NHA Rules-part 4

The next rule,I would like to point out for discussion,I have chosen to do now,as it is topical on other sites at the moment.

Rule 72.1.26 No person or individual shall behave or conduct himself in such a manner which has or might have the effect of discrediting horse racing or which does or might bring into disrepute the good name of the NATIONAL HORSERACING AUTHORITY,A RACING OPERATOR,any training establishment etc etc etc.(just mentions just about every other group in racing)

Now the question is why have a few posters on forums not been charged under this rule? I have no doubt it has been considered,including for me lol.

In my opinion, this rule is as badly worded as any other,by inclusion of the words "good name" .What on earth does "good name" mean ???what is the definition??........universal and undisputed perhaps??? Yeah right!!!
If I should be charged under this rule,I won't bother to deny the detail,merely keep them busy trying to prove their "good name" I would enjoy watching somebody try to prove something as subjective as that.It may be a given in their minds(and in their own hearings)but I doubt would stand up in the follow up court action!

HA! AND what if they bring their own good name into disrepute??!!!!

down the rabbithole we gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

BTW,after reading the comments by that fellow making wild allegations on Racingweb,I have to say that I fully support the actions taken against him.Those kind of irresponsible outbursts don't do any good at all,and are almost always made by people with very little knowledge,which as they say,is dangerous.
Those posts also provide a good excuse for racing operators to discredit forums in their entirety.

Is there a fit and proper person rule?

I agree, Rob. There is a line that has to be drawn between what is reasonable criticism and what are unsubstantiated, hurtful allegations that have nothing to back them up. I'm glad to see that the Internet has not yet completely destroyer the laws of defamation. However, the rule which you posted above, if taken literally, could get you into shyte just for complaining about a stale sandwich or a warm beer served at the racecourse. It is far too loosely worded, as many NHA rules are, and is virtually useless as a consequence.

It is little wonder that the NHA (and its predecessor, the Jockey Club) has such an abysmal record in court. A first year law student who spends more time jolling than going to class could dismantle a case which might arise as a result of the above rule.

Another good post Rob.

The problem is that with having a forum you get plenty calls and emails if criticism and complaints are being posted.
Just as an example if someone says something bad about a jockey, I get calls from a third parties asking to remove the post and this is unacceptable and this type of facility to punters is bad for the image of the game etc
If a jockey or trainer has been praised I can honestly say I have never had one call to say thanks for the positive coverage on your wonderful site.
I guess that's life , if you do a good job it goes unnoticed and if you drop a catch or do a bad job you get hammered.
Bob posted the other day that he had not deleted a post in 6 months and I am sure we have not banned a poster in over a year.
On the "one" post with legal action, the post had been deleted before the request came to remove,
The bottom line is that we have a respected site and it is controlled by the nature of the visitors and not by the moderators and I have to give credit to the Clan members for this.
Thank you all for your contributions positive and negative and keep them coming.

Dave