Cockyaleg

The chief has asked valid questions, Jacob. I hear the same criticism of breeding time again. I agree that breeding needs to be reassessed. How many, how long, and who by questions need to be answered. The starting point is, how many dogs are being bred currently? How many are currently being imported? What are the numbers lost around birth,to disease, illness, age, accident, etc? What is the current adoption rate? How many are being retained for breeding? How many are retired to the trainer/owners property? How many are onsold to other trainers? Only after answering every question can you start to calculate an optimum number. So you reduce the numbers bred by 200 yearly, can you sustain the current levels of racing? If not what does the new target look like? How many race meetings can be sustained on the new numbers? Can you meet all overhead obligations, including the cost of rehoming? The easiest way to reduce levels is to cap the number dogs that a trainer can race per year. If you analyse the trainer premiership, it looks like this: 4 trainers have raced more than 50 dogs. 19 trainers between 20 to 50 dogs. 20 trainers 10 to 20 dogs. 83 trainers 10 dogs or less.

What a fabulous post. So, because I don't agree with your anecdotal assessment I must be working for the firm? I agree with you that there is definitely a perception, but do you have the proof to back up your beliefs? If you bothered to read my posts, you would have deduced that I am not in favour of the the status quo. That puts me at odds with the firm. I am assuming you have left the industry, and your departure was not amicable. Your intelligence is questionable. It appears you would rather cast aspersions than offer solutions. Your animosity has been noted.

Totally agree that culling is not acceptable, ever. I agree that euthanasia should only ever be performed on certified medical grounds (with one exception), but I don't believe your elephant currently exists. After the last enquiry the government of the day read the riot act. Reporting and monitoring was an issue. The numbers you speak of must now be made available to government annually as part of GRNZ's obligations. There is no stipulation that they must be made available to anyone else. When countering the oppositions arguments the statistics you speak of will form a large part of the GRNZ's case. It is unthinkable to believe that the GRNZ has not fully addressed this complaint. It is actually suicidal to ignore the past. They may be many things but stupid isn't one of them. I do agree with you on penalties for anyone who deliberately flouts the rules.

That was a refreshing read, thank you. The point of my post was to start a conversation and I am more than open to listening to others thoughts, especially on improving racing for the participants. 5. Track: Why I believe the problem carries collective responsibility. The issue has been long-standing, successive boards have failed to address and remedy a situation that recently came to a head. I am not privy to those conversations, should that point have been allowed to be reached? In my view, no. Track maintenance and safety falls on the shoulders of the board and how they manage the staff that do the work. That's how I see the role of management. However, it is not track management that has kicked off opposers. It is the dogs lost. I do not place blame on the trainers concerned for the action that leads up to injury. At the end of the day, they alone made the call. That is what is in contention and the reason why opposers are up in the GRNZ's face so to speak. To the GRNZ's credit, a solution to that specific problem has followed quickly. The package offered is fairly comprehensive and well thought through. My only criticism is that it was not implemented sooner. 7. I am flexible when it comes to this number. I have been given stats specifically around nominations. These stats pertain only to CD racing. There is a trend. Lower graded dogs are not being promoted up the ranks. Those who do make it through are then up against it due to one trainer's numbers. Unlike other regions, those numbers are constantly being replaced. And those numbers can theoretically be manipulated to prevent other dogs from making a field. It all comes down to points. It's a perception that needs to be addressed. Because lower graded dogs are not being promoted, inequity has developed. With inequity comes discord and imbalance, driven by reduced earning ability. Some will scream so what! The so what is the reduction in trainer numbers in an area where those numbers are already low. The so what is a reduction in those affected which makes it easier to consider shutting an industry down. The CD, the sport needs to value every single trainer currently training. As previously stated there is an urgent need to address the balance. Jacob when it comes to breeding how would you go about changing the model? What time frame would you be looking at? And would the new model retain participants and racing? Would you ever consider capping the numbers raced per trainer? As always, this is my opinion. It may differ from yours and that's OK. Only with discussion do you find remedies.

The key to your confusion lies in the words "any defined space." Event facilities at Alert Level 2 Event facilities can operate at Alert Level 2. Event facilities can have up to 100 people within any defined space. They also need to assess how many people can safely be inside the premises and still maintain 1 metre physical distancing. This could mean the facility needs to have fewer than 100 people in a defined space. If you go to an event facility, you legally must keep 1 metre physical distance from people you do not know, where possible — if you cannot, we encourage wearing a face covering. Event facilities include: cinemas, theatres, stadiums, concert venues conference venues casinos.

You are 100% correct Jacob. However, racing will continue for at least the next 3 years. The present movement will not succeed. Labour rules alone and that will not change unless they are voted out at the next election. That is when a possible issue will arise. These forum conversations are not helpful because they offer no solutions. I have listed some of the things that I believe can improve the life of participants and their dogs. That is what I particularly care about. You have raised some valid points, what is more important is the remedy. Everyone here should be discussing possible solutions. What the participants need to do is work with governance to gain ground. What I see is venting, finger pointing, anger, non of which will be heard and will change nothing.

Lock down change was imposed a day before the event, is that correct? The Auckland contingent including the Auckland commentators were unable to attend due to the Covid travel ban. The advertising was posted before the Level 2 was announced and was not removed after the event took place, just an oversight. Here's an example of what is allowed in Level 2. A church can hold a wedding in the chapel with a limit of 100 attendees. They can also hold a pray meeting in a seperate building on the property for 100 attendees. The two events are seperate. Both parties must abide by social distancing rules. Neither party can come into contact with the other. Seperate entrances and parking must be provided for each group. Both buildings must comply with Covid cleaning practices. Similarly, I can hold an event on my property at the same time my nextdoor neighbour does the same as long as we both adhere to the rules and do not exceed the 100 attendee limit. The two events are seperated by a boundary fence. In the case of a workplace, the 100 persons linit does not apply. Example: A factory or freezing works that employs more than 100 workers is allowed to continue as long as strict social distancing and cleaning rules are adhered to. Making a case in this instance against the club would fail.

Your interpretation of Covid rules are incorrect. This is a workplace with sanctioned Covid raceday rules. The event was seperated from raceday personal and trainers, it was policed. Trainers and normal raceday staff had no contact with the two seperate parties on track that day, and were not permitted entry to the areas the other two parties were contained in. At no time were the three parties permitted contact. Parking was also seperated for each of the three groups. That information came directly from a trainer.

Hmmm, interesting perspectives. For what it's worth, this is my take on the current situation. 1. Greyhound racing will not be ending anytime soon. Please stop supporting that notion. 2. Those opposed have no evidence of wrong doing. Their numbers are incorrect. The claims they make are grossly exaggerated. The sponsors they claim have deserted the sport were never sponsors in the first place. The opposition lies and has always done so. 3. Swarbrick's members bill will fail. 4. Greyhound racing has addressed nearly all the criticisms leveled at it by various enquiries. They have actually made great strides since you lot were moaning about the change to artificial training lures, I remember that conversation well. 5. The Wanganui track issues have been addressed. Blame cannot be fully attributed to one person or group. There was collective responsibility which trainers are not exempt from. Take a minute to think about that. So lets all just breathe......what is it you actually want???? If it is fairness, I fully understand that. Is it greater transparency, that's valid. What do you actually want? Is what you want able to sustain racing at this time? I would like to see everyday races limited to no more than 4 runners per trainer. I would like to see two wins per grade before promotion. I would like to see the playing field leveled when it comes to stakes ie $1000 available to all maiden winners, not just middle distance. I would like to see the stats on breeding and know why the smaller trainers have reduced the numbers bred. I would like to see nominations standardised and fields completed by the GRNZ. I would like to see the opposers taken to task on the bullying of individuals and private business.There are many items on my wish list. What are yours?

I haven't read this forum for a long time. Sadly, nothing has changed, same issue different day. Had a catch up with my ex-trainer and have an overview of whats been happening. It's clear the person in question has a history, most would agree that history leaves participants cold. In my opinion and this is an opinion, poor behaviour is always the fault of those who allow it to continue. Mates overseeing mates is never a good thing. Conflict of interest. A dog's life, that is a very clever handle. Unfortunately also disturbingly apt in the circumstances. The judicial information you posted shows arrant contempt for the job, dogs, and participants. It shows an unwillingness to take direction to correct a perceived flaw. These are dangerous traits. Clarkie you have often been the subject of scorn and at times I may not have agreed with your position or choice of words. But, there is always some truth in your posts and I have to commend you on your passion and sincerity. If your thread helps bring about change and I hope it does, many will applaud you.

That action makes absolutely no sense at all.

Chief, that confirms my previous post: "In spite of proper vaccination, a small percentage of dogs do not develop protective immunity and remain susceptible to infection."

I have four dogs. I live in a residential area. In my block, every neighbour bar one has a dog or dogs. I suspect that 50% of those dogs are neither vaccinated nor registered. My suspicion if correct highlights a health risk to the wider dog community. Taking my dogs off property carries risk even though they are fully vaccinated. Viruses mutate they don't sit idle. What works for last years dog coronavirus may not be effective with next years strain, the same is true for COVID-19 in humans. My advice to those wishing to stir the pot is to be very careful the circumstance you perceive may differ significantly in truth. No vaccinated dog's owner should be complacent.

The relevent part of that rule is the word "permission". All kennels are inspected regularly. Disclosure forms part of any sign-off.

That is also my understanding, infact having other animals on property is encouraged as part of the socialisation process. Readying dogs for rehoming is made easier if they have been exposed to other domiciled breeds during their racing careers. In New Zealand it is not uncommon for farm stock to exist on a training property, either bred for food or to supplement income. In today's current economic climate that for some would be a necessity. For any trainer racing in the CD it makes perfect sense that they would look at other income streams to support themselves and their dogs.

Thank you.

I can find nothing on Google to confirm what you have stated. What I did find states the reason as "a possible contamination". So I will ask the obvious, has a racing greyhound/s returned positives for parvovirus? And where can this information be found?

It was there. People in Australia saw it and provided a snapshot for their readers. https://www.punters.com.au/news/meeting-canned-as-lure-driver-walks-off-the-job_191987/

It would be extremely difficult to defend such infantile behaviour. Not only did Mr Beeson deny all trainers affected the right to earn a stake but also reduced the days turnover, turnover vital in these challenging times. Punters were let down badly, especially any who were sitting on multis. I think it might be time to go, Mr Beeson, you cannot hold the code to ransom due to your hurt feelings. Commiserations to all trainers, at the very least you should be compensated. Question: Are clubs required to have two drivers on course on race day? Does anyone know the answer?

Correct. Cole would have been better off going to trial rather than have the charges dropped. The door remains open and as he was not acquitted, his character remains forever tarnished.

I think the onus should be on the club. The rooster should be removed and if possible rehomed. It could all end badly if allowed to stay.

If true that the case will proceed in June, the timing will be extremely detrimental to all 3 codes. It comes amid calls for racing's 72+ million dollar injection to be rescinded. Win, lose or draw, the negative case publicity will give the current petition airtime that it would not otherwise have received. I would think some are now wishing they had jumped on this from the outset instead of abdicating responsibility. This situation could become very political when you consider two of government's coalition partners are struggling at the polls. Will the Greens jump on the bandwagon? Will they back a call to shut down the industry to attract badly needed future votes? How loud will their voice be? Based on racings 1.6 billion dollar contribution to the New Zealand economy, I don't believe they would be successful, but I would not smugly sit idol and risk a groundswell of public opinion becoming a tsunami. Never underestimate the effects of COVID recession on our populations' reaction.

They are angry. They are reacting to a situation not of their making. Word is the case is to be heard next month, early July at the latest. On that I agree with the activists. In a time when you need positive exposure you lot are going to be shit on BIGTIME! Wake up and smell the roses. At least show a united front on wrong doing, anything else is seen as colaboration.

Surely a mandatory stand down cannot be rescinded? Surely once notified by a steward, the dog should be scratched immediately? I was under the impression the new rules were set in stone? Is this not the case?

If Rendle were indeed a "good bastard' he would have been concerned for the health of greyhound racing in the CD from day 1. But Rendle is not a "good bastard" despite hosting the occasional charity event to boost his profile. Rendle is about money and ego, dominance and monopoly. He will be forever remembered for his aliance with dubious members of the greyhound fraternity, notably Scott and Cole. One disgraced the other hovering under a cloud. His deliberate dominance in the CD has caused extreme hardship and if Manawatu closes, the majority of CD trainers will be on the bread line. What a legacy, what a "good bastard"!