Yankiwi

Today Race # 2 #2 - 10 days. Race #3 #4 - 7 days. #3 - 10 days. #1 - allegedly free from injury. Race #4 #1 - 10 days. Race #8 #5 not acknowledged in Stewards Report- No Vet check. Race 12 #1 - 10 days. #2? - Not vet checked. July running totals.

Big positive difference. June silver collar meeting, the race meeting just prior to when I started barking about the lure distance (remember the container Chief?). Yesterday - After 5 weeks of barking. An easy fix that didn't need to be made difficult. Don't be so stubborn. Listen to concerned people's input. Maybe even scratch me off from your anti's list. It should have been fixed years ago. Why didn't all those tasked with the responsibility of insuring welfare raise the issue? Doesn't anyone know how to use a tape measure? How did any one of you let it become the problem it did? AGRC? GRNZ? RIB/RIU? You're the ones that should have been doing the barking. Water under the bridge. No need to thank me. Now, all of you sit down together, do a bit of soul searching, identify where/when the problems began, how it progressed & put firm measures in place so it never happens again.

Bad luck & good news. Bad luck - two rail strikes yesterday. Both instances were well around the bend and due to interference pushing the dog down onto the rail. These are the sorts of instances that the safety rail you should have had years ago could possibly have helped to alleviate. Good news - no dogs contacted the rail just prior to or at the pinch point entering the corner. Below examples of races from yesterday were a huge improvement. Here's why - See how the dog furthest back on the rail still has a direct line of sight to the lure, without having to look over the running rail to see it? Addington has their distance down pat, so it appears that someone has had a go at the homework assignment I offered. Same (yes I am aware that the #1 dog contact the rail much further around the corner). Tick. My opinion - 6m behind the lead dog looks to be your sweet spot, especially in 318m races. Just keeping near that will drop the number of overall incidents by 50% or more IMHO. Want a bit of a field trip? Park the lure in the corner, across the track from roughly where the end of padding is on the outside fence, get yourself down on the track, put your head down at the level of a dog's head & view the sight lines at various distances out to maybe 24m or 8 uprights (to allow for 9m behind the lead dog which was already 15m behind the lure the way you were running it a couple of months back), using their vision perspective (see below), while running as fast as they can. If you do that, I'm sure you'll be thinking, "Holy shit, Charles is still an asshole, but you know what, this time he was right." Going forward - Addington has also mastered one other important measure that I've yet to see that you've addressed on your track. Have another look at the previous comparison photos again & work it out for yourself, then you can be the hero for making things ever safer for the dogs.

Here's my prediction on how this rail issue will progress. Nothing substantial will be done with the Auckland track until all the issues with Cambridge are resolved and it's running smoothly. Once that's archived, then and only then will Auckland issues be addressed. GRNZ and their claim that welfare is paramount, is only actually somewhat important when it's convenient for them to address the underlying issues. They can't risk both northern tracks being shut down for repair at the same time. That would substantially affect turnover and participants. You heard it here first.

I gave you this info, which was easily compiled from the information in the summary. Nearly 1 injury requiring a stand-down for every 10 races held in Auckland. My data does not include any injuries which turned up after the vet check straight after the race. There is no public data published on that, but if it were the number would be huge. Often dogs injured during a race don't show the effects of the injury until after they've cooled down or sometimes even the next day. Here's an example (I'm sure you'll want to quantify my claim). "Mirko" https://www.grnz.co.nz/greyhounds/profiles.aspx?AnimalID=33495 On 07/05/2023 hit the rail (rather seriously) and was cleared of injury. After striking the rail on 07/05 it didn't race again for 4 weeks. When it did race on 04/06 it finished 6th. That 6th was Mirko last race. He's been quietly retired after that one race, one race after being cleared of injury. I 'm sorry Mirko. My gears are churning now to get this corrected for your mates. The wheels of AGRC & GRNZ doing what is the right thing move far too slow to give you the chance to continue your racing career. I know that you knew your way around the Auckland track like the back of your paw. Someone should have done something to protect you from the running rail that got in your way when you decided to try to cut the corner behind all the other runners to get to the lure first because you knew where the lure was going to go, before it even got there.

Believe me, I have had my quiet moments where I thought to myself "fuck the lot of them" and pondered altering my energies in another more sinister direction. However, that is not who I am. Besides, it would be of no benefit to me & only hurt many good people doing the real day to day work in the industry, some of which I still consider to be friends. If I could work to close down the deadweight on the GRNZ board & those just wasting space in GRNZ headquarters and do a clean out of the RIB, especially in the judiciary arm of it, then help them to replace with competent people (likely far fewer) with at least some knowledge of the industry, integrity (a must) & not afraid to make some tough decision for the benefit of the industry as a whole as well as its participants and their dogs welfare, I'd be there in a flash. Hell, I put in a lot of hard work on the forums targeting the policing arm of the RIU awhile back and after a rough couple of years or so for the old top dog (GW), he finally decided (forced?) to retire from the position he never should have held in the first place. That was a short-term win but I'm still seeing his crooked antics pop up in precedents in RIU/RIB decisions to this day every now & then. This method does work, but it only at a snail's pace. Hopefully that's quick enough.

Same race used in the above example chief, which TRACK was it raced on?

The rest of my figures are in a spreadsheet that I've manually gathered and entered the data from Stewards reports. Here's the 2023 running totals.

You are out of your depth. A race on a track is a race on that track, no matter which club it is raced under.

Call it what you like. 4 1/2 times as many dogs per race hit the running rail in Auckland than they do in Wanganui. 3 times as many dogs per race hit the running rail in Auckland than they do in Christchurch. Chances of injury per race from rail contact in 2023? Auckland 24/508 = 4.72% Christchurch 5/1256 = 0.40% Wanganui 1/157 = 0.64% Any wonder why I'm highlighting Auckland?

Yes, the stats are per track, not club.

Homework for AGRC, GRNZ & RIB. Spot the differences. Wanganui (image from Friday): Currently 6 year-to-date contacts, 1 injury, with a 3.82% chance per race. Addington (image from today): Currently 69 year-to-date contacts, 5 injuries, with a 5.49% chance per race. Auckland (Image from Sunday): Currently 92 year-to-date contacts, 24 injuries, with a 18.11% chance per race.

It's the most important part of the equation. 16 injured out of 27 contacts in the data you've highlighted. That said, dogs that don't strike the rail are not injured by contact with it.

Agree 100%. I've made some long-lasting friendships during my time in the industry. Being there for them since & now has been my food to continue a relentless battle to highlight & fight for what is right for an industry that I love. The problems still exist. I continue to fight.

If anyone does the things she has done, they don't deserve the privilege of holding a license. I don't care what sex, race, religious belief or who they support politically. The actions she performed are not on & have no place in the sport. The even more dangerous part in this penalty decision in my eyes, which I've already alluded too, is the precedent that has been now etched into the records. How can $400 for animal abuse, $400 for a 2nd instance of animal abuse & $400 for a physical assault be considered a deterrent? What happens if my hypothetical burly bloke shoulder charges a woman into a concrete wall in the future? Will he held to account by the GRNZ rule book and be fined $400 for his physical assault, or will he be trotted down the police station to be charged under crown law? Would the woman that was charged feel that the bloke has received a fair penalty & feel safe next time they walk down the same narrow alleyway together, especially when both of their tempers are flaring? Since it's highly unlikely the fine will ever be paid & even if it is paid, $1200 will make little or no difference to the balance sheet, why not impose a $5K fine for each charge? That would be far more likely to be a deterrent to others. If burly bloke gets fined $400 for assault, he can use the $480 he won in purse money for the 2nd place finish in the C1 sprint to pay for it, in the race that the woman's dog actually won after marring his dog to get past it. Maybe if we're lucky, the assault happen on the track for the live camera to capture, like when Alysha picked up Malcom's dog at the lure & threw it backwards a meter.

I hope she learns from this and that other LP's view the decision as a strong deterrent, which is one of the things a penalty is meant to do. But at the end of the day, a precedent has now been set. Hypothetically, I wonder how the RIB would treat a future event now if a burly man shoulder barged a woman into a concrete wall. Surely, they'll have to treat it in the exact same manner as the RIB can't be viewed to be sexist, can it? I wonder what might happen if an LP picks up one of their own dogs or another trainer's dog, throws it & it results in a broken leg. Does the clinical result change the level of cruelty? Is "you broke the dog's leg doing that" worse than "you could have easily broken the dog's leg by doing that"?

Is this the answer to Auckland's rail strike issue, stop reporting them & the issue will go away? Has the RIB's commitment to welfare been compromised? Did the #2 hit the rail or have an epileptic fit? A dog's tail does not swing to the right when they are trying or preparing to turn left. Your report claimed one rail contact, my spread sheet will have 2 entered & a note that in the other instance I'm sure happened, the dog wasn't referred to the vet for a check after the race. Honesty has always been the best policy. Consider reverting back to it. On another age-old note, why weren't the racing actions of the #3 (hot favorite) in race #4 noted and/or deemed satisfactory in the steward's report? If my money were on it, I'd be quite upset it was chasing the #8 dog and not the lure.

There was an announcement much earlier than May, which I referred to here. The announcement that came out an hour or two after my BOAY post what I took credit for, as below. Why do you Chief have the need to challenge everything I say? Do you simply want me to go away so the Greyhounds forum can go silent?

Well since GRNZ had posted that announcement on their website an hour or two AFTER I had made my post on BOAY, it's not difficult to work out whether I had missed that one or not. Quite odd, isn't it? Mardy asked a genuine question in May. GRNZ could have passed along the info or posted the information on their website in response to his question. But nope, just crickets. GRNZ doesn't visit BOAY to inform Mardy that'd be work & besides he isn't viewed as a threat to them. I gave them over a month, they seemingly chose to ignore it. So then in July, I created a post, including a short video clip of the race in question, which is no longer available on their website (they had removed overnight after the race meeting). They chose to roll the dice thinking by linking the wrong video to the race on their results page, no-one would ever notice & it'd be long forgotten. Well, someone knows the games they play & was ready for their time-tested reactionary move. Same organization, same tactics. So yep, I poked the bear & it woke up. Shame it has to be that way. Now which announcement was it that I may have missed? Did they decide to take the spotlight off the NZ bred dog that isn't even racing in NZ any longer and announce what they are going to do to keep dogs that are still racing in NZ, that might not be quite the superstar Postman Pat is, off the running rail in Auckland for the next 9 years?

Decided to dig a bit deeper into this running rail issue. In the 5 days between 23/05/2014 & 28/05/2014 the new safety rail was installed at Wanganui as planned. But how serious was the problem in Wanganui back then, that led to the decision to install the safety rail at their location in the first place? I've gathered the data and here's the 2014 numbers GRNZ had available, that had to lead them to the decision. Between 03/01/2014 & 23/05/2014 there were 39 race meets held. Basically, there was a 3.34% in any given race a greyhound would make contact with the steel running rail, prior to the safety rail being installed. As for the remainder of 2014, between 28/05 & 30/12 there were 62 race meets held with the safety rail in place. Huge immediate improvement. While the safety rail trial was underway at Wanganui, GRNZ stated this. Guess what, the other six tracks (at the time) never received the safety rail which were supposed to be rolled out within 12 months. Now 9 years on, I can't fathom why a chance of rail contact at Wanganui of 3.34% was serious enough for them to lay out the capital to make the track safer, yet the 5 other remaining tracks to this day in NZ are without a safety rail. Although numbers are back up in Wanganui, it is still performing far better than any other NZ track in 2023 & if you compare it with Auckland, it's performing 4.5 times better. 9 years, fuck all has been done, yet welfare is claimed to be paramount. Any wonders why Govt has threaten to close them down? Any wonders why the RIB said they were slow to act on welfare issues? I don't think GRNZ is slow to act, I think they are incapable of it.

Not a good read. A rough beginning to the third quarter of the year Auckland. Was hoping we'd be seeing some improvement by now. Running totals for the year thus far. First reveal of the 2022 stats. With the new arch lure arm (10/07/22 to 29/12/22). With the old straight lure arm (03/01/22 to 03/07/22).

Seems the above post must have woken them up at HQ. https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3059/Cambridge-Update-3-July-2023 Cambridge Update 3 July 2023 Hi everyone, Sand blasting was completed yesterday, with the final painting and touch-ups to be completed in the first half of this week, weather permitting. A track renovation has been booked in and confirmed for next Monday (10 July), including regrading of the track. This will be followed by the fitting and commissioning of the lure on Tuesday and training for the nominated drivers on Wednesday and Thursday. This training will be provided and overseen by Covey Engineering. It is anticipated that trials will commence the following week, from Monday 17 July 2023. Thank you to everyone for your patience, and we will be in touch with further updates again soon. Thanks, GRNZ

If you're still interested in an answer on this subject @Mardy I've gathered the evidence Admin always seems to require from me. This video may be of some help to you to form your own decision about what's going on with the Waikato Track. Race #11 from their 02/02/23 race meet. 02-02-2023 Cambridge.wmv This is the detailed report of the aftermath from it. Surprisingly, they did try to run another race meet just three days later on 05/02/23 but were unable to complete it as well, after experiencing continuing difficulties, much to the detriment of the dogs competing there.

Saw that too Aquaman. Same race - 2 separate incidences within it. Both dogs banged up pretty bad, receiving a 14 and a 21 day stand-down. It's a shame GRNZ felt the need to sanitize the replay footage by omitting the head-on footage. In the past they claimed they only did so where a dog has lost its life. Maybe things have changed. Such actions do make it much more difficult for people with an interest in the industry, to be able to analyze what had actually happened and be in a place to offer them suggestions for improvement. Anyways, I have confidence now that GRNZ have a welfare expert in Australia as well as a track manager in Australia that will be all over what happened on the ground in Invercargill to make the changes needed to prevent this from ever happening again.

Just sharing the summary of data I've compiled, which has a date range of 01/01/23 to current. Otherwise, no comment.