Yankiwi Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 Addington last night. Welcome back Lisa. So, Lisa nominated an ineligible dog which was accepted to a field & had to be late scratched, because it hadn't completed a safe return to racing trial. Instead of running in the race it was drawn to, it completed its safe return to racing trial. But what about the rule covering this sort of event? The RIB did not fine her. The RIB did not warn her. The RIB decided to turn a blind eye to the rule entirely, which suggests either favouritism or ineptness. Why doesn't GRNZ have systems in place so a dog not eligible to be drawn to a field isn't able to be nominated? Welfare is top priority after all, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: The RIB did not fine her. The RIB did not warn her. The RIB decided to turn a blind eye to the rule entirely, which suggests either favouritism or ineptness. How do you know they didn't act? 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: Why doesn't GRNZ have systems in place so a dog not eligible to be drawn to a field isn't able to be nominated? Welfare is top priority after all, right? How did nominating the dog cause it harm? It was scratched but then proceeded to do a trial which it passed. I guess GRNZ has the same issues that NZTR and HRNZ have with their antiquated IT systems. They require a degree of manual oversight that sometimes leads to error. However Opawa Pip trialed two weeks previoiusly on 30 July. Was that not a Safe Return to Racing trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 16 Author Share Posted August 16 9 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: How do you know they didn't act? 1 Aug at Addington, another trainer failed to scratch by the prescribed time (7:30am) denying a reserve a chance to start & was fined $300. Opawa Pip wasn't scratched by the prescribed time which denied Claws In Rambo or Culvie Bun a chance to start. No warning, No fine. NO INTEGRITY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 42 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: 1 Aug at Addington, another trainer failed to scratch by the prescribed time (7:30am) denying a reserve a chance to start & was fined $300. Opawa Pip wasn't scratched by the prescribed time which denied Claws In Rambo or Culvie Bun a chance to start. No warning, No fine. NO INTEGRITY. Wait till you hear all of what happened. You'll rabbit on for at least a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gammalite Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 32 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Wait till you hear all of what happened. You'll rabbit on for at least a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 18 Author Share Posted August 18 Auckland today. Dog scratched under a rule that doesn't exist. Oddly enough, weren't we just talking about a very similar situation? No warning, No fine. NO INTEGRITY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 Again Grace Foot trialled on 1 August 2024. The question you should be asking is why wasn't that treated as a safe return to racing trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1234 Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 On 8/16/2024 at 8:57 PM, Yankiwi said: 1 Aug at Addington, another trainer failed to scratch by the prescribed time (7:30am) denying a reserve a chance to start & was fined $300. Opawa Pip wasn't scratched by the prescribed time which denied Claws In Rambo or Culvie Bun a chance to start. No warning, No fine. NO INTEGRITY. To clarify …. Opawa Pip did not cause anyone to miss gaining a start because they had the wrong traits so whether Opawa Pip was or was not scratched by the start time they were not starting. ALSO Lisa did scratch it with me by the correct time - in fact several days out. I was rung by a staff member at GRNZ stating not to scratch as she had actually completed a return to racing trial prior to August (before the new rules). GRNZ were interpreting the ruling differently to the stipes who then made the decision to scratch. I was awaiting a call back from GRNZ which I never received so thought it was fine to start and hence leaving it in the field. Stipes didn’t see it the way GRNZ did in the policy and scratched. Thanks Sarah Clausen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 1 hour ago, 1234 said: ALSO Lisa did scratch it with me by the correct time - in fact several days out. I was rung by a staff member at GRNZ stating not to scratch as she had actually completed a return to racing trial prior to August (before the new rules). GRNZ were interpreting the ruling differently to the stipes who then made the decision to scratch. I was awaiting a call back from GRNZ which I never received so thought it was fine to start and hence leaving it in the field. Stipes didn’t see it the way GRNZ did in the policy and scratched. So there you go @Yankiwi as I said there was more to the issue than you can see. I would guess the same applies to the other scratching example. So the issue doesn't lie with any trainer nor GRNZ but a law interpretation by the RIB caused by a transition phase. In both instances a fine is not warranted so no favours given as you infer. If there are any explanations required or questions to be asked they should come from and be directed to the RIB. I suggest you get your pen working. No dog welfare was affected as both dogs had actually trialled. To make it clear I have had no prior communication with any trainer, GRNZ or the RIB on this matter. I came to my conclusions by looking at the evidence through clear unbiased lenses. @Yankiwi you should try that approach and you might find your hand wringing and stress levels might drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 18 Author Share Posted August 18 3 hours ago, 1234 said: I was rung by a staff member at GRNZ stating not to scratch as she had actually completed a return to racing trial prior to August (before the new rules) Thanks for clarifying Sarah. As for "new rules", do you have any idea if GRNZ keeping some of them secret? In asking this, I understand that you're probably tied to the CGRC & this came out of the AGRC meeting yesterday. Maybe these resent issues could come down to GRNZ using one version of the rules & the RIB using another? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 59 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: Maybe these resent issues could come down to GRNZ using one version of the rules & the RIB using another? It may come down to interpretation of the rules. At least you must concede there was no animal welfare issue. You would have picked that up if you had done some more research. I suggest you hold the trigger a bit longer in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 Just what is this @Chief Stipe? This is not a thread I initiated last Friday at 09:35 AM. This is not a thread I initiated ever. Why are you putting my name on a thread I didn't start? If you want to take a post out of another thread and begin a new thread, at least have the balls to use your own account to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 46 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: Just what is this @Chief Stipe? This is not a thread I initiated last Friday at 09:35 AM. No you initiated the Topic in which you posted these posts on 04 March 2024 - NOT 16 August 2024 as you suggest. Once again accuracy isn't your strong point. 48 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: This is not a thread I initiated ever. Yes and No. The first post in the new Topic is yours. The Topic Title represents more accurately the subject you raised for discussion as opposed to your original Topic "GRNZ - You can't make this shit up!" Given you were essentially making shit up I could argue I was doing you a favour. BTW administrators of forums do this all the time when new subjects are introduced to existing Topics. It keeps people focussed on one issue hence the software developers provide a simple select and click function to shift posts to a new topic. 53 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: Why are you putting my name on a thread I didn't start? I didn't - the software did because your post was the FIRST on this very valid Topic. 53 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: If you want to take a post out of another thread and begin a new thread, at least have the balls to use your own account to do so. I could throw the Comic Dog line at you - "It's my forum so I do as I please" but I won't. I suspect that your angst is more related to the fact that separately a very important Topic (which you raised) shows you got it so wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: I suspect that your angst is more related to the fact that separately a very important Topic (which you raised) shows you got it so wrong I didn't get anything wrong, with the information GRNZ & the RIB provides to the public. Since you claim I got it wrong, just what is GRNZ rule LR75D(2)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 11 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: I didn't get anything wrong, with the information GRNZ & the RIB provides to the public. Since you claim I got it wrong, just what is GRNZ rule LR75D(2)? Could it be a typo? You didn't know the dog had already trialed. You are so bloody minded about nailing GRNZ or the RIB or any big Trainer that you missed the main point!!!!! FFS I give you a hint and you are so fixated on being right that you miss a chance to finally make a name for yourself!!! Then you conveniently miss the statement at the top of the Stewards Report: Stipendiary Stewards report as posted is provisional and subject to further review and amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty5 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 Take a look at Bigtime Curly R1 Manakau. Hasn’t trialed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 59 minutes ago, Mighty5 said: Take a look at Bigtime Curly R1 Manakau. Hasn’t trialed Good spotting. Can't be much clearer to see the problems than in this case. Chief will fill us in once he works it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 7 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Good spotting. Can't be much clearer to see the problems than in this case. Chief will fill us in once he works it out. Na I'd rather hear your full conspiracy first. It's entertaining and ultimately makes you look stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 11 hours ago, Mighty5 said: Take a look at Bigtime Curly R1 Manakau. Hasn’t trialed Yes but it hasn't started in a race yet either. Yeah yeah it shouldn't have been nominated but no harm done. No dog denied a start. No betting on the TAB. 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.