Chief Stipe

Perhaps they proactively engaged with Trainers and determined the horse numbers in work. <tongue-in-cheek-font>

Well there is a known aversion by punters to dirt tracks hence I assume one of the reasons Victorian Racing has limited to only two for the entire State. I don't see any market advantage in the time difference between NZ and OZ. Most people that I know that have a punt don't really get started until after lunch. So if you are even slightly wary or adverse to dirt racing you are going to probably wait and see for a while and focus on Ozzie turf racing. Will the Ozzie market bet on our dirt races in greater numbers? I doubt it. The only theory that I can think of that might have some basis to it is that 3 meetings a week with the same group of horses will provide a consistent betting product that will be unique in the product range.

What about the puppy factories producing large numbers for the pet industry? Is the idealist Chloe promoting legislation to stop that? What about the pet breeds that can't breed naturally? The bulldog breeds for example where they are artificially inseminated because the male's legs are too short and birthing can only be achieved through caesarian because the female's pelvis is to small. Where is Chloe's legislation too ban them? It seems even the massive resources of the SPCA couldn't find enough evidence to push for a conviction. Perhaps they should have used INCA techniques and utilised the Police wire tapping service. The industry doesn't struggle to rebut because it doesn't do anything! Where was Hughes and co when the Meth case hit the news? "No comment" was the loud response. No positive spin that the positive was 1 in over 3,000 tests or that any positive is very very rare in Greyhound racing. Nor was there or has been any front foot action on the Government review which they were alerted to months ago. To say that they are asleep at the controls of the lure would be an understatement!!!!

Chlöe Swarbrick: Greyhound racing is cruel, and we must end it now Chlöe Swarbrick05:00, Apr 25 2021 RICKY WILSON/STUFF Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick is working on a Member’s Bill to end greyhound racing in New Zealand. Since only the beginning of 2021, seven greyhounds have been killed and 282 injured on racetracks across Aotearoa. Take a moment to let that sink in. This is our dog-racing industry, one of the last still in operation in the world. These deaths and injuries aren’t a bug. They’re a design feature, and they always have been. Fifteen years ago, former racing minister Winston Peters launched the Greyhounds As Pets adoption scheme, seeking to improve the public perception of the industry’s approach to animal welfare. In 2017, he reflected on that moment 11 years prior, lamenting: “It is disappointing the industry is still grappling with these underlying issues”. Those underlying issues are greyhound deaths, injuries, and the occasional meth-doping scandal. 123RF Seven greyhounds have been killed and 282 injured on racetracks across Aotearoa so far this year. Time and again, the industry argues that it loves these dogs. I would hope that anyone who loves their dogs would have learnt from nearly 20 years of broken legs and ankles, ruptured stomachs and trauma that, just maybe, they should stop doing the same thing over and over again. Because we’ve been here before. In 2013, the ‘WHK report’ made a slew of recommendations to improve animal welfare. Then in 2017, with disconcert from the broader racing industry, former High Court judge Rodney Hansen QC produced yet another report. That report found: “The number of greyhounds reported as euthanised continues at high levels with evidence of widespread non-compliance with reporting requirements strongly suggesting the true figure is much higher”. There were at least 1200 dogs unaccounted for in the four years since that last report. Last week, the Government announced the third review of the industry this decade, with new Minister for Racing Grant Robertson stating he was “not satisfied the [Hansen] recommendations are being implemented in a way that is improving animal welfare”. ROBERT KITCHIN/STUFF New Minister for Racing Grant Robertson isn't satisfied that the Hansen recommendations are being implemented. When the same questions keep turning up the same answers, and those answers are the mistreatment of animals, how long are we supposed to extend goodwill? How many more dogs will die or disappear in that time? Greyhound Racing New Zealand will tell you greyhounds are athletes; they love to race! This is a sport! Research the breed, you’ll find out! The reality is greyhounds are typically low-energy dogs with a light frame and, obviously, the ability to run fast. Because of that, these dogs have been bred and imported into New Zealand to generate income for the gambling sector. Do they love to race? More importantly, do they have a choice? When the gun goes off and the gate goes up, the dogs run, because they’ve been trained to do so, and thousands of dollars are at stake in each race. In an industry plagued by claims of doping, live baiting, animal welfare issues and kennel cough outbreaks, the dogs that don’t perform don’t make it. Greyhound Racing New Zealand reported that 165 dogs alone in the last annual reporting period were killed ‘for other reasons’ – they’re too slow or too broken for the industry, and too traumatised to be a family pet. SUPPLIED Chlöe Swarbrick says there are plenty of ways for greyhounds to run, including playing with other dogs. The dogs that do make it out of the gate on race day are the ones that are still useful. This has nothing to do with ‘loving to race’, and everything to do with training and the window of opportunity the industry has to use them up. The injuries suffered routinely are serious – horrific major bone breaks and organ rupture – painful, fatal injuries there can be no recovery from. Athletes aren’t put down. But these dogs are, when they become a balance-sheet liability. We’ve got plenty of other sports, and many you can gamble on if that’s really what you’re after. Those athletes have a say in what they’re doing and when they retire. Greyhounds can pursue a love of running in plenty of other ways, like chasing a ball at the park with other dogs. Or, they can be found nuzzled into the arm of a couch for notorious hours-long naps that come quite naturally, if you ask anyone who’s ever owned a greyhound as just a good old pet, not a bet. Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick is working on a Member’s Bill to end greyhound racing in New Zealand.

Yep and it is going to get much more uninteresting very very shortly. 3 AWT's which are budgeted to run on average a minimum of 15 race meetings each year over the winter months. So that's 3 times 15 = 45 race meetings. Now going back to the 2019 NZTR annual report - (the last year that anything of substance was produced - notice how the NZRB and NZTR are producing LESS reporting information now? Yes you should be suspicious!) - 311 meetings were held for that season. So 45/311 = 15% - 15% of the seasons meetings will be run on 3 AWT tracks. If they are all run over 3-4 months of the year that will mean up to THREE AWT meetings a week. Sorry but dirt racing (don't be conned into thinking that the Polyfill is special - it's just imported sand from Australia with some artificial wax and recycled carpet fibre garbage i.e. dirt) does not appeal to me at all. I've seen enough of the dirt racing over the last couple of years from Korea, Japan and USA!! THREE AWT RACE MEETINGS A WEEK! What's more it will be largely the same horses races every week! Today there are 11 Turf meetings in OZ and 1 dirt. Mmmm which one's will I be watching - Alice Springs, Moe, Gawler, Gosford, Kalgoorlie, Beaudesert, Kennsington, Pioneer Park, Pinjarra Park, Bathurst, Sunshine Coast or even the fantastic grass surface at Flemington! What do we have today? A low grade meeting from Awapuni which next year will be raced on dirt. 8 races with the following number of starters - 6, 6, 12, 4, 12, 13, 14, 11 - a total of 78 horses. Tomorrow - a public holiday - did NZTR realise this? One meeting at Avondale. Good fields though. OZ - 4 meetings (note not every State has made Monday a holiday because ANZAC falls on a Sunday).

AUCK-R05-240421.mp4

Race 5 STAPHANOS BY DEEP IMPACT CHAMPAGNE STAKES (1600 metres) (Listed Race) DAARIO (C Grylls) – Slow to begin. Briefly hampered approaching the 600 metres when taking evasive action to avoid ARC staff on the track. ATULLIBIGEAL (A Calder) – Briefly hampered approaching the 600 metres when taking evasive action to avoid ARC staff on the track. NEST EGG (D Johnson) – Hampered and shifted wider when taking evasive action to avoid ARC staff on the track near the 600 metres. SONGGONG SUCCESS (L Satherley) – Briefly hampered approaching the 600 metres when taking evasive action to avoid ARC staff on the track. INVIALO (S Spratt) – Briefly hampered approaching the 600 metres when taking evasive action to avoid ARC staff on the track. SAMARKAND (L Allpress) – Hampered and shifted wider when taking evasive action to avoid ARC staff on the track near the 600 metres. LADY MAROAL (M McNab) – Briefly hampered approaching the 600 metres when taking evasive action to avoid ARC staff on the track. TE POROPITI (S Collett) – Inconvenienced soon after leaving the barrier. Hampered and shifted wider when taking evasive action to avoid ARC staff on the track near the 600 metres. Declared a non-runner. Following the race the Stewards lodged a request for a ruling with the Judicial Committee to determine whether the race should be voided or selected runners should be declared non-runners due to runners having to avoid ARC track staff approaching the 600 metres. After considering submissions, the Judicial Committee declared TE POROPITI to be a non runner. Report 2021-04-24 ARC.pdf

I know I do bang on about track renovation and maintenance but surely they can do it before or after a race! Begs the question though what was so important that it needed to be done on raceday? A belated Easter bunny perhaps?

Each one of these cases is very different. I assume the first case was the RIU vs D Scholfield 2018? Was the second the RIU vs K R Toomer 2020? With Scholfiled there was a number of aggravating factors including a clear deception whereby a disqualified unlicensed trainer was actually doing the training and all Scholfiled was doing was turning up on race day with the dogs. The parties concerned aside from D Scholfield refused to cooperate with the investigation. In Toomers case the source of the Methamphetamine was established clearly and there was no doubt where it came from. In comparison Turnwald cooperated fully with the inquiry, undertook personal testing and the source of the Methamphetamine could not be proven. The RIU and the JCA accepted that based on the evidence Turnwald didn't deliberately drug the dog and had no direct or indirect involvement with the administration of the drug. Hence the difference in penalties.

I think you will find that in @aquaman's case there were several charges not just one. There were also a number of aggravating factors. Also there was no remorse or apology given for the behaviour and it would appear that he doubled down on his abuse in his written submissions. The 12 months was an accumulative sentence for about five different charges. The 12 months was discounted in the end to 10 months.

These are starting point guidelines. As detailed and explained clearly in RIU vs D Schofield 2018 the JCA has the authority to impose a penalty that is either more or less than the starting point after assessing any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The JCA has to follow precedent, guidelines and principles of natural justice. It can't just make a punishment up. Both the respondent and the informant have the right to appeal any penalty. Any such appeal would be judged on precedent, guidelines and principles of justice. Turnwald was sentenced as per the current rules. If the RIU or even GRNZ think the JCA got it wrong then they can appeal. Past positives to P which are not as frequent as the media would have everyone believe have been due to contamination. In this latest case it seems that the dog may have been given P however the evidence to support that hypothesis is limited. Certainly it was determined by the JCA and agreed by the RIU that the Trainer didn't deliberately administer P to the dog. Given the testing regime in place you would have to be an absolute idiot of a Trainer to do that. So Turnwald, as you say probably an innocent party, got a significant punishment. If it happens again then the punishment will be greater. Now that could happen either by accident or by deliberate activity by a third party. The only way any Trainer can control things and prevent that from happening is to train and transport their dogs in a completely closed system. As I have said before it would help all stakeholders if the RIU published the full results of positive tests detailing the levels that were present and making a statement on the likely impact on the dogs performance.

Mmmmm what happens when synthetic track maintenance goes awry!

That 7% tested represents over 3,000 dogs. So one P positive in 3,000 equals 0.03%. Bloody small iceberg!

What a totally unbalanced news report!!!! No comment from GRNZ!!!! The only thing that the RIU says is that they only test 7% of greyhounds a year. Don't they test every winner? That would be a minimum of 12.5%. Where do the anti-Greyhound mob get - "this is only the tip of the iceberg and is demonstrative of how the industry works"! Why didn't GRNZ and the RIU say that there are systems in place to detect drugs, give the number of greyhounds that are tested annually not the % and highlight that there are very few positives returned.

Well that doesn't include Angela Turnwald then does it.

Excellent couple of post @NZRacing As you may have gathered from my posts I think there should be a number of follow up actions done with regard to the Kerr case which highlighted some serious deficiencies in many racing administration systems. Addressing those issues would have made it a lot harder for Kerr to feed his addiction and protected a large group of innocent people being ripped off. In my opinion there is an opportunity here for the NZ-TAB, HRNZ and the RIU to go on the front foot and publicly announce changes that will close the gaps that are glaringly apparent. A couple of points though. If there are systems in place that enables the TAB/RIU/HRNZ to monitor Driver betting behaviour and obviously raise a flag when an event occurs they surely must have monitoring systems in place for offshore agencies otherwise it would be too easy to beat the system. So if they are doing that how much extra effort would be required to monitor the level of betting (losses) by a licensee? Systems wise it would be SFA. My reading of that figure was they were referring to LOSSES only i.e. Kerr LOST $1,000,000 over two years. His turnover must have been much much higher than that. I agree 100%. In my opinion the RIU contribution to the judgement added nothing other than an arse covering exercise by them. There should have been monitoring systems in place that highlighted the amount of money a licensee was gambling. That is perfectly withing the remit of the HRNZ licensee rules, the RIU betting analyst and the gambling problem prevention laws within both NZ and OZ.

Not as if Ladbrokes hasn't been in trouble before. GVC fined 5.9 million pounds for failings at Ladbrokes By Reuters Staff 2 MIN READ (Reuters) - Britain's GVC GVC.L said on Wednesday it would pay 5.9 million pounds in fines as its Ladbrokes Coral unit had failed to safeguard consumers from gambling addiction and sustained losses. GVC bought bookmaker Ladbrokes Coral for up to 4 billion pounds in 2018. The Gambling Commission found that Ladbrokes Coral did not put safeguards to prevent consumers from gambling harm and money laundering, the National Lottery Commission said, citing some cases where the company could have stepped in. In one case, the commission said the company did not engage with a customer who lost £98,000 over two-and-a-half years. The Commission also said Ladbrokes allowed a customer to gamble without taking steps to verify the source of funds or consider if the customer could afford to spend and lose that amount of money. GVC said it had taken measures towards safer gambling processes including verifying customers’ sources of funds and a near five-fold increase in staffing in its compliance and responsible gambling teams since 2016. Several betting companies, including Bet365, Flutter FLTRE.I, Sky Betting & Gaming and William Hill WMH.L, said earlier this year they would significantly increase funding for problem gambling treatment and safer gambling measures. Reporting by Tanishaa Nadkar in Bengaluru; Editing by Anil D’Silva and Saumyadeb Chakrabarty

Why?

Hunter have you realised that every time that you have guessed the identity of someone you have been 100% wrong?! BTW I can assure you that Mark and Natalie don't post on BOAY. I'd they did I'd give them their own forum.

But "large" isn't a quantitative term. It is subjective relative to someone's assessment of what is large. I've had some ladies say I'm "large" and some say the opposite. The level in the sample is measurable and the RIU know the results. Why not publish them? Then we can assess what "they term LARGE". Otherwise everyone speculates and we get rumour and myth. Not only publish the result but publish what level would be deemed performance enhancing. For all we know Turnwald's dog could have had a zillionth of a molecule of P in its system which had zero effect on how fast it ran. So why don't the RIU publish the level and state what impact it had on the performance of the dog?

Is that the name of a horse and you are tipping it? Or are you accusing someone of being racist? Or are you trying to help BOAY's search ratings on Google? Basically what is your point?

So this "novel" idea was put forward obviously to elicit more interest and revenue. Otherwise why do it?! Apart from Brodie where is the promotion and advertising for it?

So you guys have kissed and made up behind the stables?