Chief Stipe Posted November 7, 2023 Share Posted November 7, 2023 6 minutes ago, BitofaLegend said: They usually dont publish them. They published the Turnwald one for some reason That's inconsistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitofaLegend Posted November 7, 2023 Share Posted November 7, 2023 11 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: That's inconsistency. Im wondering if its possible we dont test for levels, only that the drugs there. Turnwald paid for the b swab to get tested in a better lab so levels were provided. Only speculation but maybe this is the reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 On 5/11/2023 at 7:10 PM, Chief Stipe said: About time you got it. If a dog is presented to the races and wins and them returns a positive swab for obvious reasons it has much more gravitas than an out of competition swab positive probably due to environmental comtamination. It seems the RIB thinks that it's about time you got it Chief. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-reasons-for-penalty-decision-dated-17-november-2023-stephen-mcinerney/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: It seems the RIB thinks that it's about time you got it Chief. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-reasons-for-penalty-decision-dated-17-november-2023-stephen-mcinerney/ Interesting when the only other person they ever tried charging in our case was me and this was nearly 4 months after the DQ was in affect already. The RIU/RIB really do struggle with any type of consistency in these rulings Edited November 17, 2023 by Jacob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 On 18/11/2023 at 10:27 AM, Yankiwi said: It seems the RIB thinks that it's about time you got it Chief. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-reasons-for-penalty-decision-dated-17-november-2023-stephen-mcinerney/ Geez I know, contrary to your own self belief, that accurate statistical analysis is beyond you but it also seems so is literary comprehension The cases were different but I know such nuances escape you and your agenda to slag off Greyhound racing at any opportunity. I've consistently raised my concerns about the inconsistency of the RIB Judicial decisions both within a racing code and between codes. I've also been consistent in my criticism of the RIB AND Code management to address the elephant in the room which is environmental contamination. If you don't believe there is a difference between environmental contamination and deliberate administration of a prohibited substance then you are clueless about the challenges facing the racing industry. Granted there is also a difference between a licensed person themselves returning a positive and their dog returning an environmental contamination positive vs a drug free trainer's dog returning an environmental positive. The RIB are taking the easy option by treating it as being no different. If a dog returns a positive at a level that can only be reached by deliberate administration to the dog then the penalty should be different for one that has a low level non performance enhancing positive obviously caused by environmental contamination. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted November 18, 2023 Share Posted November 18, 2023 On 3/11/2023 at 7:05 PM, Yankiwi said: Consistency there isn't. The dad's two charges were separate offences, happened 6 months apart & at different locations. The son's two charges were separate offences, happened 3 weeks apart & in the same location. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 18, 2023 Share Posted November 18, 2023 59 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: The dad's two charges were separate offences, happened 6 months apart & at different locations. The son's two charges were separate offences, happened 3 weeks apart & in the same location. Why would you expect them to have the same penalty outcome when the facts are different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newmarket Posted December 19, 2023 Share Posted December 19, 2023 How bad is this guy, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.