Yankiwi

Freeze frame cropped & 200% zoomed in. Video replay.

My sources have confirmed that the duck had recently relocated to Cambridge from Palmerston North after they had heard about the lack of animal cruelty cases being enforced in the CD. However, the duck made a serious error in judgement by trusting that the GRNZ animal welfare code, which was being administered by the RIU, would keep it safe from danger in the new location. 43.2 No other animal shall be allowed on the Racecourse without the permission of the Steward(s). Since no other animals are allowed on the racecourse without the permission of the Steward, obviously the duck must have obtain permission to be on the track. Why wasn't the Steward reprimanded for authorizing such access? Alternately, if the duck was on the track without prior permission, then surely it would be the Stewards responsibly to declare a no-race. The effects of the collision didn't equally effect all of the dogs in the race. The moral of the story is that duck, rabbit & poodle lives (thus far) don't matter when it comes to the crooked self serving governance & justice system within the greyhound code.

55.4 is provision to give a dog a second check for injury within 72 hours, which is what happened yesterday. 55.7 is to clear a historic endorsement on a dogs record after it has completed at least 10 clear runs.

No surprise. Someone flipped the switch....

Thought I'd better screen shot the evidence. We all know how things like this conveniently & mysteriously change to suit certain agendas.

So, since team Cole has presented the dog (made application) under rule 55.7, the charge of FTP must be reinstated. There is no serious injury clause under rule 55.7. Also, since a greyhound is only allowed only one (1) application in its racing career under rule 55.7, Friday night in Wanganui was it. The dog should now be back on its 3 month holiday & its right to one (1) ten clear run cancellation of a previous endorsement has already been utilized for this dog. Well done team Cole.

Wanganui last night. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/14222/stewards-report.aspx 2- MURMUR ( L Cole ) was represented to the on course vet under the provisions of rule 55.7 and has had the ( failing to pursue ) PNGRC 13-10-2020 charge rescinded and replaced with a 28 day stand down to to a right shoulder muscle injury and must complete a satisfactory trial. Rule 55.7 says this. 55.7 Where the Certificate of Registration of a Greyhound contains an endorsement under Rule 55.6 for Marring or failing to pursue the Lure and that Greyhound competes in ten (10) Races, without again having its Certificate of Registration endorsed for another offence under Rule 55.1, the Chief Executive or his/her appointed nominee may, upon application by the Owner or Trainer of the Greyhound, cancel the endorsement. Only one (1) application may be made pursuant to this Rule in respect of a Greyhound.

Good thing for this dog & its connections that it's in the kennel of a very well protected trainer. Most other kennels and it would have seen a holiday.

43. GREYHOUNDS AND OTHER ANIMALS EXCLUDED 43.2 No other animal shall be allowed on the Racecourse without the permission of the Steward(s).

How can anything happen? The RIU never investigated the allegations. But for some reason, Brendon was warned off for a period by the GRNZ board. What did they know then (at the time they warned him off) that they seemed to have forgotten now? RIU & GRNZ credibility = ZERO, the exact same amount as they proclaimed their tolerance of animal welfare issues was. To the suits it's all about who's done it, not what has been done.

GRNZ or the RIU didn't even go through the Cole property. They both stuck their heads in the sand when the images were first handed in to them. Once they had the images in hand, there were more worried who took the photos than what the photos portrayed. Because of their inactions, the images were then taken to the SPCA days later. If the RIU couldn't have brought charges in that case, what can they do? Welfare is paramount, unless inhumanity comes from a very well protected enterprise.

Who's to say the punter that managed to get $2500 on didn't actually want to get $25K on, but was restricted to $2500?

The RIU have proven time & time again, it's not what rule has been breached, it's who has breached it.

Spot on! He will never gain my respect. What's even worse than what he has done, is the suits doing nothing about it. Creditability = zero for GRNZ & the RIU.

C'mon Brodie, Happy wants you to be kind & that's what Cindy wants too! I sense a new trend starting, similar to one you've highlighted from Addington recently. 😄

Romeo https://www.grnz.co.nz/greyhounds/profiles.aspx?AnimalID=32909 Two starts - Two FTP charges - Two serious injuries thus cancelling the FTP charges. A sickening display of collusion between RIU appointed race day vets and/or Stewards & a trainer.

It appears there has been no change at the RIU either.

Yes he has! GRNZ - as it's more likely he wont return.

Brodie, it will be quite some time until this question gets answered. Phil only works a 6 hours shift every third day or something like that & there are more important things for him to be worried about during those long work hours. Order & consume morning smoko. Check emails. Look over the GRNZ website to see how well their going since he left. Order & consume lunch. Apply for additional board positions with organization most of us have never hear of. Those chores alone would make for a very hectic work day.

Here's why...

If the RIU allows starts such as this one to continue, there' no sense in doing any form on the horses prior to the race. This race was more of a lottery than Lotto is....

Isn't it the RIU's Stewards decision whether it was a fair start or not? They're tasked with enforcing integrity & there was no integrity if this was declared to be a fair start.

Brilliance! I'm even more assured Phil will sort out Harness racing.

This obviously happened. When this happened, it was against GRNZ rules and had been for many years. The court system choose not to go to trial as the SPCA were unable to prove the rabbit was alive prior to its inhumane slaughter (in my opinion). Where integrity lacks in this situation, is that the RIU did not charge for the infraction as the welfare code clearly states that "live baiting" is with either a live or DEAD animal. I've always said, what will happen happened. Where integrity comes in to play is whether the perpetrators are held to account for their breach of the rules. In this instance, it appears that the view of GRNZ & the RIU is there is nothing to be seen here, as there has not been a JCA hearing in any form over this well documented infraction. GRNZ & the RIU have damaged the integrity of the sport, not the perpetrators.