Yankiwi

Replays have been uploaded for those interested. https://www.youtube.com/@GreyhoundRacingNZ/videos Questions: Race #3: The #4 was well ahead of the field then visibly eased for about 12 strides from the winning post. Why wasn't it referred to the vet post-race and/or charged with FTP? Race #4: The #8 just gets its nose in the lead then visibly eased about 6 strides from the winning post. Why wasn't it vetted or charged? Here's what was going on in race #4. About 3/4 of the race behind them, all the dogs were running from the center of the track to the left in this angle. Then as they approach the winning post & cool-down area, all the dogs get funneled into the other half of the track. The #8 put the brakes on because it saw that the design of the track forced it out of its running line, something that won't happen to dogs that run on the right side of the track in the head-on view. One of these two things needs to happen to rectify the issue. Make much more distance between the winning post & cool down area. Make the cool down area the same width that the track is. Watch the replays & you'll see what I mean. Poor design IMHO.

6 non-tote races on the straight track today. The stakes scale seems very odd. Maidens racing for $2400. The C1 fields are racing for $1150. And the C2/C3 fields are racing for $1350. Why are the maidens, with a combined 154 races without a single win, racing for double the stake money?

Sounds like a job for you Chief. My mission is to put perspective on what GRNZ says & hold them accountable for what they state as fact or claim they will be doing. Like Manukau & Cambridge leading the pack in terms of low injury rates, or those pesky 10-year overdue safety rails. Here's the actual realized current season to date injuries. Hypothetically, let's take the two tracks Mr. Dore had informed the AHWC that were leading the pack in terms of low injury rates out of the mix. He still has a job within GRNZ? Why?

Auckland's seven race meets just prior too & then seven race meets after the recent refurb. While returning considerably better results post-refurb, even those results are still well outside the KPI target GRNZ has set for the code.

Quite possible. I didn't set their KPI's, I only use them as the bar to compare against.

Ascot ~ safest track in the country, by far. Season to date. 4th quarter (Current). 3rd quarter. 2nd quarter. 1st quarter.

This used to be a problem, even remember when they would be declared the dog a non-runner & the starter/handler penalized. Today, not so much.

Good enough GRNZ? Well, it wasn't good enough for at least two of these, was it? 1) was televised & free of interference. 3) was a solo trial so had to be free of interference.

GRNZ uploads non-tote race videos here. https://www.youtube.com/@GreyhoundRacingNZ/videos

Probably the best grass in Wanganui for birds to get a winter seed fix for their belly. My point is the FTP criteria is designed for oval track racing, which in least in this instance, is not fit for purpose for straight track racing. The birds flew down & were landing on the track well after the race was underway.

Race #2 #1 was on the lure until she got her eyes on the small flock of sparrows landing on the track, which were more interesting to her. So how can this be enforced? The #1 didn't look at other dogs or ease its stride. She did met criteria (C) because she started chasing birds instead of the lure, which in doing so, interfered with 3 other dogs running line. So per the rules, she didn't fail to pursue. That won't give punters any confidence and temp them to go to the local dog park to watch dogs do dog things instead.

Race #1 Race #2 Race #3

The way it panned out, it wreaked as a fraud. Mr. Dore had first said "Manukau & Cambridge". Once that was mentioned on BOAY, it was changed to "Manawatu & Cambridge". Then when I started calling it fraud, it reverted back to "Manukau & Cambridge". Then a couple of hour later it again was changed to "Manawatu & Cambridge". Those same "verified" minutes, because as they claim they are not posted until they've been signed off, the .pdf linked on their website, still to this day, appears to be a "draft" https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Animal Health Welfare Committee minutes/2023 12 13 AHWC Minutes - Draft (1).pdf nor has it been signed off.

Isn't this what you're looking for, which is in that report. Or is it this one, in the GRNZ 2021 Annual Report, which would be covering the 20/21 season? https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Annual report 2021/2021 GRNZ Annual Report_v10.pdf Notice the high rate of major 1 injuries that were recorded. As I've said elsewhere, many of those weren't injuries at all. Many were 28-day injury standdowns that were given by vets to uninjured dogs so trainers could avoid an FTP charge, which you've already ridiculed me about. 21/22 saw some reduction when they put the clamps on the practice. 22/23 saw a similar reduction once they got full control of it. Another subject ~ Major 2 (>42 days) has been on a sharp rise since the benchmark season. 2020/2021 = 1.9/1000 (benchmark above) 2021/2022 = 2.1/1000 2022/2023 = 2.2/1000 2023/2024 (current season) = in my data (which you hate) I have major 2 + Euth currently at (87 +11)/31464 or 3.1/1000. However, you'll have to wait about a year to hear about that news from the officials, if they're allowed to continue. Up until then, you'll have to hear them keep cackling on about how wonderful they are doing.

Seems the inaugural (dress rehearsal) race meet returned some mixed results at best. Two of the four races had lure/boxes issues. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15983/stewards-report.aspx After finally delivering the straight track more than a year overdue, they were unable get some of easy things done with consistency. You don't need dogs at the track to get the lure & starting boxes in sync. For that alone, I call it a failure.

Look here. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Advisories/GRNZ January 2024 Quarterly Report - Final.pdf You'll even find this bit there too.

My figures show 17990 starters in the first two quarters of the season. So for drug testing reporting, GRNZ is including out of competition dogs as starters! With that the case, then GRNZ also should be including injury statistics from those same "trials" If they record a start from a dog in a trial for drug testing purposes, then they must include them in their injury reporting.

Actually the 0.6% I use for GRNZ's Major+ KPI was being slightly generous.

And presto, here's GRNZ's attempt to justify a fraud occurring, months later. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Advisories/GRNZ January 2024 Quarterly Report - Final.pdf

GRNZ has finally released 2nd quarter data. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Advisories/GRNZ January 2024 Quarterly Report - Final.pdf For some strange reason, they did so by adding the 1st & 2nd quarters together. Seems odd, but so be it. Simple subtraction is an easy task. Major 1, Major 2 & Euth's~ Minor/Medium~ I've taken their newly released data, subtracted the previously released 1st quarter & plugged into my spreadsheet posted above in the threads first post (months ago in March). All in all, they align very closely. As I've explained in the past, there will be expected differences as I don't generally follow injuries reported in Stewards reports back through time.

Congratulation Matt Roberts & the owner/owners.

If you believe the level GRNZ set is wrong, then so be it. However, GRNZ have set the limit for a reason & written it into the rules as such. That's the line in the sand that must be judgement must be upon. No-one has suggested it was a deliberate administration. You are the first to bring that up. What's going on with the two Cobalt positive investigations currently underway, or is that still a hush hush subject? The last one was seemingly forgotten when the investigators found a dead rabbit in the freezer.

Try again.

In the last year or so in the greyhound code there have been 4 positive swabs for arsenic. Chloe Watson Mikayla Clark Arch Lawrence Jack Johnson In all of them it was attributed to their dogs chewing on pressure treated timber. Arsenic has been an illegal drug within the code forever, yet no positive swabs have been reported until recently. So, this begs the questions Have greyhounds just begun chewing on wood? Has this been going on forever & the RIB has just started to lay charges for it? Has the RIB just begun testing for it after all these years? Pressure treated timber has been around forever. Greyhounds have been kenneled inside treated timber enclosures forever. Dog have been known to chew on wood forever. Arsenic has been used in the timber treating process forever. If pressure treated timber is so dangerous to greyhounds and/or has such a likely risk of throwing up a positive swab, why hasn't GRNZ just banned its use? Something just doesn't sit right with any of this.