Ive never tried Meth..

[Chief Stipe]

12 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Meth cases ~

1st Case - 24 month disqualification

2nd Case - 14 month disqualification

3rd Case - 4 month disqualification

Each one of these cases is very different.

I assume the first case was the RIU vs D Scholfield 2018?

Was the second the RIU vs K R Toomer 2020?

With Scholfiled there was a number of aggravating factors including a clear deception whereby a disqualified unlicensed trainer was actually doing the training and all Scholfiled was doing was turning up on race day with the dogs.  The parties concerned aside from D Scholfield refused to cooperate with the investigation.

In Toomers case the source of the Methamphetamine was established clearly and there was no doubt where it came from.

In comparison Turnwald cooperated fully with the inquiry, undertook personal testing and the source of the Methamphetamine could not be proven.  The RIU and the JCA accepted that based on the evidence Turnwald didn't deliberately drug the dog and had no direct or indirect involvement with the administration of the drug.

Hence the difference in penalties.

[Horace]

On 4/22/2021 at 7:02 PM, 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.

Hey Yankiwi....without naming names...just want to clarify something. Are we talking an outfit with 3 letters...?

riu/jca...or someone else. 

[Yankiwi]

What a shock. 

https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-sport/star-racing/meth-positive-greyhound-drew-10k-bet-christchurch-race

[Chief Stipe]

Again a leak from the RIU?

That aside where is the balance in the reporting?

What were the other big bets taken during the meeting?

 

[Jacob]

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/125132920/mpi-launches-investigations-into-drugging-of-horses-and-greyhound

[Yankiwi]

The other two 3 letter outfits can't seem to get on top of things.

Maybe the 3rd, MPI can get to the bottom of it before the 4th, RIP deals the final blow.

 

[Chief Stipe]

30 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Maybe the 3rd, MPI can get to the bottom of it

A waste of tax payers money.  If the RIU/JCA with a far lower burden of proof couldn't pin the administration of the methamphetamine on any one individual what chance has MPI?

MPI is a Government Department of 3,000 highly paid (Average salary $120k) underachievers.  Just ask any farmer in New Zealand!

[Yankiwi]

16 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

If the RIU/JCA with a far lower burden of proof couldn't pin the administration of the methamphetamine on any one individual what chance has MPI?

I've seen no evidence or even a suggestion that the RIU even tried to prove it, other than simply asking the kennel rep & trainer.

The RIU looks for the smoke to clean the air but never looks down to find the fire that created the smoke.

Can the RIU be awarded a search warrant to investigate someone who isn't an LP?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Yankiwi

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

I've seen no evidence or even a suggestion that the RIU even tried to prove it, other than simply asking the kennel rep & trainer.

The RIU looks for the smoke to clean the air but never looks down to find the fire that created the smoke.

Can the RIU be awarded a search warrant to investigate someone who isn't an LP?

Turnwald voluntarily was tested for methamphetamine and negative results were returned.

The RIU did do a thorough investigation including visiting the training property.

All that aside if animal welfare criminal charges are laid who would they be laid against?  They can only be laid against the person who gave the Greyhound the drug.  From the evidence provided and agreed by the RIU/JCA it couldn't have been Turnwald.

Tunwald pleaded guilty and didn't mount a defence after it was clearly established that the dog ingested the drug before the race not after or by environmental contamination.  Under the JCA system you don't really have much choice unless you want to spend thousands of dollars defending yourself.  It becomes a war of attrition and the RIU/JCA have endless buckets of industry dosh to play with.  In any event it was clear that the dog presented to race after having ingested a prohibited substance.  As the trainer of the dog the bucks stops with you.

However that guilty plea doesn't reach the threshold for a criminal charge under the Animal Welfare Act.  Now a full blown Police investigation may find who did give the drug to the dog.  Ironically if they do it will exonerate Turnwald unless they can find evidence that she knew about it before hand.  All in all it will be a difficult investigation and MPI alone don't have the skills or the resources to do it - they would have less than the RIU!

SAFE have one objective and that is to end all forms of racing.  Laying a complaint to MPI gives the case more oxygen, feeds the rabid journo's (who don't know what they are talking about) and keeps a negative case in the public eye while a review is going on.  A good chess move by SAFE.  Sure you could argue that someone close to the industry provided the source material but don't be naive to think that SAFE won't play this for as long and as hard as they can.

Of course we haven't seen the Industry Administrators go on the front foot over this pointing out that a positive such as this is very very rare especially when you consider the thousands of tests that are done each year.

[Jacob]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Turnwald voluntarily was tested for methamphetamine and negative results were returned.

The RIU did do a thorough investigation including visiting the training property.

All that aside if animal welfare criminal charges are laid who would they be laid against?  They can only be laid against the person who gave the Greyhound the drug.  From the evidence provided and agreed by the RIU/JCA it couldn't have been Turnwald.

Tunwald pleaded guilty and didn't mount a defence after it was clearly established that the dog ingested the drug before the race not after or by environmental contamination.  Under the JCA system you don't really have much choice unless you want to spend thousands of dollars defending yourself.  It becomes a war of attrition and the RIU/JCA have endless buckets of industry dosh to play with.  In any event it was clear that the dog presented to race after having ingested a prohibited substance.  As the trainer of the dog the bucks stops with you.

However that guilty plea doesn't reach the threshold for a criminal charge under the Animal Welfare Act.  Now a full blown Police investigation may find who did give the drug to the dog.  Ironically if they do it will exonerate Turnwald unless they can find evidence that she knew about it before hand.  All in all it will be a difficult investigation and MPI alone don't have the skills or the resources to do it - they would have less than the RIU!

SAFE have one objective and that is to end all forms of racing.  Laying a complaint to MPI gives the case more oxygen, feeds the rabid journo's (who don't know what they are talking about) and keeps a negative case in the public eye while a review is going on.  A good chess move by SAFE.  Sure you could argue that someone close to the industry provided the source material but don't be naive to think that SAFE won't play this for as long and as hard as they can.

Of course we haven't seen the Industry Administrators go on the front foot over this pointing out that a positive such as this is very very rare especially when you consider the thousands of tests that are done each year.

Turnwald wasnt the person who traveled the dogs. 

[Yankiwi]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

However that guilty plea doesn't reach the threshold for a criminal charge under the Animal Welfare Act.  

Sometimes I'm not sure you fully understand what you're talking about.

Ms Turnwald plead guilty because she was in breach of rule 61.1 "The Owner, Trainer or Person in charge of a Greyhound Nominated to compete in a Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substance." That's why they wanted to use contamination after the race as a defense. If it was believed to have occurred after the race, that would mean it happened after the dog had been produced to race.

MPI is not going to investigate who the trainer is of a greyhound that was presented to race with meth in its system. MPI will investigate who was in charge of the dog when it ingested meth. Yes, she may be investigated and very quickly taken off the list of potential suspects I'd expect.

From what I've read in the decision, I have a firm suspicion of the first two people the MPI investigators will be speaking with. One is the kennel hand who spent the entire day with the dog & the other is a friend of the kennel hand said to be from Kaiapoi.

As a side note, for a person to provide a drug test clear of meth, that doesn't prove that meth couldn't have been purchased or gifted for a purpose other than personal consumption. Yes it sounds all good like rainbows & roses do and might change suspicions for some, but doesn't prove anything about how meth might have got into a dog.

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Sometimes I'm not sure you fully understand what you're talking about.

Ditto.  What I was inferring is that she wasn't pleading guilty to drugging the dog but presenting a dog to race that had ingested a prohibited substance.  Any criminal charge will be focussed on finding who drugged the dog.

7 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Yes it sounds all good like rainbows & roses do and might change suspicions for some, but doesn't prove anything about how meth might have got into a dog.

Which at the end of the day will probably be the end result I.e. the same as the RIU investigation.  Zip Nada.  The dog could have even been nobbled somewhere between Foxton and Christchurch.  Was it the only dog being shipped?  If there was another dog was it tested?

I'm picking that all that will happen is more opportunity for SAFE to grandstand.

[Yankiwi]

You're questions are easy to answer this time - It's all in print. I've done the homework for you this time.

The decisions states 2 dogs traveled south that day.

 

It's probably safe to assume the second dog was Emgrand Rose.

 

Two dogs had a swab taken after that race, neither of which was Emgrand Rose.

[Chief Stipe]

33 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Two dogs had a swab taken after that race, neither of which was Emgrand Rose.

Easy to forensically test still.

[racinggreys]

6 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Turnwald voluntarily was tested for methamphetamine and negative results were returned.

The RIU did do a thorough investigation including visiting the training property.

All that aside if animal welfare criminal charges are laid who would they be laid against?  They can only be laid against the person who gave the Greyhound the drug.  From the evidence provided and agreed by the RIU/JCA it couldn't have been Turnwald.

Tunwald pleaded guilty and didn't mount a defence after it was clearly established that the dog ingested the drug before the race not after or by environmental contamination.  Under the JCA system you don't really have much choice unless you want to spend thousands of dollars defending yourself.  It becomes a war of attrition and the RIU/JCA have endless buckets of industry dosh to play with.  In any event it was clear that the dog presented to race after having ingested a prohibited substance.  As the trainer of the dog the bucks stops with you.

However that guilty plea doesn't reach the threshold for a criminal charge under the Animal Welfare Act.  Now a full blown Police investigation may find who did give the drug to the dog.  Ironically if they do it will exonerate Turnwald unless they can find evidence that she knew about it before hand.  All in all it will be a difficult investigation and MPI alone don't have the skills or the resources to do it - they would have less than the RIU!

SAFE have one objective and that is to end all forms of racing.  Laying a complaint to MPI gives the case more oxygen, feeds the rabid journo's (who don't know what they are talking about) and keeps a negative case in the public eye while a review is going on.  A good chess move by SAFE.  Sure you could argue that someone close to the industry provided the source material but don't be naive to think that SAFE won't play this for as long and as hard as they can.

Of course we haven't seen the Industry Administrators go on the front foot over this pointing out that a positive such as this is very very rare especially when you consider the thousands of tests that are done each year.

I doubt this is going to be a Zipping Sarah investigation. I recon its going to be , is doping an issue inside Greyhound Racing look. If they find it is, it will strengthen the "shut it down" argument.

[Chief Stipe]

17 minutes ago, racinggreys said:

I doubt this is going to be a Zipping Sarah investigation. I recon its going to be , is doping an issue inside Greyhound Racing look. If they find it is, it will strengthen the "shut it down" argument.

Well there is no testing evidence to suggest that there is a doping issue.

[Guest Whyisit]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

 

I'm picking that all that will happen is more opportunity for SAFE to grandstand.

I'm beginning to think the above may be more involved than you think. the drums have been beating another 2  P cases allegedly  involving a Thoroughbred trainer

from the same district as the 3 non prosecuted cases a year or so ago. starting to be a occurrence more and more.

Drums are beating Trainer ,premises and Staff are negative may involve raceday stabling .

[Chief Stipe]

12 minutes ago, Whyisit said:

the drums have been beating another 2  P cases allegedly  involving a Thoroughbred trainer

Race day horse positives?  Or workplace testing?

[Guest Whyisit]

11 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Race day horse positives?  Or workplace testing?

former  out of the district

Edited May 15, 2021 by Whyisit

[Yankiwi]

23 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Easy to forensically test still.

You had asked two questions - I was kind enough to do the homework & get those answers for you.

Did I receive any form of appreciation? No, in return I received a rebuttal towards the factual evidence I had investigated & provided.

You can do your own homework from now on if you want answers to your question. I'm no longer a colourman for your debating pleasure.

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Yankiwi

[bamboozla]

I don't know how the sport can ever legitimately present itself as a well run respected business when it is dominated by people only too happy to try and cheat and steal from honest competitors. Start out as trainers of ill-repute then get yourself a prominent role in your local club, get yourself a stooge on the board and happy days.  No idea why anyone votes for them, they need to be held to account or there is no sport. They don't care, made loads of money and be bragging for years about all of the money the got off the punt. Certainly don't care about the dogs either for longer than they can make a dollar from them which no doubt suits the grubby owners who support them.