This Deserves a Thread of Its Own.

[Yankiwi]

A very important point I had made in another thread, which doesn't deserve to get buried in there.

It's part of the cover-up & deception GRNZ had used in reports to the Govt on how well they were doing in regard to improving animal welfare & outcomes.

 

You heard the following here first.

On another note, has anyone noticed how 28-day stand-down stopped being imposed suddenly to dog's that failed to pursue the lure during their race, so they were not charged with the infraction, as they had a "convenient" serios injury?

Trainer/vet collusions were having a serious impact on injury data by trying to dodge the rightful penalty from being imposed, that's why.

Prior to someone at GRNZ finally working that little detail out, GRNZ was quite happy just letting them slip through (especially if they were on the "preferred trainers" list).

That was one key reason why GRNZ was suddenly able to claim how their new strategies were so effective in keeping dogs safe. Maybe 1 every couple of weeks x 52 weeks was 26 serious injuries a year on the books that didn't happen. So, they stopped allowing uninjured dogs being given a 28 day stand down period. Now that they don't have that little ace up their sleeve, things are getting a lot tougher to show improvement on. This racing season the "tougher" is now becoming an impossibility.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

A very important point I had made in another thread, which doesn't deserve to get buried in there.

It's part of the cover-up & deception GRNZ had used in reports to the Govt on how well they were doing in regard to improving animal welfare & outcomes.

 

You heard the following here first.

On another note, has anyone noticed how 28-day stand-down stopped being imposed suddenly to dog's that failed to pursue the lure during their race, so they were not charged with the infraction, as they had a "convenient" serios injury?

Trainer/vet collusions were having a serious impact on injury data by trying to dodge the rightful penalty from being imposed, that's why.

Prior to someone at GRNZ finally working that little detail out, GRNZ was quite happy just letting them slip through (especially if they were on the "preferred trainers" list).

That was one key reason why GRNZ was suddenly able to claim how their new strategies were so effective in keeping dogs safe. Maybe 1 every couple of weeks x 52 weeks was 26 serious injuries a year on the books that didn't happen. So, they stopped allowing uninjured dogs being given a 28 day stand down period. Now that they don't have that little ace up their sleeve, things are getting a lot tougher to show improvement on. This racing season the "tougher" is now becoming an impossibility.

Please provide proof that there was "collusion".