Yankiwi

Change could be in the air. Honestly & I finally agree on something! Neither of us think Punch On Jamie was a very good bitch.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13383/stewards-report.aspx 2), PUNCH ON BUZZ & PUNCH ON SCOOBY (J McInerney) - were both late scratchings after Mr McInerney expressed concerns regarding the manner in which both greyhounds had travelled to the meeting in particular their lack of appetite this morning. Subsequent Veterinary examinations revealed both Greyhounds to be showing signs of Kinetosis

deleted double-up post....

GRNZ has a policy about social media for their LP's. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Documents/Greyhound Racing Assn Social Media Policy Licensed Persons.pdf Excerpts~ When using social media you should be: 1. responsive to your audience; 2. respectful to the individuals and communities with which you interact; 3. careful about the content if it is likely to be offensive or unacceptable, regardless of its truthfulness or accuracy. Disparaging or Unprofessional Statements and Personal Opinions When engaging in social media activities you must never:  disparage anybody connected with the Association, including our members, trainers, owners, stakeholders or our directors and staff (past or present);

No dogs charged with FTP or marring at Palmy today...... Race #1... Race #5 - watch the #4's run to the line... Race #7 - The #4 turns head in for a look at the #2.... then wants out?

Intimidating is not against the rules. That said, turning the head is & I believe FFF did turn its head in the home straight.

I'm not fussed whether it's J Mac Jr or Mickey Mouse. He is usually the one asking for facts, yet he never posts any proof of his own statements. He is the one that claimed he was not Johnathon only to be caught out, from a private message to me last August. Snap. He is the one always calling out members to put their real name to a post, yet continues to hide behind his forum name. He was the one that tried & tried to get me to accept his membership application to Grassroots, only to be continually rejected. Just wait, he'll soon be replying to my message with some sort of unsupported accusations against me or my character... History repeats.

I also found it interesting that in their first starts, they were exactly 16 months old. No sense in waiting an extra day or two....

It's not the first time I've read this.... The last instance Godber made a formal complaint to me about it....

Facts to support Aquaman's claim.... Buzz - 14 months + 2 days. Jessie - 14 months + 2 days Point is proven & I can't be bothered with the rest of this list.

It's not often I defend the RIU but Brodie, I feel your argument is off target. If it's a rule which you feels needs to be amended, then your energy is being wasted on the RIU. The RIU are meant to enforce the rules that HRNZ provides to them. The RIU isn't going to change a rule no matter how much pressure you try to put on them... Retarget your energies mate.

Good to see that the top dog & the Vet full of collusion, in my opinion, are still looking after the same kennel that they blatantly show so much favouritism for. BOAY members, find the dog that marred another dog, but was only looked into by the Steward for failing to pursue & received the 28 day stand-down for a hip support injury that didn't affect the way the dog ran whatsoever. Magically, no charges incurred.... The marring is obvious in this still image. What other reason could there be for the #3 to offset its neck towards the rail? Pack your bags top dog. We've all had enough of your antics. You're a horrible Stipe & even a worse corrupt version of one, in my opinion. The CD vet should also know that he too is on my radar.

I easily see why you can't remember which particular race. In race three - the #5 had no interest in going past the #3 in the run home. She didn't obviously turn her head (without access to the head-on video) but she was eyeballing the #3 all the way down the home straight. Put the blinkers on her & her head will be spinning like a top. In race four - the number 5 wasn't nearly as cunning. Just off the mat & it's head did a left turn. It becomes more obvious which of three dogs inside it was the attention grabber. Marred the #3 at the end of the final corner. And then running down the home straight the final time, once again the #5 had no interest in passing the #3. Full video replay.

I don't have a SKY subscription & I no longer have a TAB account. Therefore, I don't see any races at all, only replays.

Started long before the home straight

And good day to you too proven liar Jonathan (I'm not telling you my last name but it's not "McInerney") lol. Keyboard warrior (AKA Charles or has that become Danny?) signing out.

A rather decisive type of person I'd say. Apparently my name is Danny. I was awarded this name by James Bond on another thread. I'm still waiting for him to assign me a surname (and look up a few GRNZ rule numbers as well).

It's so much easier trying to degrade & insinuate another member has a mental issue than it is too debate a subject. Exactly what I've come to expect from you. Do you have the ability to post something with actual sustenance?

Here's my take - Aqua's first one (race 5) must not be a good look... replay is censored already... Problems in race 8 - likely track related Problems in race 9 (Aqua's 2nd one) - likely a racing incident.

That's my point Aquaman. The JCA isn't going to interpret anything if the RIU hasn't put it before them in a case. I believe Ace Action should have received 3 charges for marring in that race alone. If the RIU charged Ace Action with three counts of marring in the same race, as they should have, then connections could have contested the multiple charges before the JCA. If someone walks down the footpath & gives the first person they see the bash & kills them. Immediately after that, they continue down the same footpath & kills the second & third person they see, would the Crown only charge the person with one count of murder? Crown law doesn't have a limit on how many charges of murder a person can be charged with, from the same walk down the footpath. Likewise, under GRNZ rules, there is no cap for a greyhound for the number of marring incidents they can commit in the same race. The RIU nearly ALWAYS take the easiest way out for themselves. The only time they seem to step outside their normal if they have someone on the GRNZ/RIU most wanted list before them. I'm sure you're already very aware of that from your personal dealings with them. How many holes did you punch in the wall outside the Stewards room? Oh wait, that wasn't your case at all was it? The persons who's case it was, didn't appear on the most wanted list.... That's why their case ended with only a hand slap.

ZIPPING MIA | Otago 1 January; unsatisfactory performance; must complete trial. RAND | Christchurch 4 January; unsatisfactory performance; must complete trial. DROP ME OFF | Waikato 24 December; unsatisfactory performance; must complete trial. OUR SADIE | Christchurch 21 December; unsatisfactory performance; must complete trial.

I haven't opened anything. I've just taken the time to interpret the rules for exactly what they say, not the way someone else has interpreted them or the way they have been used/enforced. I also questioned Mr. Godber as to why Ace Action only received one charge of marring in this race. The #3 first marred the #2, then went on to mar the #7 & finally turned his attention to the #8, which he marred several times. The rule reads- 55. MARRING AND FAILING TO PURSUE 55.1 Where a Greyhound: (a) Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race; In this race the #3 marred the #2 (one of the seven other runners). In this race the #3 marred the #7 (one of the seven other runners). In this race the #3 marred the #8 (one of the seven other runners). The #3 marred "any other" runner three times in this race, so the #3 should have been charged with three offences. This is just another example of a Steward enforcing a rule for what they think it says, not was it ACTUALLY says.

The rules do not need to be changed! This is exactly what I got back from GRNZ from my query in 2015. 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.

Maybe it's time for the rule to be looked at & revised? 45.11 Where the weight of a Greyhound recorded at a Meeting varies by more than one and a half (1.5) kilograms from the weight recorded in a Race in which it last performed that Greyhound shall be permitted to compete in the current Race but the Trainer of the Greyhound shall be guilty of an Offence unless permission has been granted under Rule 45.12. 45.12 Where a Greyhound is presented for a Race and such Greyhound is competing for a Trainer other than the Trainer at its last start the Stewards shall waive any Penalty that would otherwise be imposed for any weight variance. Permission shall be granted by Stewards for a Greyhound recording a weight variance of more than one and a half (1.5) kilograms to start in a Race provided that such Greyhound has not performed in any Race during the preceding 28 days, and no fine shall be imposed. For the avoidance of doubt, the day of the dog's last start shall be counted as a day for the purposes of the 28 days. Seems there's no other option than for the Steward to allow an over/under weight dog to race. Possibly a new clause added into rule 45.11, requiring a dog to preform a satisfactory trial if there's a weight variance of 2kg's or more since it's last start. In Connors case, it had been 3 1/2 month since his previous start. What would be the drawback to waiting another few days for a race start to allow the time (and added integrity for the betting public) to complete a satisfactory trial?