Bigtime Ivo = Bigtime Savage

[cichlid]

36 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Cichlid, are you saying the 4 dog in question got put out. If so, I hope the connections take it to the JCA, As the dog in question was not guilty of any offense under the rules.

There was a dog at Addington some years ago that was notorious for going for the balls of the winning dog at the lure. I well remember my dog Aqua Fling being shunted over the running rail by this naughty dog trying to rip his balls out, in fact it was the catalyst for getting the safety fence erected at this course. It was a Token Prince dog, and they had a reputation for this sort of thing. Having said all that, this dog never committed any offense during the race, only after the finish line where he seemed to know which dog was the winner, and only ever attacked that dog. There was never any warnings for the connections, and catchers of this dog after this trait became apparent always got in quick to get him out before he was able to do damage. Some dogs simply become very selfish over the lure, and this is a natural trait.

Yes Aqua got 28days so either a new rule is in place or the stipe messed up Bigtime..

[Yankiwi]

8 hours ago, cichlid said:

Agree totaly Legend but unless the rules have changed I don't think wayward antics after the line is catered for. 

The rules do not need to be changed!

This is exactly what I got back from GRNZ from my query in 2015.

 

Having spoken today with Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward Ross Neal he has clarified and confirmed the following points raised:

• The definition of ‘race’ is only loosely defined in our rules as is also the case under the Australian rules making it hard to define the actual start and finish point of a race in regard to the wording of the rules.
• Any greyhound which can be proven to have marred or has displayed aggressive behaviour towards another greyhound during the course of a race (or whilst officially on the track competing whether prior to or after the winning line) must be dealt with by the RIU in the appropriate manner.
• Stipendiary Stewards would prefer to keep the specific term ‘marring’ to an incident that occurs during the running of a race prior to the winning line affecting the actual outcome of the dividend bearing placings, however aggressive behaviour after the line is still considered part of the greyhounds performance and can be classed as an unsatisfactory performance and dealt with by the RIU accordingly.
• If considered an unsatisfactory performance, a greyhound can be ordered to undergo one or more satisfactory trials and/or such action as the Stipendiary Steward deems necessary before becoming eligible to compete in or be nominated for any future races.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Yankiwi

[cichlid]

Have you opened up a can of worms or what?  :)   

[James Bond]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

The rules do not need to be changed!

This is exactly what I got back from GRNZ from my query in 2015.

 

Having spoken today with Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward Ross Neal he has clarified and confirmed the following points raised:

• The definition of ‘race’ is only loosely defined in our rules as is also the case under the Australian rules making it hard to define the actual start and finish point of a race in regard to the wording of the rules.
• Any greyhound which can be proven to have marred or has displayed aggressive behaviour towards another greyhound during the course of a race (or whilst officially on the track competing whether prior to or after the winning line) must be dealt with by the RIU in the appropriate manner.
• Stipendiary Stewards would prefer to keep the specific term ‘marring’ to an incident that occurs during the running of a race prior to the winning line affecting the actual outcome of the dividend bearing placings, however aggressive behaviour after the line is still considered part of the greyhounds performance and can be classed as an unsatisfactory performance and dealt with by the RIU accordingly.
• If considered an unsatisfactory performance, a greyhound can be ordered to undergo one or more satisfactory trials and/or such action as the Stipendiary Steward deems necessary before becoming eligible to compete in or be nominated for any future races.

 

This is all here say as it is not in the official rule book.

JCA would squash it in no time at all

[Yankiwi]

I haven't opened anything.

I've just taken the time to interpret the rules for exactly what they say, not the way someone else has interpreted them or the way they have been used/enforced.

I also questioned Mr. Godber as to why Ace Action only received one charge of marring in this race.

 

The #3 first marred the #2, then went on to mar the #7 & finally turned his attention to the #8, which he marred several times.

The rule reads-

 

55. MARRING AND FAILING TO PURSUE 
55.1 Where a Greyhound: 
 
(a) Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race;

 

In this race the #3 marred the #2 (one of the seven other runners).

In this race the #3 marred the #7 (one of the seven other runners).

In this race the #3 marred the #8 (one of the seven other runners).

The #3 marred "any other" runner three times in this race, so the #3 should have been charged with three offences.

 

This is just another example of a Steward enforcing a rule for what they think it says, not was it ACTUALLY says.

 

[Yankiwi]

11 minutes ago, James Bond said:

This is all here say as it is not in the official rule book.

JCA would squash it in no time at all

ZIPPING MIA | Otago 1 January; unsatisfactory performance; must complete trial.

RAND | Christchurch 4 January; unsatisfactory performance; must complete trial.

DROP ME OFF | Waikato 24 December; unsatisfactory performance; must complete trial.

OUR SADIE | Christchurch 21 December; unsatisfactory performance; must complete trial.

 

[James Bond]

The point is none of those dogs were put out for marring after the finish line 

[aquaman]

Stipes do not interpret rules, they are there only to enforce them. It is the job of the JCA to interpret them.

[Taupiri Wonder]

Ace Action = Profile

Hard to imagine a worse case of 'marring' than in the video shown by Yankiwi above.

This dog qualified 2nd of 7 @ Forbury,and made his Race Debut 3 weeks later @ Addington from the kennels of Steve & Bonnie Evans.Box 1,started $2.10 Favourite.

Won this race,but marred several other runners,and earned his first stand down 28 days.

My question,did he show such erratic traits when training,or did he only reveal this ugly trait when taken to the races!!!

 

Fast foward four months,a change of kennel to John McInerney,and Ace Action lines up again as Race Favourite in the video above.

Second Guilty Marring Offense,earning three month stand down.

Wonder how he passed The Satisfactory Trial before being permitted to race again!!

 

Not surprisingly,Ace Action was never seen on raceday again.

[aquaman]

23 minutes ago, Taupiri Wonder said:

Ace Action = Profile

Hard to imagine a worse case of 'marring' than in the video shown by Yankiwi above.

This dog qualified 2nd of 7 @ Forbury,and made his Race Debut 3 weeks later @ Addington from the kennels of Steve & Bonnie Evans.Box 1,started $2.10 Favourite.

Won this race,but marred several other runners,and earned his first stand down 28 days.

My question,did he show such erratic traits when training,or did he only reveal this ugly trait when taken to the races!!!

 

Fast foward four months,a change of kennel to John McInerney,and Ace Action lines up again as Race Favourite in the video above.

Second Guilty Marring Offense,earning three month stand down.

Wonder how he passed The Satisfactory Trial before being permitted to race again!!

 

Not surprisingly,Ace Action was never seen on raceday again.

Would of had a meaningless requalifying trial with 3 slow dogs and probably led all the way. Would of been sent to the Macs for re education with you know what.

[Yankiwi]

6 hours ago, aquaman said:

Stipes do not interpret rules, they are there only to enforce them. It is the job of the JCA to interpret them.

That's my point Aquaman.

The JCA isn't going to interpret anything if the RIU hasn't put it before them in a case.

I believe Ace Action should have received 3 charges for marring in that race alone.

If the RIU charged Ace Action with three counts of marring in the same race, as they should have, then connections could have contested the multiple charges before the JCA.

If someone walks down the footpath & gives the first person they see the bash & kills them. Immediately after that, they continue down the same footpath & kills the second & third person they see, would the Crown only charge the person with one count of murder?

Crown law doesn't have a limit on how many charges of murder a person can be charged with, from the same walk down the footpath. Likewise, under GRNZ rules, there is no cap for a greyhound for the number of marring incidents they can commit in the same race.

The RIU nearly ALWAYS take the easiest way out for themselves. The only time they seem to step outside their normal if they have someone on the GRNZ/RIU most wanted list before them. I'm sure you're already very aware of that from your personal dealings with them.

How many holes did you punch in the wall outside the Stewards room?

Oh wait, that wasn't your case at all was it? The persons who's case it was, didn't appear on the most wanted list.... That's why their case ended with only a hand slap.
 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Yankiwi

[Honestly]

I can’t believe that crap that you write . The funny thing is you actually think your right . One poster was very correct you are a few cans short or did he say something about a special helmet. Keep up the good work you should have been a lawyer.

[Yankiwi]

It's so much easier trying to degrade & insinuate another member has a mental issue than it is too debate a subject. Exactly what I've come to expect from you.

Do you have the ability to post something with actual sustenance?

 

 

 

[Honestly]

I’m glad you now know how I feel dealing with your posts .