Yankiwi

Cobalt https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-reserved-penalty-decision-dated-23-december-2022-ronald-oregan-and-nyomi-oregan/ Arsenic https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-request-for-a-ruling-written-decision-dated-26-january-2023-teeing-off/

I suppose I should consider the RIB and GRNZ ignoring positive swabs which breach the rules as a good thing. Therapeutic cobalt, arsenic & who knows what else underpinning the welfare of the dogs. Got it.

Considering one positive swab (Waretini) produced two individual charges (Lisa & Alysha), what happened to the other 4 positive swabs recorded?

Annual report is out. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Advisories/GRNZ Annual Report 2023 FINAL.pdf I'm not so sure claiming this... ...and then a few pages later reporting this... ...supports the claim very well.

With only 1 Sunday left in the month for racing in Auckland, I'm looking forward to seeing their new safety rail being installed to protect dog from making contact with the running rail. Afterall, GRNZ claimed to the Govt that it would be installed by late November. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Quarterly Reports/Final GRNZ Quarterly Report 31 July 2023.pdf 4th Quarter. Year to date.

The dad's two charges were separate offences, happened 6 months apart & at different locations. The son's two charges were separate offences, happened 3 weeks apart & in the same location.

It seems the RIB thinks that it's about time you got it Chief. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-reasons-for-penalty-decision-dated-17-november-2023-stephen-mcinerney/

How dare a trainer cut a dog's toenail to short which made it bleed, they treat the injury in the proper way, with the proper things to treat it. GRNZ's rules were bad but now that they changed them over to be in line with Australian rules may have made them worse. This is way over the top IMHO. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-decision-dated-6-november-2023-mark-smith-and-john-smith/

Not on their back (hind) legs/feet. Also if the front (fore) leg/foot was meant, there is no webbing between the dew claw & the rest of the digits.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15681/stewards-report.aspx Seems the Addington Vet and/or Stewards are rewriting a dog's anatomy.

Interesting. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-decision-as-to-media-application-dated-3-november-2023-john-mcinerney/

How about a McInerney/Gowan comparison? Gowan - Otherwise completely clean record - out of competition test - found inside the transport vehicle - tested negative personally - disqualified for 18 months - kennel no longer trains/races dogs due to the +swab. McInerney - Long history of + swabs - long history of animal welfare breaches - out of competition test - found inside the transport vehicle - son tested positive personally - disqualified for 12 months - welfare charge absorbed by the meth charge - kennel hasn't missed a beat since the dog with cancer raced- kennel still operating business as usual under a different registered name. From Gowan's penalty decision. So McInerney received the shortest sentence to serve to date for a meth charge. The welfare charge was just a formality with no actual penalty to serve.

So a permanently banned substance have a different meanings/penalties depending on how/when the swab was called for? Got it.

Yes, they are different. Schofield wasn't charged with or proven guilty of a breach of an animal welfare charge. McInerney was (even though the two totally separate indiscretions were 6 months apart) & the outcome when compared received a 50% discount in overall penalty for it. McInerney's training operation headquarters was not disturbed other than changing the name registered on it, while Schofield operation was wiped off the face of the earth. So other than paperwork, no realized penalty was imposed on McInerney & Schofield was shut down and driven out of the industry for the sole Meth offence which mirror each other.

Consistency there isn't.

They haven't. However, this is what you posted about it. IMO, 18 months is about 1/2 of what I recall Schofield was handed down in the end for a 2nd meth positive. Then they should tack on the welfare penalty, which should not be concurrent if there is a stand-down from it as it's totally unrelated to the meth charge. If you want to cheer for 18 months, you're entitled to. I want consistency.

Attack the person, not the opinion and/or the evidence provided. Nice.

Who's uninformed? Maybe it's you Chief. This case very closely mirrors the Schofield case. 2nd positive to meth. Both training from a remote location. Both committed under the supervision of the son of the trainer. Schofield got 2 years (which I believe may have been increased after the appeal). https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/103573592/greyhound-trainer-banned-for-two-years-after-dog-tests-positive-to-p The starting point for the meth should be the end result of the Schofield case as the precedent & then the welfare penalty tacked on top of it, not served concurrently as they two infractions are totally unrelated.

A board member seemed to have a proven influence in an operational matter in this case. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/79033575/greyhound-racing-nz-board-member-david-scott-pleads-guilty-to-charges

I've heard a position has opened up among this list which you might be interested in filling. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/about-us/our-board-and-chief-executive/

Hey Chief, Would you like to fill us in on the recent happening within the RIB ranks?

Why? Then you'll just go on & on telling me to prove it., post it, blah blah blah. Figure it out for yourself or wait for it to be published.

I think you'll find the yet to be published indiscretions (yes plural) are the reason for the transfer.

And possibly the final chapter? https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/appeal-decision-dated-19-october-2023-alysha-waretini/