Cockyaleg

Yes there are positives in the industry. There are achievements that should be recognised, but not at the expense of industry integrity. If you want to be part of an industry to be proud of then you cannot ignore the negatives. Staying silent just encourages those who would use unsanctioned methods to accumulate winners. Those who would protect them. Seems you are all good with that. Rules need to be applied equally, scrutiny helps keep the game honest.

Run out of meds again fur que? I had a fabulous day. Feel better soon xxx. ?

I agree, the code will be done in 5 years. She is here to spin the Cole case, and as quoted in the Stuff link I posted, she doesn't care whether he is guilty or not. The thoroughbred fraternity are already issuing their sincere condolences.

Do you know if there were any other contenders?

Have a read. It seems media spin is her specialty. https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/114181635/glenda-hughes-the-unlikely-conservative

Bloody hell, it just keeps going from bad to worse.

well that was another eloquent tantrum from a very short sighted minion.

Shodsie. How the results are achieved are more important than the result. The public don't care about his wins and nor do I. To stay in business the industry must exhibit a very high level of integrity. Without that integrity public licence quickly diminishes. The SPCA case will become a media circus with MP's jumping on the bandwagon. Cole will draw the case out for as long as he can, insuring the integrity issue will have longevity. The harm done will be longlasting. You say look what he has achieved. You disregard the how at the industry's peril. The Weir case highlights how quickly any good is lost. When you place ego and cash over all else you quickly lose credibility. The support of his peers has already been lost. If he is found guilty, he will no longer exist. Sadly in his absence the burden will be carried by large and small who remain. No one has the right to visit that upon others especially when it's just for personal gain. If he goes and I believe he should, there will be a short-term short fall but racing numbers naturally rise and fall. Having numbers and holding the industry to ransom should not have been allowed, because when it collapses there is no quick fix. I'm just a punter with no say in governance. But if I did have a say, I would be asking the governors to seriously reassess their business model. Industry health is far more important than two person greed. You asked me what my interest was, I'm just a punter. I choose to back those with integrity and my punting model works. Raffles aren't my thing. So keep donating to the 8 dog Cole fields like you said someone has to prop up the stakes.

Maybe they should Rockit, but right now he and his helpers are flavour of the month.

That's correct Shodsie, I do not rate Cole and nor do many others. He has a long history of infamy and questionable training methods. Allegations of sending in heavies acording to media reports? Bankruptcy which could be described as a form of tax avoidance. Then there is the farce involving his wife, apparently she is the trainer of record. And he has the unenviable hounor of being the first greyhound licence holder to ever face State prosecution. Then there is the probability of facing further charges under racing rules. I think you have confused noteriety with infamy. I do not rate him and I have absolutely no respect for the kennel.

Why just the Cole kennel?, because that is the example you put forward: "the last time i looked the cole kennel has trained 800 plus winners how many have you trained???? how many dogs have you breed and rehomed???" Your second paragraph talks about having a crack and punters not being put off. I would like to know the numbers behind your statement, who is actually having a crack on the Cole monopoly races? If it's the same punters all the time, the hundreds to win punter, or a mix of big and small punters? Would the turnover on those races increase if his runners were reduced from 6-8 runners to only 2? You can't tell me that. Yes massive challenges. Like many big named throughbred trainers, I believe racing will not survive the next 10 years. Trainers are on a steady decline across all 3 codes. The small trainer has taken a major battering, and in the case of greyhounds are being pushed out by their own. I am an FOB punter as I like certainty. I never bet on Cole's dogs, his favs run last too often to even consider the option. I backed Talk over Robson and Cole, Talk over the Cole's stacked fields and I'm on the winning side of the ledger. I will always back the quality trainer over quantity and that doesn't mean I only back the big names. There are some exceptional trainers amongst the small kennels getting the absolute best out of lesser quality dogs. Cole doesn't rate in my book, he just runs numbers. Numbers mean more stakes and more wins, but that does not equate to respect. And yes I would like to know what the big players stats are. I wouldn't include the Walsh kennel in the same category, they no longer breed large quantities.

Maybe you would like to share all the TAB and Cole stats with us Shodsie. Start with the race punting demographics, returning promotional punters, and work from there. And as you seem to know what Cole does and doesn't do. Please share the actual numbers: Total dogs breed between 2015 and 2019. Total to the races over that period. Total imports raced. Total passed on to other trainers. Total rehomed. We can work out the rest from there.

I actually said the "long time aging punter". The people deemed least important. The ones who couldn't afford trackside, and weren't cell/computer savvy. The ones still trying to work out a pod. Also the rural people who no longer have a TAB in their area, have to travel to deposit and withdraw. The forgotten ones. If I'm wrong why not just put the figures up? Why not put all the figures up? The figures I read stated sports betting is the bet type on the rise. The fact that Cole has amassed 800 winners is neither here nor there. If he loses the SPCA case he won't be training anymore. Like you, I haven't trained any winners, but I am a punter. Like many other punters completely turned off by his tactics and the pssibility of of field manipulation. He is without doubt a narcissist, intent on destroying racing in the CD. Monopolies are only ever favoured by those monopolising, but they inevitably cause harm. That's why regulators exist, why the Commerce Commission exists. You obviously place your relationship with Cole and the dollar above the health of the industry. Well done you.

I agree, the new initiative will again support the few. I hear the puppy farmers have already set up to consolidate their already substantial market share. The few will have a monopoly and progeny will be priced accordingly.

They have no other choice. If they were to pull out which is Cole's end game, there is no where for their dogs to go. The rehoming system could not absorb the numbers. Your future like all others is on the line. You are right, he doesn't care because he is a narcissitic prick who will be long remembered for being the only trainer in the history of NZ greyhound racing to be prosecuted by the State. While trainer numbers remain reasonably high, it makes it difficult for racing opposition to persuade government to end the sport. If trainer numbers were to reduce to say 10 or less in each region, the sport will be shut down. Again you are right Cole doesn't care, he will leave fully cashed up, the rest of you will be looking at bankructcy. Racing punters have steadily declined, many moving to sports betting. The estimate is around 50,000 with the hard core punter propping up all 3 codes. If the casual punter walks away and stakes reduce, the hard cores cannot sustain racing as it stands. The TAB is frantic in it's efforts to retain punters to the point that they are now giving money away. The issues are far greater than one man's ego. When the TAB went digital, the long time aging punters also dropped away. I have seen no evidence that they have been replaced with a younger demographic. This new app on offer looks extremely attractive. Competition will reduce TAB turnover and that reduction will impact the present product and stakes. You are right, the industry let this happen. In Cole's case having his financial backer on the board expedited the sport's demise. Look after number one first is a not model I personally subscribe to. So when the shit does hit the fan, and it will, there will be no going back.

You are right I do currently work in education, but not as a teacher. More to do with policy. I have never met you, and I have no idea who Tina is. I do know a couple of people in the industry but have no involvement myself. My opinion is based on the transcripts and the statements you have made publically. I had drinks with a barrister on the weekend, he read the transcripts. His response; every man is innocent until they are not. The charge cannot be beaten. Only the penalty can be mitigated. The evidence and lack of, points overwhelmingly in one direction. The language is at times clumsy. The respondent should not have engaged the public in conversation. That will only create sides and strengthen opposing views. In regard to the penalty, a rap on the knuckles with a ruler. Any future positives to this particular drug should expect the same leniency. I asked you why information which appeared in the first transcript had since been removed. You have never replied. That information stated that you were a sickness beneficiary who supplement your benefit via racing. Was that information correct or not?

Four Shaw, well spotted Sir! Mr. Turakina made the following statement earlier today: "I dont think my dogs have been injected with dermorphin, but they have it in there gut bacteria." Well spotted indeed. Beggers belief! They have it in there gut bacteria, yet what does he do? Only gives two of the positive dogs to other trainers. Tuna Speed to M Gowan. Night Howler to L Doody. Do they know the dogs have it in there gut bacteria? So based on your own statement, both dogs could return a positive with the new trainers. You Mr. Turakina are either an arsehole or a BIGTIME LIAR!

In my chosen field, the ability to communicate to a reasonable level in both spoken and written language is a prerequisite. Is it not the same for your industry?Thank you for providing that opinion. I am assuming it was written by Dr, Jansen, retired vet. It would have been helpful to read the actual article that Dr. Jansen based his opinion on. To know when the reference material was written, by whom, and date that it was published, if published at all. It would also have been helpful to include any peer reviews that followed publishing. What you have presented is in no way proof of innocence. What you have provided is an opinion only.The point I would like to make about theory is, it is unproven conjecture, a hypothesis. And this piece says it is exactly that, it uses words like reasonable to assume, possibly, unusual posttranslational modification, etc. Now the second point I would like to touch on is the failure rate of clinical trials to field trials. What can be produced in a controlled environment, under controlled conditions cannot always be duplicated outside the lab. The judiciary quite rightly discarded the theory as there exists no probability in fact. The hypothesis may never be tested, the hypothesis may fail, a declaration of innocence cannot be based on the possibility of something that may never happen.JCA " [22] While Dr. Jansen’s view does raise some interesting conclusions, there is simply a lack of an evidential basis, or research, to support a conclusion which could be defined as a hypothesis at this stage. We also note that Mr. Duganzich, while offering up some potential views on how the Dermorphin could have made its way into NIGHT HOWLER’s system, has provided no specific evidence to advance that further."On the subject of the WGRC kennel block cameras.JCA "[23] It is clear that that RIU are alleging presentation rather than administration, so there is no suggestion of any intentional involvement on the part of the Respondent. What we must consider is whether Mr. Duganzich presented the dog to race with the substance in its system. The only other alternative suggested by him is that an intentional administration occurred in the kennelling block at Whanganui. In our assessment, there is simply no strong evidence to rely on that. While the CCTV surveillance system at the track may be dated, that alone is not a sufficient factor to support that view."It has been brought to my attention that both your mother and father have been WGRC board members at various times. The informant also stated that your mother was a board member while the present camera system was in operation. Only now these cameras have become an issue for you and your family? You wrote today: "I dont think my dogs have been injected with dermorphin, but they have it in there gut bacteria." That statement contradicts your father's hearing statement below: JCA "[12] Lay Advocate. His understanding was that it had to also be injected in order for it to be present in the animal’s system."You did not challenge any of the evidence presented by the RIU.JCA "[7] The RIU had also circulated as part of Disclosure, four Briefs of Evidence. These were from Mr. Malcolm Wall, Dr. David Palmer, Mr. Simon Irving, and Dr. Malcolm Jansen. Mr. Duganzich stated that he had no issue(s) with the Briefs, and did not wish to challenge their contents."In conclusion. You offered no evidence at all. The penalty is no penalty at all. You have no dogs and stated you were leaving the industry. The suspension means nothing. If you used your beneficiary status to diminish any possible fine, it worked. If that staus was falsly declared, that would open up a whole new can of worms.

Mr Turakina. I did say at the outset that you should leave well alone. In my view you were treated leniently to a charge you admitted. That should have been the end of it, but as you brought this here, not me, you opened the conversation up to the world. There is no hate in my posts, just a quest for the truth. However, I have no respect for anyone who casts apersions on their fellow participants, and you did just that when you used kennel block nobbling as a possible excuse for your positives. Pointing the finger at others in order to cast doubt on your guilt is appalling behaviour. You did not point to any person or persons that could be responsible or offer evidence of possible intent, just deflected. Dermorphin is a long lasting pain killer that allows and animal to run/run harder by blocking the pain receptors. No pain, no lame. It can also put an animal into a euphoric state which at the right dosage could be beneficial when looking to continue running an animal carrying injury. You don't need a science degree to work out why someone would use it. The lab tests came back positive to synthetic dermorpin, not natural, synthetic. The difference between the two is there chemical signature. That's how scientists are able to differentiate in forensic labs. Your theory that we have mammals in New Zealand producing synthetic forms of morphine is insane. I am yet to see anyone smoke or shoot up a possum. I suggest you publish your theory and have the scientific community critique it. You have the only greyhounds in New Zealand who possess this ability to synthesise dermorphin, and in the last five years there have been more than 20,000 drug tests returned. You claim there have been very few dermorphin positives, I suggest you work on your research skills. Quote from your opening post, "I have to be the dumbest guy in racing in all 3 codes not just in NZ but the whole world." On that we both agree. On a positive note "Plattapie', catchy name. Could be a new venture to consider. Good luck to you and your family, and that was sincere.

Bahahaha, charge admitted, but it wasn't me! Remember you brought this here. As far back as 2013 there were robust discussions regarding the use of sythesised dermorphin in racing. There are many more examples. https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/chasing-the-frog-keeping-up-with-slippery-cheaters/ 2012 https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/sports/horse-racing-discovers-new-drug-problem-one-linked-to-frogs.html 2015 https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2015/11/10/new-synthetic-opioid-drug-racehorses-in-new-york/ 2017 http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/veterinarian-charged-with-plot-drug-horses-races

The scientific evidence presented at the first hearing was overwhelming in favour of the prosecution. Reading both transcripts you failed to present any evidence to rebutt the scientific testimony. In fact you failed to present any evidence at all that would that would exonerate you. Thank you for confirming that fact. You are extremely lucky not to have incurred a harsher penalty, unlike others. The disparity between your case and the cases cited in the transcript is staggering. Add the Schofield case to that list, two years. He didn't do it either.

You didn't answer either of my questions.

Sorry Kiwi, no I havent. But to believe that as a possibility now would be a very long stretch with, or without cameras. The other concern I have is deflecting culpability. Most would have no knowledge of this specific chemical, and most couldn't afford the quoted $200 cost to nobble someone else's dog. That kind of behaviour would require an intense level of hate. Also the high risk of getting caught would be a great deterent, especially given the positives occurred on different dates. That's more than one attempt.

Wrong sardine. I gave you a heads up. Do you have any idea why the original transcript has been altered? Also and I quote from the original transcript: "Current scientific evidence details that the analogue of Dermorphin identified in the three dogs is synthetic and therefore could not have been replicated in nature or caused by environmental contaminants. Scientists also believe that the likely and most effective method of Dermorphin delivery would be by injection." Now I am no scientist but the information above is quite clear and specific. Is there evidence to refute that opinion as I am struggling to find it in the second transcript?