Yankiwi

Race #5 coming up today at Addington I find rather interesting. A dog from a GRNZ board member kennel opening up @ $15 fixed odds & got slammed in to $2.70 currently. The NZ derby heat winner should have never have opened up at $15 in a C2 race. Who's looking after who? I sure hope the RIU betting analysis is all over this one!

With all due respect Cockyaleg, if my interpretation of the rule are incorrect, then I'm not the only one. The article on the GRNZ webpage seems to tell the same story I've told. https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/2652/Slashing-Golden-Chase-times-on-Commentators-Day The third annual Commentators Day took place Monday afternoon at Manawatu Raceway under Covid level 2 guidelines. Despite a limit of 100 people able to attend, club president Paul Freeman and his colleagues made the day a great success..... If their intent was to comply with the limit of 100, why are there still 192 tickets remaining for sale a week after the event has already been completed?

There's still 192 tickets available to be purchased for last Mondays event. That's very indicative of how tight the reigns were on the actual event. https://pngreyhounds.kiwi/racedays/commentators-day/commentators-day-2021/buy-tickets/ There are at least 35 people in the camera's eye during this six dog race alone. There are also 10 race callers, two Stewards in the tower (yes 3 listed in the report), a cameraman in the tower, a vet, kennel staff, further security. Just those alone get it up in the area of 50 people. People inside selling drinks? food? wagering tellers?

I'm still checking the JCA website daily for the long awaited decision.

Well the big day is now behind the PNGRC. I don't understand how they were able to hold such an event under Covid level 2 lockdown, where no more than 100 people can gather at a particular place. Surely more than 100 had to be present, with any excess to the 100 turning their noses up at the government restrictions & doing their best to let the team of 5 million down. Simply more proof of the arrogance & greed that infests the Greyhound industry. One day they'll look back, scratch their heads and wonder what went wrong.

Dogs often perform satisfactory trials (requalify) before a Marring or FTP stand-down has been completed. The dog still needs to complete the remainder of the stand-down before it can be nominated for a race day start.

For my thoughts, I'll turn to history. GRNZ will stop Mark from returning to his previous duties if it is perceived to be in the best interest of a Palmerston North and/or a Foxton trainer. Those are the two areas that are best looked after in the CD. They always have been (at least since I've been following the sport) and probably always will be while the sport remains in existence. Just think back to live baiting or admitting to fraud (which the high paid defense lawyer politely titled "could be perceived to be dishonest") & you can quickly work out whos interests GRNZ have a history of looking after.

Who do I think I am? I'm Charles. My true colours have always shown. I'm a man of integrity. The industry is full of corruption & collusions. It's not hard to work out where some of the collusions are, hell they even put them in writing. Why else would a Steward determine that a trainer breached a serious racing offence (62.1 i) yet opt to fine the trainer for some other breach in the rules (62.1 cc) using the MINOR infringement table? Why wasn't the trainer charged for the breach actually committed? (4) SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT:- Waikato GRC – 17th October 2019 - Stewards have concluded their investigation in regard to the nomination and subsequent scratching of the greyhound THRILLING BILLY from Race 10 at the before mentioned meeting. After taking evidence from Waikato Club secretary Mr R Death, rehoming manager for May Hounds M Stebbing and Trainer Mr P Ferguson Stewards deemed Mr Ferguson to have breached GRNZ Rule 62.1(i) in that he nominated THRILLING BILLY in a fraudulent, misleading or deceptive description. After assessing all of the evidence and taking into account Mr Ferguson's admission of the breach along with his previously clear record, Stewards issued him with a charge under GRNZ Rule 62.1(cc) with a $300.00 fine being imposed. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13738/stewards-report.aspx Really - read this excerpt again... After assessing all of the evidence and taking into account Mr Ferguson's admission of the breach The last two Meth positives were also "admitted" yet they didn't end up with a $300 fine. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the next one does.... just saying...

Another of the "Board Members" has a very close association (gets the pick of the litters to train) with one of the other large breeders number wise. As for the "Homeless" & "Bigtime" type dogs that go missing, it's my belief that most if not all of the vanishing dogs are put down within GRNZ rules. The rules always have and continue to be wrong. The board (full of conflict of interests) writes the rules. Hmmmm... Greyhound racing does deserve to be shut down. I'm not far off from helping the anti's with their cause... I've fought for the little guys & the old hats of the sport long enough. The more of them that disappear the more temped I become to change my focus. I didn't fight for the sport for it to continue on for live baiters that didn't get held to account. I didn't fight for puppy farmers that eventually kill 90% or more of the dogs they've breed when their done with them. I didn't fight for 2 trainers to get kicked to the curb for Meth then have a "less convenient" positive pop up & have it remain hush hush.

I don't believe the protest is the beginning of the end. The actual beginning happened quite some time ago, but this bunch & its predecessors. What happened to the live baiting photographs? When will the next suspension/disqualification for Meth take place? Why cant they get the RIU to enforce GRNZ rules as they are written? How come injured dogs can't be put down at the track anymore, yet what happens to injured & healthy dogs away from the track is virtually unmonitored & a free for all? Why is the "Homebush" name even allowed in racing when less than 5% of the dogs with that in their name never get to have a home other than while they were in a racing kennel? Homebush isn't the only Bigtime name problem.

This is exactly what voluntarily easing free of interference looks like. IMO it does look like it was cramping, but that said, unless the cramping created the need for a 21 day or more serious injury stand-down, the dog should have been charged with FTP & also required to perform a satisfactory trial over the same/similar distance, prior to resuming. Neither the FTP rule or definition have any allowance for cramping written into them, therefore it was an injustice (favoritism) to elect to not charge the dog for what it was guilty of doing. Another example of not what was done, but who (or who's dog) had done it. Welcome back Gavin.

The squeaky gear finally got the oil.

Over three days have passed since their failure to post the replay of this race. I smell a rat covering up their obvious display of favoritism.

It appears someone just outside of the gate had a front row seat too. Does the gentleman behind the light pole wearing the gray top work for the outfit tasked with enforcing GRNZ rules? Full replay

I'm looking forward to this replay becoming available! Stewards reports says this. BRONSKI BEAT (2) - jostled with GEM in the run to the first bend. Eased abruptly prior to the finish line becoming awkward in its gait before being marred (the interference happened after the easing) from the outside by VON STRASS. Continued to gallop awkwardly to the lure. Referred to the Veterinarian where it was presenting with minor cramp in its right hind leg. Rulebook says this. Fails to Pursue The Lure means the action of the Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference. A dog in the lead that "eased abruptly" should be charged with FTP. If a serious injury which required a 21 or more day stand-down was found after the race, then the charged should be dropped however a satisfactory trial should still be required. Why does it feel like the old top dog was back in town?

In todays Cambridge Stewards report it says this. 1) - EXPRESS EMPORIUM (W & T Steele) - application was made under GRNZ Rule 56.9 to have this greyhound re-examined following being stood down after competing at Auckland GRC on 10 January. The greyhound was found to be free of injury with the stand down rescinded. A urine swab sample was taken from EXPRESS EMPORIUM. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/14375/stewards-report.aspx Yet in the Auckland Stewards report from the day the dog was injured states this. EXPRESS EMPORIUM (1) - jostled back straight. Shifted out off heels first turn. Veterinary examination revealed an injury to the right hock with a 42 day stand down imposed. EXPRESS EMPORIUM will be required to trial prior to resuming. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/14340/stewards-report.aspx So the question is, how could the RIU rescind the stand down without the completion of the required trial that was initially ordered?

Seems to be quite a lengthy investigation phase over an infraction that had generated a 14 month suspension in the previous case & a 24 month disqualification in the case prior to that. Meth is a tricky thing to deal with, especially when it turns up in a place that isn't nearly as convenient as it had been previously. Surely all three cases have been treated equally during the investigation phase and will again be treated equally when the JCA hearing finally begins.

Interesting to see that Wanganui had 3 stipes today. That's not the normal. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/14374/stewards-report.aspx

Isn't moving a post from one open to the public forum to another open to the public forum tampering with evidence? Why was it moved in the first place? Was there questionable content? Was one mate trying to look after another? Kind of reminds me of the actions of two RIU top officials a couple of years back.

The #3 was looking at #5 for at least a portion of the home straight.

It reflects on harness racing because of one thing alone, the media. What are the first two words in this headline? What are the first three words in the story? Sounds to me like Holly Henry and/or Mark Quinlivan should be asked the question. Harness racing star gets community detention for assaulting and strangling woman (msn.com)

Wait a minute. This was a fair start? Sure seems to me the blue silks with the 4 white stars (or are they meteors?) in the outside starting positions had a huge pace advantage. What's the guy nearest to the in the white light post looking at? Is he making sure the second row crosses the starting line at the same time as the #1 horse? Really?

22 June - 1st race day start. ROMEO (2) - turned head outwards early stages then ran outwards contacting outside runner on several occasions. Assessed by vet and found to have right sartorius and hock strain stood down for 28 days. Must complete a satisfactory trial. 10 August - 2nd race day start. ROMEO (1) - turned its head outwards on jumping whilst free of interference. Straightened and collided with GOLDSTAR HARLOW shortly afterwards. Referred to the Veterinarian where it was found to be lame in its right wrist with a 14 day stand down recommended not withstanding this the greyhound was stood down for Failing to Pursue the Lure. This dog was again presented on 13 August and found to have a triceps injury with a 21 days stand down recommended. 13 October - 4th race day start. Now clearly on the radar yet somehow undetected by the Steward. 30 October (today) - 6th race day start. Again, undetected by the Steward. 6 race day starts in which at least 4 of them it failed to pursue & it has a clean racing record. Either fix the system or end the corruption. This is just wrong...

Their dilemma Aquaman is that welfare issues will ultimately close down the industry in NZ & probably world wide in all western countries. What they don't understand is trying to coverup the issues is actually worse than addressing them head on. The coverup is the food for the anti's & it seems that a day doesn't go by (other than Saturdays) where GRNZ and/or the RIU serves up a fresh lot of hush hush for the anti's plate. What happened to the duck unfortunately happened. There's no going back on it now. Instead of taking the issue head on, addressing it & implementing measures to stop something similar from happening again, they just think it's water under the bridge & expect everyone to forget about it, just like the rabbit & poodle. Ducks on/near the track & running rail have been an issue at Cambridge for as long as I've been following Greyhounds. What has anyone done about it? Would Auckland Airport identify a similar problem & ignore it for many years? If a duck then ultimately took down an aircraft because of their inability to mitigate the risk, would they make a one sentence statement at the end of the day after all takeoffs & arrivals had been completed without interrupting the air traffic for the rest of that day? What would they do about the next day? The sport is f*cked & the way it's being run prior to its ultimate demise is just hastening its progression towards its own doom.

A new boot cleaner has been spotted at Cambridge Raceway.