25 degrees in wanganui

[Cheats onion rings]

It's 25 degrees in wanganui today. Why are the dogs being made to line up in the hot sun. Would of thought welfare officer would of been on the pH by now. Or if not why aren't the stipes acting on the dogs welfare

[Sickof it]

1 hour ago, Cheats onion rings said:

It's 25 degrees in wanganui today. Why are the dogs being made to line up in the hot sun. Would of thought welfare officer would of been on the pH by now. Or if not why aren't the stipes acting on the dogs welfare

Only 25oc hotter around the track thanks to your mate

[Cockyaleg]

1 hour ago, Sickof it said:

Only 25oc hotter around the track thanks to your mate

I assume you are referring to the club email sent out yesterday. I have to say it was very OTT and the work of an organisation seemly devoid of any reasonable management skills. I'm not surprised temperatures are raised. Given the club's litigation track record, I am perplexed as to why the board is still sitting? I think the score sits around 6 or 7 to nil in favour of the also-rans but I stand to be corrected on the figures.  The fact that members are willing to tolerate such behaviour is beyond me. Attempting to place blame elsewhere is ill-conceived. Just my opinion.

[Sickof it]

Were you there today? Did you get the feel in the air?? Think not... Since the resent case it's been horrible . It's dragged the low life up . They are loving it it they realised it affects them now. No-one to blame apart from Deb edlin thanks

[Aussie aussie aussie]

13 minutes ago, Sickof it said:

Were you there today? Did you get the feel in the air?? Think not... Since the resent case it's been horrible . It's dragged the low life up . They are loving it it they realised it affects them now. No-one to blame apart from Deb edlin thanks

Wow what a statement., i congratulate the lp for having the guts to do something , and it must have been right as a court has ruled so , so why is it the lady's fault? i belive the clubs reaction to it is more concerning,  childish if you want my opinion and overeacting to put the blame back  on the lp , you have to ask why did it go to court and why was it not sorted before this action had to be taken?? Simple answer and thats arrogance from the heads of the club and nzgra.

[Cockyaleg]

45 minutes ago, Sickof it said:

Were you there today? Did you get the feel in the air?? Think not... Since the resent case it's been horrible . It's dragged the low life up . They are loving it it they realised it affects them now. No-one to blame apart from Deb edlin thanks

Heck? Are you on the board that wrote the new rules that upset the participants? And who would these low lives be?

[aquaman]

Since the 90's, end of last century, the law changed making Clubs and other organisations responsible for providing a safe environment at race tracks and other domains. This law change made it possible to sue clubs for injury or death where negligence can be proved on the part of the Club, whether that applies to humans or animals. The first successful case, and it involved millions, was from Sth Australia, and this from memory involved a jockey suing a race club for injuries he received. He was successful. After that case a memo was sent to all race clubs advising they take out insurance against such liability. Clubs these days have to be very careful they provide a safe environment for animals and humans. Since then OSH has evolved and reinforced this. You will notice this now on many tracks where clubs provide padding on gates and other identified hazards on horse tracks. There has been successful cases brought by horse owners against clubs for the loss of valuable horse flesh because a club was at fault.

[Cockyaleg]

47 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Since the 90's, end of last century, the law changed making Clubs and other organisations responsible for providing a safe environment at race tracks and other domains. This law change made it possible to sue clubs for injury or death where negligence can be proved on the part of the Club, whether that applies to humans or animals. The first successful case, and it involved millions, was from Sth Australia, and this from memory involved a jockey suing a race club for injuries he received. He was successful. After that case a memo was sent to all race clubs advising they take out insurance against such liability. Clubs these days have to be very careful they provide a safe environment for animals and humans. Since then OSH has evolved and reinforced this. You will notice this now on many tracks where clubs provide padding on gates and other identified hazards on horse tracks. There has been successful cases brought by horse owners against clubs for the loss of valuable horse flesh because a club was at fault.

Based on the information you have provided Aquaman, it follows that all clubs should undertake a full review and risk assessment at least annually. Health and safety checks should take place prior to every meeting. Failure to do so and remedy places any club in jeopardy. It is common knowledge in this case, that a failure had previously been identified, and that the members themselves attempted to rectify the shortfall. It is reasonable to assume that if management had acted immediately, litigation would not have followed. But it did, hence the overkill advisory. A bit like placing triple locks on the gate after the horse has bolted.

[BitofaLegend]

18 hours ago, Sickof it said:

Were you there today? Did you get the feel in the air?? Think not... Since the resent case it's been horrible . It's dragged the low life up . They are loving it it they realised it affects them now. No-one to blame apart from Deb edlin thanks

The club are obliged to uphold health and safety issues. From my understanding, there have been several complaints in the past and nothing was done to fix the issue. Going to court was the right decision as the club are 100% liable and in this instance, proved correct.

There should be shelter where the greyhounds line up as well instead of leaving them in the sun for 5-10minutes. It's an animal and human welfare issue standing out in the sun.

I remember discussing this issue with another a few years ago where the riu have highlighted running back at Cambridge a health and safety issue, but not at otago or palmy. If someone hurt themselves at palmy or otago running back and the club/riu we're sued or court action was filed, the question would be raised as to why it's an issue at Cambridge but not these other two tracks. It seems the greyhound industry is lacking on several fronts. Not just integrity

Edited February 14, 2019 by BitofaLegend

[Guest CrossCodes]

Is there a link where we can view the decision handed down by the court.

No doubt the right decision was made, I’d just like to see it in is entire glory.

[That Girl]

I dont know anything about this case, like others here I would love to hear or see the full story so I can understand what has gone on, but it sounds like a huge Welldone to Deb Edlin is in order!!

Like others have said the code is stuck in the last century on a number of issues including H&S , Integrity and the other big one I think is Employment law issues, how many of the hard working young people in this industry are employed/paid correctly? Including keeping of Leave Entitlements etc,  I read an article recently, and there's plenty of examples of this, where a builder was sacked, he was drunk on the job and wasnt the best worker however still managed to walk away with 11K+ because the Authority discovered that his employer had no record of hours worked, Leave taken etc...immediately made me think of people 'employed' in greyhound industry.

Again Welldone Deb !!

[Sickof it]

Facts........                       Deb's trialled a dog on a vets stand down.                  Deb's didn't warn the started or lure driver of this.                                      When asked what trial she wanted she said from here to there. She was at the 520 boxes at the time.        She put the stand down dog in the boxes.               Normally people at the 520 boxes have a box to box or a full 520,so the started signalled for a 520 as she said there.              She meant a trial out of the 520 box     to the 305 box which is a very unusual especially for a injuried dog.                              A complete mix up of communication between the starter and trainer.         The dog ran the full 520 without any stopping of the trial by Deb's.             Just before the line around 10 to 20 MTRS the dog broke down.               She ran towards the dog and a catcher also ran towards the dog.              These are the facts as observed on the day. the rest of the case or how things were handled are between the parties involved. Every one can make their own minds up. But it will all affect all of us from now on 

[Cockyaleg]

That's a very detailed observation. You claim to know what was said and even what was meant, months after the event. The club was found guilty of negligence, the judge must be totally incompetent. Or not.

[Yankiwi]

The judge couldn't have been any less competent than the JCA normally is....

Here's a reminder...

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/nzgra-request-for-review-j-dunn-v-riu-decision-dated-5-november-2015/?searchterm=jason dunn*

[BitofaLegend]

1 hour ago, Sickof it said:

Facts........                       Deb's trialled a dog on a vets stand down.                  Deb's didn't warn the started or lure driver of this.                                      When asked what trial she wanted she said from here to there. She was at the 520 boxes at the time.        She put the stand down dog in the boxes.               Normally people at the 520 boxes have a box to box or a full 520,so the started signalled for a 520 as she said there.              She meant a trial out of the 520 box     to the 305 box which is a very unusual especially for a injuried dog.                              A complete mix up of communication between the starter and trainer.         The dog ran the full 520 without any stopping of the trial by Deb's.             Just before the line around 10 to 20 MTRS the dog broke down.               She ran towards the dog and a catcher also ran towards the dog.              These are the facts as observed on the day. the rest of the case or how things were handled are between the parties involved. Every one can make their own minds up. But it will all affect all of us from now on 

Is not the first time the lure driver has failed to listen to instructions.

Would be like a trainer asking for a run out of the Sprint boxes and going 720 instead. He's made the same mistake plenty of times. Good on her!

Had a similar issue a few years ago when we had a dog go a miss first bend of a 520m trial and the same lure driver I assume just carried on the trial. The dog never raced again because of that.

I hope these facts are not made up btw as I'm sure you know it's against the rules to trial a dog stood down

Edited February 14, 2019 by BitofaLegend

[Cockyaleg]

2 minutes ago, BitofaLegend said:

Is not the first time the lure driver has failed to listen to instructions.

Would be like a trainer asking for a run out of the Sprint boxes and going 720 instead. He's made the same mistake plenty of times. Good on her!

Had a similar issue a few years ago when we had a dog go a miss first bend of a 520m race and the same lure driver I assume just carried on the trial. The dog never raced again because of that.

I hope these facts are not made up btw as I'm sure you know it's against the rules to trial a dog stood down

Sorry to hear your dog suffered an injury. Just like to correct your last sentence if I may. It isn't against the rules to trial while on stand down only start in a race or satisfactory trial. Trainers can trial as part of a dog's rehab back to racing while on stand down. Maybe a short assessment run to establish whether a dog is fit to return to work.

A stand down is the estimated period for full recovery, it is not absolute and by that, I mean that a dog can recover faster or may need longer than the time estimated. That's why stand downs can be rescinded. It is each individual trainers job to assess the stages of recovery. Very few if any would take a dog back to a vet for a clearance at the end of a stand down period. The actual rule reads:

"56.4 Subject to Rule 56.5, an Owner or Trainer shall not permit the Greyhound named in a Certificate of Incapacitation under this Rule to compete in any Race or Satisfactory Trial during the period of incapacitation."

Obviously, you wouldn't trial at the beginning of a stand down. But it's not unusual for a trainer to give a limited trial toward the end of a stand down, especially if the trainer believes the dog has recovered. No trainer would trial a dog over 520m in a state of unfitness especially if the dog was a sprinter.

[Aussie aussie aussie]

24 minutes ago, Cockyaleg said:

Sorry to hear your dog suffered an injury. Just like to correct your last sentence if I may. It isn't against the rules to trial while on stand down only start in a race or satisfactory trial. Trainers can trial as part of a dog's rehab back to racing while on stand down. Maybe a short assessment run to establish whether a dog is fit to return to work.

A stand down is the estimated period for full recovery, it is not absolute and by that, I mean that a dog can recover faster or may need longer than the time estimated. That's why stand downs can be rescinded. It is each individual trainers job to assess the stages of recovery. Very few if any would take a dog back to a vet for a clearance at the end of a stand down period. The actual rule reads:

"56.4 Subject to Rule 56.5, an Owner or Trainer shall not permit the Greyhound named in a Certificate of Incapacitation under this Rule to compete in any Race or Satisfactory Trial during the period of incapacitation."

Obviously, you wouldn't trial at the beginning of a stand down. But it's not unusual for a trainer to give a limited trial toward the end of a stand down, especially if the trainer believes the dog has recovered. No trainer would trial a dog over 520m in a state of unfitness especially if the dog was a sprinter.

Look at the end of this the person or people concerned took the case to a court who ruled the club were negligent , whether people   believe what the lady did was right or wrong the club were there at the court hearing with there defence and lost, end of story i believe thd courts. 

[Hard Times]

What sort of fool trials an injured dog in the first place?

[Sickof it]

9 hours ago, BitofaLegend said:

Is not the first time the lure driver has failed to listen to instructions.

Would be like a trainer asking for a run out of the Sprint boxes and going 720 instead. He's made the same mistake plenty of times. Good on her!

Had a similar issue a few years ago when we had a dog go a miss first bend of a 520m trial and the same lure driver I assume just carried on the trial. The dog never raced again because of that.

I hope these facts are not made up btw as I'm sure you know it's against the rules to trial a dog stood down

Doesn't the lure driver get the instructions from the starter that speaks to the trainer??? The trainer needs to be clear, and not presume that everybody knows what they what, especially on such an unusual trial.i know plenty of trainers that would NEVER put a dog out of the 520 box to the 305 boxes but hey us trainers are all qualified vets and know best .

 

[Sickof it]

11 hours ago, Cockyaleg said:

That's a very detailed observation. You claim to know what was said and even what was meant, months after the event. The club was found guilty of negligence, the judge must be totally incompetent. Or not.

Hey the truth is the truth,it would be stupid to lie as you'd get caught out but it doesn't stop some.my memory doesn't keep up the lies people tell. It's not the first court case Deb's has won either remember when she took money from gap ....our money for our retired dogs and it was a lot more than Wanganui. She's done it again with our club money  .Palmy isn't far go there to trial  if you don't like Wanganui.  We are lucky we have 2 on our door step unlike other trainers.

[Cockyaleg]

And from what I have read the club did get caught out. They put up a case which was rejected by a court of law and they were judged negligent. So who's lying here? Lisa Olden, wife of the lure driver involved, because it is obvious who you are. Someone apparently with an enormous grudge who is attempting to slander another because she doesn't like the decision. Tell me did you get up in court and tell your story? And if not, why not? If so you obviously weren't believed by the judge.

[BitofaLegend]

46 minutes ago, Sickof it said:

Hey the truth is the truth,it would be stupid to lie as you'd get caught out but it doesn't stop some.my memory doesn't keep up the lies people tell. It's not the first court case Deb's has won either remember when she took money from gap ....our money for our retired dogs and it was a lot more than Wanganui. She's done it again with our club money  .Palmy isn't far go there to trial  if you don't like Wanganui.  We are lucky we have 2 on our door step unlike other trainers.

Nzgra and riu have always considered themselves above the law. You would find the majority of the time, if more decisions were challenged, they would lose many cases. I'm off the opinion trainers should not have to put up with slack caused from those in power in the industry and it seems the court of law is the only place to get a fair trial as the riu and jca are incompetent.

The clubs reply is what is really worrying. Instead of dealing with the obvious staffing problem at the track, They punish the trainers. A complete joke. Once again, this leaves me questioning the negligence of this industry and its professionalism.

On a side note, shouldn't the club be insured for these situations in the first place? Or is this just more negligence on the clubs part?

Edited February 14, 2019 by BitofaLegend

[BitofaLegend]

And tbf, the wanganui club is not the only negligent club, auckland is just as bad. They think that by having a sign by the kennel block window saying you race and trial your dog there at your own discretion would mean they are not liable for any incident that occurs is laughable

[Cockyaleg]

13 hours ago, Sickof it said:

Facts........                       Deb's trialled a dog on a vets stand down.                  Deb's didn't warn the started or lure driver of this.                                      When asked what trial she wanted she said from here to there. She was at the 520 boxes at the time.        She put the stand down dog in the boxes.               Normally people at the 520 boxes have a box to box or a full 520,so the started signalled for a 520 as she said there.              She meant a trial out of the 520 box     to the 305 box which is a very unusual especially for a injuried dog.                              A complete mix up of communication between the starter and trainer.         The dog ran the full 520 without any stopping of the trial by Deb's.             Just before the line around 10 to 20 MTRS the dog broke down.               She ran towards the dog and a catcher also ran towards the dog.              These are the facts as observed on the day. the rest of the case or how things were handled are between the parties involved. Every one can make their own minds up. But it will all affect all of us from now on 

I REPEAT 
And from what I have read the club did get caught out. They put up a case which was rejected by a court of law and they were judged negligent. So who's lying here? Lisa Olden, wife of the lure driver involved, because it is obvious who you are. Someone apparently with an enormous grudge who is attempting to slander another because she doesn't like the decision. Tell me did you get up in court and tell your story? And if not, why not? If so you obviously weren't believed by the judge.

[Sickof it]

1 hour ago, Cockyaleg said:

And from what I have read the club did get caught out. They put up a case which was rejected by a court of law and they were judged negligent. So who's lying here? Lisa Olden, wife of the lure driver involved, because it is obvious who you are. Someone apparently with an enormous grudge who is attempting to slander another because she doesn't like the decision. Tell me did you get up in court and tell your story? And if not, why not? If so you obviously weren't believed by the judge.

Obviously is.     You got what happened on the day from. Someone that was there are saw it all, and still don't take it in. I think you will find she was the actual catcher in this mess