Yankiwi

Generally, I don't have digs at trainers & that is the case this time. My gripe is with the RIU & some of their stewards with the favourtism they show & their lack of consistency. It seems trainers get fined in the north for the same infraction... It seems another trainer was fined recently in the CD as well. and you probably already guessed it, who were the stewards on 7 August? Yes, the same Steward team, with the same individual officiating, that issued yesterdays official warning. It's probably safe to say a trainer wouldn't leave the paperwork back at their kennel on purpose, to see if they could get away with it or not. So what could have been Mrs. Pearce's compelling reason for not having the paperwork that the Agent/Williams team didn't dream up?

Why bother having a rule book? The rule book says this is an offence, so why wasn't the trainer fined? 3) Trainer L Pearce was issued with an official warning pursuant with Rule 44.8 for non-presentation of registration papers for her runners today. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13744/stewards-report.aspx So why was this trainer issued only a warning, when the rule book clearly says it's an offence? 44.8 (a) A Greyhound shall not be permitted to compete in any Race unless the Certificate of Registration and weight record of the Greyhound identifying the Greyhound and certifying that it is eligible to compete, is produced to the Stewards for the purposes of identification at the time of kennelling (b) Where the certificate of Registration and weight record is not produced the trainer shall be guilty of an offence. The minor infringement table doesn't make allowance for an "official warning". Obviously another favour for a chosen one, from an ex-headquarters stipe!

Judicial report: 1) SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT:- Southland GRC - 22 October 2019 - Handler M Seque was cautioned for failing to apply the race rug on OPAL HUNTER in Race 13 in the correct manner. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13743/stewards-report.aspx

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/12928/result-detail.aspx

Agree, this should not be a race for a 26-1-15 dog. It's maiden win was over 295M, nearly 6 months ago, by a nose.

The GRNZ board has a integrity committee. Which members are they? Why haven't they been heard from? At the end of the day, what had transpired was match fixing (race fixing - field manipulation). If the RIU and/or the GRNZ boards integrity committee doesn't have the balls to treat it as such, well I've got some news for them, I do... I've been stone-walled by the new racing operations manager (integrity seems well above his depth) & the new CEO (who didn't even bother to reply to my concerns). Unless one of the crooked lot steps up & treats this CRIME in the manner a serious breach of GRNZ rules should be dealt with, next weekend I will be emailing harness@police.govt.nz with my concerns. After such an action, the crooked lot of them could start answering questions to those who don't allow things to simply be swept under the carpet. Surely the ICNA lot might very interested considering the trainer who was involved. https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/seven-charged-operation-inca

http://www.riu.org.nz/announcements/newsinbrief-weekending27october2019

The ball didn't bounce our way. A couple of questionable calls went against us. Most importantly, we had our arses handed to us by the far better team on the day, the one that actually looked as though they wanted to win. #outclassed Enjoy your flight home boys. Instead of practicing your Haka on the return flight how about practicing hanging your head in shame? Richie never was the most skilled player in any of the games he played, but now it's become clearer than ever, he was always one of the most important members on any of those teams.

http://jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-pb-freeman-decision-dated-8-january-2015 3.2 In this case the charge as framed focuses on dishonest conduct; that is the dishonest backdating of the scratching of Gibbonator from the Palmerston North race meeting at the request of Mr Freeman. 4. Result: 4.1 In the result, in terms of R. 92.11 we find the offence with which Mr Freeman has been charged and to which he has pleaded guilty duly proved. He will be disqualified in terms of R. 89.1 for a period of one month as from the date of this Decision and fined the sum of $300. In addition he is ordered to pay the sum of $250 in costs to the Judicial Control Authority. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13738/stewards-report.aspx (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.

Sometimes in a court case, the prosecutor (RIU) will offer the defence (trainer) a plea bargain for a lesser charge if they feel the case for the more severe charge would be in jeopardy of anything except a guilty verdict. If the RIU believed they might be unable to bring a case before the JCA prove it more than 50% likely (the criteria for a guilty verdict before the JCA), then I could somewhat understand a plea bargain. Therefore, if it is the case that the RIU doubted themselves enough in this case to offer a plea bargain, then the RIU is defiantly in the wrong profession & needs to be dissolved. If the RIU offered a plea bargain because they were simply looking after one of their old mates, then that would equate to corruption & needs to be dissolved. This case clearly highlights either one or the other options, if not both, are at play here. Regardless, the outcome would be the same in a world with integrity, which obviously isn't the case in the racing world. Something is seriously wrong here people. All the reports know it, GRNZ knows it (and is more than likely in on it), the participants know it & even the onlookers know it. It needs to change & that change is needed now, or there will be no industry for them to police.

That's my major point surrounding this case. A breach of the rules doesn't get any easier to prove than it is in this case. The timelines are pretty much there for everyone to see. The dog was in foster care prior to it being nominated for the race. Case closed. This case speaks volumes about just how inefficient the RIU really is. A glaringly obvious breach of the rules ends in a plea bargain to a lesser breach because the RIU really suck at what they are tasked with doing. The only other viable reason this case would be settled in this manner would be corruption within the RIU which equally as likely. It's too bad it was the Sky City convention center to burn. I'd have chose the RIU headquarters instead, if given the option.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13738/stewards-report.aspx (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. So, Mr P Ferguson admitted to a "fraudulent, misleading or deceptive" breach under rule 62.1 (i). 62.1 Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she: (i) being the Owner, Trainer or Nominator of a Greyhound, or a Person having an interest in a Greyhound, Nominates or runs that Greyhound in a Race under a fraudulent, misleading or deceptive description; Yet the RIU ops to set a fine under the minor infringement table for rule 62.1 (cc)? (cc) acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Rules made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules; Rule 62.1(i) is not listed under the minor infringement table because it is not a minor infringement. The RIU has seriously overstepped their boundaries by trying to impose this fine. Watch this space!

Seems the wall (vision impairment device) is coming down at Wanganui. Sure hope this is being removed with the blessings of headquarters. Headquarters are the ones that paid for it & this was meant to be a "trial" before there implementation at other tracks.

Sure did. Same track (I believe) - same protected species (kennel).

Yes several fines should be in order... Handler Kennel steward Starter Steward (for lack of action) But... For some reason, top dog didn't even think it's worthy of mention in his report. 62.1 Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she: (z) tampers with any rug, Muzzle or other item used on a Greyhound, or uses any substance or item to affect the performance of a Greyhound or Greyhounds;

More favoritism for the McInerney camp today. This is what it looks like when a race rug is put on a dog with its head through the leg hole. This is what it looks like in a Stewards report, when the trainer of a dog with its head through a leg hole, is a protect species (note the comments on #8). Seems the new top dog still looking after his mates & relatives... Full replay

This is good advice & I hope the RIU follows this lead. Thursdays scratching likely wasn't a 1-off and a simple phone call to the vet would complete the story. That said, the RIU seem to be more worried about which LP's haven't paid their GRNZ dues & how much alcohol they may or may not have on their breath. Match fixing would likely be well out of their depth. IF the RIU stuff it up, INCA will be notified & that would open up a whole new kettle of fish for the police to run some real investigators over. Wasn't it the same RIU that handed the investigation over to the police for the Harness indiscretions?

Likewise - A big thanks to everyone else who pitched in as well. Together, we can make a difference. It's been proven time & time again, the RIU are usually blind (or turn a blind eye) to similar instances. I hope Billy finds a good retirement home. I also hope that everyone who reads this thread understands that even though the dog was a "Thrilling" dog, the scenario which has transpired doesn't reflect at all on Karen or her team.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13729/stewards-report.aspx 2) An investigation was opened and adjourned into the nomination and scratching of THRILLING BILLY (Race 10 #4).

Everyone that has anything to do with integrity or rehoming at headquarters, along with the sharpest sticks at the RIU have been made aware that they need to deal with this appropriately, or the police (INCA) will be made aware of the match fixing.

Didn't realize he was drawn to a field tomorrow. Trainer should get done & deported to Foxton! Also in my opinion, any other entrants the same trainer has in that race should be scratched by the RIU as well. That is field manipulation at it's finest, sometimes called race or match fixing. Someone ring INCA!

As far as I could quickly see, he was last scratched on Thursday 3/10 from a C5 Cambridge field. That would mean that nominations would have closed for that meeting on Monday 30/09. The first screen shot CC's provided is time-stamped on 7/10. So provided he wasn't with a rehoming agency on or before 30/09 things would be kosher, right?

Haha, communist sympathizer.

If that's the case, then either Mayhounds or it's trainer would have to be lying. If it's the trainer, I wouldn't go as far as to implicate Mayhounds for it without some proof. If the trainer hadn't deregistered the dog & put it into foster care, surely Mayhounds wouldn't be responsible for further action of the trainer. That's why I asked for a link, as I couldn't find the evidence you've claimed to find. That said, I far from a Facebook expert & I don't even have an account with them. Obviously you've seen it somewhere, I'd just like to see what you've seen and do some comparisons on the dates (timeline).

Could you please provide a link to the Mayhounds Facebook post (either in this thread or via PM)?