Cockyaleg

I agree with everyone's sentiments in regard to giving every dog a shot at retired life regardless of status achieved. That is the ideology that I apply to all my dogs. However, I am going to play devil's advocate in this case as I have personal knowledge of the dog and his behaviour. To say that Tom was at the difficult end of the behavioural spectrum would be a gross understatement. I would go as far as saying Tom fell into the category of unsafe and untrainable, that small percentage that we all know exist. So, if you were faced with the same set of circumstances, what choice would you make? Would you choose to have him wither away in a kennel? End his days confined and confused, never understanding why his reason for being has been taken away? Cruelty comes in many forms, and sometimes the right thing to do isn't the most popular. Not having a go at anyone here, all are entitled to an opinion. Just something to think about.

Extremely relevant in the current climate. "Don’t assume your stakeholders think and feel the same as you. Acting on behalf of a community without consultation shows a complete lack of respect and consideration for those who can make or break your business. The world is moving and changing too fast for you not to have your finger on the pulse."

Fair point Chief. And you are correct, tucking of shirts only applies to men.

Support you totally Chief and thank you for the opportunity to post here. I am however disappointed that anyone would target another based on appearance. Afterall genetics and life circumstances can have a profound influence on us all.

Bob, it's more about climate change and temps heading to 30 degrees at present. All trainers have the right to act as they see fit. There was a heat stress related incident, and any more could see MPI force the issue. Always need to be proactive rather than reactive which is what we have been for years. There is merit in the idea and some constructive conversation would be prudent, even if an extension doesn't eventuate. At present, there is only provision for 12 races.

Correction: You can kennel early but only in the first 12 races. 13, 14, and 15 have to wait till 1, 2, and 3 have been run. Trial dogs cannot kennel and nor can reserves. I have copied the info below from Monday's fields. It appears at the bottom of the page after the field for Race 15 in case you missed it. There needs to be provision made for all dogs. Nothing stupid about the statement at all. Just a total inability to comprehend on the readers part. Kennelling times: Kenneling Times. Races 1 - 12, 11.41am to 12.41pm. Alternative Kenneling Times For : Races 5 - 6, 1.31pm to 1.41pm. Races 7 - 8, 2.10pm to 2.20pm. Races 9 - 10, 2.52pm to 3.02pm. Races 11 - 12, 3.32pm to 3.42pm. Scratchings, Please Phone 06 3583948

Hmmm, someone has a grudge and nothing positive to contribute. I think a kennel block extension has merits as it would allow all dogs to be kenneled out of the heat, including all trial dogs and reserves. Presently there are no facilities available to them.

That is a good point. Don't remember seeing security at any other track. A kennel block extension would be welcomed.

Deb would like me to pass this on. This is a quote: "I would like to thank everyone who has been supportive post-hearing especially the Wanganui club members. The process has been difficult, and the decision to take action was not taken lightly. The syndicate believed there was a case to answer. The syndicate has been disappointed by the club's behaviour post-decision as have many members. It was not our intention to cause any harm to those who trialed at the track. We only sought to rectify a situation that had not been resolved despite the efforts of the members themselves. We believe the action taken by the club post-decision is extreme. We fully support any remedy the members choose to pursue in resolving the present conditions. I have had occasion to feel unsafe in recent days and have passed that on to industry powers. The abuse and slanderous statements made are uncalled for, as is the behaviour toward a witness who appeared. Everyone is entitled to an opinion with respect. No one should be referred to as a "low life" because they support the court decision. At days end, the tribunal heard all the evidence and ruled. Judgment was handed down. The club may seek a rehearing or choose to appeal, that is their right in law. Thank you for your support. Deb Edlin."

That's what it says in the email the club sent out on Tuesday.

The judgment was made by Disputes Tribunal at the District Court. I don't think there is a link available, but I could be wrong. However, it was a judgment, not a settlement so I don't think any confidentiality applies. Someone else may be able to confirm.

No she wasn't.

You do not have the specifics. The court dealt with the issue as it would have been used by the club as a defense. Your speculation is just that.

They claim a dog cannot be trialed while on stand down, there is no such rule. The GRNZ I believe gave an opinion for the court on this very subject, it would have been used by the club as a defense. I believe GRNZ stated trainers are within their rights to rehabilitate a dog while stood down but not race or take part in a satisfactory trial. So I believe the issue has been dealt with by the court. If "Hard Times" is struggling to grasp the court process, then there is nothing more anyone can say.

Just spoke to someone who was involved. Apparently, a complaint has been made about you (Lisa Olden) intimidating witnesses at the track If true that is appalling behaviour. Also been told you never gave evidence for the club, only now that the case is lost are you attempting to assassinate the person who brought the case. Anyone following your ridiculous posts would see right through such behaviour. Extremely sour grapes. I see you have now involved tag-teamer "Hard Times". If any wrong had been done by Edlin the court would have ruled differently. If she had committed a wrong she would herself be up on charges with the JCA. She isn't. You two really are trying to stir the shit, aren't you. You both need to go away, have a cup of tea, and keep quiet. You are digging yourself into a hole Lisa and you are doing the club no favour.

So you gave evidence in court and still lost. Says a lot about your credibility doesn't it.

I REPEAT And from what I have read the club did get caught out. They put up a case which was rejected by a court of law and they were judged negligent. So who's lying here? Lisa Olden, wife of the lure driver involved, because it is obvious who you are. Someone apparently with an enormous grudge who is attempting to slander another because she doesn't like the decision. Tell me did you get up in court and tell your story? And if not, why not? If so you obviously weren't believed by the judge.

And from what I have read the club did get caught out. They put up a case which was rejected by a court of law and they were judged negligent. So who's lying here? Lisa Olden, wife of the lure driver involved, because it is obvious who you are. Someone apparently with an enormous grudge who is attempting to slander another because she doesn't like the decision. Tell me did you get up in court and tell your story? And if not, why not? If so you obviously weren't believed by the judge.

Sorry to hear your dog suffered an injury. Just like to correct your last sentence if I may. It isn't against the rules to trial while on stand down only start in a race or satisfactory trial. Trainers can trial as part of a dog's rehab back to racing while on stand down. Maybe a short assessment run to establish whether a dog is fit to return to work. A stand down is the estimated period for full recovery, it is not absolute and by that, I mean that a dog can recover faster or may need longer than the time estimated. That's why stand downs can be rescinded. It is each individual trainers job to assess the stages of recovery. Very few if any would take a dog back to a vet for a clearance at the end of a stand down period. The actual rule reads: "56.4 Subject to Rule 56.5, an Owner or Trainer shall not permit the Greyhound named in a Certificate of Incapacitation under this Rule to compete in any Race or Satisfactory Trial during the period of incapacitation." Obviously, you wouldn't trial at the beginning of a stand down. But it's not unusual for a trainer to give a limited trial toward the end of a stand down, especially if the trainer believes the dog has recovered. No trainer would trial a dog over 520m in a state of unfitness especially if the dog was a sprinter.

That's a very detailed observation. You claim to know what was said and even what was meant, months after the event. The club was found guilty of negligence, the judge must be totally incompetent. Or not.

Based on the information you have provided Aquaman, it follows that all clubs should undertake a full review and risk assessment at least annually. Health and safety checks should take place prior to every meeting. Failure to do so and remedy places any club in jeopardy. It is common knowledge in this case, that a failure had previously been identified, and that the members themselves attempted to rectify the shortfall. It is reasonable to assume that if management had acted immediately, litigation would not have followed. But it did, hence the overkill advisory. A bit like placing triple locks on the gate after the horse has bolted.

Heck? Are you on the board that wrote the new rules that upset the participants? And who would these low lives be?

Totally agree Yan. Bring back Brian, please.

I assume you are referring to the club email sent out yesterday. I have to say it was very OTT and the work of an organisation seemly devoid of any reasonable management skills. I'm not surprised temperatures are raised. Given the club's litigation track record, I am perplexed as to why the board is still sitting? I think the score sits around 6 or 7 to nil in favour of the also-rans but I stand to be corrected on the figures. The fact that members are willing to tolerate such behaviour is beyond me. Attempting to place blame elsewhere is ill-conceived. Just my opinion.

No rule broken even though you have to scratch within a specific time frame. The kennel was intent on reversing the stand down as soon as the docket was signed. It reads like the dog was re-vetted on Friday night otherwise a stipe traveled to the re-vetting on the weekend. The dog should have been swabbed post-race. It was stood down two days before the win. It hadn't won in 13 starts since November. The money was on! Take a look at the swabs: Donlon two winners, one a form dog, both swabbed, both ran around 22s. 100% Walsh four runners, two winners, two placings, two swabbed. 50% Cole thirty plus runners, seven winners, three swabs. Less than 10% of the total runners.