Yankiwi

Ok, Let's give Dave the benefit of doubt, even though the following list seems to suggest it could well be him behind it. Who would the new rule benefit at the expense of the safety of other young impressionable greyhounds trying to qualify? These are the dogs I have been able to identify, that were stood down for marring in a qualifying trial since the rule change 1 Feb 2023. The list starts with the most recent events then is in a descending in order. 29 Feb EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - for 3 months and pending 2 satisfactory trials for marring in its qualifying trial (Third offence). 29 Feb IMPRESSIVE ROAR (J McInerney Jnr) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial. 30 Jan OPAWA VANESSA (R Wales) - for 28 days and pending a satisfactory trial for marring in its qualifying heat. 30 Jan OPAWA KEITH (R Wales) - for 28 days and pending a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue the lure in its qualifying heat. 5 Jan EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial (2nd offence). 5 Jan PUKEKO SAMMIE (B Healey) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial 18 Dec AMALTHEA (A Bradshaw) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial and must complete a Satisfactory Trial. 20 Oct WEDDERBURN (D Roberts) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial. 15 Sep EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial 8 Sep HOMEBUSH HONOR (J McInerney Jnr) - 28 days for marring in a Qualifying Trial. 3 Mar SWEET TAHI (J McInerney) - marring in Qualifying Trial - 28 days and to complete a Satisfactory Trial. So just who is behind this proposed rule change? Surely the one making the noise about it has something to gain from it. It's not being done for safety, as it's not hard to work out it will be to the detriment of the other dogs on the track with an offending dog. Who are the individual members of the Rules of Racing Committee? "The GRNZ is governed by the Rules of Racing. The Rules of Racing are determined by the Rules of Racing Committee and approved by the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) in accordance with the GRNZ Constitution and the 2020 Racing Industry Act and authorised by the GRNZ Board. These Rules are then administered by the Association through its Chief Executive, Racing Department and the RIB. To complement the Rules, GRNZ also issues and implements a number of regulations, standards and policies." Is there an obvious driving force on that committee? If not, who has someone with something to gain from being in the ear of those member/members? There is no good reason to change the rules for dodgy dogs, just to give them more chances to offend if they aren't stopped from getting 2 chances a week to ruin more innocent dogs that will be trying to qualify alongside of them.

First item. A charge for marring is not intitled to "an injury get out of jail free card" in the rules. They're your GRNZ rules Dave, might be a good idea to learn them before trying to use them for a defense. Second item. That's not at all what I said. Next item. That's good. I'm glad for the welfare of the dogs you'll be voting against this rule change. Another good reason for a no vote to this rule change. I've already addressed this defense against marring. Next item. You are right Dave, I am being a shit stirrer advocating for the race day welfare of the greyhounds. Many problem areas are very evident and after watching 10 years of the same old thing going wrong, year after year, I finally decided to turn my volume button to a higher setting. I retrieved the injury data from Stewards reports, something GRNZ has a habit of trying to tuck away or hide somewhere & now have the evidence to support claims I make in nearly real time. If anything, I reckon you should be thankful that I'm doing so in a confined place with limited reach such as BOAY. Last item. I've never claimed to know everything. I do claim to know that Manukau track has by far the highest overall, minor/med & major injury rates in NZ. I also know that GRNZ keeps asking for nominations for the greyhound to race on the track & believe it ludicrous to do so with a much safer track (especially major injury wise) is only an hour travel away. Are you serious about dog raceday welfare Dave? If so, I suggest you get in touch with the GRNZ database administrator. Have them run a query on injury data by individual track for Sept, Oct & Nov 2023. Then find out why the GRNZ Racing Operation Manager claimed this during the last (mid Dec) Animal Health and Welfare Committee meeting. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Animal Health Welfare Committee minutes/00 2023 12 13 AHWC Minutes - Draft (1).pdf If you're looking to find the bad egg, that's the first place you should be looking. You've got your own data, you've got his recorded statement before the committee, and what he had said couldn't have been further from the truth. The welfare committee cannot make good decisions or recommendation when the information they are being provided with is based on an outright lie.

Addington managed it today! Four consecutive race meeting without a serious injury. Hopefully they're moving towards the right trajectory down there.

Chief, I thought you were the gracilis expert. Maybe you should do the graphic work as you'll know exactly what to be looking for. I was just trying to help.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3163/Proposed-Rule-Changes 2) Unqualified greyhounds being charged with marring and failing to pursue Since the adoption of the GA Rules in February 2023, a qualifying trial has been included within the definition of an Event. This has seen unqualified greyhounds become subject to sanctions for marring and failing to pursue. Previously, such inexperienced greyhounds would simply have failed to qualify due to conduct, and a return to this structure is being achieved by defining that marring and failing to pursue sanctions only apply to "qualified greyhounds". Also the restriction that a satisfactory trial cannot be a qualifying trial is removed. Why on earth would this be a good decision? Why is at least one GRNZ board member trying to change a procedure back to the old way of doing things to suit their personal needs? Changing the wording to "qualified greyhounds" will allow unqualified greyhounds to attempt to qualify twice a week and up to 7 times a month. How does that unpinning welfare? What about the other 3 dogs (at least) who are going around at the same time doing the right thing during their trial while a dodgy dog is trying to bite their face or ass off? Doesn't a qualifying dog deserve the same protection that an already qualified dogs does? Following is a direct quote from the final sentence from Dave Kingston on another thread. "Rest assured that we do have both yours and the dogs interests at heart Dave" And here's why they want to put through to this crazy, selfish decision through. 1). EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - for 3 months and pending 2 satisfactory trials for marring in its qualifying trial (Third offence). https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15811/stewards-report.aspx And here's Dave boxing away his #5 dog. Sounds to me that Dave Kingston doesn't have "the dog's interest at heart". Sounds more to me like Dave Kingston has Dave Kingston's dog's interest at heart, the rest can fend for themselves. This is Extra Editions racing record. Here's a replay of Extra Editions qualifying trial on 5 Jan 2024. Look at the manners of the #1 dog in the same race. Extra Edition & Pukeko Sammie (#1 in the race above) are the kinds of dogs GRNZ wants to change the rules for qualifying trials. They lack any concern for dogs that do actually want to chase the lure, because they can't see past the end of their own greedy nose. The current rules are in the way for dogs like Dave's to qualify. Instead of trying to change the rules to suit your dog's needs, I think that you should resign from the board Dave. Let someone else sit in the board room that really does have welfare unpinning everything they do. You Mr. Kingston have lost any respect I may have held for you. I've seen your true colours now.

It's also the dog that will probably never race on any track again. I want to learn more about how gracilis injuries occur. I thought I'd ask you for advice as you've claimed you have studied the subject. The tracks left on the track from the stride where the first torn gracilis occurred look very different than the previous two did. Almost like the rear legs were trying to turn right, although the dog is going beginning a left-hand turn. How could that happen?

Hey Chief, it seems you may be the best informed gracilis injury expert of the forum. You had said in the past that you had done some research on a scientific paper or something. "referred to the Veterinarian after faltering first turn and pulled up where it was reported to have torn both gracilis muscles and an undiagnosed left shoulder injury with a 60 day incapacitation issued. Follow up veterinary examination required the next day with stewards to follow up on the results. Must trial prior to resuming." Can you please explain to us just why this happened here & what can be done to eliminate this generally racing career ending injury? The head-on footage near the very end of the following video could be very reveling if you have expertise on what the underlying cause of most gracilis injuries are in NZ. As a side note for anyone concerned, how could a dog pass the pre-race vet check with an undiagnosed left shoulder injury that suddenly became apparent to the vet when examining the other end of the dog?

GRNZ has their hand on it. When they talk about race day welfare, that's as far as it goes. All huff and no puff. Where's Manukau's safety rail? You know, the 2014 one, or the Nov 2023 one, or the Jan 2024 one. I didn't see one today. I understand Goldstar Hans was watching today & looking for it as well. I'm the bad guy. Got it. GRNZ has a Racing Operations Manager that lied to their own welfare committee about recent (at the time) injury rates. He's the one in charge & he's got this. How dare I question him!

Another pointless presentation & more fake news for you Chief. If Sandown & The Meadowlands are under the heat for being dangerous two turn tracks, as in the bombshell report Chief first posted, how are NZ two turn tracks comparing to them? Data retrieved & correlated for all race meeting held on each of the tracks during February 2024. You'd better find that light switch Chief.

Major injury results from today's meeting will be very revealing, one way or the other. Very favourable weather today for racing greyhounds safely in the summer. If they have the track in anywhere near decent condition today, major injury returned should be minimalized. Since the 1st of the year, these are the injuries that have been incurred for each of the race meet in Auckland. Major injuries have been noted with the type of injury. If they can get through the meeting today without any major injuries, especially bone fractures, then there may be just a glimmer of hope for the track without a major overhaul. History suggests the odds are stacked against the track, but hopefully they'll get through the meeting & learn what has been different this week & day than the previous 8 race meets.

The RIU sent the token penalty from the minor infringement table, which fraud is not. I brought my concerns forward to the GRNZ "integrity" contact. Instead of appealing the obvious improper decision by the RIU, GRNZ (Mr. Dore) chose to disregard & discredit me instead. I'd be willing to bet my concerns never made it past his email inbox. A man of integrity would look at those concerns impartially and even if he agreed with the RIU's sidestep, would have brought those same concerns to the CEO and/or the GRNZ board. Old habits are hard to break in headquarters. I've been told that when the Cole bullring images were delivered to GRNZ headquarters, they were more concerned with who took the images & who hired the camera man, than they were in what the content of those images portrayed. After GRNZ didn't action what those images depicted, they then were taken to the SPCA, which ended being a get out of jail free card being awarded. IMHO - headquarters is the biggest problem GRNZ are facing. I'm not sure what they are capable of, but I do know of many things that they are incapable of. Like shifting racing operations from Manukau to Cambridge, while they sort out the Manukau track. Will be watching with interest tomorrow. We'll see if the new 2014 errr, Nov 2023 errr, January 2024 errr, safety rail has been installed. They've had a couple of weeks now since the last race meet.

It's still been 4 1/2 years since first asking with no reply. I've tried to reach out to Mr. Dore on this forum now as well and have received no response. That means I have to work with speculation. Mr. P Freguson originally came to training greyhounds as a training partnership on or about 29/09/16. He remained in this partnership until 30/07/2017 (about 10 months). Then as of 03/08/17, (the beginning of the 2017/2018 racing season) he had branched off on his own as a sole trainer. He had gone from a newbie in the training of greyhounds to holding a public training license in 10 months, with the support of another "new" trainers name in partnership on the same day of both of their inceptions. Two years into his tenure as a public trainer, this happened on 17/10/19. (2) An investigation was opened and adjourned into the nomination and scratching of THRILLING BILLY (Race 10 #4) https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13729/stewards-report.aspx One week after the investigation had been opened, this appeared in the next Cambridge Stewards report. (4) SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT:- Waikato GRC – 17th October 2019 - Stewards have concluded their investigation in regard to the nomination and subsequent scratching of the greyhound THRILLING BILLY from Race 10 at the before mentioned meeting. After taking evidence from Waikato Club secretary Mr R Death, rehoming manager for May Hounds M Stebbing and Trainer Mr P Ferguson Stewards deemed Mr Ferguson to have breached GRNZ Rule 62.1(i) in that he nominated THRILLING BILLY in a fraudulent, misleading or deceptive description. After assessing all of the evidence and taking into account Mr Ferguson's admission of the breach along with his previously clear record, Stewards issued him with a charge under GRNZ Rule 62.1(cc) with a $300.00 fine being imposed. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13738/stewards-report.aspx This is when I first reached out to Mr. Dore, as he was the "contact me" for integrity issues person on the GRNZ website. I questioned Mr. Dore why the Stewards determined Mr Ferguson had breached rule 62.1(i) which said, 62.1 Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she: (i) being the Owner, Trainer or Nominator of a Greyhound, or a Person having an interest in a Greyhound, Nominates or runs that Greyhound in a Race under a fraudulent, misleading or deceptive description; then they opted to charge him under the rule 62.1(cc) which said, 62.1 Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she: cc) acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Rules made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules; I thought a charge for a fraudulent nomination should attract a much harsher penalty than a $300 fine. To take it one set further, if a trainer commits fraud in nominating a dog for a race knowing it will not run as it's already in a rehoming agency, that would be race fixing, which I believe is a criminal offense under crown law. It sure does increase the chances of his other entrants of winning or earing a dividend paying position in that race. Committing fraud & fixing a race to tilt the odds in his favour ended up costing him less than half of what one of his other two entrants earned in the same race! Not much of a deterrent, is it? Penalties are supposed to be imposed with the severity of the infraction as a contributing factor. When it's evident in the Stewards report that the RIU was far too lenient with its penalty decisions, by not forwarding it to the JCA as a serious offence to decide, I contacted the integrity person who the GRNZ wanted me to contact, who I found was only defensive, dismissive and disrespectful. So, after making that contact & banging my head against the wall, I shifted tact to another angle, which I'm sure would have been hanging somewhere in the background a probationary overview & conditions associated with the license. Only crickets ever since. Well Mr. Dore, you obviously said in during this interview you had plenty of time, so why haven't my two questions been answered?

It's in the above post. Open your eyes. It's this bottom line (GRNZ's KPI Target).

I have answered your question. I do not apply a variance. I've explained the variables. Date - track - starters - 1/10 - 11/21 - 22/42 - 43/90 - death. I have shown you the basic math equations to calculate the injury percentages. If you're not happy with that, nothing I will ever say will make you happy. It's what I'm doing & has proven effective (as it is in line with GRNZ's Q1 data they have released). I've made Q2 data available as it was occurring, something everyone would have had to wait until mid/end of March to get from GRNZ. I'm making Q3 data available as it is occurring, something everyone would have had to wait until mid/end of June to get from GRNZ. If you don't like that & you want to minimize the impact the numbers of dogs that actually get hurt without improving welfare or safety, your target should be GRNZ's database administrator, not me. I'm not reporting to the Govt. I am bringing attention (page hits) to your forum, something I thought you might actually appreciate. Without me, your forum would be on par with your old hang-outs greyhound forum. You're welcome.

Addington is currently on three consecutive race meetings streak with no major injuries reported. Let's hope this continues. It is only the second time during this racing season that that claim can be made, the first being last September. There hasn't been an occurrence of four consecutive race meeting on the track this season. As for the entire racing season, Addington is returning the second highest major injury percentage rate, which alone is 50% higher than GRNZ's KPI target. With 40% of all starters during this season on the one track and the high rate, it's another key reason why the overall season is running above the GRNZ target.

Maybe they could try this track. Surely a few horses wouldn't make it any worse than it already is.

Unnormalized data used for pointless presentations has no variance applied. If that's what you want to do, have at it. Then you can add your deviation to it. In my world, one dog injured is one dog injured. Those not injured are not injured. In your world because so many dogs were not injured, even the ones that did get injured, didn't get injured. My variables are Column "A" to Column "I" which are manually entered. Formulas in Column "J" to "L" are constant. Q3 Cambridge. (0+0+2)/442 = .0045 = Major injuries = 0.5% (10+7)/442 = .0384 = Minor injuries = 3.8% Season to date Cambridge. (0+2+10)/2490 = .0048 = Major injuries = 0.5% (25+44)/2490 = .0277 = Minor injuries = 2.8% Column L = J###/C### = Total Injuries Think twice before taking your racing greyhound to Auckland. I hear Invercargill is nice this time of year.

Completely pointless current quarter & season to date injury results. Q3 (one month in). Shout out to Southland: Well Done! Season to date (7 months in). Heaps of green south of Cambridge. Northern red severely hurting the overall average (Leading the pack? Mr. Dore?).

We all make our own health choices Freda. My last tetanus shot was circa 1990, after stepping on a rusty nail, thru my shoe straight up to my heal bone. For me, I won't be getting another one until the point the next rouge rusty whatever that goes very deep under my skin. For any minor cuts/scrapes, rusty or not, this is what I use. Have done so all my grown life & it hasn't failed me yet. https://www.familydollar.com/family-wellness-triple-antibiotic-ointment-1oz/FD901498?Ntt=triple anti I don't know whether a similar product is available in NZ, but every time I make it back to the states, I stock up on it. If I get low with no plans on heading back home soon, I call on friends back in the states for a care package to be sent my way. I send a package their way in return, usually packed full of Pineapple Lumps! One further note for Lad. The DHB gave you two drugs you didn't ask for, or likely require. They've also given you some words after you complained. Are you happy with that outcome?

Thanks for sharing Lad. I've never have been one to blindly trust a doctor. Then I had what I considered a bad experience with one around the age of 30 back in the states. I won't get into it, but let's just say everything changed for me after that day. As for the situation you've explained that you had, if it were me. I'd be going after them hard. If you requested a tetanus shot and they gave you anything more than that without your knowledge & without first explaining what exactly they were going to give you as a "convivence" for them, I'd follow every possible means to hold them accountable.

5 doses when I was born. 72 doses as of 8 years ago (before covid was invented). Tobacco attracted severe pressure in the 90's. Coincidence? Just ask just about any politician, doctor or scientist, smoking bad - vaccine good.

Excess major injuries in the real world. Since 1 Dec the number of starters at Manukau is 1024. GRNZ KPI injury rate would allow for 6 major injuries. The actual major injuries incurred have been 14. More than double their acceptable number. 8 real greyhounds have sustained those excess injuries at Manukau. KETTLE POT - tick ALLEGRO FUDGE - tick JOE BANANAS - tick BUNDEE BOMBER - tick UP YOUR QUOTA - tick PERSIAN CHIEF - tick PORTLAND TREY - excess BIG TIME CHERRY - excess THRILLING VERA - excess COOLIBAH KID - excess PHANTOM ACE - excess GO GIDEON - excess OPAWA WEB - excess MAJOR MARGARET - excess GRNZ - Welfare unpins everything we do, except the Racing Operations Manager, who told a tall tale during the Animal Health and Welfare Committee meeting. If he had been honest, it would have provided the information the committee needed to be able to shift on the fly & keep greyhounds safe while on the northern tracks. If the GRNZ board does not investigate this allegation and take firm corrective actions, reprimand the troublemaker and stop it from ever happening again, then they too are complaisant in failing to keep the greyhounds safe while on the track.

These dog numbers are theoretical in nature. Of course, 21 excess dogs were not injured, but if each month/months actually had 1k starters, this is what would have been expected using the injury percentage rate.