- This topic has 21 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
1. Paul Roy was appointed Chairman Designate of BHA on 9 October 2006. The official BHA start day was 31 July 2007.
Turftrax did not fold their service until July 2008. BHA were certainly around at the time. BHA staff did not appear out of thin air on 31 July either.2. "But the costs need to be weighed against the benefits"
of course, but what seems to always happen is that the costs either get badly estimated or exaggerated and the benefits minimised or discounted. It is never the case that BHA asks for outside opinions with real expertise of how they can actually achieve something but at a more affordable price. The point concerning BHA is that as an authority they should be "proactive" in exploring every potential benefit and innovation for racing. You actually should know what BHA did or did not do before you get involved in public debate on BHA matters. That BHA do not know is the essence of the problem.3. As far as the case went it’s downfall was all accurately predicted well beforehand on this Forum for the very reasons that came about. Have a read. Surely BHA cannot ever again just dump their responsibilities onto the Police and expect to win a case.
It actually did come cheap as Turftrax did the same thing for free to UK racing well before Trakus copied it.
Did BHA etc support the Turftrax initiative ? – no, they went bust.
Glad RFC are aware – where have they been for the last decade?
Are they also aware that Turftrax/Trackus system can also provide recorded hard evidence for non-triers that would stand up in Court?
BHA are long aware but totally ignored this.Given that we’re talking about an organization who struggle to ensure the accuracy of race distances, we shouldn’t hold our breath whilst waiting for the BHA to embrace this technology.
- Total Posts 17716
Wasn’t it a case of connections ( owners/trainers ) insisting they would not allow their animals to carry the transmitters that put a dampener on the whole thing?
1. Paul Roy was appointed Chairman Designate of BHA on 9 October 2006. The official BHA start day was 31 July 2007.
Turftrax did not fold their service until July 2008. BHA were certainly around at the time. BHA staff did not appear out of thin air on 31 July either.2. "But the costs need to be weighed against the benefits"
of course, but what seems to always happen is that the costs either get badly estimated or exaggerated and the benefits minimised or discounted. It is never the case that BHA asks for outside opinions with real expertise of how they can actually achieve something but at a more affordable price. The point concerning BHA is that as an authority they should be "proactive" in exploring every potential benefit and innovation for racing. You actually should know what BHA did or did not do before you get involved in public debate on BHA matters. That BHA do not know is the essence of the problem.3. As far as the case went it’s downfall was all accurately predicted well beforehand on this Forum for the very reasons that came about. Have a read. Surely BHA cannot ever again just dump their responsibilities onto the Police and expect to win a case.
1. That’s somewhat moving from your original statement of facts. Paul was ‘designate’, and then became Chairman of BHB:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/insid … tem=003584
However you dress it up, and whilst it goes without saying that BHA was being ‘built’, it did not launch until 31 July 2007.2. As I stated, I don’t know of the facts that went on between BHB and Turftrax. Of course we’ll have records that I could go through to find out if Turftrax was ever even discussed at Board level after BHA formed, but quite frankly for someone who demonstrates such an anti-BHA stance regardless of the facts, what’s the point. As far as I’m aware, and from speaking to colleagues, we were never approached.
As for some of your statements of ‘fact’ in there – such as
it is never the case that BHA asks for outside opinions with real expertise of how they can actually achieve something but at a more affordable price
– quite simply, you’re wrong.
3. ‘Dump’ their responsibilities? Whatever the flaws of the investigation and prosecution, it would have been wrong just to have said "we’ve banned Miles Rodgers, we’re pretty sure he’s still at it, but as he’s banned we can’t do anything more to him, so let’s just forget it." This is old ground and well covered on our website in the press releases section – that you choose to describe it in the way you have exposes your somewhat anti-BHA stance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.