Yankiwi

Why did Mr. Dore lie to the Animal Health and Welfare Committee? September & October Manukau only. November Manukau only. In November, clearly the overall injury rate at Manukau was in the same general territory as the previous two months combined were (still very bad), but the minor injuries had reduced & the major injuries skyrocketed up by 50%. So, those questioning my motives, get your head around this. The data shows that Mr. Dore did not inform the Animal Health and Welfare Committee of the reality of what was going on at Manukau during their mid-December meeting. Why is that? What are his motives? What's happened since that mid-December meeting? December to current Manukau only. GRNZ's goal is 6 major injuries per 1k starts. Sept & Oct - "Leading the pack" Manukau had 10 majors per 1k starts. November - "Nothing clearly changed" Manukau had 15 majors per 1k starts. December to present Manukau has had 14 majors per 1k starts. Manukau has likely ended the racing career of 21 excess dogs, over the 18 which GRNZ seems to expect. If you reckon you're the owner or trainer of one or more of those 21 dogs, ring Mr. Dore & ask him why he didn't tell the truth to the Animal Health and Welfare Committee. If he had, actions could have been taken, which they weren't & still haven't been. Manukau is open for business to produce an ample number of excess dog injuries & many of them will be serious. See you Sunday!

The beauty of near real time data! Question raised, results quick time. 01 Sept to 30 Nov injury data. The combined north has the highest overall injury percentage for the three-month period (Sept to Nov). Individually, Cambridge returned good rates & Manukau returned atrocious rates. I suggest Mr. Dore take the batteries out of his wiggly toy & put them in his calculator before the next Animal Health and Welfare Committee meeting. As for laying off Manukau, now's not the time. I'll call it out for what it is & what it's doing to the dogs.

Challenge Accepted! Grass mowing can wait. Let's see if Mr. Dore's calculator had fresh batteries in it.

True. The above Yankiwi's racing calendar will help the trainer decide where to race the owner's dog on the safest track possible. Racing in the north in Feb. Week #1 - 2 race meets - 3 major injuries. Week #2 - 2 race meets - 2 major injuries. Week #3 - 2 race meets - 2 major injuries. Week #4 - 2 race meets - 1 major injury. The main difference between the weeks, #4 both meets were held in Cambridge. In Feb. Seven major injuries in Auckland over 3 race meets. One major injury in Cambridge over 5 race meets. 86 drawn to start on Sunday in Auckland. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/RaceBooks/nzgra_15817_racebook.pdf Good luck to each one of them. They are going to need it. After the meeting, 2 dogs are likely to never race again because of the bad thing that happened & 2 dogs are likely to not be available to nominate, because not quite as bad of a thing happened, for the following Sunday.

I'm aware the Auckland major injury percentage looks really bad. That's because it is, it actually happened. So, as an act of good faith, I'll attached a data spreadsheet, which contains the data I've retrieved from those three Auckland race meets which were held in February 2024. Also, within the spreadsheet, if you know your way around one, is the clear methodology of the basic math equations used to generate those results. With this data, possibly Chief can compile a differing end result after he normalizes the data, adds his variance estimations, and factors in something. If he is able to, it'll have to be the trainer's or owner's responsibility to go inform their dog that it didn't get hurt. Akl Feb 2024.xlsx

Your dogs "on-track" racing welfare underpins everything Yankiwi is doing. Presenting the March 2024 racing calendar. Numbers are a reflection of the percent chance of actual serious racing injuries which were incurred on the particular track during the previous month (February) up to the time of posting. Real world data provided to you in near real time. No need to wait for three months so GRNZ can have those full 90 days hoping injury stand-downs will be reduced to pad their quarterly numbers. Green numbers are within the stated GRNZ's KPI serious injury target. Red numbers are outside the stated GRNZ's KPI serious injury target. Choosing where & when you nominate can have a direct effect on your racing dog's longevity.

Ready for the next rabbit hole? This came to mind this morning. Long read. Heard it here first. I was born in 1963 in the States. In my childhood when we went to a restaurant or got on an airline flight, most all the adults around me were smoking cigarettes, my parents included. I started myself around 1978 & have been smoking ever since. In my late teens, when I was finishing off high school, the kids had a special area just one of the entry doors designated as the "smoker's area" set up by the school. To gain access you only needed a note from your parents. I graduated in 1981, and smoking was still ok in public opinion. Then sometime later in the 80's the narrative changed. Smoking tobacco started between 3 & 5000 BC in the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking So, if smoking started maybe 6000 years before I was born, why was it still around now if it was so dangerous? Didn't people learn in all those years that the ones sucking on a peace pipe were health & fit then dropping dead for no good reason? They must have found out what they could eat and not drop dead, why would tobacco be any different? Anyways, who for the last 30 years has been drilling into everyone head that smoking = bad? Isn't it the same sort of people that are now still saying smoking = bad / C19 vax = good? Most doctors, scientists, politicians, so on. Isn't it rather odd that when smoking suddenly became bad, numerous new vaccines were being rolled out by big pharma? https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-history/developments-by-year This was the recommended vaccine list when I left high school. Smoking was acceptable as it had been for 1000's of years. Then, things began to turn. Suddenly smoking was under the gun. Same list as above for the 10 years after I had left school. A new one had turned up. Just 2 years later. By 2000, the tobacco was under extreme pressure. Smoking = bad / vaccine = good. 2005 after I had come to NZ. Smoking bad - vaccine good. 2020ish NZ sets its goal to become a smoke free nation in 2025. All this before the 6 or maybe 7 C-19 vaccines by now. Smoking bad = vaccine good. Vaccine so good they tried to force everyone to get it. It's a miracle. Most evidence says it bad, but don't believe what you can see, believe the one source of truth & do it for others to keep them safe. You don't want to kill your nan because you didn't follow the science. Big Pharma > Tobacco Industry. That was a lot of work, even by my standards. Time for me to go have a smoke.

Yankiwi needs to normalize his data, or it's pointless. Sound familiar? The exact same thing the UK has begun doing (because there's something to hide) with their excess deaths in the human population.

Tucker is doing some good work.

Think about it. The dogs are boxed away, the lure starts to roll & the announcer can call out "Here comes the major".

Hey AGRC, I've got a great idea for you. I know you can't call the lure "the bunny" anymore. Someone decided that wasn't a good look for the racing industry for some unknown reason. Maybe you could start calling it "Major" Back in Hinsdale, they called theirs "The Colonel" Seems military ranks must be ok.

And ladies & gentlemen, that's why the data won't be released (at least on this forum). @Chief Stipe has tunnel vision which won't allow him to possibly accept what I have accomplished for what it is. I was supposed to compile the data that he wanted. Surely, he's right & know far more about Greyhounds than I do. Go on & race your all your dog's up in Auckland 9 days' time and see how it goes for you & how many you can back up there a week later. If it doesn't go well, you can ask Chief why. Good luck!

This I think is where you have gone way off track about what I am doing. We're butting heads because you are trying to take the study that I'm conducting to a much more in-depth & far further reaching direction than I am. I've collected & correlated the injury data for the sole purpose of identifying how individual tracks are performing with injuries and then compare all six of them (something GRNZ hasn't been willing to release prior). That's been successful. I wanted to know (as I believe any owner/trainer who races their dogs from either from a welfare or financial standpoint should know), which tracks are more dangerous than others (especially within the 3 individual regions). I know I'm always highlighting Akl/Camb. You view this as a bias or vendetta. It is neither of those. It's because the two tracks in the north, there is an enormous difference with injury risk between the two of them & the physical distance between them is minimal. I focused very little energy on Palm/Wang because those two tracks are of very similar (almost exact!) injury risk. I haven't focused very much energy (yet) on Chch/South, where again there is a hung difference in injury risk but the physical distance between the two tracks is enormous. My study doesn't need further variables. "Yes injured or no injured", along with which track, how many starters & how bad the injury was. Basic stuff. I don't need variances. a dog either incurred an injury or did not incur an injury. If the meeting was on a sunny, rainy, hot, cold, calm, windy - not relevant to my study. They raced - they either got hurt or didn't. If they abandoned a race meet for whatever reason, no effect on my study - no data entry whatsoever. If they abandoned an individual race because of a reason of the way it was run (lure stopped/ unfair start), it is included as the dogs came out of the boxes and chased the lure, even though it was declared a no-race. Trainer, moon phase, track hardness, day/night - not accounted for. When a dog raced - it got injured or it didn't get injured, wherever they were racing. That simple! If you want a deeper study or one in a different direction than I have, you're more than welcome to do it. I'll continue to do nothing more or nothing less, unless I decide to pivot. Bullying/harassment/discrediting are not reasons I will decide to pivot. Now what you may have been wanting to hear. Once you're prepared to accept & fully understand what I have done, as well as accept it's likely that's as far as I will be going with it, then and only then I will consider uploading my 2023/24 Quarter 1 spreadsheet, for you to go over and not find the problems you reckon that you will find, then move the goalpost so you have some good reason in your mind to rubbish what I have achieved. Right now, I'm not prepared to do so, because you'll simply discredit it because I didn't allow for a solar flare getting a dog's attention which caused it to run into the running rail. In my study if that happened, the Steward allowed the race to go ahead & that dog got hurt. It's that simple.

Can probably add this while I still wait for an answer to my truce offer above. I assume you're referring to the GRNZ funded study I had provided a link to? If so, since when is googling a subject, scrolling past the numerous "anti" website that are trying to shut down greyhound racing, and finally finding an actual source of some real data "illegally sourcing raw data"? I didn't source anything from their website, I provided a link to their website that they had made publicly available, which I happened to find. Or is it your belief that gathering information manually, made publicly available by GRNZ on their own website is "illegally sourcing raw data"? If this is your allegation, then wouldn't it be rather silly of me to attach a spreadsheet that I had entered the gathered data into on the BOAY forum? Or were you just pissed off at me, so you decided to make a false allegation?

Back to Auckland & the north in general. So far in February, Auckland has held 3 race meetings. They've had 244 race starters, with 15 total racing related injury stand-downs. Of those 7 were minor, 1 was medium, and the remaining 7 were major (generally career ending). So far in February, Cambridge has held 4 race meetings. They've had 292 race starters, with 11 total racing related injury stand-downs. Of those 3 were minor, and the remaining 8 were medium. No fancy spreadsheets. No percentages. No red colour showing above the GRNZ KPI targets. No green colour showing or equal to or below GRNZ KPI targets. Just the facts of racing a greyhound in the north in February 2024. No bias. No agenda. Just a small collection of what the Steward/Vet reported about the injuries sustained during a race meeting. If you doubt me, you can open those 7 Stewards report, view the injury data in each of them & work it out on the back of an envelope. It's not rocket science. It's an easy task you can undertake by yourself, especially if you're sick of hearing from me about it, which will help you protect your dog/s from a career ending injury. Why doesn't GRNZ fill you in about this as a LP? Don't they know?

When I owned dogs, GRNZ paid back to 3th. A $20 petrol voucher was handed out for each unplaced dog (which I believe the trainer generally kept, they did in my case). In the big feature races, GRNZ paid the top 3 well and unplaced dogs received $100 for Group 2 races or $200 for Group 1 races. Ten years ago, I owned a Group 1 starter, a Silver Collar finalist, which he finished in 4th place. That paid $200 (in an $80k race). To race tonight in the Christchurch 732m Stockburn Cup ($15k), which will be held during a premier racing meeting, but not listed as a Group 1 or 2 race, it pays like this. $806 for 4th place. Oh, how the times have changed (with stakes money, but not the safety risks).

Here's the rule, effective 1 Feb 2023 (or just over a year ago). Navigated via use of the link here. On the first page of the linked GRNZ rules, there is this note. I haven't checked, but if Hans had 3 starts within 7 days as Chief has stated and they were on/after 9 Aug 2023 an RIB investigation is required. If those starts were on/after 1 Feb 2023 an RIB investigation may be required.

Well done Chief. You've authored a post that could deserve a response from me. I bit further on into it, I actually detect a hint of some possible respect. Maybe you have learned that there are different ways of talking to different people to get the result from them you're trying to achieve. Before I proceed to respond to the remainder of your previous post, can we reach a long-term agreement on the following? Firstly, my name is Charles or if you prefer to use Yankiwi, that is fine too. Either of those would be respectful when addressing me on this forum. Using anything else I consider to be something you've made up for me in your own mind which is childish & disrespectful. We're both big boys, can we refrain from the name calling? If you'd prefer that I use "Chief Stipe" instead of shorting it to "Chief" as I generally do, please let me know because I what to show you that same respect.

Goldstar Hans is a smart dog. He retains all of the GRNZ rules of racing (even though many are very contrary to his raw instincts) in his mind and knows the difference between being right & wrong while on the track. He knew he was cheating on that day. Therefore, the RIB panel (dressed in a running rail costume) handed down it's firm but fair justice with an immediate response, without allowing Hans the opportunity to defend himself. There's simply no defense for cheating of this magnitude. He got what he deserved because he's a cheat and the penalty will stand as a deterrent from any further offending from him or any his peers, at least until the 10 years old promise to install a safety rail at Manukau is finally actioned.

This is what the data looks like from a safe racetrack in Q3 of this racing season. This is what the data looks like from an unsafe racetrack in Q3 of this racing season. This is what happens when you correlate the all-tracks all starts data from Q3 of this racing season, when you combine the safest track, the least safe track & all the other tracks in between, which is the one & only way GRNZ presents the injury data publicly. What that does is casts a dark shadow on safe tracks & sugarcoats the unsafe tracks. Unless either unsafe tracks get fixed or are not used & the racing reallocated elsewhere, which could be done using the data I've collected, there won't be any sugar left for anyone for much longer. GRNZ can't eventually present full season data where two quarters (Q1 & Q4) reached their KPI target spot on & two quarters (Q2 & Q3) were well about their KPI target. The average of the four quarters will end up somewhere between spot on & really bad. How can GRNZ spin that to make it sound like they've improved animal welfare by reducing injuries? The Govt won't be looking for excuses from GRNZ, they will be looking for results.

Why is it that you're polite when you want something from me, then you're rude, bordering on obnoxious, when you don't get your way? When you do get your way, you simply discredit what I had presented or said. Maybe it's time I try a new tactic, which I notice you play an awful lot with me. I'll stop even acknowledging that you even asked me a question and just move on to the next thing I choose to share or say. Why should I feed the shark, when all it wants to do is eat me? It's been interesting responding to you in the past. The new chapter begins now.

No, I will not. Not after the relentless battering you send my way and the discrediting of everything I say, to be frank, you don't deserve it from me. Under better circumstances I would consider doing so. But were we are at now from my viewpoint, not a chance in hell. You want it, go get it yourself. If you want professional data, maybe a GRNZ funded risk factor study will suit your needs? https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.737146/full

Brief study #7 How does the speed of travel over the racing surface effect racing injuries? Would be a very difficult study to undertake properly without automation, so I simply have chosen to take the easy way out to gain some perspective. Each individual track, each sprint and middle distance, using the track record time for each distance, average each tracks combined distance results. Injury data is from my overall 2023/24 season, which is still underway & being recorded. The spreadsheet has been arranged in descending order of average speed (fastest average KM/H top, slowest KM/H bottom). Take away. The two fastest tracks are currently returning high percentages in minor injury data but remain well within GRNZ's KPI major injury target. The two slowest tracks are currently returning the highest percentage of major injuries per start. All three two turn tracks are slower than the slowest one turn track. Biggest surprise - Cambridge & Southland middle distance record time, the dog averaged a faster average speed than the sprint record time, each by roughly 1/2 KPH. Most importantly (to me), this is not an avenue I'll expend any further energy on pursuing at this point.

Back to Goldstar Hans. As Aquaman has said, he didn't check off the heels of any dog as the Steward claimed. He tried to cut the corner by going over the rail. That's a near impossible (and dangerous) task when you're running at full speed nearly parallel to it. But why did he do that? Here's the why's. The lead dog is about 9m behind the lure (a no-race if the old rule was adhered too). But now Hans is another 9m behind the lead dog that's going to get his lure if he doesn't think quick. There's just no way he'll ever get it if he tries to do so in the way he's been trained to get it. He's a smart fast dog, but this time he's running at the back of the pack. He wants to get to his lure first. That's his job and he loves to compete to get his lure. He knows that if he runs to where his lure is in this moment, he isn't going to be first. So, he came up with the plan of not chasing where his lure was, but where it was going to be soon. If he cuts the corner, he'll quickly become the closest dog to his lure & the prize will his. There's simply are not enough things in his way to keep him from doing just that (safety rail up higher than the running rail). He's Got This! I've got two dogs in my home as part of my family. One couldn't work out how to get to the kibble out of her food bowl if I put plastic wrap over it (10 years old). The other (2 years old) had learned how to open the cabinet their kibble is kept in (before I put a lock on it) & was able to topple the entire container of it off the shelf it is kept on. Guess which one of my two would be most likely to try jumping over Auckland rail while running parallel to it? All dogs are not the same. All dogs think differently. Some dogs are good at solving puzzles & some are not. I'll bet that back in his home kennel, Hans a champion puzzle solver.

I've done a bit of digging thru some of my channels about this Dave. Here's what came back. Back in 2014, GRNZ, led by Keith Coppins (then a GRNZ headquarters employee who in now employed by the RIB) they purchased & received delivery of the safety rail which was installed at Wanganui. At the same time, GRNZ also purchased & took delivery of all the materials required to install similar safety rails at the other six racing venues (Forbury has gone since). When the GRNZ board approached the Christchurch & Auckland and other clubs about installing their safety rails, they met fierce resistance from those clubs. I'm told it became a very heated affair. The clubs didn't want them because it made it much more difficult to see the dogs on the track. One of sources said that eventually the GRNZ board backed down, let things settle a bit, then returned the unused materials back to the vendor in Australia, for far less than the purchase price. A second source confirmed with the only difference being that the materials may never have been returned to Australia and could be sitting around in NZ somewhere, but instead of returning the physical materials to the vendor, they may have simply let GRNZ keep the materials and offered some form partial refund to GRNZ. Either way, I believe it would be worth a bit of digging on your end to find out. If you chose to verify this information, which I strongly suggest you do, then feel free to get in contact with Mr. Coppins. I would think he'd be happy to fill you in further and/or correct any errors I may have made in this post. I'm more than happy to help when & where I can, as long as it is in public view. Now, I know the forum owner will be all over me about this statement. Oh well, I have broad shoulders & I'm used to it anyways. The abuse I receive will be worth it, if the information I provide helps towards the safety of the dogs & the longevity of the greyhound racing industry. I can't "prove it" as he'll soon bark, but if you do some research and can confirm some or all of it, acknowledgement from you of something like "hey, he was right" in this thread coming from you would be advantageous to me, when in the eyes of my main critic.