GRNZ - You Just Can't Make This $hit Up.

[Yankiwi]

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3163/Proposed-Rule-Changes

 

2) Unqualified greyhounds being charged with marring and failing to pursue

 

Since the adoption of the GA Rules in February 2023, a qualifying trial has been included within the definition of an Event.  This has seen unqualified greyhounds become subject to sanctions for marring and failing to pursue.

 

Previously, such inexperienced greyhounds would simply have failed to qualify due to conduct, and a return to this structure is being achieved by defining that marring and failing to pursue sanctions only apply to "qualified greyhounds".

 

Also the restriction that a satisfactory trial cannot be a qualifying trial is removed.

 

Why on earth would this be a good decision?

Why is at least one GRNZ board member trying to change a procedure back to the old way of doing things to suit their personal needs?

Changing the wording to "qualified greyhounds" will allow unqualified greyhounds to attempt to qualify twice a week and up to 7 times a month. How does that unpinning welfare?

What about the other 3 dogs (at least) who are going around at the same time doing the right thing during their trial while a dodgy dog is trying to bite their face or ass off?

Doesn't a qualifying dog deserve the same protection that an already qualified dogs does?

 

Following is a direct quote from the final sentence from Dave Kingston on another thread.

"Rest assured that we do have both yours and the dogs interests at heart Dave"

 

 

 

And here's why they want to put through to this crazy, selfish decision through.

1). EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - for 3 months and pending 2 satisfactory trials for marring in its qualifying trial (Third offence). https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15811/stewards-report.aspx

 

And here's Dave boxing away his #5 dog.

 

 

Sounds to me that Dave Kingston doesn't have "the dog's interest at heart".

Sounds more to me like Dave Kingston has Dave Kingston's dog's interest at heart, the rest can fend for themselves.

 

This is Extra Editions racing record.

 

 

Here's a replay of Extra Editions qualifying trial on 5 Jan 2024. Look at the manners of the #1 dog in the same race.

 

Extra Edition & Pukeko Sammie (#1 in the race above) are the kinds of dogs GRNZ wants to change the rules for qualifying trials.

They lack any concern for dogs that do actually want to chase the lure, because they can't see past the end of their own greedy nose. The current rules are in the way for dogs like Dave's to qualify.

Instead of trying to change the rules to suit your dog's needs, I think that you should resign from the board Dave.

Let someone else sit in the board room that really does have welfare unpinning everything they do.

You Mr. Kingston have lost any respect I may have held for you. I've seen your true colours now.

[Need to know]

4 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3163/Proposed-Rule-Changes

 

2) Unqualified greyhounds being charged with marring and failing to pursue

 

Since the adoption of the GA Rules in February 2023, a qualifying trial has been included within the definition of an Event.  This has seen unqualified greyhounds become subject to sanctions for marring and failing to pursue.

 

Previously, such inexperienced greyhounds would simply have failed to qualify due to conduct, and a return to this structure is being achieved by defining that marring and failing to pursue sanctions only apply to "qualified greyhounds".

 

Also the restriction that a satisfactory trial cannot be a qualifying trial is removed.

 

Why on earth would this be a good decision?

Why is at least one GRNZ board member trying to change a procedure back to the old way of doing things to suit their personal needs?

Changing the wording to "qualified greyhounds" will allow unqualified greyhounds to attempt to qualify twice a week and up to 7 times a month. How does that unpinning welfare?

What about the other 3 dogs (at least) who are going around at the same time doing the right thing during their trial while a dodgy dog is trying to bite their face or ass off?

Doesn't a qualifying dog deserve the same protection that an already qualified dogs does?

 

Following is a direct quote from the final sentence from Dave Kingston on another thread.

"Rest assured that we do have both yours and the dogs interests at heart Dave"

 

 

 

And here's why they want to put through to this crazy, selfish decision through.

1). EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - for 3 months and pending 2 satisfactory trials for marring in its qualifying trial (Third offence). https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15811/stewards-report.aspx

 

And here's Dave boxing away his #5 dog.

 

 

Sounds to me that Dave Kingston doesn't have "the dog's interest at heart".

Sounds more to me like Dave Kingston has Dave Kingston's dog's interest at heart, the rest can fend for themselves.

 

This is Extra Editions racing record.

 

 

Here's a replay of Extra Editions qualifying trial on 5 Jan 2024. Look at the manners of the #1 dog in the same race.

 

Extra Edition & Pukeko Sammie (#1 in the race above) are the kinds of dogs GRNZ wants to change the rules for qualifying trials.

They lack any concern for dogs that do actually want to chase the lure, because they can't see past the end of their own greedy nose. The current rules are in the way for dogs like Dave's to qualify.

Instead of trying to change the rules to suit your dog's needs, I think that you should resign from the board Dave.

Let someone else sit in the board room that really does have welfare unpinning everything they do.

You Mr. Kingston have lost any respect I may have held for you. I've seen your true colours now.

well yankiwi ,getting the wrong end of the stick again .Yes I got this dog to try to get going .he has won three or 4 trials but alas it doesn’t look like he will make the grade .As for me personally wanting to change a rule for my own benefit I think you have lost your marbles somewhere.If a trial is conducted under race conditions then this dog should have been vet checked after the race ,if no injury is found then he would be subject to a penalty under the current rule No vet check took place.As for me using my position on the board I take extreme offence to this accusation and ask you to prove or put your money where your mouth is that I alone am trying to get this rule changed .Do I actually agree with the rule as it stands,no I don’t  as I cannot see how you can disqualify a dog that hasn’t qualified and especially as no vet check is carried out .In my opinion your stirring shit for either your or someone else’s benefit .Like I said before you can always call me I have always had the best interest of the sport at heart .At least I am not a keyboard warrior that knows everything .

[That Girl]

Wow. 

Yankiwi 1

Dave Kingston 0

If Mr Kingston was a board member of any other more high profile board he would surely have the sense (or some advisors) strongly suggesting he not engage with this 'shit stirring' 'keyboard warrior'.

But no, very unprofessionally, he's taken the bait, and that is not a good look in my opinion.. lol, welldone Yankiwi , keep up the good work... and as for Mr Kingston 🤦‍♂️😂

[Chief Stipe]

@Yankiwi not only are you barking at the wrong fencepost but you are going very close to the line.

If you are going to make accusations such as those you have made in this thread then you better have more substantial evidence than what you have posted so far.

[Yankiwi]

First item.

9 hours ago, Need to know said:

If a trial is conducted under race conditions then this dog should have been vet checked after the race.

 

A charge for marring is not intitled to "an injury get out of jail free card" in the rules.

 

14 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

1). EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - for 3 months and pending 2 satisfactory trials for marring in its qualifying trial (Third offence).

 

They're your GRNZ rules Dave, might be a good idea to learn them before trying to use them for a defense.

 

 Second item.

9 hours ago, Need to know said:

As for me using my position on the board I take extreme offence to this accusation and ask you to prove or put your money where your mouth is that I alone am trying to get this rule changed.

 

That's not at all what I said.

14 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Why is at least one GRNZ board member trying to change a procedure back to the old way of doing things to suit their personal needs?

 

Next item.

 

9 hours ago, Need to know said:

Do I actually agree with the rule as it stands, no I don’t

That's good. I'm glad for the welfare of the dogs you'll be voting against this rule change.

 

9 hours ago, Need to know said:

I cannot see how you can disqualify a dog that hasn’t qualified.

Another good reason for a no vote to this rule change.

 

10 hours ago, Need to know said:

and especially as no vet check is carried out.

I've already addressed this defense against marring.

 

Next item.

 

10 hours ago, Need to know said:

In my opinion your stirring shit for either your or someone else’s benefit.

You are right Dave, I am being a shit stirrer advocating for the race day welfare of the greyhounds.

Many problem areas are very evident and after watching 10 years of the same old thing going wrong, year after year, I finally decided to turn my volume button to a higher setting. I retrieved the injury data from Stewards reports, something GRNZ has a habit of trying to tuck away or hide somewhere & now have the evidence to support claims I make in nearly real time.

If anything, I reckon you should be thankful that I'm doing so in a confined place with limited reach such as BOAY.

 

Last item.

10 hours ago, Need to know said:

At least I am not a keyboard warrior that knows everything .

I've never claimed to know everything.

I do claim to know that Manukau track has by far the highest overall, minor/med & major injury rates in NZ.

I also know that GRNZ keeps asking for nominations for the greyhound to race on the track & believe it ludicrous to do so with a much safer track (especially major injury wise) is only an hour travel away.

 

 

Are you serious about dog raceday welfare Dave?

If so, I suggest you get in touch with the GRNZ database administrator. Have them run a query on injury data by individual track for Sept, Oct & Nov 2023. Then find out why the GRNZ Racing Operation Manager claimed this during the last (mid Dec) Animal Health and Welfare Committee meeting.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Animal Health Welfare Committee minutes/00 2023 12 13 AHWC Minutes - Draft (1).pdf

If you're looking to find the bad egg, that's the first place you should be looking. You've got your own data, you've got his recorded statement before the committee, and what he had said couldn't have been further from the truth.

The welfare committee cannot make good decisions or recommendation when the information they are being provided with is based on an outright lie.

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

If anything, I reckon you should be thankful that I'm doing so in a confined place with limited reach such as BOAY.

You have no data to support that contention.

[Yankiwi]

34 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

You have no data to support that contention.

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, Yankiwi said:

But you have no idea how that data is collected or what it actually measures.

This is a typical example of how you misuse information to support your own biased narrative. 

Of course even if your interpretation was correct, which it isn't, it only reinforces the view that no one gives a shyte about what you post.

[Yankiwi]

16 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Why is at least one GRNZ board member trying to change a procedure back to the old way of doing things to suit their personal needs?

Ok, Let's give Dave the benefit of doubt, even though the following list seems to suggest it could well be him behind it.

Who would the new rule benefit at the expense of the safety of other young impressionable greyhounds trying to qualify?

These are the dogs I have been able to identify, that were stood down for marring in a qualifying trial since the rule change 1 Feb 2023. The list starts with the most recent events then is in a descending in order.

 

• 29 Feb EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - for 3 months and pending 2 satisfactory trials for marring in its qualifying trial (Third offence).
• 29 Feb IMPRESSIVE ROAR (J McInerney Jnr) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial.
• 30 Jan OPAWA VANESSA (R Wales) - for 28 days and pending a satisfactory trial for marring in its qualifying heat.
• 30 Jan OPAWA KEITH (R Wales) - for 28 days and pending a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue the lure in its qualifying heat.
• 5 Jan EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial (2nd offence).
• 5 Jan PUKEKO SAMMIE (B Healey) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial
• 18 Dec AMALTHEA (A Bradshaw) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial and must complete a Satisfactory Trial.
• 20 Oct WEDDERBURN (D Roberts) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial.
• 15 Sep EXTRA EDITION (D Kingston) - 28 days for marring in Qualifying Trial
• 8 Sep HOMEBUSH HONOR (J McInerney Jnr) - 28 days for marring in a Qualifying Trial.
• 3 Mar SWEET TAHI (J McInerney) - marring in Qualifying Trial - 28 days and to complete a Satisfactory Trial.

 

So just who is behind this proposed rule change? Surely the one making the noise about it has something to gain from it. It's not being done for safety, as it's not hard to work out it will be to the detriment of the other dogs on the track with an offending dog.

Who are the individual members of the Rules of Racing Committee?

 

"The GRNZ is governed by the Rules of Racing. The Rules of Racing are determined by the Rules of Racing Committee and approved by the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) in accordance with the GRNZ Constitution and the 2020 Racing Industry Act and authorised by the GRNZ Board. These Rules are then administered by the Association through its Chief Executive, Racing Department and the RIB. To complement the Rules, GRNZ also issues and implements a number of regulations, standards and policies."

 

Is there an obvious driving force on that committee? If not, who has someone with something to gain from being in the ear of those member/members?

There is no good reason to change the rules for dodgy dogs, just to give them more chances to offend if they aren't stopped from getting 2 chances a week to ruin more innocent dogs that will be trying to qualify alongside of them.

[Yankiwi]

GRNZ - please explain.

 

 

https://www.grnz.co.nz/greyhounds/profiles.aspx?AnimalID=36395

 

[Chief Stipe]

So why are you so reluctant to call Dave?  

[Yankiwi]

So, according to GRNZ rules a Greyhound is seriously injured if it receives an injury stand-down of 21 days or more.

 

 

But conveniently when reporting to Govt or other key stakeholders on injuries, an injury of 21 days is classified as medium.

 

How many of the 11-to-21-day injuries incurred thus far in the racing season are for 21 days?

This is a rather convenient oversight by GRNZ in a battle to minimalize injury numbers while stlll catering to dogs that don't want to keep focus on or chase the lure.

I can't be bothered to work it out but firmly believe at least half would be a fair guess. Medium injuries when reported in Stewards reports are always either 14 days or 21 days, nothing more or less.

 

Current standings as currently defined.

 

 

Hypothetical standings if half of the 11-to-21-day standdowns are no longer medium & become major 1 (serious).

 

GRNZ's double standard is being used to skew the reporting data.

[Chief Stipe]

22 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

So why are you so reluctant to call Dave?  

So why don't you give Kingston a call?

[Yankiwi]

Hello again Dave.

The following can go one of three ways. I'll get back to that part shortly.

On 5/03/2024 at 9:00 AM, Yankiwi said:

Are you serious about dog raceday welfare Dave?

If so, I suggest you get in touch with the GRNZ database administrator. Have them run a query on injury data by individual track for Sept, Oct & Nov 2023. Then find out why the GRNZ Racing Operation Manager claimed this during the last (mid Dec) Animal Health and Welfare Committee meeting.

Did you decided to action this above advice I had given you?

Because a very interest thing has come to light since I've suggested it.

This is what the report had said when I brought it to your attention on this thread.

They today, merely 4 days after I had brought it to your attention, that same report now reads like this.

So, just what has happened here Dave?

1. Did the query I suggested you go to headquarters to run in their data validate the point I had raised? If so, was the nearly 4-month-old history of the report changed with your knowledge that it was going to be changed?
2. Did GRNZ's data validate what I had put forward, and the Racing Operations Manager decided to change the history of the report without the board's knowledge?
3. Did you choose not to look into the subject whatsoever, and the Racing Operations Manager decided to change the history of the report on his own accord trying to coverup a mistake at best or an outright lie he had presented to the committee?

 

Surely, it's got to be one of the three.

I hope it's not the first option, as I believe that would implicate you and/or the GRNZ board in a cover-up as well. Like I had said, I'm more than willing to work with you if you have integrity. However, I'm not going to help anyone with the old GRNZ mindset full of coverups & deflection. That does no good for the welfare of the dogs.

Option two would mean the GRNZ ROM acted on his own accord by altering history after being pressured about the report as he had offered to the committee. Changing the history on the sneak doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Option three would mean that the GRNZ ROM is acting as a rouge within the ranks without integrity, trying to erase what he did do to coverup an error/lie he had presented to the committee.

[Yankiwi]

So, changing history has made Manawatu & Cambridge lead the pack, not the Manukau & Cambridge Mr. Dore first claimed.

It's likely it was switched to Manawatu so it could be blamed on an error in the recording of the meeting.

Even after that, it isn't near the truth.

(Previously supplied results from another thread below)

 

From 01 Sept thru to 30 Nov 2023, Wanganui & Southland led the pack in terms of low rates of injury.

Mr. Dore needs to be held accountable for his lie.

If he was the one that changed the approved minutes on the sneak, he needs to be removed from his duty as GRNZ's Racing Operations Manager.

[Chief Stipe]

Have you given Kingston a call yet?

[Cyril]

17 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Have you given Kingston a call yet?

And then perhaps call his therapist. This is bizarre.

[BitofaLegend]

On 4/03/2024 at 10:21 PM, Need to know said:

well yankiwi ,getting the wrong end of the stick again .Yes I got this dog to try to get going .he has won three or 4 trials but alas it doesn’t look like he will make the grade .As for me personally wanting to change a rule for my own benefit I think you have lost your marbles somewhere.If a trial is conducted under race conditions then this dog should have been vet checked after the race ,if no injury is found then he would be subject to a penalty under the current rule No vet check took place.As for me using my position on the board I take extreme offence to this accusation and ask you to prove or put your money where your mouth is that I alone am trying to get this rule changed .Do I actually agree with the rule as it stands,no I don’t  as I cannot see how you can disqualify a dog that hasn’t qualified and especially as no vet check is carried out .In my opinion your stirring shit for either your or someone else’s benefit .Like I said before you can always call me I have always had the best interest of the sport at heart .At least I am not a keyboard warrior that knows everything .

Very unprofessional. If these are the people on the board. No wonder the industry is down the drain.

Looks more like mud slinging here. Normal people would be out of a job with a response like this.

 

Edited March 9 by BitofaLegend

[BitofaLegend]

As for extra edition, the dogs a clear non chaser and you just continuesly throw it in qualifying trials.

Luckily it hasnt caused any real harm to other dogs yet but these types of dogs can destroy the confidence of young ones.

Can you explain to everyone here what the difference between the 26th and the 29th of feb was for you to decide to try requalifying it again so quickly?

I know personally, if i had a dog or puppy fail to pursue, i wouldnt have tried it 3 days later again.

Edited March 9 by BitofaLegend

[Yankiwi]

Ok GRNZ, you're not the only ones that can make up the unbelievable.

I'll do this one for you & save you the work.

This week, the RIB has announced this ~

https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/racing-in-breach-of-the-vaccination-rule/

 

The RIB has commenced an investigation into incidents involving greyhounds alleged to have raced in breach of GRNZ Rule 25(6) which states as below;

GRNZ Rule 25 Minimum – vaccination requirements:

(6) Unless GRNZ determines otherwise, a greyhound must not compete in any Event within five days of the date it was administered a vaccine.

All Greyhound Racing LPs should be familiar with and comply with this rule.

The RIB also reminds all LP’s of GRNZ’s April 2023 update which notes LP’s must notify GRNZ of the vaccination of a racing greyhound within 24 hours of the vaccination taking place to ensure ongoing accuracy of GRNZ’s systems.

Non-compliance with this rule gives rise to a potential animal welfare concern.

 

So, here's the $hit that you can predictably make up ~

The RIB will do their lengthy investigation wasting their time & resources and inform GRNZ which dogs/trainers have breached the standard.

GRNZ will then "determines otherwise" for either their "preferred trainers" or more likely in all cases now that I've brought this prediction to the forefront and have the trainers issued with a mere warning.

Welfare standards & rules will have been breached, penalties for those breaches will be nonexistent & animal welfare will have been upheld to the highest standards, because welfare underpins everything they do.

If they take that route, as I've basically done it already for them, it will allow Mr. Dore the time to work out which tracks led the pack in terms of low rates of injury back in Sept thru Nov last year. After enough attempts at altering history, he's bound to get at least one of them correct.

 

[Yankiwi]

On 6/03/2024 at 5:59 PM, Yankiwi said:

 

 

 

 

Magic!

 

[Chief Stipe]

Have you given Kingston a call yet?

[BitofaLegend]

46 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Have you given Kingston a call yet?

Why would anyone call him when hes on here reading and responding?

Better of saying what he wants in a public space then a private call for transparency in my opinion.

[Chief Stipe]

46 minutes ago, BitofaLegend said:

Why would anyone call him when hes on here reading and responding?

Better of saying what he wants in a public space then a private call for transparency in my opinion.

Why anyone would bother responding to Chazza online I have no idea.

[Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers]

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3173/Racing-and-Trialling-suspended-at-Manukau-Stadium