Yankiwi

I can't see why any owner would invest money into a sport that might not even be on the map in a years time....

Seems he was spotted doing a bit of campaigning this week in Wanganui.

Hmmm... Looks like the racing manager & board made their beginning statement over a BIGTIME CD inadequacy… A must read! http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/nzgra-request-for-review-grnz-v-l-cole-decision-dated-22-may-2019-chair-prof-g-hall

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News.aspx?NewsID=3164 GRNZ CEO Mauro Barsi resigns Good afternoon, I regret to advise that Mauro Barsi has resigned from his role as CEO of Greyhound Racing New Zealand, and will be leaving GRNZ in mid August 2019. Mauro has accepted an exciting new opportunity, which will be announced shortly. Over his time with GRNZ Mauro has led our industry through a period of change as we have implemented significant animal welfare improvements. Most recently he has been integral in ensuring that the Greyhound racing industry is well placed during the discussions relating to the outcomes of the Messara report and GRNZ remains well positioned to capitalise on this position. Recruitment for a new CEO is commencing immediately, and we hope to progress this quickly. We will advise our stakeholders as soon as any further news is available. On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank Mauro for his contribution to Greyhound racing as CEO, as the Greyhound racing industry’s representative on the Board of the New Zealand Racing Board and as a Board member for GRNZ. He has been a part of the industry for a number of years and we wish him well in his future endeavours. Sean Hannan Chair, Greyhound Racing New Zealand

I think it's time for the Chief to move this thread to the vent, or dispose of it altogether...

Hmmm... I've been trawling the rule book & stumbled on this... 62.1 Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she: (q) commits or omits to do any act or engages in conduct which is in any way detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image, control or promotion of Greyhound racing; So apparently, since the RIU & GRNZ are allowing it, being warned off & standing on your dog trailer just outside of the fence of the race courses property, is not detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of Greyhound racing...

Quite a magical run, especially after finishing 3rd of only 4 runners in 17.41 in it's last run, a trial. The winner of that trial seems to be a middle distance C3 graded dog, that has never competed over the sprint distance on a race day. As for swabbing, it'd be pointless. Who better would know what the RIU can & can not detect?

No problems with the dress code query... The rest of the comments are not really needed IMO. disclaimer: not a supporter of either person, but there are far better things to be focusing on...

Credit where credit is due... Nice hat. Maybe his lawyer has taken possession of the cowboy hat for this weekends big shin-dig? Did someone ring work safe? Looks like a dangerous place to be (especially if someone like me was in Wanganui today & near the vans gear shift) without a safety harness....

Since the crown has made it illegal for me to read a certain someone's manifesto, shouldn't they be investigating this bible thing that Folau had quoted from & ban me from reading that too? Is it somehow worse if your personal beliefs are anti-Muslim than if they were anti-Gay? Maybe it's time Jacinda fronted on TV, wearing a rainbow wig, in an attempt to show NZ's solidarity.

Thinking back, wasn't it the Rendle/Holden regime that did a clear out of personal at headquarters then refill the positions with new staff? If so, what would have been the underlying reason for such a move?

It seems the RIU had given their assurance to GRNZ in January 2015 that they were going to be more proactive dealing with aggressive dogs after the winning post. Since that time, I've yet to see any dogs charged with unsatisfactory performance from such issues. Did all dogs remarkably change their behaviour after the issue of such assurance? Having spoken today with Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward Ross Neal he has clarified and confirmed the following points raised: The definition of ‘race’ is only loosely defined in our rules as is also the case under the Australian rules making it hard to define the actual start and finish point of a race in regard to the wording of the rules. Any greyhound which can be proven to have marred or has displayed aggressive behaviour towards another greyhound during the course of a race (or whilst officially on the track competing whether prior to or after the winning line) must be dealt with by the RIU in the appropriate manner. Stipendiary Stewards would prefer to keep the specific term ‘marring’ to an incident that occurs during the running of a race prior to the winning line affecting the actual outcome of the dividend bearing placings, however aggressive behaviour after the line is still considered part of the greyhounds performance and can be classed as an unsatisfactory performance and dealt with by the RIU accordingly. If considered an unsatisfactory performance, a greyhound can be ordered to undergo one or more satisfactory trials and/or such action as the Stipendiary Steward deems necessary before becoming eligible to compete in or be nominated for any future races. The particular incident raised at Wanganui from last Friday night has now been handed over to the RIU for their consideration and they have assured GRNZ that they will now be more proactive in identifying and dealing with these types of incidents as they occur in future.

On second thought, who is the "CEO"? GRNZ has a CE, but not a CEO...

It seems the GRNZ CE is hosting a roadshow, well of some sort. On that GRNZ web page, is a list of the honest answers you can expect to hear from the lawyer. Also on that same page is the expected future vision of greyhound racing in NZ. https://www.grnz.co.nz/News.aspx?NewsID=3157 More than likely, it'll be a roadshow to collect the LP dues/fees, that they have taken the time to remind their LP's, that will be due shortly. They seem to be very proactive in getting the dues/fees advisory out, roughly a month and a half before they will be due. It's too bad the weren't quite so quick in addressing the live baiting scandal that's still hanging heavily over the code. A couple of other friendly reminders I should share, don't forget to socialize pups on the day he turns up in your area (maybe bring them along with you so they can raise their leg next to his) & also remember to bring along your EFTPOS card. I can also advise you to check the rego & warrant on your vehicle before turning up & even more importantly, make sure that you have no unattended dogs in your car/van/trailer/bus as there will likely be a huge crack-down (on easily enforceable) welfare issues.

I'd probably call it something like... Race 12 - 04:08 PM - No Sponsors Would Front Cash For A Race Name, So Thanks For That Gavin Stakes - C4/5 - 527M

Why would anyone miss her? It's not like she did anything for the sport, bar an irrelevant/incoherent/incompetent policy per year... The welfare managers role is to manage welfare. Coles is under criminal charges for breaches of the animal welfare code. What's she done about it? J Mc kennel staff killed several dogs on the ferry, her action? Wasn't it some policy about not leaving any greyhounds unattended by an LP? What about a racing greyhound that spent overnight in a vet's clinic after a minor/major surgery, while no LP was present, did she see that her policy was enforced? Good riddance I say....

Agree.. no need for it...

I do not know if Brendon's "warning off" is still in place or not. What I can help you with is, is point out what GRNZ's definition of "Warning Off" means in their terms. Warn Off means to direct that a particular person shall not be permitted to enter or remain on any part of the ground or premises where a Greyhound Meeting or trial is being held. Warning off and Warned off shall have a corresponding meaning. So basically, when GRNZ/RIU put the hammer down, they did so as lightly as they possibly could, when they finally felt had to do something.

Same "favoured" dog from the same favoured kennel...

I did not... I'm not obligated to do anything. Besides, all the evidence they would ever need is pointed out on these forums... The moment in time that things began to change, aye Gavin?

Facts are right, according to the PNGRC website. Surely they know what's going on... http://pngreyhounds.kiwi/committee-2/

Club selection policy (however it seems very outdated) can be found here. https://www.grnz.co.nz/trainers/Club-Selection-Criteria.aspx The reality of what has happened can probably be found here. http://pngreyhounds.kiwi/committee-2/ When the club & race secretary is also an employee/ex employee? of the club president, you'll probably get the fields drawn in the way that poppa sees as a best fit, especially when he's shouting the beers after the races. Totally unfair to Karin & I'd pick that every other club in the country (bar possibly Wanganui & Wellington) would have something in their selection criteria saying that dogs from the same owner and/or trainer would be split in to separate races when possible. That's not the case in Palmy, where looking after #1 is the top priority. Have a look at the distance field. It tells a similar story... Doubt me? You can have a read through the one time that the co-stars got caught playing their little game here. http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-pb-freeman-decision-dated-8-january-2015/?searchterm=freeman* I was the one to snap him out about that fiasco, first posted here... https://www.racecafe.co.nz/forums/index.php?/topic/38277-stand-downs/&tab=comments#comment-346451

So, typical Friday night at Wanganui... https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13533/stewards-report.aspx A favoured kennel has nothing done about this dog in race 5. Dog #9 from box 3. MIKACHU (9/3) - in contact and faltered going to the first turn and dropped out to last and stayed back. Referred to the Vet and cleared of injury. Yet in the very next race, a dog from a non-favoured kennel is charged with FTP for this run. Dog #1. LITTLE TORNADO (1) - eased going into the first turn when sharing the lead and went back through the field to last. Referred to the Vet and found to have carpus and sartorius pain with a 14 days stand down. However, the bitch was stood down for 28 days for failing to pursue the lure throughout. So the #1 wasn't "in contact" entering the corner in race 6, but the #9 was "in contact" entering the corner in race 5? Have you no morals GW? Do you think no-one is watching what you are doing? Why hasn't MG actioned this? I've been telling & showing him for years there is corruption & collusions in the CD. Is he in on all this too? Time will answer the last question... I can't believe that you continue to show the blatant favouritism for your mates that you do. At least GRNZ has finally starting catching up with you & I'm very pleased that I've been helping them along the way. In fact, I wonder if headquarters will be reading this post before you do.

I guess what Yankiwi thinks has no bearing on reality. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13532/stewards-report.aspx 3) BARREL RUNNER (A Bradshaw) has completed 10 clear runs since Failing to Pursue the Lure on 5 October with this endorsement being cancelled as per Rule 55.7. Now he's got a clear record. Another dog who will never win a race by more than a head, regardless of the winning time....

During my time in & around the greyhound industry (in NZ), I only recall one discussion revolving around the sight of a greyhound and that was with iteruka. While I've never claimed as to knowing everything there is to know about greyhounds, I still found the advisory to be quite a surprise to me. All the talks I've had & all that I have read (GRNZ & forums), yet I had only heard of the one dog where vision was even a concern. Good on the vet & GRNZ for taking this on. Maybe I'm so used to everything getting swept under the carpet, my response to seeing some action had become rusty. All this time I thought it was only Stewards that couldn't see properly. Maybe there's a doctor will to take that study on too...