Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Coming ×
Bit Of A Yarn

Food For Thought


Cockyaleg

Recommended Posts

This arrived this morning passing through several hands before reading. This is a very interesting document relevant to a case currently before the courts.

As the GRNZ is a member of Greyhound Australasia and so is subject to the collective rules of that organisation, the penalty in this particular case MUST reflect on any future decisions made when looking to cases of a similar nature. Now it is true that tanned sheepskin is permitted for use as a training lure here in NZ, BUT only a tanned sheepskin. Raw skins or any other part of an animal is NOT. This penalty is dated June of this year, it is the most recent precedent available to the adjudicators when making comparisons. Your thoughts.

http://radb.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Media_Release_LRR42.18a_LRR42.18b_Tim_Noy-1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cockyaleg said:

This arrived this morning passing through several hands before reading. This is a very interesting document relevant to a case currently before the courts.

As the GRNZ is a member of Greyhound Australasia and so is subject to the collective rules of that organisation, the penalty in this particular case MUST reflect on any future decisions made when looking to cases of a similar nature. Now it is true that tanned sheepskin is permitted for use as a training lure here in NZ, BUT only a tanned sheepskin. Raw skins or any other part of an animal is NOT. This penalty is dated June of this year, it is the most recent precedent available to the adjudicators when making comparisons. Your thoughts.

http://radb.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Media_Release_LRR42.18a_LRR42.18b_Tim_Noy-1.pdf

Tim Noy obviously wasn’t a protected person like the other one, hence why he’s still racing dogs and the other has a lifetime ban

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If GRNZ actually wants to put an end to live (or dead) baiting, than this is the kind of decisions which need to be handed down, in each & every instance.

Wet bus tickets are not a deterrent to those who rake in $2M a year in stakes money.

The same can be said for $300 fines, which are obviously not a deterrent, for producing an overweight/underweight dog for the 117th time, when you're raking in over 1M a year in stakes. 

I believe there needs to be balance in penalties which are handed down. Someone with 100 dogs & $1M a year in earnings should not receive the same fine (dollar wise) as a hobby trainer, with 3 dogs & 6 wins a year on average.

I mentioned it before & I'll do so again, fines should be handed down as a percentage of the previous years earnings. That way a fine could be used as a deterrent, not a laugh for the big kennels & a week of bread & water for the little trainer, when the same infraction has occurred.

  • Like 1
  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kiwigreys said:

Tim Noy obviously wasn’t a protected person like the other one, hence why he’s still racing dogs and the other has a lifetime ban

Protected species or not, the current case has no precedent in NZ. So, when looking at prosecuting and sentencing the precedents set in Australia must be followed. Greyhound Australasia would be horrified if NZ chose to ignore the rules signed up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aquaman said:

The most stupid decision I have ever read, 50yrs in, and hung for a sheep skin.?

I thought the penalty was extremely harsh, but the rule was widely publicised and has been in existence for quite sometime. My point was, if a life ban for using a sheepskin in training is the precedent, could a proven live or dead baiting charge be argued down to a lesser penalty? My view is no, and the penalty should apply to all involved. After all everyone involved profited from stakes, wages, and the punt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cockyaleg said:

I thought the penalty was extremely harsh, but the rule was widely publicised and has been in existence for quite sometime. My point was, if a life ban for using a sheepskin in training is the precedent, could a proven live or dead baiting charge be argued down to a lesser penalty? My view is no, and the penalty should apply to all involved. After all everyone involved profited from stakes, wages, and the punt.

A precedent has been set ,like I’ve said before take the gamble pay the price everyone knows the rules ,,,too late to cry an say I didn’t know ,,for the going forward of greyhound racing hands up ....a picture tells a is worth a thousand words !,,,,,,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...