Denis Schofield Uodate

[Guest CrossCodes]

Update on D. Schofield v RIU

 

 

Following the ruling from the Judicial Control Authority, Denis Schofield’s disqualification took effect as of 12.01am this morning (8 June 2018).

A GRNZ Integrity Committee meeting was held on Tuesday 6 June and considered a number of matters in relation to this disqualification and as a result the following decisions were passed:

-  David Schofield has been warned off.

-  David Schofield has moved off the Huntly property on 7 June.

-  Ingrid Archer has had a trainers licence declined.

-  Denis Schofield has relinquished his ownership in the Huntly property.

Nyomi O’Regan has been issued with a training licence and will have shared ownership in all the dogs with Pam Schofield. Greyhounds are being trained on the Huntly property which, as of 7 June 2018, Nyomi is now also residing on.

All dog registry details meet with the GRNZ Rules.

 

Posted on 8/06/2018 10:19:57 AM

< Back 

 

[Yankiwi]

Interesting that David S. has been warned off under GRNZ rules, when he isn't even an LP who would be bound by those rules.

Maybe it's time David took himself to Manukau for viewing some Sunday afternoon greyhound racing.

If he did & the police ended up getting notified, GRNZ would quickly realize that their golden bible (GRNZ rule book) falls on deaf ears to 99.9% of the NZ population.

I suppose the AGRC might be able to keep him off their property, by NOTHING at all would stop him from viewing the action just outside the chain-link fence just off the track near the catching area.

Swing on by David, bring your squeakers, air horns and even your pet rabbits if you desire & have a good ole Sunday afternoon in the park, right next door to the races.

[JasonMc]

3 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Interesting that David S. has been warned off under GRNZ rules, when he isn't even an LP who would be bound by those rules.

Maybe it's time David took himself to Manukau for viewing some Sunday afternoon greyhound racing.

If he did & the police ended up getting notified, GRNZ would quickly realize that their golden bible (GRNZ rule book) falls on deaf ears to 99.9% of the NZ population.

I suppose the AGRC might be able to keep him off their property, by NOTHING at all would stop him from viewing the action just outside the chain-link fence just off the track near the catching area.

Swing on by David, bring your squeakers, air horns and even your pet rabbits if you desire & have a good ole Sunday afternoon in the park, right next door to the races.

That is incorrect I have been told,  any member of the public can be warned off a track not just license holders and this has been confirmed by RIU head Mike Godber (think that's the spelling) as I am currently also warned off and I said " well I am not a license holder so not bound by the rules of racing" and was shot down very quickly as NZGRA run trials and race meetings so its like a wide spread trespass basically

 

and thought Naomi already had a trainers license so would not have to be granted one?

Edited June 8, 2018 by Bigjay

[aquaman]

What i find interesting is the fact Dennis has relinquished his ownership in the Huntly property. Question is, who now owns the property, or is this just a ruse?.

You are correct in saying the NZGRA have no authority over David, just another example of them making fools of themselves, and over stepping their authority and importance.

[JasonMc]

Warn Off means to direct that a particular person shall not be permitted to enter or remain on any part of the ground or premises where a Greyhound Meeting or trial is being held. Warning off and Warned off shall have a corresponding meaning.

The Board shall have the following Powers in relation to these Rules:
(a) To license or register persons under these Rules;
(b) Subject to Rules 66 to 73, to Suspend, deregister, Disqualify or Warn Off as it deems necessary in the best interests of Greyhound racing or its related activities in New Zealand;

 

nowhere does it say a license holder, I guess its like being banned by say NZ rugby to enter a grounds where a game is on, trust me I have tried to say I wasn't bound by the rules and got shot down straight away

[aquaman]

Yes, having thought about it Bigjay, you are right. Once upon a time the racecourse Detectives were always banning and turfing off people with criminal convictions. It was printed in the front of all racebooks.

[JasonMc]

3 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Yes, having thought about it Bigjay, you are right. Once upon a time the racecourse Detectives were always banning and turfing off people with criminal convictions. It was printed in the front of all racebooks.

not often I am told I am right especially from my wife  so thanks for the compliment John.  

[Yankiwi]

36 minutes ago, Bigjay said:

 

(b) Subject to Rules 66 to 73, to Suspend, deregister, Disqualify or Warn Off as it deems necessary in the best interests of Greyhound racing or its related activities in New Zealand;

 

I'm not an LP (by my personal choice), therefore I am not subject to rules 66 to 73, nor any other GRNZ rule for that matter.

If they did try to "warn me off", firstly they have no legal right to do so as I'm not an LP or bound by their rules. If GRNZ thought they had warned me off & I decided to attend a race meeting, I'd just attend it. GRNZ has no right to tell me what I can & cannot do.

If the CLUB believed me to be warned off, they could ask me to leave the property, which I could then choose to leave it or not. If I decided not to then The clubs next responce could be to ring the police & have the LAW (not rules) try to remove me. If it got to that point I probably would leave the property, however from that point on I would do anything in my power to disrupt their race meeting from NETURAL territory.

Here's a very example of NETURAL territory, just outside the steel wire fence at Manukau. Just image a couple of carloads of people playing with every dog squeaker they could get their hands on, just outside that fence.

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Yankiwi

[JasonMc]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

I'm not an LP (by my personal choice), therefore I am not subject to rules 66 to 73, nor any other GRNZ rule for that matter.

If they did try to "warn me off", firstly they have no legal right to do so as I'm not an LP or bound by their rules. If GRNZ thought they had warned me off & I decided to attend a race meeting, I'd just attend it. GRNZ has no right to tell me what I can & cannot do.

If the CLUB believed me to be warned off, they could ask me to leave the property, which I could then choose to leave it or not. If I decided not to then The clubs next responce could be to ring the police & have the LAW (not rules) try to remove me. If it got to that point I probably would leave the property, however from that point on I would do anything in my power to disrupt their race meeting from NETURAL territory.

Here's a very example of NETURAL territory, just outside the steel wire fence at Manukau. Just image a couple of carloads of people playing with every dog squeaker they could get their hands on, just outside that fence.

 

Think we will have to agree to disagree 

[Yankiwi]

I'm not arguing Bigjay.

I'm just saying it the way (from a legal standpoint) that way I see it.

[aquaman]

I think under the Racing Act all three codes can warn off virtually anybody that has convictions, or are banned by any code for things such as bookmaking, corrupting the tote, or persons who are deemed to be undesirables. If the racecourse dick is involved, they will call the Police and have you removed, if not charged. This law has been around in NZ since the 1800's. I know this to be true, as I have been charged under this Act several times. Ended in Court and fined about $20 back in the 70's. Many of my friends faced the same thing, it was not uncommon. I well remember traveling all the way to the Greymouth races from CH CH only to run into the racecourse jack as soon as walking in the gate, and being told to remove myself or be charged. You did or do not need to be a LP. They have enormous power under the act when it applies to the racecourses, it also applied from memory to TAB's, although that wouldn't be enforceable in todays world where TAB's are in Pups etc.

[aquaman]

Charles, standing outside the track would be ok. But if you were creating trouble the Police would charge you with disorderly conduct and arrest. Just my opinion.

[Yankiwi]

You're probably right Aquaman. I wasn't thinking about the racing act.

I've never been arrested before, so that leads me to believe that either I'm above the law or the police are scared of me. lol

[aquaman]

Due to whats happening to Dennis and the shafting that he has been dealt by the corrupt NZGRA, I would consider taking all my dogs to the Manakau race track, and walking them into the kennel block and deserting them. Make it an NZGRA problem, they can takeover their well being. Just walk them in, and walk away. Make it their problem. I considered doing this in my case when the f#cken garbage guts Kerr rorted me in my case. They are nothing but filth.

[Yankiwi]

If someone did do such a thing Aquaman, the SPCA would be all over them for abandonment & cruelty and it wouldn't take them a year or three investigation.

Maybe Denis needs another go in front of a TV news camera.

[aquaman]

Under the NZGRA rules for them and rules for us, Dennis is now longer able to have Greyhounds on his property, that is racing Greyhounds, so to this end, make them the responsibility of the Rule makers, in this case the NZGRA. To this end, I would pick a local meeting, walk the dogs into the kennel block leads and all, talk to no one, drop the leads, and walk out. I would take somebody with me that could record all proceedings on an iphone. The equally useless SPCA would be unlikely to get involved as it is political, and is neither cruel nor abandonment. In my opinion Dennis has been treated terribly by an out of control NZGRA.

[wally]

19 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Under the NZGRA rules for them and rules for us, Dennis is now longer able to have Greyhounds on his property, that is racing Greyhounds, so to this end, make them the responsibility of the Rule makers, in this case the NZGRA. To this end, I would pick a local meeting, walk the dogs into the kennel block leads and all, talk to no one, drop the leads, and walk out. I would take somebody with me that could record all proceedings on an iphone. The equally useless SPCA would be unlikely to get involved as it is political, and is neither cruel nor abandonment. In my opinion Dennis has been treated terribly by an out of control NZGRA.

aqua why do you think he has been harshly treated he was found guilty

[Yankiwi]

A action such as that Aqua would be a fools move IMHO.

If I owned $100K's worth of racing dogs that now can't race, I'd come up with another alternative in a big hurry!

[aquaman]

5 hours ago, wally said:

aqua why do you think he has been harshly treated he was found guilty

There is a lot more to this case than meets the eye Wally,   suffice to say, it is not my place to say what these things are, I would rather those involved make these facts available if they desire.

But what I will say is, two yrs for a case of negligence is manifestly excessive. This is not about drugging a dog to sting the betting public, this is a case of a P addict cross contaminating a dog with such a small amount of the drug that it wouldn't effect the dog in performance either way, no worse than somebody smoking a joint in a confined space such as a car and the dog coming up with a positive to cannabis. There was no betting sting, no rorting of the public, it was negligence.

Dennis in mitigation has a clean record, having been an honest hardworking participant for over 30 yrs. In my opinion the NZGRA led by a rat by the name of Greg Kerr has set about using the office of the NZGRA to destroy Dennis and his family. In reality, this case is no worse than the tea bag case, or the poppy seed case, or the chocolate cake case, or the cocco bean bag case etc. None of those cases attracted anymore than small fines.

Yes Wally, Dennis was found guilty, but this wasn't about dishonesty, or violent behaviour, but negligence, and minor negligence at that, nobody was hurt as a result of this negligence, the only victims here are Dennis and family. This is my opinion Wally.

[Yankiwi]

Wise words Aquaman.

Let the powers who dealt to the team read those words & let them sink in.

What astonishes me about the case was the RIU requested hair samples from two LP's & one non-LP during the investigation, under the ruse that a nonpositive return would clear them as an individual. The RIU didn't explain what would be determined if all 3 returned positive or nonpositive samples. None of three offered their sample which is well within their right.

Why didn't the RIU demand a hair sample taken from the dog, to determine whether it was a one-off or continuing occurrence?

The whole deal was more about who done it than what might have actually been done.

Bit like receiving a pile of live-baiting photos & expelling all their efforts on finding out where they came from, not what they depicted.

The RIU/GRNZ just can't seem to see where logic is seriously lacking in their actions.

[mrzim]

Aquaman you say there was no rorting of the public.Isnt the fact that the dogs were  under his name as the trainer ,when he wasn’t a rort.The betting public were backing a dog thinking  Dennis was the trainer not David.To me that’s a rort.

[wally]

2 hours ago, mrzim said:

Aquaman you say there was no rorting of the public.Isnt the fact that the dogs were  under his name as the trainer ,when he wasn’t a rort.The betting public were backing a dog thinking  Dennis was the trainer not David.To me that’s a rort.

totally agree mrzim  personally i think he got of light how stupid can one be to have a person sworn off handling dogs

Edited June 12, 2018 by wally

[wally]

13 hours ago, aquaman said:

There is a lot more to this case than meets the eye Wally,   suffice to say, it is not my place to say what these things are, I would rather those involved make these facts available if they desire.

But what I will say is, two yrs for a case of negligence is manifestly excessive. This is not about drugging a dog to sting the betting public, this is a case of a P addict cross contaminating a dog with such a small amount of the drug that it wouldn't effect the dog in performance either way, no worse than somebody smoking a joint in a confined space such as a car and the dog coming up with a positive to cannabis. There was no betting sting, no rorting of the public, it was negligence.

Dennis in mitigation has a clean record, having been an honest hardworking participant for over 30 yrs. In my opinion the NZGRA led by a rat by the name of Greg Kerr has set about using the office of the NZGRA to destroy Dennis and his family. In reality, this case is no worse than the tea bag case, or the poppy seed case, or the chocolate cake case, or the cocco bean bag case etc. None of those cases attracted anymore than small fines.

Yes Wally, Dennis was found guilty, but this wasn't about dishonesty, or violent behaviour, but negligence, and minor negligence at that, nobody was hurt as a result of this negligence, the only victims here are Dennis and family. This is my opinion Wally.

thank you aqua people are carrying on how the riu kicked him off his property my understanding judging by the facts he wasnt even living there he knew the risks he rolled the dice and lost

[Guest CrossCodes]

I don't have much sympathy I'm afraid.

Schofields attitude and the way he has spoken to other trainers and industry participants over the years has been horrible, actually quite nasty.

Yes, it is sad to lose another trainer up here in the north as there is quite a small pool of dogs as it is, but life goes on and he will soon be forgotten in a few months time.

Lets just hope David finally gets the help he needs, although this has been going on for so long I fear it may be too late.

I understand the Craiks have taken over most of the Schofield dogs to train?

Doesnt surprise me in that they are lovely people and would do anything to help anyone in need out, let's just hope it all works out.

Its just a pity this much effort by the RIU hasn't gone into the live baiting case which is still dragging on, and has the potential to bring everyone down, not just one trainer.

[wally]

15 hours ago, aquaman said:

There is a lot more to this case than meets the eye Wally,   suffice to say, it is not my place to say what these things are, I would rather those involved make these facts available if they desire.

But what I will say is, two yrs for a case of negligence is manifestly excessive. This is not about drugging a dog to sting the betting public, this is a case of a P addict cross contaminating a dog with such a small amount of the drug that it wouldn't effect the dog in performance either way, no worse than somebody smoking a joint in a confined space such as a car and the dog coming up with a positive to cannabis. There was no betting sting, no rorting of the public, it was negligence.

Dennis in mitigation has a clean record, having been an honest hardworking participant for over 30 yrs. In my opinion the NZGRA led by a rat by the name of Greg Kerr has set about using the office of the NZGRA to destroy Dennis and his family. In reality, this case is no worse than the tea bag case, or the poppy seed case, or the chocolate cake case, or the cocco bean bag case etc. None of those cases attracted anymore than small fines.

Yes Wally, Dennis was found guilty, but this wasn't about dishonesty, or violent behaviour, but negligence, and minor negligence at that, nobody was hurt as a result of this negligence, the only victims here are Dennis and family. This is my opinion Wally.

on reflection aqua your statement it wasn't dishonest well what would you call deceiving the  betting public as he want actually training the dogs