Yankiwi

Fair comment. They seem to have gone from initiating an apprentice with a probe in the bush, to hiding in a bush trying to catch harness trainers doing a different sort of probing. The best thing that's happened for the greyhound code was the day Whiterod retired as the top dog, and they moved Wallis up the ranks. While far from perfect and ghosts of his own in his closet, he's far better than Whiterod ever was, even on his rare good day.

Ouch Luckily it didn't chop the dogs head off like it appears to have a couple of frames later.

There absolutely could be. However, the vet didn't decide that at least one greyhound has made contact with the running rail in every one of the 8 race meets held in Auckland this month. Christchurch has held 16 race meets thus far & only in 2 of them has a contact been recorded.

Years ago, it was the club's responsibility to provide the race day vet & this may very well been the case. However, there was a point where it was taken off the club & the RIU took over the task with providing the vet. That task still remains with the RIB and in fact it is a core function of theirs. So, while I truly do appreciate your input, "Clubs" no longer have their own vet. Rotating the vets would be in the hands of the RIB. Obviously, they aren't doing a very good job of it.

I have no idea. Two different vets don't diagnose the same dog while segregated from each other. That'd be the only true test IMHO. Seems only one vet is utilized at Addington anyways. As a side note, I did also click on the first race meet in June and found the same familiar vet's name there. Regardless, nothing good is going to come from a greyhound running hard out coming into contact with anything made of steel. Measures should be in place to stop it from becoming the regularity it has in Auckland. One race meet consisting of 12 races in February saw 6 different dogs in 6 different races contact the rail. Luckily there were no injuries reported on that day. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15359/stewards-report.aspx This month alone Auckland has had 18 contacts in 86 races. All the other venues combined have reported 9 rail contacts in a total of 305 races. Something is causing it. It's not my job to fix it. I've only taken it upon myself to be the one that keeps barking about it. They better get moving & get it sorted or I may start barking in a different direction than I am here. I'll give it a month after Cambridge is back up & running before I more seriously consider changing my focus to a direction that they'll like far less than they do this one. Enough is enough.

Chch 27/07 - Dr E Reedy BVSc (Vet) 25/07 - Dr E Reedy BVSc (Vet) 24/07 - Dr E Reedy BVSc (Vet) 21/07 - Dr E Reedy BVSc (Vet) 20/07 - Dr E Reedy BVSc (Vet) 18/07 - Dr E Reedy BVSc (Vet) 17/07 - Dr E Reedy BVSc (Vet) 14/07 - Dr E Reedy BVSc (Vet) Enough of this rabbit hole...

CD 25/07 - Judicial report: OTV: Dr. K McDermott (BVSc). 21/07 - Judicial report: OTV: Dr. M Jansen (BVSc). 18/07 - Judicial report: OTV: Dr. D Barton (BVSc) 14/07 - Judicial report: On Track Veterinarian: Dr M Jansen BVSc 11/07 - Judicial report: On track Veterinarian: Dr. D Barton (BVSc) 07/07 - Judicial report: On Track Veterinarian: Dr K McDermott BVSc 04/07 - Judicial report: On track Veterinarian Dr. D Barton BVSc

Auckland 27/07 - Judicial report: On track veterinarian: Dr P Morrison BVSc 23/07 - Judicial report: On track veterinarian: Dr J Hessell BVSc MVM 20/07 - Judicial report: On track veterinarian: Dr P Morrison BVSc 16/07 - Judicial report: On track veterinarian: Dr E Reedy BVSc 13/07 - Judicial report: On track veterinarian: Dr P Morrison BVSc 09/07 - Judicial report: On track veterinarian: Dr P Morrison BVSc 06/07 - Not stated 02/07 - Judicial report: Veterinarian - Dr J Hessell BVSc MVM

Good news - no rail involved. Seems odd for multiple lacerations to occur from getting dragged down. Well done Addington for another night of keeping them off the rail. Auckland 29 injuries in 548 races = 5.29% chance per race. Christchurch 5 injuries in 1352 races = 0.37% chance per race. Hard to believe it's the same sport with the discrepancy between the two tracks. Maybe I can rule out deception as a possible explanation?

That didn't take long - cue the video editing tools at headquarters.

Here's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Thanks for the reply. No tin foil hat here. Just knowledge learned from past experiences & GRNZ has a firm history of letting history repeat. Hopefully it'll come right after GRNZ gets in the office, reads this thread & swaps it out for the correct video. Then I'll be able to scan frame by frame observing each grain of sand for the broken beer bottle in the track that caused the lacerations. Hopefully it'll be a green bottle as it will be much easier to spot. Or maybe it'll become very clear what caused the lacerations so I can get stuck into shaming the RIB for a fraudulent Stewards report.

Dirty little secret... Race #10 Race #11

Is this why the number of rail contacts in Christchurch are trending so low? Race #11, errr Race #10. Why has the race #10 replay (a 520m race), been titled as race #11 by TAB/Trackside and linked to the race #11 replays? Maybe this is it? The real race #11 was a 295m race run in 17.48 seconds. Unfortunately, during the race the #6 had some form of a mishap and ended up with "several lacerations". I've never known track sand/loam to cause several lacerations from being dragged down & stumbling. Is anyone from the Hart team a member/viewer here on BOAY and is willing to set straight what unfortunately happened to Cheeky Lu last night? Maybe another trainer/handler that had a dog in race #11? I see there are two or three that have been a bit active in the past from time to time. Anyone else who viewed/recorded the live race coverage? You can DM me here if you're worried about the GRNZ rule book hanging over your head for telling the truth. This rail problem has an age-old history of being simply talked about or ignored by the establishment. Everyone's silence over the issue has only enabled GRNZ to keep it tucked under the carpet.

Ouch! Too bad there wasn't some form of safety rail that would provide some flexibility and absorb the impact. Also note the lure distance here at about 8m, or the maximum distance allowable under the old rules prior to extending it out to 10m to suit the so-called need at Palmerston North with no regard given to what impact it may have on the other NZ tracks. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Annual report 2021/GRNZ Annual Report 2022.pdf

They both had a GRNZ rule that states the lure is to be kept between 4m and 10m ahead of the leading dog. If it receives a 10-day injury stand-down, then yes, according to the rule book. Otherwise, this should be a question for a veterinarian. I'm not a dog doctor, but I can read a rule book. Yep. GRNZ officially said this in 2014. I firmly believe that a greyhound running hard out that comes into contact with a steel running rail is in very serious danger of being injured or killed. I have ample data that reflects exactly that. The #1 was euthanized after this contact with the rail, which happened this year at NZ's safest track, Addington. If the safety rail had been installed in 2014 as GRNZ had informed it would be, it's quite possible that this #1 could be racing again tonight.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Quarterly Reports/GRNZ Response to RIB Ministerial Review July 2023.pdf Why isn't GRNZ mentioning the fact that greyhounds are striking the running rail three to four times as often per race in Auckland then they are on either of the other two track with a similar track configuration? Does that not fit into at least one of the three Injury Reduction Strategy focus areas claimed in the same report? I reckon it fits into all three of those focus areas. This is not a new problem. It has existed since at least the beginning of 2022, or 19 months ago. I have no reason to believe it doesn't go back much further. They even had said they were going to implement measure to protect against this 9 years ago. Why did the RIB allow this race to be declared all clear? Or this one? They both breached the distance rule by at least 50%.

New data formulations. 2023 running totals of the two turn tracks. Auckland 18.48% chance of rail contact in any given race. 28.00% chance of receiving an injury requiring a stand-down during the race if contacting the rail. 5.18% chance of injury requiring a stand-down in any given race. Christchurch 5.22% chance of rail contact in any given race. 7.14% chance of receiving an injury requiring a stand-down during the race if contacting the rail. 0.37% chance of injury requiring a stand-down in any given race. Wanganui 4.44% chance of rail contact in any given race. 25.00% chance of receiving an injury requiring a stand-down during the race if contacting the rail. 1.11% chance of injury requiring a stand-down in any given race. So, let's look at the extremes. If you have a dog and it is in a race at Auckland, there's a 5.18% chance that a dog in that race (which could be yours) that a contact with the running rail will occur and require an injury stand-down. If you have that same dog race in a race in Christchurch instead of Auckland, it's 14 times less likely that a dog in that race (which could be yours) that a contact with the running rail will occur and require an injury stand-down.

I'll consider answering these questions after you answer this one question that I had asked of you not to not ignore. I'm really over gathering data & information to satisfy your request, only to have you simply pass over the fact I've done it for you & have you move the goal post. I'll just drop this next bit here for now, prior to updating it with further information I would like to add to it.

Like this 12 Races - 4 rail contact - 10 / 7 / 10 / 10 (Injury days per incidence) The (4) contacts recorded are these. I did not, I repeat, DID NOT include this one.

In 2014 GRNZ said they were going to put up a safety rail in Auckland (along with the rest of the NZ tracks). https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Documents/Final - 2014 AGM Annual Report.pdf GRNZ hasn't done that. Dogs in Auckland are currently and have been making contact with the steel rail at a very high rate for at least the last 19 months. The rate of occurrence hasn't dropped. The only measure I've seen to change anything is to bring the lure distance in front of the lead dog back with-in the distance clearly written in the GRNZ rule book. We both know, along with everyone else that views these threads why it was moved back within legal distancing (most of the time). It was being run between 12m & 15m prior to my barking on BOAY. GRNZ, Constitution proclaims this. I expect GRNZ to do what they are mandated to do. They are failing the dogs, participants & the entire industry.

Hey Chief, don't ignore this question. How many rail contacts do you believe my data should show for Auckland since the beginning of the month. I'll make it easy for you - here's link to all of the Steward reports for that time period. I've got 1 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15522/stewards-report.aspx I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15527/stewards-report.aspx I've got 4 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15531/stewards-report.aspx I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15535/stewards-report.aspx (Note the reason I gave the above two & not just the one reported is here https://bitofayarn.com/topic/92681-whats-going-on-auckland/#comment-225338) I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15540/stewards-report.aspx I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15544/stewards-report.aspx I've got 4 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15548/stewards-report.aspx So there's the 17 out of the 79 races held in Auckland that I've recorded for this month.

What bias? I made no claim. Point out one false statement I have made in that post. As for false claims, you said one dog hit the rail in race #3. The Steward said "awkwardly placed near the rail". How can you claim the #4 hit the rail?

I record any injury reported for the dog that the stewards report to have contacted the rail, except the very rare instances similar to the one I've noted above. I don't assume anything. Dog hits rail - it received an injury in the race requiring a stand-down, I record it in my data. It's all I have to work with from official documentation. All dogs are checked prior to the race. Any vet checks undertaken after a race are noted in the Stewards Reports. The only negative bias I have against the Auckland track is the number of dogs striking the running rail their. If it was a different track where it was happening 3, 4 or 5 times as often as the remaining tracks, I'd be equally as relentless. Nothing good is going to come from a dog hitting a steel rail. Can we at least agree on that? 9 years ago, GRNZ did something about it happening in Wanganui at a far slower rate than it been occurring in Auckland. GRNZ stated for the purpose of the Hansen report (if memory serves) that the safety rails would roll out to the remaining tracks within a year after the Wanganui test had been completed. That hasn't happened. This month 17 contacts have been admitted by the Stewards to have occured in Auckalnd in 79 total races. For comparison, in Christchurch has admitted to one occurrence in 147 races. Something is seriously wrong there. My problem is nothing is being done about it. I've gathered data for Auckland and it' been a BIG problem for the last 18 months. Now I'm committed to bitch about it.

Wrong Chief. (#1) un-injured dog wasn't reported as even hitting the fence. (#3) injured dog that wasn't reported as hitting the fence. (#4) injured dog that was reported as "awkwardly placed near the rail". It was difficult for me to determine exactly where the impact happened but assume it did occur as the injury was a "laceration on the left hind". As for my spreadsheet data, I recorded only one rail contact (#4 due to stewards acknowledging being near the rail & the type of injury) for this race. I wouldn't want to be accused of skewing the data with reality.