Yankiwi

Caffeine isn't a permanently banned substance. Ask GRNZ why, they wrote the rules.

But in the Waretine cases both vehicles used for transporting their dogs returned positive results INSIDE the vehicles. This was also true in the Gowan case where she received an 18-month disqualification. One thing that differs is that the Gowan case was an out of competition swab, which I understand might be the situation with the current CD investigation. If that is the fact, then I would expect only the trainer of record would face charges as it wouldn't be a presentation charge. To my mind, the reason the swab was called for should be irrelevant when the positive swab comes back to a permanently banned substance, which in out of competition testing, is all they are testing for (caffeine & the like would be ignored).

Chief, the websites ignore user tool stinks. Surely to thank you for allowing me to continue to offer them constructive criticism here, something I would be unable to do if I were still an LP. I've never disagreed with this. I simply stated that setting up threshold levels would be pointless until the favourtism/corruption is removed from the decision makers. A positive swab for Cobalt level above the threshold recently went uncharged. So, what will happen when the next one pops up? My point is it will depend on which trainer/connections will have returned it to how it is dealt with. That is the problem I have.

Wasted enough time chasing up evidence because you requested it Chief, only to have you ignore it and/or move the goal post. I'm done with that. Therefore, I've utilized a tool your website has provided for members use.

What is now? The (lack of) Cobalt decision was only 3 months ago. It's been going on like this for years and has not begun to show any improvement. They say old habits are hard to break. These old habits need to be broken before the entire industry has been broken. The powers to be carefully pick & chose who & when they're going to go after someone, yet the protected participants can get away with just about anything. Hypothetically, let's say it was Aquaman on the right side in that photo. He would have suffered from the full force of the rule book & been the RIU's poster child for what an efficient integrity operation they were running keeping the industry free of cheats. This latest Meth case could prove interesting. The trainer isn't really among the protected species yet trains more racing dogs than any other trainer does, by far. Will they go hard? (very doubtful) Will they only do what they have to do? (likely) Will they find a tea bag in the kennels somewhere & find some other stupid reason to charge him while totally ignoring the Meth positive? (not likely)

Here Chief, I'll help you a bit. 1/2 owner of "Big Time Tasty", which was the dog that returned that Cobalt positive swab, was the man on the right in the image below undergoing alleged live/dead baiting a few years prior, which was not even investigated by the RIU after the image (amongst several others) were delivered to them with an accompanying complaint. Only a coincidence, right?

No, I don't want this to happen. The rules need re-writing to address threshold levels. That said, even that won't fix much unless favouritism & corruption is removed from GRNZ/RIB as well. Remember O'Regans dead animal in the freezer case? The reason for the visit to the property in the first case was because of a Colbalt positive swab, above the threshold, in which the B sample was later sent to Aussie for testing & that result also breached the threshold. Why were there no charges filed? Was it inconvenient? Favouritism? The rule was breached, investigated & ignored. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-reserved-penalty-decision-dated-23-december-2022-ronald-oregan-and-nyomi-oregan/ 3. Mr O’Regan then explained that the three Investigators had visited his property in connection with a high Cobalt reading in one of his Greyhounds So no, simply setting thresholds alone will not make the problems go away.

As for favouritism, it's been rife in the code for as long as I was involved or followed it. Here's a clue to one instance. Ask Aquaman to compare the end results from his case with the very similar case of xyz to too long after his. No injustice was served to me directly. I was smart enough to cancel my GRNZ license before I began to speak out publically about what was blatantly obvious.

There's already circumstantial evidence apparent that points towards what I've been informed is true. The trainer in question has not nominated a dog to race in the CD in the month of May. The last time there has been any racing "results" from the operation in the CD was on 28 April. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15447/result-summary.aspx

What have I been wishing for? Consistency from both GRNZ & the RIB and an end to the favouritisms handed out by & corruption within them, come to my mind. How could this have not ever even been investigated by the RIU?

The only one that has racing kennel operations simultaneously on both islands. This investigation is into the CD location, which the trainer of record is not normally (if ever) based.

Another dog has tested positive for Meth & the investigation is underway in the CD. Registered trainer was not the person to present the dog. Recently the precedent has been set, so surely both the handler & trainer will have to be charged. If so, it could lead to a major change in the greyhound industry during the disqualification periods as it is investigating one of the largest overall operations. Could lead to plummeting numbers of dog being nominated in both the north & south islands. This could also potentially lead to having far move available kennels for rehoming dogs than there are dogs to be rehomed. Time will tell...

Collected two more today. Clock is ticking Auckland.

The rail's back at it again today collecting four dogs. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15438/stewards-report.aspx

R7 1st @ $2.50 All PBD races. Question: How can a first start maiden have a preferred starting position?

I agree, it needs to be reviewed. As of this latest case it hasn't yet been, so it needs to be treated on an equal level to all those before it. My problem from the start of all this is that GRNZ will paying industry money to a now disqualified trainer/handler where they have never given the option to any of the prior cases. Compare the Waretini cases with the Gowan cases & it will become clear. Both a single Meth + Both a clear previous record Both with meth inside their transport vehicles. This comparison is noted in Lisa's decision ~ 49. RIB v Gowan (2022) The charge was found proved following a defended hearing. A starting point of 16 months disqualification was adopted and, after taking into account aggravating factors, an end period of 18 months was imposed. The Respondent was described as being uncooperative and obstructive in trying to avoid the testing process or delay it. This resulted in an uplift of 3 months from the starting point of 16 months, with a deduction of 1 month for the unblemished record.

Seems a couple of others could use industry money being paid to them for the rehoming process to pay off their debts to GRNZ after a disqualification for a Meth positive. Surely if the rehoming space is needed, GRNZ will be on the phone to them ASAP. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Defaulters Lists/20230411 Defaulters list as at 11 April 2023.pdf

What is GRNZ's definition of "permanent"? The 375m PN sprint distance moved to 410m on a permanent basis in 2018/2019. So how can you be racing sprints over a 375m distance there now? You said a dog was more likely to be injured from 375m. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Health %26 Welfare Page/GRNZ Hansen Report - Year One Progress FINAL.pdf

The penny finally dropped Chief? It's what I said in the first place.

The RIB has been very inconsistent. Now GRNZ has shown they've become inconsistent. This whole argument I've addressed is not condemning either of the Waretini's. I don't think they cheated. I do think they've broken GRNZ rules in the way they are written. Are those rule right? I don't think so, but every trainer knows what they are up against when they sign the dotted line. What I am contesting is GRNZ actions after the fact. I don't think it's right for GRNZ to make the unprecedented decision to fund a disqualified trainer and/or handler during their suspension/disqualification period. They never done it before for any previous offenders of the same rule breach, or any other breach that resulted in a disqualification. Why were the Waretini's treated differently than Gowan after the fact by GRNZ? What makes Waretini's breach less severe than Gowans? Than Turnwalds? GRNZ is the culprit here. They have been caught out for actions they initiated. I hope Gowan/Turnwald/Prangley sue them for discrimination for all they're worth.

Here's a sixth previous case I just remembered. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-decision-dated-29-september-2022-maree-gowan/ "18. The presence of Methamphetamine traces in the front cab of Ms Gowan’s vehicle reinforces the finding that someone, somehow associated with the training operation, had an involvement with Methamphetamine prior to 10 June 2022." To my memory, Gowan had a previously clean record prior to this Meth case. Gowan received an 18-month disqualification with no opportunity provided by GRNZ to generate income during her sentence.

As for environmental contamination, it got inside their vehicles somehow. "(4) The witness said that the analysis of the swabs taken from both vehicles showed that traces of Methamphetamine were present in all three swabs which were obtained from the roof lining above both front seats and the steering wheel." There was no evidence the Meth was deliberately administered. There was undeniable evidence that the dog was presented to race with Meth in its system. The exact same criteria as the previous 5 cases I have mentioned. None of those previous 5 were afforded the opportunity to earn income from the greyhound industry by housing retiring/retired greyhounds during their disqualification periods. Why not? There's a huge discrepancy in the way the Meth cases are being handled. Turnwald had a clean record prior to her Meth charge. Freeman (her partner) didn't face charges even though he was the only registered handler of Zipping Sarah for the 24 hours prior to the positive swab while traveling between Foxton & Chch. Turnwald/Freeman - No contamination INSIDE the vehicles. No utilization of their 60ish kennels for rehoming purposes with GRNZ funding. Waretini/Waretini - Contamination INSIDE both vehicles used. Both parties were charged (so the RIB mush have believed this instance was more suspect than Turnwald/Freeman). GRNZ decides to fund the pair by paying them to house greyhounds in the rehoming process.

A disqualification should be a disqualification, shouldn't it? Meth is a class A drug under the Misuse of drugs act. Meth is a permanently banned substance under GRNZ rules. Those in the same position before Waretini who were also disqualified, were not afforded the opportunity, including Prangley, Turnwald, Schofield, Toomer (Keith), Toomer (Ethan).

Fair point, kind of. I'm not making a point or statement directed towards either of the Waretini's. I'm casting my judgement completely on GRNZ. Be it the board or management that came to this decision, it simply shows that welfare is not a top priority or paramount. GRNZ is an enabler by opening up the pathway to allowing former industry animals to go to a property where two disqualified people are at a minimum, in direct contact with others that are within the Meth circles. Since the disqualification, the RIB is powerless to enter the property without permission & those living there are no longer bound by GRNZ rules. So who is going to oversee & verify the welfare of the animals is being upheld during the recovery/rehoming process? The same person who handed down the decision to enable it? Is the SPCA going to do regular checks, including drug testing of the dogs, while the animals are in their care?

Ring Rennell. I'm told GRNZ headquarters phones have been ringing off the hook today. Rennell started the day claiming it was a rumour. As the day continued, I think you'll find his understanding has changed. I've also been told of 3 trainers that have already taken multiple retiring/retired greyhounds to the property. I suspect either the GRNZ board pushed something through on the quiet, or the ex-shot-putter has done something underhanded (she's still been hanging around quite a lot) and never informed Rennell. Now a question for you Chief. What was the last accusation I had claimed on BOAY that ended up being false?