Special Agent

Weren't we discussing deliberate action against a fellow rider. Wasn't he deported for his trouble? I fully understand the rules. That does not mean the correct charges are always laid and the right penalties applied. The rule book is not a racing bible everyone interprets well. And some are very clever at sidestepping some of the consequences. While talking interpretation, was the rider suspended today having their first day riding? If so, how could he ever have been considered conversant with the rules.

I think the Taranaki meeting at this time of the year should be scrapped.

And what about the horse?

These poor 2yo and 3yo races don't help anyone. I wonder if the weekend's race hadn't been the Wakefield whether it would have been scrapped. One thing NZTR should be looking at from a professional and transparent perspective is the number of runners that are obvious throw-ins so the race goes ahead.

In most cases I don't think a jockey goes out to deliberately maim a horse or another rider but, I can't exclusively rule that intention out as there may be a crazed jockey on a certain day. I'm sure Tina and others in the south could cite one such individual. "Therefore" nothing! Any nuances go out the window once you step into the room with race day officials. You've read enough judicial tripe to know that.

Who are the other ones? Yeah sure, add me to the list.

I wouldn't necessarily say RECKLESS = DELIBERATE which I think you may be inferring.

Just on this, in and around times of Covid the programming committees met on Zoom. This was hardly ideal. I remember a trainer representative telling me how difficult it was working through the races and meetings whilst juggling spreadsheets, and then the focus moving onto the next meeting before everyone had fully digested and discussed the previous. Does anyone know if these meetings are now in person in all regions?

Everyone knows pulling up is one of the most dangerous parts of a race. That's why salutes, standing up in the irons, letting go of the reins to pat the horse etc at the finish are all frowned upon. Again, with Opie's experience, I am surprised at the Hastings race and other examples given on here. We could go back over many races over many seasons where the less experienced, less favoured or those with less ability have not had the same rub of the green in the Stewards' Room.

I don't have much time for Lisa as a rider, even less time as a person. I've always found Opie pleasant.

These novelty races really are messing with New Zealand racing, particularly with history and tradition. Has anyone tabled a contingency plan for if/when the Entain deal blows apart? I'm only seeing money thrown at some races. What clubs and individuals are coming up with innovations to maintain and bolster field numbers and quality across the board?

Do you agree Chief? These readings are like our judicial rulings ... inconsistent.

Australians are definitely a different breed. They like to bet, they start younger, they love a day at the races and they love to dress up. I suppose there are more of them too which makes a crowd, a big one. The trainers and jockeys seem to be more professional, outgoing and articulate. Bruce Sharrock may have the right idea to try to upskill the licence holders and strive for elite groups. We aren't like the Aussies though and New Zealand may remain a licence holder dumping ground for some time to come. To me, the whipping rule goes around and around. As far as too many strikes of a whip is concerned, how hard is it to count? If jockeys cannot abide by the rules put them on the side lines for a length of time that actually has an effect on their behaviour. I feel the fate of the industry lies with the jockeys. The buck must stop with them. The thoroughbred industry must learn from what is happening to the greyhounds. There is little point moaning amongst ourselves. It seems a different opinion is jumped on as something alien. If we don't look at the problems differently we'll be staring at the same result as the dogs. Judging by this site anger management companies could make a killing.

A person is reckless when he/she acts in a way where they are heedless of, or indifferent to, the danger or peril of the consequences of their actions. That is when there is disregard or indifference to the danger of the situation or for the consequences of one’s actions. I think that sums up the Hastings race when you consider Opie's experience as a rider.

How or why some decisions are made by the New Zealand judiciary is a mystery to many. I know how the reckless and careless rules read. The incident at Hastings on Alby's horse, in my opinion, was nothing short of reckless. Much worse than Lance's Auckland Cup win. Both horses kept the race. Imagine if those two races were the yardstick. We'd see more dodgems out there. History shows there has been a lot less interference resulting in the winner being put out. I call it inconsistency.

Betting on the dogs? What would happen if all New Zealand greyhound trainers went on the same two week holiday with the same notice given to them by the Racing Minister?

"For example ,once the nz greyhound industry folds you would think winston will sort it out so that the income from revenue generated by wagering on overseas greyhound racing,in particular australian greyhounds,which must be significant,well that income you would think will now go to the racing codes." If this grand plan of rehoming thousands of greyhounds goes ahead this revenue might have to fund it. They can't cut all revenue and then not allow the shooting of dogs. A poorly thought out plan in my opinion.

I think people in charge are barking up the wrong tree if they assume greyhound punters are going to become horse punters (and owners). Government seem to think greyhound punters are problem gamblers. Maybe they are but, as Dean from Entain remarked way back at the beginning, the appeal of the dogs is the quick fire nature of the sport. I would have thought pokie and casino type punting is more their go. It seems funny Entain is taking this so quietly when you look at the total revenue that potentially could be lost to racing altogether.

I think people in charge are barking up the wrong tree if they assume greyhound punters are going to become horse punters (and owners). Government seem to think greyhound punters are problem gamblers. Maybe they are but, as Dean from Entain remarked way back at the beginning, the appeal of the dogs is the quick fire nature of the sport. I would have thought pokie and casino type punting is more their go. It seems funny Entain is taking this so quietly when you look at the total revenue that potentially could be lost to racing altogether.

A few observations:- - If greyhound administrators are anything like their thoroughbred counterparts anyone with complaints, solutions or ideas might as well spend their time and effort elsewhere because they will not be listened to. - The administrators will just move on and into other jobs. - You may be right with your glimmer of hope as a) Winnie wasn't exactly sounding confident that he was totally onboard with the decision he was reading and b) if anyone thinks such a high number of dogs can be rehomed in such a short space of time they are completely mental. - With no income from greyhound racing how does anyone think the rehoming places will be funded? The official rehoming places should be closed immediately. There will be many far better credentialed ex-licence holders with facilities to look after greyhounds. - Not much consultation happened. There was no consideration given to the investment into the Wanganui straight track. How was that funded, as a matter of interest? Somewhere I read where the future of greyhound racing was going to be straight tracks. - It looks as though improvements across the board have been achieved but, still not good enough. The entire industry should not be judged on a few participants. If improvements were not going to be enough why did they even bother "putting greyhound racing on notice"? Dragging it out with false promises has been worse than had they just shut up shop earlier. - Forget about getting the SPCA involved. This organisation is run by a lot of volunteers and a lot of do-gooders whom cannot rehome the dogs they have. They must kill more dogs than the greyhound fraternity do. - Not all people wanting pets can give greyhounds a suitable home. Not being able to shoot unsuitable dogs is dumb.

I don't know where that brochure is now so I can't comfirm Trentham and/or Awapuni but, it was flash new birdcage fencing, and one (I think) new running rail.

I guess this problem disappears when RACE sell the Trentham chute to put in the new tie up stalls, birdcage fencing and running rail mentioned in their brochure.

Some points to ponder:- - Why a 20 month wind down? Would 5 years have been kinder to the industry for both dogs and humans? - How many dogs do SPCA put down each year? After all SPCA have offered to assist in rehoming greyhounds. - Should legislation be put through under urgency to include SPCA not putting any dogs down? - New Zealand has a far worse record looking after children and the elderly. Animals are much better cared for than humans.

Winston has done a job on the industry then hasn't he. Add this to the all weather tracks for galloping he sanctioned that create more injuries and deaths than any other surface. What more can you say? Do you think Glenda Hughes will come galloping in on her big white horse to save the day? She's bound to be on the advisory committee to which you can send your submissions.

That makes sense. Is 2,900 a true reflection of the wastage? There will pups yet to born yet and everything. What a bloody mess!!