Yankiwi

I chalk this up as another example of the disconnect between the Stewards & GRNZ. GRNZ provided a very clear guideline a year & a half ago, which in this incident the Steward seemingly chose to either ignore or wasn't aware of it in the first place. So why wasn't the Steward penalized for his poor decision making which was clearly wrong? Are Stewards above the GRNZ rules & policies? https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Documents/On-Track Euthanasia Guidelines for OTVs FINAL Dec 2019.pdf The dog suffered, surely the trainer and owners suffered as well. Yet the Steward was the only one to be in the wrong yet no-one even too the time to look in that direction. What does that tell you about the establishment?

How can a human be swabbed to prove or rule out administering Meth to a dog? You don't have to be a user to administer anything to a dog. Chemists fill prescription every day for a variety of substances, which if they were tested for, would return a negative result.

On 08 March, her final race-day, connections initiated the process of determining her ultimate fate. You may what to keep an eye on the methadone clinics as well. Zipping Sarah was proven to have had a problem with drugs. Since her guilt was by association, there might be others in attendance at the clinics that can inform you of how she is doing in her retirement.

The appeal was heard on 26 May & the decision was reserved (and now seemingly forgotten). https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/greyhound-trainer-whose-dog-tested-positive-meth-says-life-has-been-living-nightmare-ever-since You'd think the JCA would release the outcome before they are dissolved.

Since the rules are that a dog can't race on consecutive days, how can they move a Tuesday Addington meeting to Wednesday, when there's also a meeting on Thursday? From Tuesday's meeting now moved to Wednesday - Also drawn for Thursday's meeting. Wednesday Thursday Wednesday Thursday It's likely there will be many more examples....

Now this is a debacle! https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/14570/stewards-report.aspx Did a Steward use ESP to determine that this dogs stand-down would be overturned 4 days in the future?

Seems to me that GRNZ is actively promoting age discrimination, which is in violation of the Human Rights Act 1993. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/2705/New-Emerging-Director-Role New Emerging Director Role The Board of GRNZ is seeking applicants for an Emerging Director role to start 1 August 2021.This role has been developed to give young members of the industry the opportunity to learn the role directors play, understand and learn about the issues and activities of the industry and to add a younger point of view to Board Discussions. Applicants can self nominate by sending their CV and covering letter to grnz_board@grnz.co.nz. Applications close 2 July with successful applicants attending an interview. Preferred Profile Maximum age is 30 years old Must be involved in some role in Greyhound Racing Desire to advance Governance experience Desire to be an advocate for our LPs Desire to bring the voice of our younger participants to the Board table Commitment Attend monthly Board meetings Represent the views of Greyhound young racing participants Read Board meeting papers prior to attending meetings Opportunity to submit papers for discussion at meetings The role will be 12 months with the opportunity to be considered for an additional 12 months All travel and expenses will be covered by GRNZ

Agree. Tony made an error & fully admitted to the error when questioned about it. Commendable in my books.

Let's have a bit of a look at this from Sunday. Someone at headquarters accepted the nomination of these two dogs after the closing date. Why hasn't the RIU charged the person at headquarters who accepted the late nomination? After all, "officials" are bound by the same rules that LP's are. As a side note, I've heard that GRNZ have awarded some form of "compensation" to the trainer of the two dogs. I'd sure like to be made aware of what GRNZ rule covers handing out hush money to cover their own ass. What's the word around the traps about the pay out?

Since Akashi Boy ended up as being the top (and only) qualifier from Wanganui after the Cole withdrawals - it should have raced as #7 and in the final pairing, right? It was the top qualifier from Wanganui to appear in the final. So why did it race as #4 in the second pairing? Also - the race was listed to include the "quickest two" from Wanganui, which frankly didn't happen. Also the Wanganui third fastest gained entry by the draw, which also didn't happen because for the same reason. Therefore GRNZ breached it's own "T&C's" by running the race in the way it did.

This whole thing was a joke, start to finish. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/May 2021/The Amazing Chase TandC's 2021 01-06-21.pdf From the T&C's of the Amazing Chase. Each greyhound will be entitled to one solo trial for Amazing Chase qualification purposes at any of the three venues (Addington 520m, Manukau 527m or Hatrick 520m). Note - it clearly says ONE solo trail from Addington, Manukau OR Hatrick. It doesn't say one trail at each venue. So why does ~ Toyka Bird have recorded times from both Manukau & Addington? Money Spinner have recorded times from both Manukau & Addington twice? Drink Shoeys have recorded times from both Manukau & Addington? Jiliby Litsa have recorded time from both Addington & Hatrick? Federal Morgan have recorded times from both Manukau & Addington? Big Time Kaylee have recorded time from both Addington & Hatrick? Pedro Lee have recorded times from both Manukau & Addington? https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/2681/Amazing-Chase-Leaderboard-2021 GRNZ just writes the rules & terms then completely ignore them. This is just one blatantly obvious reason someone at headquarters needs to be shown to the exit dore.

It seems there will soon be. It's being sent to the JCA to determine. Informations lodged:1). BIG TIME HARLEY (L Cole) - An information was issued with no plea entered in regards to this greyhound being presented to race down 1.8kgs from its last recorded weight with the matter being referred to the JCA.2). FEDERAL MORGAN (L Cole) - An information was issued with no plea entered in regards to this greyhound being presented to race down 1.6kgs from its last recorded weight with the matter being referred to the JCA.

It's never a good thing to see a dog get hurt. A dog doesn't get to choose where & when it races. That said, Federal Morgan would have likely been injury free and ready to run again if the Cole kennel simply let the race continue on the way it was initially set to be run, the way it was intended to be run. Someone's greed & loop-hole exploitation made it possible for Federal Morgan to fracture a hock in a two dog time trial race yesterday.

A big shout out to the two northern trainers to file objections to the mockery! I personally can't thank the two of you enough. Finally GRNZ LP's are standing up to to "establishment" and formally saying enough is enough. Even if the objections are not ultimately upheld, the noise from them will be clearly heard. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/14558/stewards-report.aspx Someone at GRNZ headquarters need to be handed their walking papers & shown the exit dore.

To me, this last month or so shows just how inept the Racing Operations Manager really is at preforming the job he's tasked with doing. Why are the Foxton two still operating "business as usual" with the only real change being the trainer name on the same dogs which are still being trained on the same property? Why has the Cole kennel been allowed to get the precise entrant into the field of The "No So" Amazing Chase that the kennel desired? The answer is the exact same to both of those questions. Has he even ever wondered why Paul & Brendon are not registered with GRNZ as trainers? Wouldn't it be nice if he reverted back to the TAB to sort out the Pick 6's like he used to do & give the greyhound code a chance at integrity & ultimate survival. Race 6 on Sunday is an invitational race with obvious preferential treatment. Who decides on which dogs get "invited"?

Why bother having qualifying times the determining factor when one trainer can get any dog from their kennel they want in the final? After this mockery, I really hope GRNZ will think about the farce their big race actually is & correct the conditions for next year. With the inadequacies that are abundant within GRNZ, I won't be holding my breath. I fully expect a copy & paste of the conditions for next year. Eleven months from now it will be proven once again, it's not what was done, it's who had done it.

Denis Schofield didn't administer any Meth to his dog & got 24 months. However Denis did offer a plausible reason how the dog came into contact with the Meth. In Denis's case, the agreed source was a family member who was not a GRNZ LP. Keith Toomer didn't administer any Meth to his dog & got 14 months. However Keith did offer a plausible reason how the dog came into contact with the Meth. In Keith's case, the agreed source was a family member who was not a GRNZ LP. Angela Turnwald didn't administer any Meth to her dog & got 4 months. Angela did not offer any plausible reasons as to how her dog could have come into contact with Meth until after the race & at the winning podium. In Angela's case, since it was proven the Meth had to be ingested prior to the race and I suggest the most probable source would be one or more of these~ the LP that traveled from Foxton to Chch with the dog, the friend of that same LP in Kaiapoi (LP ?), one of the owners (LP) or supporters of the owners (LP's?) that would have likely been in proximity or in contact with the dog prior to the race as well as after the race. Obviously the initial defense was going to be the dog came in to contact with the Meth AFTER the race, therefore it wasn't "presented to race" with a class 2 drug in its system. Obviously, two of the owners or their supporters had admitted that they were holding a smoking gun, right?

Speaking of the Greyhounds, I understand the RIU's appeal of the Turnwald penalty is to be heard today. Hopefully being unable to offer the RIU any suggestion as a possible source for Zipping Sarah to have ingested Meth will be considered to be an aggravating factor instead of a mitigating factor. Why were the previous two penalties greater because the person who was charged & their connections actually helped in the investigation? Prior to the first hearing it was stated that two of the owners or at least the owners guests at the race meeting had used Meth on the day of the race, prior to the defendant tossing in their initial defense. Shut up & know nothing is what I'd expect to hear from the accused & their connections if foul play was possibly at hand. I expect to see a disqualification of 3 to 4 years after this appeal.

SAFE is keeping busy... https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/calls-greyhound-racing-suspended-after-dog-killed-five-others-injured-in-single-day

To own a racing greyhound, even a tiny portion of one hidden away in a syndicate, you are required to be a GRNZ LP. Even if I had set up a BOAY account & HRNZ didn't like something the account had said, who's to say my fingers were the ones to make the statement. Are the RIU prepared to take fingerprint samples off the corresponding keys on our family laptop to find out whether it was my wife or me that said what they didn't like two days ago? What about all the fingerprints on top of those of interest from two days ago?

I would like to formally declare that I am me. If HRNZ wants to believe I'm someone that I'm not, they are more than welcome to do so. If they are in doubt, then can simply man up and ask me, I might actually tell them. If they want to be scared little sissy's about it, then they can send the FBI around to hide in the bushes around my home and maybe they can try to work out who they think I am, without me even knowing about it. However, my dog will likely know they are snooping long before the FBI get very far into their investigation. Also my dog has a sort of talent of unwelcoming people I haven't first welcomed. On a more serious note, a social media policy has been part of the Greyhound code for a few years now, which they have actioned & enforced from time to time. It is one of the main reason I had decided to relinquish my GRNZ license several years ago. If I have something to say, I'll say it when & how I choose to whether some association thinks I should or not... https://www.grnz.co.nz/OldAdmin/Files/Documents/Greyhound Racing Assn Social Media Policy Licensed Persons.pdf

You had asked two questions - I was kind enough to do the homework & get those answers for you. Did I receive any form of appreciation? No, in return I received a rebuttal towards the factual evidence I had investigated & provided. You can do your own homework from now on if you want answers to your question. I'm no longer a colourman for your debating pleasure.

You're questions are easy to answer this time - It's all in print. I've done the homework for you this time. The decisions states 2 dogs traveled south that day. It's probably safe to assume the second dog was Emgrand Rose. Two dogs had a swab taken after that race, neither of which was Emgrand Rose.

Sometimes I'm not sure you fully understand what you're talking about. Ms Turnwald plead guilty because she was in breach of rule 61.1 "The Owner, Trainer or Person in charge of a Greyhound Nominated to compete in a Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substance." That's why they wanted to use contamination after the race as a defense. If it was believed to have occurred after the race, that would mean it happened after the dog had been produced to race. MPI is not going to investigate who the trainer is of a greyhound that was presented to race with meth in its system. MPI will investigate who was in charge of the dog when it ingested meth. Yes, she may be investigated and very quickly taken off the list of potential suspects I'd expect. From what I've read in the decision, I have a firm suspicion of the first two people the MPI investigators will be speaking with. One is the kennel hand who spent the entire day with the dog & the other is a friend of the kennel hand said to be from Kaiapoi. As a side note, for a person to provide a drug test clear of meth, that doesn't prove that meth couldn't have been purchased or gifted for a purpose other than personal consumption. Yes it sounds all good like rainbows & roses do and might change suspicions for some, but doesn't prove anything about how meth might have got into a dog.

I've seen no evidence or even a suggestion that the RIU even tried to prove it, other than simply asking the kennel rep & trainer. The RIU looks for the smoke to clean the air but never looks down to find the fire that created the smoke. Can the RIU be awarded a search warrant to investigate someone who isn't an LP?