Yankiwi Posted July 7 Author Share Posted July 7 On 29/06/2024 at 10:05 AM, Yankiwi said: Throw the book at me. Speaking of books, where's the April 2024 AHWC minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 8 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Speaking of books, where's the April 2024 AHWC minutes? What a wonderful operation GRNZ runs. No April minutes available until they are shamed on BOAY. Then it suddenly appears within 8 hours. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Animal Health Welfare Committee minutes/AHWC Minutes 24 April 2024.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: What a wonderful operation GRNZ runs. No April minutes available until they are shamed on BOAY. Then it suddenly appears within 8 hours. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Animal Health Welfare Committee minutes/AHWC Minutes 24 April 2024.pdf I don't know why they bother publishing them. Not aware of any statutory requirement to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 41 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: I don't know why they bother publishing them. Not aware of any statutory requirement to do so. Maybe because the WHK report in 2013, the Hansen report in 2017, the Robertson Review in 2021 and the cross-party Petitions Committee report in 2022 (the latter two following June 2020 when GRNZ submitted their self declared final report to then Racing Minister Winston Peters, because apparently all recommendations had been successfully implemented, and that they would no longer be reporting progress lol) all identified systemic and ongoing issues with animal welfare, transparency and data. It seems like the bare minimum for an organisation that claims ‘welfare is at the heart of everything we do’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 20 minutes ago, Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers said: Maybe because the WHK report in 2013, the Hansen report in 2017, the Robertson Review in 2021 and the cross-party Petitions Committee report in 2022 (the latter two following June 2020 when GRNZ submitted their self declared final report to then Racing Minister Winston Peters, because apparently all recommendations had been successfully implemented, and that they would no longer be reporting progress lol) all identified systemic and ongoing issues with animal welfare, transparency and data. It seems like the bare minimum for an organisation that claims ‘welfare is at the heart of everything we do’. Still no statutory requirement to publish them. Do the other two racing codes do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 Quarterly report to minister Q1 2022. AHWC minutes 24 Apr 2024. So GRNZ expanded racing opportunities for older dogs because of a recommendation in the Hanson report, yet now want to add some restrictions on the racing of those same older dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 4 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Quarterly report to minister Q1 2022. AHWC minutes 24 Apr 2024. So GRNZ expanded racing opportunities for older dogs because of a recommendation in the Hanson report, yet now want to add some restrictions on the racing of those same older dogs. What is missing from both extracts is the definition of "older". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted July 13 Author Share Posted July 13 Wanganui Friday. So the dog started a race, faltered, failed to finish & was vet checked. It had no obvious fractures. It was given a 28-day (Major 1) stand-down. The Steward did not require an x-ray in the coming day/days. The Steward did not require it to satisfactorily trial prior to resuming. I thought all major injuries required a satisfactory trial prior to resuming to race. Next as a stakeholder and for transparency, where is this available to view GRNZ? https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Advisories/GRNZ Industry Progress Report 12 December 2022.pdf It's not linked in your "Guidelines". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 On 13/07/2024 at 6:49 PM, Yankiwi said: The Steward did not require an x-ray in the coming day/days. The Steward did not require it to satisfactorily trial prior to resuming. I thought all major injuries required a satisfactory trial prior to resuming to race. You "thought". Please post the policy. Surely an unnecessary x-ray is not in a dog's interests. Wouldn't that be worse than a dog going on a road trip for a non race? You are a bit inconsistent Chazza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted July 16 Author Share Posted July 16 On 13/07/2024 at 6:49 PM, Yankiwi said: The Steward did not require an x-ray in the coming day/days. The Steward did not require it to satisfactorily trial prior to resuming. At least the trainer (R Waite) did the right thing. Good on you sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 12 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: At least the trainer (R Waite) did the right thing. Good on you sir. So the trainer should. Why do the Stewards and the Vet have to get everything right on the night? At the end of the day the Trainer is responsible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted July 16 Author Share Posted July 16 On 15/07/2024 at 8:29 AM, Chief Stipe said: You are a bit inconsistent Chazza. So it's consistency that is the bar. Both Wanganui. 12 July. 28 June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 6 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: So it's consistency that is the bar. Both Wanganui. 12 July. 28 June. Still doesn't negate the fact that it is ultimately the Trainers responsibility. The Vet made an assessment and didn't recommend x-rays in one case and did in the other. Do you want every dog that displays soreness to be x-rayed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted July 31 Author Share Posted July 31 On 17/07/2024 at 9:55 AM, Chief Stipe said: Still doesn't negate the fact that it is ultimately the Trainers responsibility. Interesting angle. Does that angle stand true here too? https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-decision-dated-30-july-2024-joshua-lane/ What's going on here? What's this the 5th different trainer with an Arsenic positive with no meaningful consequences? The rule has been there for ages now. GRNZ repeatedly puts up a "reminder" on their website. Never mind, give the money you won back (when you can afford it) & get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 As per your Topic title... You just make shit up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Let's face it the RIB don't have much to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 1 Author Share Posted August 1 Here's the ultimate YJCMTSU. For the 2024/2025 season, GRNZ declares that Animal Welfare goals are unachievable & therefore have to become far less important. 2024/2026 Statement of intent. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Statement of Intent/FINAL GRNZ Statement of Intent FY2024-FY2026.pdf 2025/2027 Statement of intent. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Statement of Intent/GRNZ Statement of Intent FY2025-FY2027 FINAL.pdf We'll just push the unachieved goal originally set for the 2023/2024 season out to the 2026/2027 season, pretend it didn't happen & cross our fingers that Govt doesn't shut us down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 22 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Here's the ultimate YJCMTSU. For the 2024/2025 season, GRNZ declares that Animal Welfare goals are unachievable & therefore have to become far less important. 2024/2026 Statement of intent. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Statement of Intent/FINAL GRNZ Statement of Intent FY2024-FY2026.pdf 2025/2027 Statement of intent. https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Statement of Intent/GRNZ Statement of Intent FY2025-FY2027 FINAL.pdf We'll just push the unachieved goal originally set for the 2023/2024 season out to the 2026/2027 season, pretend it didn't happen & cross our fingers that Govt doesn't shut us down. What is the natural rate of "injury" of a racing Greyhound? The figures I've seen from other jurisdictions are comparable to NZ's which indicates that there IS a natural level of "injury". The KPI's are arbitrary and are probably unachievable. The danger with these types of statistics is that you probably can't account (or in Chazza's case refuses to) for confounding variables. You cannot achieve zero injury rate in a high performance sport - that's a fact. Measuring muscle strains or tears and setting a KPI to he assessed against is a nonsense. It is a nonsense because there is an inherent level of "injury" that you cant take any action to prevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 2 Author Share Posted August 2 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Measuring muscle strains or tears and setting a KPI to he assessed against is a nonsense. Sounds like an issue for GRNZ to deal with. Maybe you could help them out? Until then, I'll just keep measuring what is occurring on the track against what their "acceptable" goal is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 2 Author Share Posted August 2 (edited) Help explain how this makes sense. GRNZ - Welfare is at the heart of everything we do... 2024/2025 Target - Major 1, Major 2 & Euth. - 6.32 per thousand starters. In the last full season which GRNZ has publicly reported on (2022/2023), 6.3 per thousand was achieved. So GRNZ's goal for the current season allows for more major injuries than 2 season ago? GRNZ's statement of intent clearly says they will seek to reduce injuries, not increase the number of "acceptable" injuries, which is exactly what they've done. Edited August 2 by Yankiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 33 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: Sounds like an issue for GRNZ to deal with. Maybe you could help them out? Until then, I'll just keep measuring what is occurring on the track against what their "acceptable" goal is. It is clear from your narrow perspective and analysis dog welfare isn't your primary focus. Your primary focus is attacking GRNZ nothing more nothing less to the point of an unhealthy obsession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 38 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: GRNZ's statement of intent clearly says they will seek to reduce injuries, not increase the number of "acceptable" injuries, which is exactly what they've done. Perhaps they've realised that most of the injuries are caused by factors well beyond their control. One of the dangers if having a KPI that you can't manage the majority of the inputs. For example how many dogs turn up to race either with a minor undetected muscle issue or a genetic predisposition to injury? It would be impossible for GRNZ to either be responsible for or manage every training track in NZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 2 Author Share Posted August 2 21 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Perhaps they've realised that most of the injuries are caused by factors well beyond their control. One of the dangers if having a KPI that you can't manage the majority of the inputs. Perhaps. But setting the 2024/2025 goal at a higher percentage than was achieved in the most recently published 2022/2023 isn't reducing injuries. What they've done is widen to goal posts for a tough sideline try conversion kick. If the 2024/2025 season ends with their KPI exactly met at 6.32/1000, then they'll be able to say how wonderfully they've done, even though it's worse than 2 seasons prior during the 2022/2023 season. Where's Manukau's safety rail? They've signaled many times it was the most urgent track to need one to increase the overall track safety. 2014 was a failure. November 2023 was a failure. January 2024 was a failure. It's now August 2024 & it's still nowhere to be seen. GRNZ needs to action what they say they are going to do & do it when they say they're going to have it done to have any creditability. Ok Chief, defend GRNZ about Manukau's safety rail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: But setting the 2024/2025 goal at a higher percentage than was achieved in the most recently published 2022/2023 isn't reducing injuries. In case you didn't know "setting a target" doesn't actually reduce injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 3 hours ago, Yankiwi said: In the last full season which GRNZ has publicly reported on (2022/2023), 6.3 per thousand was achieved. 3 hours ago, Yankiwi said: 2024/2025 Target - Major 1, Major 2 & Euth. - 6.32 per thousand starters. You are arguing over 0.02 of a dog i.e. 1 dog in 50,000 starts. Which just highlights how daft these KPI's are. A 10% improvement is 1 dog in 45,000 starts! In the absence of any international benchmark of the natural injury rate these targets are worthless particularly when there are confounding variables that GRNZ have very little control over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts