crosscoded

It is unfortunate that the board wasnt able to maintain its independence, but it reinforces the premise that the board doesnt appear to know its role or boundaries within the industry. The rule needs to be altered as it pretty much removes the discretionary powers of the RIB stipendiary stewards and adjudicators. I recall a case a number of years ago in the South island, where a dog in front, turned its head and went on to win (it may have been a heat for the galaxy??). It was put out by the stipes, successfully appealed (over-turned) by connections, then re-appealed by the riu and put out again. The upshot was the rule was wrong then, yet it has remained in place. Personally I think the rule might be better written to incorporate whether the dog potentially costs itself or another runner the chance of a better placing, thus the outcome of the race is compromised due to failing to pursue with due commitment.

Forget about the report, forget about the petition, forget about the anti's - The greyhound industry in NZ will cause its own demise due to apathetic participants and ineffective leadership. The fact that the participants cant galvanize and would rather tear each other down is a reflection of an industry that's sole focus is on self interest. Self interest negates the ability to think about the bigger picture and what is best for the sport. The sport has had a succession of ineffective, weak CEO's/GM's who have treated the position as an opportunity to improve their CV's. They neither have had the courage or desire to make the changes necessary and when the going gets tough they bury their head's in the sand or look for greener pastures. The code has some wonderful stories that are never heard, there is no one willing to stand up for the sport and educate those who's only knowledge is driven by those who want to see the sport discontinued. If it isn't too late the only way forward for the code is a complete change up of the board and senior leadership team. The code needs passionate, driven professionals who have knowledge of the sport, no significant vested interest (to negate conflicts of interest) and understand what is required to slow or stop the rot, refocus and move the industry forward. All decisions regarding the code need to be made from a welfare perspective including population numbers, sustainability, track surfaces/types and the best people need to be put in decision making positions. The code needs to be able to provide a concise framework under which it can operate and hold itself to account when it falls short. Its not an easy job but its a vision and insight as to what is required to obtain a social license - the real shame is that no-one that is employed to execute this vision can see that this is what's required.

he is a good orator, but lacked the desire and fortitude to implement positive change within the nzgra. his lack of knowledge of the code meant he was influenced too easily while in his role . I cant see him being anymore effective in harness. Another corporate ladder climber looking for a job that he has credentials to perform in on the racing leader merry go around.

he got a reduction in suspension days and a substantial increase in fine to $10k, so im not certain if they played and succeeded or played and lost. Only jmac could possibly answer that.. http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-j-mcdonald-decision-dated-7-february-2020-chair-hon-j-w-gendall-qc

Didnt the 3 get dragged down by the trailing dog and then checked as it lost momentum?.

Given the warmer weather over the weekend and the preceding week, it would be interesting to understand how much water was put on the track on the Saturday.

Yankiwi, i can see your point about consistency but not certain i can agree with your conclusion.... mild heat stroke was the outcome, however if the dogs distressed state wasnt identified, it could have potentially resulted in death. in putting forward a penalty, i suppose the jca would look at level of negligence(even if an oversight) and then outcome ie. dog lived dog died. IMO goldsacks penalty is about right, Macinerney, way to soft. Now there are two precedents one which was arguably too light and one arguably to heavy it will be interesting to see where future penalties fall.

It is clear the dog has never been a NZ based sire, unless semen was drawn before it left NZ. Therefore its inclusion in the field is a breach of NZGRA Rules. Typically a breach is handled by the RIU/JCA not the GRNZ board. The GRNZ board would have members with conflicts of interest in regard to the decision.

Consistency would be nice. Given little tornado was up in grade( has never won a race quicker than 18.16 at Wanganui), had contact just before the said easing, as it was trying to shift out and the outside runner trying to shift it in and it pulled up with an injury perhaps a Satisfactory trial as opposed to an ftp charge would have been in order. Benefit of the doubt should have been given. Conversely, Mikachu was the right call.

The difficulty you are likely to face is that change is only likely to occur from within. External pressure has shown previously to have very little if any impact.

Pretty easy for the defence if the strength of the entire case is based on the assumption on the photographic evidence it's a bichon freise tied to the lure. Its the witness testimony that will carry the most weight and without that I suspect the SPCA would not have proceeded. This will take some time to proceed through the courts I would suspect, better settle in for a very long ride. Lamb Chop the Plush Lamb Full Body ... stuffedsafari.com

There are many passionate people in the industry are frustrated, annoyed and F***ed off by what has and is happening. The frustration is there for all to read but loses impetus when what appears to be the same person with several different pseudonyms repeats themselves over and over again and over again moving the argument from a centred "this isn't right and needs to be fixed" to a personal issue not only with the Coles but the NZGRA board. The venom that they espouse isn't healthy to themselves or the code and unfortunately reflects poorly on many of the participants as a snapshot of who the code are. The glacial speed at which the board appears to move on issues of national importance at times beggars belief, however, this needs to be counted with due process and natural justice. Let's not forget the Cole family will be lawyered up, they have had a lot of time to prepare for the inevitable and no doubt will be looking at every potential scenario to enable them to continue in the industry - anyone in the same position would - but this doesn't make it right. There is no reason why the RIU cannot commence their own investigations, one would hope that this has already commenced, but I doubt it. There are more questions than answers currently around the charges. Timeframes and who the license holders were at the time will be critical - remember the SPCA case will be around cruelty - and live baiting - the dead baiting issue is unlikely to form part of the SPCA prosecution and will need to be separately investigated by the RIU. Several are claiming let's sack the board, who would you replace them with? What would be the criteria and after reading the various social media sites - who would actually want to be a board member? - this is the type of discussion that the participants should be having. One person irrespective of how great they are is unlikely to have an influence on the decision-making process of the board, however, several people with strength and a clear direction can - further to that it is unlikely that anyone outside of the board will influence change, so change must occur from within. Now is the time for the participants to unite, push back at those that believe yesterday's practices are ok today, push back at those that believe the product makers (greyhounds) are easily-dispensable items and get some robust legislation and reform around controlling the numbers and sorting out the mess in an expedient manner. Society has changed and to be honest, the code hasn't wanted to. What was acceptable 20 years ago is no longer and the code like all similar industries needs to prove itself to be socially acceptable in the bubble in which it now exists. This will not be easy but I am optimistic that if the right people could get into the right places this could occur.... the code just needs to find the right people.

Yankiwi, you have hit the nail on the head. one would expect the entry conditions were ratified by the oversight committee of the amazing chase Oversight committee (race complaints, anomalies, queries, verification of final field, etc.)Greg Kerr (chair) Robert Death, Tony Music, Venessa Trass, Gavin Whiterod. Greg Kerr is the racing manager in NZ, and purportedly provided Steve Clark with the information that the dog was eligible despite being on the committee which ratified the condition that it wasn't eligible. (short-term memory loss) so the oversight committee who includes G.Kerr doesn't believe the dog shouldn't be racing in the amazing chase but the NZGRA with G.Kerr as racing manager does believe the dog should be racing.... 1) If the dog was eligible to race why did he have to perform in a requalifying trial at all 2) how can a dog that isnt even registered to race in NZ be entered into a nz racing series/race. According to the email provided by G.kerr 17/7/2018 jca report #17 is that the dog wasn't registered to race in NZ until the 25/6/2018 - 5 days after the closing of nominations. so the dog was on a standdown, and not registered to race in NZ but could still be entered in the Amazing chase..... wow!

Okay, devils advocate here I go. 1) how is the race rigged, any trainer can nominate for the race and are drawn into the field based on selection criteria, if trainers choose not to nominate and someone has a kennel full of stayers what are they to do? If the dogs are nominated while still being injured then is that breaking any rules.... I'm sure you will be able to look this up Yankiwi. ps. I want to buy a staying dog and race it in the cd, at least they have a race every week 2) the charge to which you refer is about a dishonest act, not field manipulation, where in the report is there a reference to field manipulation, admittedly I've skim read it but I cant see it. Also, the charges relate to paul freeman but A turnwald is the trainer of these dogs. 3) if the rules are broken, would there not be charges??? if you know that the rules are being broken and you are not reporting are you just as bad as the rule breaker? Why don't you ring up Peter Earley on a Wednesday when Godber is on the radio and lay your complaint on air, if you feel so strongly, surely then it cant be ignored. I go back to my closing statement on the previous post. what are the rules being broken?? numbers please and who are the victims, because without either of those established, there could never be any charges laid.

is this actually rigging races? What rules are being broken? where are the charges? Couldn't the RIU have turned up at the kennel on the day of nomination - knowing the history and vetted the dogs? Wheres the victim in this atrocity that keeps occurring. Heaven forbids a trainer shows some initiative to get some distance racing going in an area the NZGRA have failed through their minimum starter field policy. nahh, bugger the c2 distance lets have another c1 sprint.