JUAN NEL, licence suspended

Mark Sham wrote:

You guys are Quick to Judge Juan ….Yes it was a joke gone badly
wrong 100%…..the actual mark on his leg was the size of a pimple. Have none of you ever pulled a practical joke ??

However that same stipe/clerk of scales has an ongoing history of being drunk on duty, borrowing money from owners, trainers and jockeys, not paying back these loans etc. I am personally still owed R2000 from 5 years ago.

Why is a stipe getting lifts from a trainer ??

When will his inquiry be heard ??

Again we talking different rules for different folks. Going back AGAIN to the Moodley/ Wainstein confrontation. Wainstein charged (kicked out on appeal) but nothing done to Moodley about his shocking behaviour ? Because he apologised to Binda and Maroun? I got R30K for saying s&#t. But Moodley could stand up and tell all that he could “do whatever I like because I’m the CEO”. Juan apologised to Stipe immediately ??

Haupie wrote:

Rule 72.1.44 at any time assault, abuse, exploit, swear at, or intimidate any PERSON or individual in his
employ at his training establishment.

The plot thickens in my opinion. This is the rule Juan allegedly contravened. Maybe it is just a typographical error, or can it be the stipe was in Juan's employment? Or maybe I am just missing the point?

But, point is, you cannot go around assaulting people. But what I was really trying to say in my previous post was to compare the punishment for the jock (Greg) to Juan's punishment.

And just to say something about Mark's comment, it certainly appears to the man in the street that the stipes are above the law...