrote it here. You have not supplied supportive evidence of your claim. Your claim impugnes the character of another person.
Because of the aformentioned your statement is defamatory. You have named a person in a defamatory claim on this forum. Accordingly our post will be deleted
2. ........ was part owner of Em Mcguane which was on EPO.
3. ........ is part owner of Sushi Sushi.

I then wrote, 'Make of that what you will.'
By inference you are putting unsubstantiated ideas in the minds of others. They should read between the linesthis too is covered by defamation laws.

Please tell me how any of that is slanderous? Which part of what I wrote is going to put the future of this website in jeopardy?

I know you will probably delete this post, but I would appreciate at least PM outlining what exact words of the above constitute grounds for being deleted.

Do you actually have a defined criteria or is it just whatever you don't like doesn't stay?

The rules of the Forum are linked on the hompage while repeated in a sticky on the Australian Harness Forum homepage.

[Lethal]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/cr...0910-fjdk.html
Supporting evidence of Em Mcguane testing positive.

[aussiebreno]

I dont intend to get into a slanging match over this.
The posts deleted from this thread by me are some of the most glaring obvious cases of defamation I have read on this website.
It is fine for you to post quotes from newspapers and ABC telvision programs. They said it and it is for them to back up their claims or for them to use their not insignificant resources to fight any legal actions.
The additional comments added by the poster are an inference against the character of a person and the overall connections of a horse.
The inference that a loss of form by the horse when racing in NSW is also suggestive of foul play when no such supportive evidence was produced.
These are comments posted originally on this site making this website and its owners liable to legal action. I dont intend for that to happen.
Further posts have been a rehash or repeat of the same theme with the exception of the post critiquing the views of the poster about his view of the moderator.
As the poster does not know the moderator then such comments also are grossly defamatory.

Not so long ago people who posted such defamatory comments or for that matter breached the rules of the forum were banned from the forum. I have in recent times tried to avoid this action putting the comments down to ignorance or hysteria in the midst of heated debate. Some of the comments made over the past few weeks lend me to the view that some people are just not capable of showing maturity at offering a reasoned view.

I make no apology for the deletion of these posts and will continue to delete anything which is either specifically or by inference defamatory. I dont intend either to leave them here for all and sundry to read and make judgement on, nor to stimulate discussion about.

The unsubstantiated claims keep coming so I need to get back to cleaning out this thread.

That's defamation. See you in court.