Yankiwi Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Firstly, I think any charge at all in this case is crazy. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-penalty-decision-dated-21-march-2024-shirley-ross/ But the RIB decided it wanted to "set a benchmark". So, if the RIB wants a benchmark, at least they should get the facts straight. This from 24 Sept 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20201027195917/http://jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-s-l-ross-reserved-decision-dated-24-september-2020-chair-mr-b-j-scott Then the appeal which really didn't bare any fruit. https://web.archive.org/web/20201124025956/http://jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/appeal-s-l-ross-v-riu-reasons-decision-of-appeals-tribunal-dated-28-october-2020-chair-mr-m-mckechnie The RIB can try to change history by obsoleting the old JCA website. But unfortunately for them, the internet remains & they cannot erase people's memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 56 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: Firstly, I think any charge at all in this case is crazy. Then why comment and trawl the internet? Woops I forgot you have an agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Firstly, I think any charge at all in this case is crazy. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-penalty-decision-dated-21-march-2024-shirley-ross/ But the RIB decided it wanted to "set a benchmark". So, if the RIB wants a benchmark, at least they should get the facts straight. This from 24 Sept 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20201027195917/http://jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-s-l-ross-reserved-decision-dated-24-september-2020-chair-mr-b-j-scott Then the appeal which really didn't bare any fruit. https://web.archive.org/web/20201124025956/http://jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/appeal-s-l-ross-v-riu-reasons-decision-of-appeals-tribunal-dated-28-october-2020-chair-mr-m-mckechnie The RIB can try to change history by obsoleting the old JCA website. But unfortunately for them, the internet remains & they cannot erase people's memory. So that’s two previous charges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 19 minutes ago, Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers said: So that’s two previous charges And she’s clearly fond of the ‘I didn’t know!’ Defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted March 24 Author Share Posted March 24 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Then why comment and trawl the internet? Woops I forgot you have an agenda. The "I" in RIB stands for integrity. All I want to see is integrity coming from the RIB. Is that too much to ask? Maybe they believe their own lies, but I don't. MS Ross had (at least) two previous convictions from breaking GRNZ rules. One for a drug positive & one for a welfare charge revolving around the use of a shock collar. Why on earth would they claim she had no previous breaches of the rules when they are the ones who hold & have access to those records? Surely with this oversight (lie) the enforcement division of the RIB will appeal the finding. Integrity underpins everything they do in this self-governing/enforcing industry, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: The "I" in RIB stands for integrity. All I want to see is integrity coming from the RIB. Is that too much to ask? Maybe they believe their own lies, but I don't. MS Ross had (at least) two previous convictions from breaking GRNZ rules. One for a drug positive & one for a welfare charge revolving around the use of a shock collar. Why on earth would they claim she had no previous breaches of the rules when they are the ones who hold & have access to those records? Surely with this oversight (lie) the enforcement division of the RIB will appeal the finding. Integrity underpins everything they do in this self-governing/enforcing industry, right? Who cares? Just go hard after a 78 year old ill woman. 🤒 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 hours ago, Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers said: So that’s two previous charges So obviously with a user name such as Seeyounexttuesday you don't really have much time for Greyhound racing either? @Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted March 24 Author Share Posted March 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Who cares? Just go hard after a 78 year old ill woman. 🤒 Not at all. The penalty is pointless. Four months or four years make no difference in this case. She relinquished her license & has had no dogs in training for years. She was stung for a hormone they used to inject to keep bitches from going into season. Most trainers used it until GRNZ made the injection illegal but still allowed a pill for the same purpose to be legal. This charge in the first place was ridiculous. But the RIB brought it forward to serve as a deterrent to other trainers from repeating the offence. Then as part of the finding, they lied about her previous offences. Why would they do that? If they are trying to make a point, it has to be an accurate point, not something they just made up for some other unknown purpose. Edited March 24 by Yankiwi 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 15 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: Not at all. The penalty is pointless. Four months or four years make no difference in this case. She relinquished her license & has had no dogs in training for years. She was stung for a hormone they used to inject to keep bitches from going into season. Most trainers used it until GRNZ made the injection illegal but still allowed a pill for the same purpose to be legal. This charge in the first place was ridiculous. But the RIB brought it forward to serve as a deterrent to other trainers from repeating the offence. Then as part of the finding, they lied about her previous offences. Why would they do that? If they are trying to make a point, it has to be an accurate point, not something they just made up for some other unknown purpose. Perhaps they decided to throw you a bone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: So obviously with a user name such as Seeyounexttuesday you don't really have much time for Greyhound racing either? @Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers !!!! I checked the guidelines and there’s nothing there to say that you must be pro-racing to post here. And it would be a little hypocritical for you to complain about the username (which is an honestly held belief) when don’t you have to approve all accounts before they’re created @Chief Stipe? 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 5 minutes ago, Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers said: I checked the guidelines and there’s nothing there to say that you must be pro-racing to post here. And it would be a little hypocritical for you to complain about the username (which is an honestly held belief) when don’t you have to approve all accounts before they’re created @Chief Stipe? 🤷♂️ So you're not "pro-racing"? ...and you think all trainers are Cee U Next Tuesday's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: So you're not "pro-racing"? Does it matter? Are you asking everyone else to declare their pro or anti stance? Is that now a condition of posting here? 🤪 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers said: Does it matter? Are you asking everyone else to declare their pro or anti stance? Is that now a condition of posting here? 🤪 It's not a condition of posting but if you are anti-Greyhound Racing then declare it instead of pretending to be something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: It's not a condition of posting but if you are anti-Greyhound Racing then declare it instead of pretending to be something else. Not pretending at all, just refusing to ponder to demands @Chief Stipe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 10 minutes ago, Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers said: Not pretending at all, just refusing to ponder to demands @Chief Stipe So you are Anti-Greyhound Racing and their trainers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 21 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: So you are Anti-Greyhound Racing and their trainers? Let’s play a game, @Chief Stipe, guess the missing word: The definition of >???< is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 28 minutes ago, Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers said: Let’s play a game, @Chief Stipe, guess the missing word: The definition of >???< is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Just answer the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Shirly Ross was persecuted by a rabid out of control RIB. This is the first I have heard of this case, just thought she must of retired. Now I learn she was hammered with a sledge hammer over a ridiculous set of charges. The RIB and Judicial bodies need to hang their heads in shame for the unjust persecution of a trainer of Shirly Ross's standing. To think a blemish free career, spanning more than 30yrs, destroyed by people that have contributed very little to racing. I know Shirly, and her dogs always came first. The Judicial minutes make very sad reading, and are a further blight on the destruction that is happening to the local racing scene. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 On 24/03/2024 at 7:49 PM, Seeyounexttuesdaytrainers said: Not pretending at all, just refusing to ponder to demands @Chief Stipe 2 1 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.