Christchurch

[Yankiwi]

The 4th quarter thus far at Addington isn't looking pretty.

 

However, GRNZ thinks it's good enough to keep racing on until 24 June.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3202/Addington-Track-Remediation-Work-JuneJuly

[Yankiwi]

On 31/05/2024 at 9:23 PM, Yankiwi said:

However, GRNZ thinks it's good enough to keep racing on until 24 June.

Good enough GRNZ?

Well, it wasn't good enough for at least two of these, was it?

1) was televised & free of interference.

3) was a solo trial so had to be free of interference.

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Good enough GRNZ?

Well, it wasn't good enough for at least two of these, was it?

1) was televised & free of interference.

3) was a solo trial so had to be free of interference.

A bit unrealistic to expect zero injuries.  You should know that these numbers are within the normal statistical variation.

[Yankiwi]

 

Got time for this Chief?

Two race meetings now complete after the track overhaul.

Ut oh...

[Overit]

On 5/31/2024 at 9:23 PM, Yankiwi said:

The 4th quarter thus far at Addington isn't looking pretty.

 

However, GRNZ thinks it's good enough to keep racing on until 24 June.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3202/Addington-Track-Remediation-Work-JuneJuly

This is not great reading at all.  I read Race 10 or 11 abandoned why was that anyone know.

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, Overit said:

This is not great reading at all.  I read Race 10 or 11 abandoned why was that anyone know.

Lure lost power.  

[Yankiwi]

15 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Lure lost power.  

The essentially new BATTERY-operated lure?

It worked fine for the stir-ups. It worked fine for the first half of the race.

The lure lost power due to improper actions of the lure driver is a much more likely scenario.

Why didn't the Stewards report mention they had to repair or change the lure?

Two dogs sustained major injuries due to the mishap.

What was even worse, two more dogs later in the card fractured hocks on the newly renovated track.

Historically, it's the safest time of the year for dogs to be racing injury wise.

Nothing to see here folks. Addington has been upgraded and everything is fine. 🙈🙉🙊

Edited August 3 by Yankiwi

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

The lure lost power due to improper actions of the lure driver is a much more likely scenario.

Why?  A baseless accusation with zero evidence.

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Two dogs sustained major injuries due to the mishap.

Fake news again @Yankiwi - as the Stewards Report said one of those dogs faltered early well before the lure stopped.

As for your other assertions as I've said time and time again you have zero understanding of normative statistics.

[Yankiwi]

Is it time to break out a 40' shipping container again?

15 meters?

[Chief Stipe]

51 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Is it time to break out a 40' shipping container again?

15 meters?

40 ft is 12 metres.

[Yankiwi]

Lure is required to be between 4m & 10m...

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Lure is required to be between 4m & 10m...

It's less than 10.  

[Yankiwi]

PBD sprint today.

This dog in box 1. First time ever in its 38 race day starts.

Obviously had a midtrack preference before it's last two starts.

 

Same dogs gear.

 

Dog's near the lead in the corner, gets tightened near the rail a bit & switches out wider (unable to see sideways).

 

Carnage follows.

So just what happened to get an obviously midtrack dog down in the #1 box as "preferred" starting position, especially with no peripheral vision?

Asking for the 3 other dogs their trainers & owners that got taken out.

Edited September 20 by Yankiwi

[aquaman]

13 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

PBD sprint today.

This dog in box 1. First time ever in its 38 race day starts.

Obviously had a midtrack preference before it's last two starts.

 

Same dogs gear.

 

Dog's near the lead in the corner, gets tightened near the rail a bit & switches out wider (unable to see sideways).

 

Carnage follows.

So just what happened to get an obviously midtrack dog down in the #1 box as "preferred" starting position, especially with no peripheral vision?

Asking for the 3 other dogs their trainers & owners that got taken out.

Blinkers should be banned on welfare grounds. It won't happen because they are to stupid to see it, also greed comes into play.

[Yankiwi]

On 21/09/2024 at 8:41 AM, aquaman said:

Blinkers should be banned on welfare grounds. It won't happen because they are to stupid to see it, also greed comes into play.

I agree Aquaman.

I challenge GRNZ to explain how a dog wearing blinkers is, for either the actual dog that is wearing them or any of the other dogs on the track, in the welfare interest of any of the eight dogs.

Is there a study that concludes an eight-dog race with any one or more of the dog's wearing blinkers statistically safer than a full field of dogs with none of them with a visual impairment?

 

And there's this ~

This means that a Vet is meant to examine & certify that the greyhound vision is adequate to see the lure prior to every race, as there is no "blanket" certification allowed for under the rules.

It also means that the dog's vision of the lure isn't impaired when turning its head, the reason the blinkers are on the dog in the first place. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out the dog can't see the lure thru the blinker when it turns its head to have a look at another dog.

Are all these individual "certifications" available to the public to view under GRNZ's transparency policy?

 

The #1 dog can't see the lure here.

I'd like to view its veterinarian certification for this race.

[Chief Stipe]

Great it wasn't the track this time.

[aquaman]

52 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

I agree Aquaman.

I challenge GRNZ to explain how a dog wearing blinkers is, for either the actual dog that is wearing them or any of the other dogs on the track, in the welfare interest of any of the eight dogs.

Is there a study that concludes an eight-dog race with any one or more of the dog's wearing blinkers statistically safer than a full field of dogs with none of them with a visual impairment?

 

And there's this ~

This means that a Vet is meant to examine & certify that the greyhound vision is adequate to see the lure prior to every race, as there is no "blanket" certification allowed for under the rules.

It also means that the dog's vision of the lure isn't impaired when turning its head, the reason the blinkers are on the dog in the first place. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out the dog can't see the lure thru the blinker when it turns its head to have a look at another dog.

Are all these individual "certifications" available to the public to view under GRNZ's transparency policy?

 

The #1 dog can't see the lure here.

I'd like to view its veterinarian certification for this race.

It goe's without saying, if you impair a dogs vision in a racing context then the chances of carnage is greater and more injuries will result. Just plain common sense.

[Yankiwi]

So, what's changed here Mr. Dore?

Did you put Homebush Max down into the #1 box for the first time ever, wearing his blinkers, on 20 Sept?

Well, he did what anyone with greyhound racing knowledge knew what he would do from being trapped on the rail, leading to the death of Rocket Queen, a right tarsal sprain for What's On (luckily no fracture), and a wound to Libelle's right toe.

Then magically, Homebush Max instantly changed his preference to an outside box (#7) for his next start a week later.

How come Rocket Queen, What's On & Libelle weren't able to start again a week later?

Someone made the decision that Homebush Max suddenly became an inside dog for a couple of races & I don't see anyone being held to account for making that decision.

 

[Yankiwi]

No mention of & no vet check for the #1 after hitting (climbing on) the rail.

[Chief Stipe]

[Yankiwi]

Who's the PBD preference assignment person?

Whoever it is needs some schooling.

Both the #1 & #2 are not railing. They want out wider.

 

The #6 sure wants down on the inside

 

The #1, #2 & #6 all made it to the finish line without falling.

The #3 & #5 weren't so lucky.

If this is the way your PBD is going to work, it's not going to reduce injuries.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Who's the PBD preference assignment person?

Whoever it is needs some schooling.

Both the #1 & #2 are not railing. They want out wider.

 

The #6 sure wants down on the inside

 

The #1, #2 & #6 all made it to the finish line without falling.

The #3 & #5 weren't so lucky.

If this is the way your PBD is going to work, it's not going to reduce injuries.

FFS you have no idea.

[Yankiwi]

On 7/10/2024 at 10:23 AM, Yankiwi said:

So, what's changed here Mr. Dore?

Did you put Homebush Max down into the #1 box for the first time ever, wearing his blinkers, on 20 Sept?

Is this why the reporting method to the minister was change for injuries?

Was it because Homebush Max became an inside preferred dog?

"What's On" copped it quite bad on that day because the dog with blinkers pushed off the rail under pressure.

On 20 Sept, it received a 14-day non-major stand-down yet required x-rays, which luckily later confirmed no fracture detected.

 

Even though no mandatory return to racing trial was required due to the injury being sustained, the dog was required to complete a solo weight trial on 10 Oct, 21 days after the injury, in preparation to resume.

 

 

Then 8 days later, the dog returned to race on 18 Oct this happen?

 

Bad racing luck, eh?

20 Sept to 18 Oct was just an unfortunate 4 weeks in the life of a greyhound?

Now I can better understand why the smoke screen might have reappeared in the reporting, with GRNZ's supposed injury transparency.

[Chief Stipe]

@Yankiwi did you send your questions to GRNZ?  Or do you believe ranting on a forum is going to make a difference?  Apart from making you feel better.