Yankiwi

Good luck with your debate John. Many see a forest below however your debate opponent sees a tree. As for the thread subject, I'm not interested in Kate. However, her sister did catch my eye years ago.

GRNZ's 2nd Quarter - Animal Welfare Progress Report is about due to be published. You know, the one that they send off to the Government that is thinking about closing them down. I thought I'd post the data I had retrieved prior to GRNZ publishing their report to show the data I've collected is basically in line with theirs. I don't expect to exactly match what they publish. As I've mentioned earlier, I do not as a rule track the injuries back thru time like they do. I do however expect it to be very close to the data they provide. Once they publish their version of the 2nd quarter carnage, that began with no clear change in November (the first month of the quarter) as Mr. Dore had claimed, I'll then plug their reported data in manually alongside of my data, like I had done for the first quarter. How will they sugarcoat that every track was over their KPI target percentage for major injuries individually & 50% over their KPI target percentage for all tracks combined? Go ahead and fake news this Chief. Then I'll ask you why you did it after it proves it's well in line with GRNZ's "official" stats.

They still race at Ascot. They raced there today. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15823/result-detail.aspx Mr Steele also left out Manukau. Maybe he has normalized the list of NZ tracks, throwing out both the best & worst performing tracks in the country.

A good article about the protestors that turned up at Cambridge a few weeks back. https://www.teawamutunews.nz/2023/11/trainer-says-do-some-research/

Southland continues to perform well. 7 consecutive race meeting without a medium or major injury covering 611 starts. Southland led the pack in Sept thru Nov 2023 when Mr. Dore claimed that Manukau Manawatu & Cambridge (or however it reads now) led the pack. Southland also leads the pack over the entire racing season.

So, there isn't any minutes to the public meeting made public. This is the point @Chief Stipe would be demanding proof from me if the shoe were on the other foot. Prove your statement Chief.

Can you please provide a link to the minutes of this public meeting?

Well, the thread I mentioned is about the same Jake named in the RIB decision you had posted. When someone is on one end of the hierocracy they can be viewed by the powers as the bad guy. Fast forward a few years and now employed by GRNZ, suddenly they are not worth a second look for any blame. Overit asked a legitimate question on this forum and was questioned about his/her motives within an hour by its leading authority. I happen to believe that the red Sherrif & @Chief Stipe could very well be the same person after changing internet racing forums. Sherrif on the red site let abusive chatter happen for three months, even after multiple members asked for intervention from Sherrif. Overit got an hour before being compared to myself.

Seems I've been invited to a new thread. Speaking of Jake, whoever the moderator "Sheriff" was on the red forum let an outrageous conversation about "young jake" titled "What a pussy" go on for 3 months. He must have been of the lenient sort. That conversation happened 2 or 3 years before I first became involved in greyhound racing. A valid question Overit. History generally shows that when a GRNZ employee or any other from those in power have some form of a disagreement with an LP. The LP is held to account & the investigation ends there. Since I'm no longer an LP, GRNZ can't charge me with anything under the rules, so changing the written history of a welfare committee meeting will likely have a blind eye placed upon it & wait for it to be forgotten, like 6 tracks worth of safety rails. It's just the way the industry works. Integrity is only upheld when it supports those in power.

I sure have, GRNZ hasn't. July 2023 Animal Welfare Progress Report says this. So, the Manukau late November safety rail turned into a January safety rail because of some excuse. That January safety rail hasn't been installed as of mid-March, while we wait another excuse. GRNZ intends to have all tracks fully enclosed. There is no enclosure whatsoever on the outside of Cambridge or Addington tracks. There is no enclosure on the outside of Southland's home straight. Manukau needs only a safety rail on the inside of the track. The outside is already fully enclosed. Manukau is the easiest track to make good on their words & they haven't even started it. July 2024 (12 months since the July 2023 report) and GRNZ still have 5 tracks to install inside safety rails and 3 tracks with extensive outside enclosures. They're going to have a busy 4 months, aren't they? Cambridge, next to nothing. No safety rail to speak of & wide-open expanses to the outside of their unenclosed track. If you're looking for achievement, GRNZ is the one you should be asking. You could start with the 2014 one year roll out of safety rails for "all other tracks" after Wanganui's.

She's not, and with her new appointment, she'll probably be rattling the cage at any time. It's been about a year. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/order-paper-questions/written-questions/document/WQ_06292_2023/6292-2023-chloee-swarbrick-to-the-minister-for-racing

Been there & done that on other matters. If one outfit is covering for the other, nothing gets done, right? Filing a complaint to the RIB, if they are in it together with GRNZ, will not address the problem. There's at least one bad egg. Fraud is fraud. Helping to cover up of a fraud is just as bad. Trying to out GRNZ (likely Dore), as they are the ones to provide the evidence publicly, can & should be investigated by the RIB and/or the GRNZ board. To try to implicate the RIB, would have to be done at a Ministerial level, which can be done if need be. The GRNZ board isn't going to investigate the RIB. I feel that going to the Racing Minister could be very detrimental to the industry. That's not my goal. They're getting their chance now to get it sorted between GRNZ headquarters, the Board of Directors, and/or the RIB. Welfare doesn't underpin everything they do. False information being presented to the Welfare Committee is bad enough. But trying to cover the tracks of that false statement is next level & criminal. If GRNZ board & the RIB find that integrity is out of reach, then so be it.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Animal Health Welfare Committee minutes/2023 12 13 AHWC Minutes - Draft (1).pdf Two hours later, back to version #2.

Have you rung Dave yet to let him know about the fraud going on within the GRNZ ranks?

In case anything odd happens, which would be well out of my control, I have a copy of this thread stored locally because sometimes funny things happen to history when the heat comes on. If the RIB or GRNZ board require it, simply reach out.

And yet another update this morning. Back to the original history of the event. Care to explain Mr. Dore? Did the fear of a fraud charge make you lose some sleep over the weekend? I welcome any RIU investigator to reach out to me, if I can be of any assistance to the investigation of this.

Magic!

Ok GRNZ, you're not the only ones that can make up the unbelievable. I'll do this one for you & save you the work. This week, the RIB has announced this ~ https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/racing-in-breach-of-the-vaccination-rule/ The RIB has commenced an investigation into incidents involving greyhounds alleged to have raced in breach of GRNZ Rule 25(6) which states as below; GRNZ Rule 25 Minimum – vaccination requirements: (6) Unless GRNZ determines otherwise, a greyhound must not compete in any Event within five days of the date it was administered a vaccine. All Greyhound Racing LPs should be familiar with and comply with this rule. The RIB also reminds all LP’s of GRNZ’s April 2023 update which notes LP’s must notify GRNZ of the vaccination of a racing greyhound within 24 hours of the vaccination taking place to ensure ongoing accuracy of GRNZ’s systems. Non-compliance with this rule gives rise to a potential animal welfare concern. So, here's the $hit that you can predictably make up ~ The RIB will do their lengthy investigation wasting their time & resources and inform GRNZ which dogs/trainers have breached the standard. GRNZ will then "determines otherwise" for either their "preferred trainers" or more likely in all cases now that I've brought this prediction to the forefront and have the trainers issued with a mere warning. Welfare standards & rules will have been breached, penalties for those breaches will be nonexistent & animal welfare will have been upheld to the highest standards, because welfare underpins everything they do. If they take that route, as I've basically done it already for them, it will allow Mr. Dore the time to work out which tracks led the pack in terms of low rates of injury back in Sept thru Nov last year. After enough attempts at altering history, he's bound to get at least one of them correct.

So, changing history has made Manawatu & Cambridge lead the pack, not the Manukau & Cambridge Mr. Dore first claimed. It's likely it was switched to Manawatu so it could be blamed on an error in the recording of the meeting. Even after that, it isn't near the truth. (Previously supplied results from another thread below) From 01 Sept thru to 30 Nov 2023, Wanganui & Southland led the pack in terms of low rates of injury. Mr. Dore needs to be held accountable for his lie. If he was the one that changed the approved minutes on the sneak, he needs to be removed from his duty as GRNZ's Racing Operations Manager.

I'm not sure what's happened here, but it's not a good look. The greyhound Mighty Sox. https://www.grnz.co.nz/greyhounds/profiles.aspx?AnimalID=34958 07 Dec raced and finished last. Vet checked after the race & cleared of injury. The C3 dog then ran an official weight trial on 12 Jan in a very slow 18.15. Lucky Jack (C5), on that same day recorded a weight trial of 17.42 Royal Portrush (C1), on the same day again recorded a weight trail of 17.58 Mighty Sox then ran a second weight trial 10 days later on 22 Jan, again very slow in 18.18. Again, on that same day, 4 other weight trials were held. Opawa Louie (C0) in 17.81 Opawa Louise over 645m Old Pal over 645m Rocket Queen (C3) in 17.64 Then Might Sox began his tote race campaign again on 02 Feb. He finished in last place in the 6 dog field. Was vet checked after the race because of a check and received a 21 day stand-down because of mild hock pain on one side. . Trainer was required to get x-rays taken, which was done & revealed both hocks had bone chips in them. Now I'm not going to have a go at the trainer, as I believe all trainers should and most do have the best interest of their greyhounds at heart. But I am going to have a go at the entire process of greyhound racing. How could a C3 dog run two solo trials in a snail's pace on a track capable of producing much faster times & not be vet checked after them due to the poor performance? How was the dog even allowed on the track by the vet in the first place, with those two previously existing injuries? We saw something similar in Auckland last Sunday. A dog had torn two gracilis muscles during a race & only after examination for those injuries, a previously undetected front shoulder injury was found. GRNZ cannot lower the injury rate of greyhounds when they are letting already injured dogs go out to race in the first place.

Hello again Dave. The following can go one of three ways. I'll get back to that part shortly. Did you decided to action this above advice I had given you? Because a very interest thing has come to light since I've suggested it. This is what the report had said when I brought it to your attention on this thread. They today, merely 4 days after I had brought it to your attention, that same report now reads like this. So, just what has happened here Dave? Did the query I suggested you go to headquarters to run in their data validate the point I had raised? If so, was the nearly 4-month-old history of the report changed with your knowledge that it was going to be changed? Did GRNZ's data validate what I had put forward, and the Racing Operations Manager decided to change the history of the report without the board's knowledge? Did you choose not to look into the subject whatsoever, and the Racing Operations Manager decided to change the history of the report on his own accord trying to coverup a mistake at best or an outright lie he had presented to the committee? Surely, it's got to be one of the three. I hope it's not the first option, as I believe that would implicate you and/or the GRNZ board in a cover-up as well. Like I had said, I'm more than willing to work with you if you have integrity. However, I'm not going to help anyone with the old GRNZ mindset full of coverups & deflection. That does no good for the welfare of the dogs. Option two would mean the GRNZ ROM acted on his own accord by altering history after being pressured about the report as he had offered to the committee. Changing the history on the sneak doesn't mean it didn't happen. Option three would mean that the GRNZ ROM is acting as a rouge within the ranks without integrity, trying to erase what he did do to coverup an error/lie he had presented to the committee.

Exactly what I'd expect from a rat. Get caught in an outright lie, then go back and change the history. Surely the original document was approved after the meeting, no? You know, the one that said Cambridge & Manukau are leading the pack. Otherwise, it never would have been posted to the website, right? One question though, what haven't the December 2023 minutes been noted as edited on the day you tried to cover your ass after you've been snapped out for your lie? Has the now edited version been sign off as approved? And they wonder why no one trusts them. Yet another you can't make this $hit up moment. Well done Mr. Dore. Surely the RIB will be investigating this & get to the bottom of it.

Today makes 5 consecutive meetings. Keep it going Addington!

So, according to GRNZ rules a Greyhound is seriously injured if it receives an injury stand-down of 21 days or more. But conveniently when reporting to Govt or other key stakeholders on injuries, an injury of 21 days is classified as medium. How many of the 11-to-21-day injuries incurred thus far in the racing season are for 21 days? This is a rather convenient oversight by GRNZ in a battle to minimalize injury numbers while stlll catering to dogs that don't want to keep focus on or chase the lure. I can't be bothered to work it out but firmly believe at least half would be a fair guess. Medium injuries when reported in Stewards reports are always either 14 days or 21 days, nothing more or less. Current standings as currently defined. Hypothetical standings if half of the 11-to-21-day standdowns are no longer medium & become major 1 (serious). GRNZ's double standard is being used to skew the reporting data.

GRNZ - please explain. https://www.grnz.co.nz/greyhounds/profiles.aspx?AnimalID=36395