Yankiwi

Spot on. Several things happened in the race that were very far from ordinary. The red hot favourite took a nap in the boxes. When she finally left the boxes she ran into the rail free of interference. On the tote, a $18.30 won the race in a C5 event. General rule of thumb is that any dog paying $10 or more gets swabbed. No swab was taken from any dog in the race or from any of the last 4 races on the night for that matter. IMHO, this race suggests the real possibility of the RIU being involved in race (match) fixing. It would make a good place to start in the greyhound code for the INCA investigators to run their magnifying glass over.

"Stewards report did not advise how serious the alleged assault was."

Have you been investigated for assaulting a club official on a race day? Were the police involved? Stewards report did not advise how serious the alleged assault was. But hey just say nothing was proven and wait a couple of year she'll be right!!!!!!!!

Blah, Blah, Blah... This thread is about the RIU, not about BOAY members...

Thank you. Someone else that see's a bit of light. It's clear that the dog has been a top performer for quite some time now. If she went out on the day & broke the track record, more than likely a swab would have been taken. However, on the day that's not what happened. What did happen, to my eyes, is far more suspicious than if she did to go out break the track record! Fact - Six swabs were taken from the first eight races. Why were there no swabs taken from the final four races? Doesn't her race seem just a bit out of the ordinary, by her exceptionally high standards? As part of an interview to take on a job with the RIU, is the candidate required to wear blinkers during it?

How dare I ask such a question? Hail to those with blind faith! I needn't put a name to my post. At a quick look, Godber, Whiterod, Austin, Quirk, Mcintyre, Neal, Grimstone, Kinsey, Cruickshank, & Irving know exactly who I am and they all have my email address, if for some reason they feel my QUESTION is out of line. Yes, I know that at least some of the names in my list no longer work for the RIU but funnily enough, I'm still where I was when I had correspondences with them. Why are some on the list of INTEGRITY providers no longer with the RIU?

So the red hot favourite in race 11 today at Addington (#7) misses the jump by a mile. After missing the jump so badly (which is odd in itself) the dog angles down towards the rail & runs straight in to it, behind the rest of the field and totally free of any interference. Wouldn't actions such as these maybe raise just a bit of suspicion & warrant a swab being taken? It's acted in the way I'd expect a drunk dog to run a race.... Don't the Stewards understand there's more money to be made on the punt if the red hotter doesn't win?

NZ Police do not write Crown laws, they enforce them... Another blatant example of conflicting interests.

Decision has been published. It's about time welfare concerns have officially become more than words. http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-a-bradshaw-j-jopson-c-steele-and-a-lee-reserved-decision-dated-19-december-2018-chair-prof-g-hall Kudos guys & gals.

For #7 BOAY person of the year, I'd like to nominate Scooby. He ultimately created to need for BOAY to be born in the first place.

The Stipes were correct, after all they have the final say. However, if someone feels something dodgy may have been at play, then I suggest they ring to police and let them do a full investigation over the incident. I reckon a good police investigation into the RIU & their inconsistency's, which are often blatantly obvious, could pay huge benefit towards finally getting some integrity within the codes. Have a look at the #9 (from the 7 box) in the final corner, which was determined on the night to have run a clean race, by one of those with the final say.

A bit more than subtle IMHO. Clear turn of the head while free of interference (just after passing the leading dog). https://youtu.be/07BeyAiwb30 As for the official call to be made, I don't know that it's from one of the protected kennels.

Hot off the press, a JCA finding out today about another positive swab. Is this the sort of decision that makes anyone believe there is even an ounce of integrity in the sport? http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-t-m-furner-decision-dated-8-november-2018-chair-prof-g-hall

Steward, interesting title. I wonder what it is suppose to mean, in GRNZ terms. Same day. Race #3, Dog #9 nearing the end of the first corner. "OUR SADIE (9/8) - ran in sharply at the start causing checks to several runners to its inside. Hit the rail at the winning post on the first occasion, a post race veterinary examination revealed no injury. Ran out entering the back straight coming into contact with a runner to its outside." Marring exactly as described in the rule book. Here's the full replay. Maybe during this race is when the phone call was made to the top dog, making the policing of the race a second priority.

How could this be? There's no mention of any racing apparatus coming off a dog in the Stewards report. Therefore it must be something flying up from an unsafe track.

So last Thursdays racing at Forbury seemed to have been run in a mud pit. I've noticed that some trainers scratched their dogs, presumably due to track conditions. https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13294/stewards-report.aspx I have also noted that an inquiry has been opened and adjourned into those scratchings. For the benefit of those trainers, I suggest they have a look at the replays of race 12. After the winning post & getting in to the slow down area, a UFO can be clearly seen taking flight & flying off to points unknown. This evidence could be quite valuable in your defence if charges are ultimately filed against you.

TAB with their ever consistent 3rd world service. No surprises there. I'd bet a couple of local people in some West African internet café could give them a run for their money. It would also be likely that it would be easier to withdraw winnings from your Ghana based punting account.

Maybe we should look to export him to Australia & give him a second chance. Seems to be all the rage in the other direction.

Also sounds to me, the Steward has an integrity problem.

The Steward told you he didn't put out the #8. I merely pointed out his ultimate decision.

The 8 was busy easing to look over its shoulder. The exact reason that FTP is written into the rule book. Sorry punters, but if the blinkers weren't enough of a warning signal to you, the Steward took it even one step further & looked after the interests of the dog/owner/trainer, not the GRNZ rule book which is there to help protect your investment.

So, in race 5 at Addington yesterday, the Steward put out the #5 dog for marring. With that action in the corner, did the Steward forget to look at the actions of the #8 dog in the home straight?

Although I never got to meet him, Arlo used to hang out a bit in my home town back in the 70's (I was a bit too young to go into the bars back then). However, in his wake, when I did become of age, I got to throw back a couple of beers one night with Joe Perry & Brad Whitford of Aerosmith.

The author of the article did put his name to it. "HAMISH MCNEILLY"

Now the poor little tea towel wont be able to be carted around, in its previous owners hand bag, next time she goes in to town.