The Brisbane Racing Club - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



The Brisbane Racing Club - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: The Brisbane Racing Club  (Read 304084 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Devil

  • Listed
  • User 546
  • Posts: 343
« 2017-Oct-04, 06:30 AM Reply #1900 »
Does Archie ever sleep?
Ascot his target today

Online Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14967
« 2017-Oct-23, 01:05 PM Reply #1901 »
COULD ARCHIE’S BRC ‘DEEP THROAT’ BE A DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE?

AN insider at QRIC says the allegations of race fixing at the ‘red hots’ by Archie Butterfly on his much-read blog, itsnotnormalisit, appears to be ruffling a few feathers.

It’s nothing like the inquisition that is going on within the bowels of the Brisbane Racing Club to try and ascertain who is ‘feeding’ Archie information and photographs.

The ‘Nifty Nev’ Bell birthday bash was the last straw and the leaks involving that soiree at Doomben reportedly saw virtually every one employed by the BRC put under the microscope. LGHR spies insist they barking up the wrong tree and should instead be looking at a ‘disgruntled’ employee having a bit each-way in case an ‘old mate’ returns to the fold at RQ after the election and also dirty about being moved sideways.

As for harness racing well unless QRIC does something about what is allegedly happening in these ‘big pool’ races then that code will not even be the blip it has been reduced to on the radar for most run-of-the-mill punters.

 From www.letsgohorseracing.com.au

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Thebigdog

  • Open
  • User 550
  • Posts: 114
« 2017-Oct-23, 07:09 PM Reply #1902 »
Firstly, This Archie  :censored:  wouldn't know if his head was up his own arse or someone else's, he claims to have be very knowledgeable on Trots but I have reviewed all of the races that he claims are rigged and he's very wrong.

I have been involved in Harness Racing all my life and watch all races and I'm happy to expose those who are doing the wrong thing but Archie couldn't read a race to save himself.

He's got people who don't even talk to each other working together to fix races, most of those people are not even smart enough to organise races but they are still smarter than him, I hope he's not holding his breath waiting on his membership application to be approved by the Albion Park  Club.

Secondly i've never even seen his bad head at a race meeting so I think he's just talking more shit and stupid people are listening. 

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12141
« 2017-Oct-23, 07:58 PM Reply #1903 »

Secondly i've never even seen his bad head at a race meeting so I think he's just talking more shit and stupid people are listening.

So you know who it is?

 :chin:


Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12141
« 2017-Oct-23, 08:00 PM Reply #1904 »
Does Archie ever sleep?
Ascot his target today

He obviously knows Ascot as he nails some of his traits to a tee  :shutup:

Offline Thebigdog

  • Open
  • User 550
  • Posts: 114
« 2017-Oct-23, 08:05 PM Reply #1905 »
A little online research and you will find a photo from a courier mail story.
 

Online Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14967
« 2017-Oct-24, 07:50 AM Reply #1906 »
ARCHIE BUTTERFLY – SOME QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT HIS IDENTITY
the following is from John Lingard  sole proprietor of the racing website letsgohorseracing in response to a request published in the then regular Wednesday Whinge.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I’ve done some research and discovered that Archie Butterfly is the real name of the author and was actually changed by deed poll from Brenden Sheehan. Archie is quite a talented writer and does his homework thoroughly on the subjects of his story. He is well informed on racing and doesn’t mind handing out a spray on his website, itsnotnormalisit, which, by the way, is worth a read – even if some of the facts about letsgohorseracing and myself were a shade wide of the mark. Not to worry, I adopt the attitude, especially in racing, ‘if you hand it out, you have to be prepared to cop it back’ and at least Archie, who I once worked with in my early journalistic career, was decent enough to send me a copy of what he was writing and tell me why he had written what he did about Jim Rundle and others in racing. That is unlike the gutless wonder, writing under the pseudonym of ‘Amara’ on one of those out of control racing blogs who attacked me during the week. And to think this weak-kneed former RQ Board member has a supposed high profile business reputation. But back to Archie – Amara will keep for another day – and I would just like to correct he and others in racing on one thing – I am not a mate of Jim Rundle, I have never met or spoken to the man. As far Archie’s defense of the Australian Trainers’ Association and comparing them with Rundle’s Queensland Trainers’ Association, he should stick to comparing apples with apples. Instead of highlighting the membership of the ATA nationally, how many members does the ATA have in Queensland compared to the QTA old mate? That might surprise you and I do believe the QTA was formed because the ATA was not seen as a voice for trainers outside the south-east corner. Rather than follow the mainstream media who continually ‘pinch’ Archie’s stories from itsnotnormalisit without his consent, LGHR gained permission to reproduce excerpts from some of those that have been at the centre of the Rundle and racing storm in recent times.

For a full read go to itsnotnormalisit and have a gander at some of his stories:
ENDS

I notice today Archie is trying to recall the colours carried by 1984 Blue Diamond Stakes winner Street Cafe he thinks they were Black & White and he's correct the colours were Black White Star and White Cap the horse was raced by the Inghams and these were their secondary colours behind the all Cerise.



While I don't have any direct knowledgeof the matter  I doubt that Archie's reference to former contributor dubbles is right.

Giddy Up :beer:


Online Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14967
« 2017-Oct-26, 08:14 PM Reply #1907 »
Archie reckons the BRC acted unfairly by dismissing a female employee in the catering department after HE published some pics that HE took of the dining room set up for Nifty Nev's 70th birthday bash .......and for which he alleges the BRC wrongly blamed their long standing employee...Archie says CCTV will establish he was the culprit and the employere had nothing to do with it......if the facts  as outlined in his blog are proved ...it's likely the BRC will be up for an unfair dismissal case ..which they'll more than likely settle rather than suffer any more adverse publicity...that's my opinion based on the assumption that the lady in question decides to stand up for her rights.

Giddy Up :beer:

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2530
« 2017-Oct-26, 08:31 PM Reply #1908 »
Hope she's a union member . .

Sadly a lot are not these days . . often due to pressure by smaller employers

Nuff sed

Offline BrokeBack Mounting

  • Maiden
  • User 2616
  • Posts: 4
« 2017-Oct-31, 10:31 AM Reply #1909 »
All you have said to discredit his whole story is say "those people don't even talk to each other".   A small sentence and throwing mud.  You old dogs have no new tricks.   That's hardly decent evidence to turn around the wave of support the bloke has.  And he's quite smart too, but not many of you blokes like admitting you're not the smartest bloke in the room.  Good luck in your fruitless attempts to defend the indefensible.

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2530
« 2017-Oct-31, 01:32 PM Reply #1910 »
 :what:

Online Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14967
« 2017-Oct-31, 08:05 PM Reply #1911 »
:what:

C'mon Arthur......he's referring to Thebigdog post 1902 on the race fixing claims at Harness Racing HQ.

Clippity Clop :whistle:

Giddy Up :beer:
[/color]

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2530
« 2017-Oct-31, 08:20 PM Reply #1912 »
 :embarrassed:  :beer:

Offline Thebigdog

  • Open
  • User 550
  • Posts: 114
« 2017-Oct-31, 09:54 PM Reply #1913 »
Brokeback Mountain, I suppose your one of his followers who believe everything he says, I never said this isn't happening but its not happening anywhere near like he says, and the people hes got colluding together would never work together like that.

Everytime hes post about another race rort he exposes just how inexperienced he is in harness racing, I could sit here for hours and take apart every race hes posted about and show you how stupid he is but its not worth it. besides that he doesn't care about the industry at all hes only after headlines because if he did he would take his information to QRIC and not splash it all over the internet.

Online Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14967
« 2017-Nov-08, 09:43 AM Reply #1914 »
IS THE BRC OUT OF CONTROL WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH  THOSE WHO HAVE THE GUTS TO CRITICIZE?

WHAT the hell is happening at the Brisbane Racing Club and what are those high profile identities running the show thinking?

Only a year ago Phil Purser, the respected and recently retired boss and founder of the hugely successful racing website, justracing, was ordered out of the enclosure at Eagle Farm where he was properly accredited to cover the Stradbroke Handicap.

At the same time a blind eye was being turned – by officials and stewards – to conman Peter Foster and his entourage who were there to witness the horse they owned but wasn’t in their name in Azkadellia run favourite in the big race. No-one questioned how they gained owner’s passes or their illegal presence in the enclosure while a good man was being booted out at the instructions of a BRC director.

All Phil Purser had done wrong was constructively criticize some of the workings of Queensland’s leading race club. Now the same thing reportedly has happened to a high profile sporting star – as recently as last Saturday – because he dared to criticize the BRC CEO, Dave Whimpey, who one could arguably describe as one of the ‘jokes of Australian racing’.

When you start censoring those in the racing industry who dare to constructively criticize – whether you agree with what they say or not – it defies the democracy in which we live and that our forefathers fought for us to have the privilege to enjoy. Here’s a story posted today by ARCHIE BUTTERFLY on his must-read website itsnotnormalisit which needs to be addressed by some official body to which the BRC is answerable in Queensland. All we can say at LETSGOHORSERACING is ‘God Help Racing’ if the ‘goat rider’ mates of the BRC gain Government (in their own right or with a little help from their questionable friends) at the upcoming election.

www.letsgohorseracing.com           

https://itsnotnormalisit.com/

Seems overkill to ban someone from the track under the Liquor Licensing Act for crticizing Mr Whimpey on social media.......not the way things are usually done Whimpey by name says it all.

Giddy Up :beer:

Online Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14967
« 2017-Nov-09, 08:32 AM Reply #1915 »
Relying on The Liquor Act 1992 to ban the person referred to in the previous post  IMO is an abuse of power and a a very stupid  decision indicating a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of this legislation which is set out in Section3 of The Liquor Act 1992
  https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1992-021#sec.3

While provisions exist to ban persons from licensed premises these are restrictive and prescribe the person must be intoxicated or disorderly or a minor...being a critic of Dave Whimpey on social media is not contemplated as being grounds for banning anyone section 165A applies.

165ARefusing entry to premises
(1)An authorised person for premises to which a licence or permit relates may refuse to allow a person to enter the premises if—
(a)the person is unduly intoxicated; or
(b)the person is disorderly; or
(c)the person is a minor, other than an exempt minor; or
(d)the authorised person suspects on reasonable grounds the person is a minor and the person fails to—
(i)produce acceptable evidence that the person is not a minor; or
(ii)show that, if admitted to the premises, the person will be an exempt minor; or
Note—
See sections 6 (Acceptable evidence of age) and 155 (Minors on premises).
(e)for licensed premises—it would be a breach of a condition of the licence for the premises to allow the person to enter the premises.
(2)A person must not enter, or attempt to enter, premises to which the person is refused entry under subsection (1).

There is a further provision under Section 165B that  preserves the rights of a  licensee UNDER ANOTHER LAW   to remove persons the example provided is if the person may be banned from entry or removed if he or she doesn't comply with the (club's) dress standards.

165BPreservation of other rights to prevent entry to premises or remove persons from premises
Sections 165 and 165A do not limit any rights a person has under another law to prevent entry to premises to anyone or remove anyone from premises.
Example—
A licensee decides on a dress standard for persons in the licensed premises. The licensee may exercise the licensee’s rights apart from this Act to stop anyone who does not comply with the standard from entering the premises.


It's quite obvious that the BRC has acted outside the law by relying on The Liquor Act and the person named in the LGHR and It'snotnormal sites has a legal remedy should he choose to exercise it...he might even get damages ...that's my opinion and I reckon I'm right.

Giddy Up :beer:




Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12141
« 2017-Nov-09, 05:35 PM Reply #1916 »


Seems overkill to ban someone from the track under the Liquor Licensing Act for crticizing Mr Whimpey on social media.......not the way things are usually done Whimpey by name says it all.

Giddy Up :beer:


Arsey - Only recently I saw someone given 6 months from the local golf club over comments posted on social media.

You can't have it both ways.

Offline dean

  • Listed
  • User 2423
  • Posts: 274
« 2017-Nov-09, 08:49 PM Reply #1917 »
There is really no one home at your place Gintara is there ! Someone gets banned at a golf club and you suggest that that is a precedent to validate banning someone from a racetrack. The first thing any intelligent individual would have considered would be as to whether or not that action was valid by the Club concerned. That should have been a given. Secondly most golf clubs are private members Clubs. Racecourses are not. As Arsenal has eloquently explained the use of the Liquor Act to ban someone from a racetrack when as I understand the said " culprit " was not imbibing and was in the public enclosure should give the person clear grounds to institute action against the Club on any number of fronts. The BRC has attempted to be a mob of half smart clowns and it is likely yet again it will blow up in the face of these fools.

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12141
« 2017-Nov-09, 10:52 PM Reply #1918 »
There is really no one home at your place Gintara is there !

Really? It's pretty obviously really.  :whistle:

When you join a club you are bound by their rules - simple as that! The club holds all the power and do what they please regardless of whether you think they you were in the right.  :shutup:

If you are critical of a club that you are a member of in a public forum (FB, Twitter, blogs, websites, news etc)  and not expect sanctions then you're an living in fairyland.

Similar to anyone who is granted accreditation ala a racetrack.
« Last Edit: 2017-Nov-09, 10:54 PM by Gintara »

Online PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20131
« 2017-Nov-09, 10:59 PM Reply #1919 »

165ARefusing entry to premises
(1)An authorised person for premises to which a licence or permit relates may refuse to allow a person to enter the premises if—
(a)the person is unduly intoxicated; or
(b)the person is disorderly; or
(c)the person is a minor, other than an exempt minor; or
(d)the authorised person suspects on reasonable grounds the person is a minor and the person fails to—
(i)produce acceptable evidence that the person is not a minor; or
(ii)show that, if admitted to the premises, the person will be an exempt minor; or
Note—
See sections 6 (Acceptable evidence of age) and 155 (Minors on premises).
(e)for licensed premises—it would be a breach of a condition of the licence for the premises to allow the person to enter the premises.
(2)A person must not enter, or attempt to enter, premises to which the person is refused entry under subsection (1).



Geez 165 (b) could be open to a wide interpretation. You could chuck someone out for farting under that rule..........

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2530
« 2017-Nov-10, 07:26 AM Reply #1920 »
When you join a club you are bound by their rules - simple as that! The club holds all the power and do what they please regardless of whether you think they you were in the right. 
.

But a club can't make rules that contravene the 'law of the land'

Offline dean

  • Listed
  • User 2423
  • Posts: 274
« 2017-Nov-10, 08:22 PM Reply #1921 »
Exactly Arthur. I also spoke to my solicitor Today who has  informed me that if what has been reported is true; and that is that this gentleman was evicted under the provisions of the Queensland Liquor Act then the Club has seriously misused this Act for its own purposes. The ramifications for the Club could be huge if this gentleman seeks to pursue his rights. The other question is now whether or not the Club has breached their responsibilities in relation to the Act. Should they be found to have done so then questions quite properly need to be considered regarding their license. Their CEO and Chairman who have extensive experience in this field should surely have considered these matters before hurtling down the path they have chosen.

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7248
« 2017-Dec-04, 04:35 PM Reply #1922 »
I went to the BRC site to see who was on the Board and was shocked by the homogeneity of it.

http://www.brc.com.au/brc/about-us/board/

Does the Club have any plans to address this?



Cultural Homogeneity Creates Risk for Boards
By
Clarke Murphy -
October 6, 2015


What is fascinating about this quandary is that many boards today have a blind spot that is inherent to their construction—their cultural homogeneity creates an atmosphere of limited debate where even large-scale risks can easily escape detection.

Increasingly, board watchers link group homogeneity and risk via the concept of “groupthink”—when a group of individuals who all think along similar lines will, by their nature, come up with a similar set of answers to a given question, and will miss—or will have only one way of looking at—the same submerged issues.

Not surprisingly, study after study links homogenous boards to heightened risk. Academic studies have found elevated firm-level risk at those companies with less diverse boards; such companies were also less innovative, as demonstrated by lower R&D intensity. Conversely, a recent Wake Forest study found that companies with diverse boards selected less risky projects, paid higher shareholder dividends, and had lower stock volatility.
“90% of directors go to their board colleagues for recommendations on possible new directors, which would seem to continually reinforce a closed system.”

Looking at the wealth of data in favor of diverse boards, one might ask: how do so many boards end up so homogenous? Many answers lie in the mechanics of board construction. A recent PwC survey noted that 90% of directors go to their board colleagues for recommendations on possible new directors, which would seem to continually reinforce a closed system. Gender diversity on is also negatively impacted by the dearth of women in the senior executive positions from which board members are chosen. In both cases, the homogeneity problem starts with the talent pool itself, before short-list selections are even made.

What, then, can organizations do to minimize the risks associated with a homogenous board? One natural solution is to broaden the frame for particular board seats—define the universe of possible candidates more broadly to bring in more diverse candidates. A particularly fruitful variant of this approach involves selecting candidates who are one level down from the level generally considered (for example, EVPs with large-scale P&L responsibility in lieu of CEOs), as these candidates (in addition to being more diverse) tend to approach board roles with more gusto, focus, and diversity of approach than their more senior peers.

Another way would involve seeking out recommendations from those who are not current board members or parts of their immediate social network. Succession planning can play a crucial role in creating more diverse boards, as longer timelines and more thoughtful, planned searches tend to yield a wider array of candidates. Finally, if a board is already homogenous and not tipped for change in the immediate future, bringing in a regular and diverse array of “thought leader provocateurs” as guest speakers to stir up debate can at least enliven the dialogue to some degree.

In the end, boards seeking to minimize risk (and maximize shareholder return, innovation, and other positive results) should put into place both long-term and short-term plans to achieve and maintain true diversity. Homogeneity may look like a superficial board trait, but it actually fundamentally hampers the deep debate that all boards absolutely must achieve to be successful in today’s ever-shifting world.

Clarke Murphy

Clarke Murphy is the Chief Executive Officer of Russell Reynolds Associates and serves on the Board of Directors. Clarke has conducted a number of significant projects in the industry, including Board of Director searches for Wells Fargo, UnitedHealth Group, and MSCI, and CEO assignments for MasterCard, Genworth, ARAMARK, and Duke Energy, among others.

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18086
« 2017-Dec-04, 07:53 PM Reply #1923 »
I went to the BRC site to see who was on the Board and was shocked by the homogeneity of it.


Yep

Some of them should have turned up in shorts and thongs for God's sake.

Online PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20131
« 2017-Dec-04, 08:52 PM Reply #1924 »
In the Gender Equality Report for 2016-17, they clearly state that the reason that they do not have female Directors is that they recruit their Directors via Directors Australia (refer answers to questions 2.1d, 2.1g, 2.2 and 2.3 in the Gender Equality Questionairre)

http://www.brc.com.au/brc/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Gender-equality_PublicReport_aaysgzxl8l_16_17.pdf

Yep

Some of them should have turned up in shorts and thongs for God's sake.

There is one bloke in  grey suit.  The rest in dark suits.

Whatever happened to the brown suit? No-one wears them anymore these days.  :(


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap