Yankiwi

MPI launches investigations into drugging of horses and greyhound | Stuff.co.nz

The other two 3 letter outfits can't seem to get on top of things. Maybe the 3rd, MPI can get to the bottom of it before the 4th, RIP deals the final blow.

Looks like some new protest group is making plans for the Silver Collar... https://www.directanimalaction.org.nz/index.php/2021/05/10/protest-the-silver-collar-greyhound-race/

What a shock. https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-sport/star-racing/meth-positive-greyhound-drew-10k-bet-christchurch-race

Well that "time" didn't take very long to tell. Quicker than a revolving dore. I've now heard just the opposite, that Mr. Freeman remains tied to the industry in a very similar fashion to the one he held prior to the Turnwald decision being published.

Don't cross your fingers too tightly. Your fingertips need blood circulation too. The boards & management of GRNZ and the RIU do not have the skill set, ambition or the balls to take on cleaning up the Greyhound industry. Both GRNZ & the RIU are riddled with conflicts of interest & favoritisms. That's the reason integrity rule #1 has always seems to have been "It's not what has been done, it's who's done it". Why else would we hear week after week on Peter Earley's on Trackside radio interview with Mr. Godber "We have to wait for the SPCA investigation to be completed prior to filing charges with JCA" over the alleged live baiting at the Cole kennels? The SPCA investigation is long over and their evidence had been passed on to the RIU. Where's the charges the RIU was "ready to move on" now? If GRNZ or the RIU even remotely thought it wasn't live baiting, why was Brendon warned off during a portion of SPCA investigation?

I've heard Mr. Freeman might be beginning a new career outside of the Greyhound industry. Whether it's true or not time should tell. I've also been told that his cell number, if you were to try and ring it, is a number that is no longer in use. It's quite possible he has changed to a new number, which would make sense if he did decide to leave the industry. Personally I haven't, nor will I try to ring it. Several years ago he had invited (challenged) me to ring him about ongoing issues he seemed to have with me, which I did not do, as I didn't want him to have my landline/cellphone numbers. At one point he even tried to get my trainer to pass along my number to him. My trainer did the right thing by asking me for permission to pass it along to him, which I declined.

How does a Category 2 drug that has a STARTING point of 5 years DQ get knocked back down to 4 month when there's no evidence or even a suggested possibility that it could possibly be cross contamination (even though it was ingested by the dog)? Aquaman got a 1 year DQ & a hefty fine for telling a Steward to ef-off. One of the things that the RIU thought could possibly be in Aquamans piss was in this winning dogs piss. Aquaman's penalty was three times greater than this current case. Really?

As a reminder, penalty's are meant to be a punishment & a deterrent to having the same infraction reoccur. Meth cases ~ 1st Case - 24 month disqualification 2nd Case - 14 month disqualification 3rd Case - 4 month disqualification Apparently the JCA believes that a milder punishment than the one prior is an increasing deterrent! Will the next positive for Meth receive a verbal warning?

From One News tonight, for those who may have missed it. Not a very welcoming lot in Foxton. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/greyhound-meth-in-its-system-leads-four-month-ban-trainer?auto=6249790830001

You're reading from the same book I have been, both the current connection & past connections in the hierarchy. As if Chloe & her sidekicks didn't know enough dark little secrets of the industry.

If I had bought Meth from a dealer on the street, that doesn't mean that the dealer would throw a positive for Meth if tested. You don't have to be a user to administer....

You only need to look into the "Us Syndicate" & many answers would be reveled into this hand slap of a decision. I've got some of that info but haven't decided whether to share it here or take it to a bigger audience. Let's just say - it's a biggie & could be enough to paint the town green.

Actually Chief, not a different trainer at all. The current "Turnwald" kennel was the "Freeman Turnwald" kennel when the "dishonest act" was committed.

From what I read in the decision, my understanding is that the dog tested positive for meth acquired from an "unknown source". In the two previous cases for meth the source was believed to be from cross contamination from someone working within the respective kennels. In this case, they claim they have no idea or even an opinion of the source. To me, that is much more suspect. Why was the disqualification so much shorter in length then the believed cross contamination cases were?

From 2015 ~ Here's the fraud case that the defense lawyer politely confessed “… could be perceived to be dishonest” http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-pb-freeman-decision-dated-8-january-2015/

Yet again it's not what has been done but who's done it & this case strengthens that summation. Previously four weeks for fraud & now 4 months for Meth.... http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-a-h-turnwald-decision-dated-21-april-2021-chair-hon-j-w-gendall-qc

GRNZ has made comment on their website. https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/2674/Statement-Regarding-Review-into-Greyhound-Racing

What I don't get about the decision is this. 13. The Oxford English Dictionary defines negligent as “failure to take proper care over something”. Does this apply to Mr Death? He notified Mr Cole about the dog in Race 9 and surely by implication Mr Cole should have been aware of the position concerning NANGAR RIDGE. It should be remembered that this all happened on the day before the meeting and Mr Cole should accept some responsibility in regard to NANGAR RIDGE. It could be argued that Mr Cole contributed to any negligence that arises out of this situation. There is no burden on a trainer (or handler in this case) to ask about or assume anything in regards to any reserve dog gaining entry in to a field due to a scratching. I believe that statement is very out of line coming from the JCA. The ONLY responsibility for filing the field by utilizing reserve dogs lies with Mr Death in this case.

An interesting read. http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-r-death-reserved-decision-dated-16-march-2021-chair-mr-b-j-scott

You are absolutely correct. The contract can not change. What you are missing is the fact that by entering the contract, you're excepting their terms & conditions of the contract, which includes "deductions" under circumstances when another runner is scratched after the contract has commenced.

GRNZ and/or the RIU have already proven that likely live baiting, or at a minimum dead baiting is an offence that won't be charged. A dangerous precedent has been set by their lack of action in the Cole saga. Remember all those Tuesday afternoon Peter Earley interviews with Mike Godber on Trackside Radio? "We're ready to go once the SPCA investigation has been completed" straight out of Godber's mouth rings a clear bell in my memory. Where's the "GO"? What about Craig Rendle, when he was board chair, saying anyone caught live or dead baiting will face a $10k fine. Isn't this getting caught? Where's the fine?

It is published. https://fobcms.tab.co.nz/sites/default/files/2021-02/TAB_Betting_Rules_Effective19February_2021.pdf

Karma & a brilliant result!

The plot thickens. This is really starting to stink. Why was its "stand-down rescinded" at last night Addington's race meet? https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/14425/stewards-report.aspx