Ive never tried Meth..

[Greyhounder]

The night before he was staying with known large gamblers ...work. it out yourself. not defaming anyone... Freeman Is and always has been a.conman...not saying he knew about it Cos I don't know. I hope whoever cleaned up enjoyed the money cos they put not only the dog in question in grave danger but the whole field if said dog had gone amiss. 

[Yankiwi]

You only need to look into the "Us Syndicate" & many answers would be reveled into this hand slap of a decision.

  

 

I've got some of that info but haven't decided whether to share it here or take it to a bigger audience. Let's just say - it's a biggie & could be enough to paint the town green.

[Chief Stipe]

28 minutes ago, Greyhounder said:

The night before he was staying with known large gamblers ...work. it out yourself. not defaming anyone... Freeman Is and always has been a.conman...not saying he knew about it Cos I don't know. I hope whoever cleaned up enjoyed the money cos they put not only the dog in question in grave danger but the whole field if said dog had gone amiss. 

But how do you know that the P level that the dog had was sufficient to improve its performance?  

Was the dog going out second favourite at $4.50 an indication that large bets were made?  Given that the favourite was paying half that.

You may well be right as you infer that the dog was "got at".  But that isn't Turnwald's fault nor is it something easy to prevent.

To be fully transparent I believe that the JCA/RIU should release the levels that are present in a positive and determine if it was at a level that was performance enhancing or at least make a comment on it.  That would avoid speculation.

Recently there was a positive to morphine returned from a horse from a major thoroughbred stable.  The RIU was certain it was environmental contamination.  I have heard that the level detected was negligible and would not have been anywhere near performance enhancing let alone therapeutic.

Releasing the level would make it apparent to all that the dog did or did not gain an advantage.  The penalty and disqualification would still be the same.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

You only need to look into the "Us Syndicate" & many answers would be reveled into this hand slap of a decision.

But it wasn't a slap of the hand for Turnwald was it?

But it is all speculation isn't it as we don't know what level of P was in the dog and whether or not its performance was enhanced.

[Greyhounder]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

But it wasn't a slap of the hand for Turnwald was it?

But it is all speculation isn't it as we don't know what level of P was in the dog and whether or not its performance was enhanced.

look at the RIU HEARING REPORT 16 (b) ....

the level in the sample was particularly large.. should have been 5 years min.

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Greyhounder said:

look at the RIU HEARING REPORT 16 (b) ....

the level in the sample was particularly large.. should have been 5 years min.

But "large" isn't a quantitative term.  It is subjective relative to someone's assessment of what is large.  I've had some ladies say I'm "large" and some say the opposite.

The level in the sample is measurable and the RIU know the results.  Why not publish them?  Then we can assess what "they term LARGE".  Otherwise everyone speculates and we get rumour and myth.  Not only publish the result but publish what level would be deemed performance enhancing.  For all we know Turnwald's dog could have had a zillionth of a molecule of P in its system which had zero effect on how fast it ran. 

So why don't the RIU publish the level and state what impact it had on the performance of the dog?

[Jacob]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

But "large" isn't a quantitative term.  It is subjective relative to someone's assessment of what is large.  I've had some ladies say I'm "large" and some say the opposite.

The level in the sample is measurable and the RIU know the results.  Why not publish them?  Then we can assess what "they term LARGE".  Otherwise everyone speculates and we get rumour and myth.  Not only publish the result but publish what level would be deemed performance enhancing.  For all we know Turnwald's dog could have had a zillionth of a molecule of P in its system which had zero effect on how fast it ran. 

So why don't the RIU publish the level and state what impact it had on the performance of the dog?

The problem with greyhound racing compared to the other two codes is you are guilty regardless of the level in the dog.

This is my understanding from our own case a few years ago. Science doesnt matter because whether or not you, a staff member or someone in public is responsible for the positive, the onus is on the trainer.

What I am surprised about is the new standard the stewards spouted about setting in the case i was involved in were thrown out of the window for this one. This is very dissapointing to say the least.

As a side note, all staff and handlers of the dog shoukd have been requested aswell. Not just one member. There is no consistency at all on these investigations and fines

Edited April 22, 2021 by Jacob

[Yankiwi]

If I had bought Meth from a dealer on the street, that doesn't mean that the dealer would throw a positive for Meth if tested.

You don't have to be a user to administer....

[wally]

9 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Correct.

Correct - but "believed to be" being the key phrase.  My understanding is the source was confirmed.

Well they did originally believing that the contamination occurred AFTER the race when some of the dogs owners were involved in the presentation.  Some of the owners anonymously admitted to having used P.  Further testing was done and given the level of P metabolites present versus the amount of P (there were more metabolites of P than P) the science said that the odds were high that the dog had ingested P prior to the race not after and before the sample was taken.  

The Trainer then could offer no idea or opinion of the source and it appears at their own expense had themselves tested for P use (note:  depending on the tests undertaken P use can be detected over a considerable period of time).  The results were negative so the JCA established that the Trainer wasn't a possible source of contamination.  

In the JCA Judgement all parties agreed that the dog must have ingested P somewhere between Foxton and Christchurch.  As far as I know Turnwald dogs haven't returned any prior positives and the JCA accepted that in this case that the Trainer wasn't involved in administering or contaminating the dog with P.  Given her prior relatively unblemished history and given the degree of post race testing that is done no Trainer in their right mind would deliberately administer a prohibited drug to their dog in the lead up to a race.

So yes the fact that no explanation can be found is very suspicious BUT that suspicion can't and shouldn't be directed at the Trainer.

Was the dog "got at" somewhere between Foxton and Christchurch?  Was it when the dog was unattended on the Ferry?  Was it during the walk around at Kaiapoi by a "friend"?  

What we also don't know is what level the P and its metabolites was present in the dog.  I've posted about this issue for all codes.  In my opinion the JCA should always publish the levels of a prohibited substance found in positive swabs.  There is zero tolerance but what is the threshold for zero?  Environmental contamination will become more and more an issue as testing accuracy improves.  

Because there was no clear link between the Trainer and how the dog ingested (or absorbed) P.  In other cases as you point out employees were involved.  A Trainer has a responsibility to ensure that their staff are drug free.  For example I know that a stable such as Te Akau does regular workplace drug testing.  

Another reason for a shorter disqualification was the lack of any prior's.

I'm not sure if you have read my posts on the other code forums about this issue but we now have a situation where the punishment for environmental contamination and the zero tolerance levels in racing far outweigh the crime.  Just look at Turnwald's case - the dog loses the race, the owners and trainer lose a substantial stake (substantial for dogs!) and the Trainer loses income for 4 months!  For something no one can prove she deliberately did and was unlikely to do and an undisclosed drug level which may or may not have been at a level that enhanced performance.

I'm just waiting for the day that some of these Trainers across all the codes get together and take a class action against the RIU/JCA because at the moment justice isn't being done.

The alternative is to put our horses and dogs in closed environments (like Hong Kong) that will have the welfare nutters going nuts!

they both should be banned for life

[Horace]

8 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

You only need to look into the "Us Syndicate" & many answers would be reveled into this hand slap of a decision.

  

 

I've got some of that info but haven't decided whether to share it here or take it to a bigger audience. Let's just say - it's a biggie & could be enough to paint the town green.

Has it got anything to do with people involved in syndicates racing greyhounds who....shouldn't be given their connection to a certain part of the industry?

[Chief Stipe]

27 minutes ago, wally said:

they both should be banned for life

Why?

[Yankiwi]

2 minutes ago, Horace said:

Has it got anything to do with people involved in syndicates racing greyhounds who....shouldn't be given their connection to a certain part of the industry?

You're reading from the same book I have been, both the current connection & past connections in the hierarchy.

As if Chloe & her sidekicks didn't know enough dark little secrets of the industry.

[wally]

23 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Why?

no place for drug cheats and liars

[Horace]

23 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

You're reading from the same book I have been, both the current connection & past connections in the hierarchy.

As if Chloe & her sidekicks didn't know enough dark little secrets of the industry.

Well to be quite frank...or bill or peter....these arrogant pricks deserve whats about to come!

[Yankiwi]

From One News tonight, for those who may have missed it.

Not a very welcoming lot in Foxton.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/greyhound-meth-in-its-system-leads-four-month-ban-trainer?auto=6249790830001

[Chief Stipe]

15 hours ago, wally said:

no place for drug cheats and liars

Well that doesn't include Angela Turnwald then does it.

[Chief Stipe]

15 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

From One News tonight, for those who may have missed it.

Not a very welcoming lot in Foxton.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/greyhound-meth-in-its-system-leads-four-month-ban-trainer?auto=6249790830001

What a totally unbalanced news report!!!!  No comment from GRNZ!!!!  The only thing that the RIU says is that they only test 7% of greyhounds a year.  Don't they test every winner?  That would be a minimum of 12.5%.

Where do the anti-Greyhound mob get - "this is only the tip of the iceberg and is demonstrative of how the industry works"!

Why didn't GRNZ and the RIU say that there are systems in place to detect drugs, give the number of greyhounds that are tested annually not the % and highlight that there are very few positives returned.

[Chief Stipe]

That 7% tested represents over 3,000 dogs.  So one P positive in 3,000 equals 0.03%.  Bloody small iceberg!

[Greyhounder]

26 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Well that doesn't include Angela Turnwald then does it.

I don't believe she is a cheat either. But that is beside the point.  someone has to pay and the buck stops at the trainer. The trainer has got to have staff they trust implicitly especially when the dogs are travelling  so far away and anything could happen and in this case has.

The book should have been thrown at her. They needed to make a stand to stamp out this kind of crap especially now with the nutters out for glory. She would have expected to go down.

[aquaman]

We need to realise we are dealing with leadership within the Greyhound industry that has a track record of corruption, deceit, and the telling of downright lie's. The mob in Petone, and i do not mean the workers, but rather those in charge have not been interested in the betterment of the sport of Greyhound racing, but only of themselves. Its a crying shame that a historical wonderful sport that is the racing of these beautiful dogs has been allowed to be dragged through the mud like this. As for the RIU, they too have a track record that is unsavoury to put it mildly, dead bodies in motels, and the backdooring of trainers wives. They run a snitch line which tells you a lot about their character and morals. As for the JCA, what can one say, failed bludging lawers sucking on the tit of addicted pokie money consistently being inconsistent.

Once upon a time before greed and corruption took hold, Greyhound racing was great fun for all the family especially at places such as Timaru, Chertsy, Solway, Tokoroa, Rotorua etc now all closed for racing. Then it was for ribbons and a few bob and the whole family would partake on any given Sunday afternoon, always a few beers to be had in the shed bar. But times have changed, now its all about money greed and corruption. I finished with engines in 2017 when the morally defunct RIU tried to drug test me one morning before racing had started under the guise of health and safety. I told them to get f#cked literally. For that i received 1yr suspension and $3500 fine of which i paid. They the JCA did me a favor, so I say thankyou for tossing me out of an industry that now resembles nothing like it once was. The writing is on the wall im afraid, times are achanging, and the industry has painted themselves into a corner.

[Chief Stipe]

10 minutes ago, Greyhounder said:

The book should have been thrown at her. They needed to make a stand to stamp out this kind of crap especially now with the nutters out for glory. She would have expected to go down.

The JCA has to follow precedent, guidelines and principles of natural justice.  It can't just make a punishment up.  Both the respondent and the informant have the right to appeal any penalty.  Any such appeal would be judged on precedent, guidelines and principles of justice.

Turnwald was sentenced as per the current rules.  If the RIU or even GRNZ think the JCA got it wrong then they can appeal.

Past positives to P which are not as frequent as the media would have everyone believe have been due to contamination.  In this latest case it seems that the dog may have been given P however the evidence to support that hypothesis is limited.  Certainly it was determined by the JCA and agreed by the RIU that the Trainer didn't deliberately administer P to the dog.  Given the testing regime in place you would have to be an absolute idiot of a Trainer to do that.

So Turnwald, as you say probably an innocent party, got a significant punishment.  If it happens again then the punishment will be greater.  Now that could happen either by accident or by deliberate activity by a third party.  The only way any Trainer can control things and prevent that from happening is to train and transport their dogs in a completely closed system.  

As I have said before it would help all stakeholders if the RIU published the full results of positive tests detailing the levels that were present and making a statement on the likely impact on the dogs performance.

[Yankiwi]

As a reminder, penalty's are meant to be a punishment & a deterrent to having the same infraction reoccur.

 

Meth cases ~

1st Case - 24 month disqualification

2nd Case - 14 month disqualification

3rd Case - 4 month disqualification

 

Apparently the JCA believes that a milder punishment than the one prior is an increasing deterrent!

Will the next positive for Meth receive a verbal warning?

[Yankiwi]

How does a Category 2 drug that has a STARTING point of 5 years DQ get knocked back down to 4 month when there's no evidence or even a suggested possibility that it could possibly be cross contamination (even though it was ingested by the dog)?

Aquaman got a 1 year DQ & a hefty fine for telling a Steward to ef-off.

One of the things that the RIU thought could possibly be in Aquamans piss was in this winning dogs piss. Aquaman's penalty was three times greater than this current case. Really?

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

How does a Category 2 drug that has a STARTING point of 5 years DQ get knocked back down to 4 month when there's no evidence or even a suggested possibility that it could possibly be cross contamination (even though it was ingested by the dog)?

These are starting point guidelines.  As detailed and explained clearly in RIU vs D Schofield 2018 the JCA has the authority to impose a penalty that is either more or less than the starting point after assessing any mitigating or aggravating factors.

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Aquaman got a 1 year DQ & a hefty fine for telling a Steward to ef-off.

One of the things that the RIU thought could possibly be in Aquamans piss was in this winning dogs piss. Aquaman's penalty was three times greater than this current case. Really?

I think you will find that in @aquaman's case there were several charges not just one.  There were also a number of aggravating factors.  Also there was no remorse or apology given for the behaviour and it would appear that he doubled down on his abuse in his written submissions.

The 12 months was an accumulative sentence for about five different charges.  The 12 months was discounted in the end to 10 months.