Well done Craig Rendle

[Clarkie]

6 winners at Whanganui...WOW.!!   How do you feel sitting on the couch..Raking in the Dollars.?  Thinking  maybe how you are raping the system  and the genuine people that you have  cheated!!!!! Did you have a genuine time  with Liz?

[aquaman]

I'v told you before Clarkie, its Wanganui not Whanganui.

[Taupiri Wonder]

Clarkie looks like You popped the cork (or do you use twist tops) on another bottle each time Craig Rendle Won a couple of races.😜

[A Dogs Life]

On 6/18/2021 at 11:21 AM, aquaman said:

I'v told you before Clarkie, its Wanganui not Whanganui.

100% Wanganui as stated on my Birth certificate,  Passport, license etc.

Like it's New Zealand not bloody aoeteora

[Yankiwi]

It's not what has been done, it's who's done it.

The old boys club is still alive, strong & ruling the code in a manner for personal gain.

Hannan jumping up to the defense of Rendle because of a FTP.

When's the last time the board chair played a major role in defending a GRNZ rule breach charge?

https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/grnz-request-for-review-reserved-decision-dated-13-october-2021-craig-rendle/

 

[BitofaLegend]

If thats the boards interpretation, why is the rule not written as such? How absurd

[bamboozla]

17 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

It's not what has been done, it's who's done it.

The old boys club is still alive, strong & ruling the code in a manner for personal gain.

Hannan jumping up to the defense of Rendle because of a FTP.

When's the last time the board chair played a major role in defending a GRNZ rule breach charge?

https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/grnz-request-for-review-reserved-decision-dated-13-october-2021-craig-rendle/

 

Wow, we are really plumbing the lows now. So now we have the entire board and the commentator weighing in on something they have no right place to do so. Maybe we should ask Trevor Wilkes his opinion or maybe some punter in the street or ask around a few different trainers. Isn't that what the stipes are there to do, make a rules based judgment free of outside influence. 

This is a poor/embarrassing look for Hannan the Board and Rosanowski for that matter, no chance they would be weighing in on this for some hobby trainer with 2 dogs in the garage..  Rendle is what he is, no surprise he is leveraging everything he can to get what he wants. Just his natural state. 

The fact the dog has won 8 from 9 in fast times, irrelevant.

The fact the dog led all the way, irrelevant.

The below statement kind of blows me away, the only absurdity on display here is the Board. Not uncommon at all for dogs to jump in front chase half heartedly and win easily especially in lower grades. You see it all the time. Absurd that the Board thinks it appropriate to make sweeping statements that restrict stewards from making rules based judgements. 

 

[20] The Board considered “it would be an absurdity to take a view that the dog which led from the start and won the race by a healthy margin could at the same time be said to have failed to pursue the lure.”

 

[Yankiwi]

So much for the RIB creating integrity reform as it was meant to do.

This wasn't fast talking lawyers swaying the emotions of a jury in their favour.

This was a carefully considered decision of a corrupt judicial system (JCA) influenced by a biased, conflicted governing body (GRNZ).

Nothing more, nothing less.

For once, the policing body (RIU) was the one to get it right, although they didn't show much vigor or conviction in the hearing.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Yankiwi

[Yankiwi]

On 15/10/2021 at 6:30 AM, Yankiwi said:

It's not what has been done, it's who's done it.

The rules or wording of them didn't between these two hearings but something obviously has (see above quote).

 

The JCA's Geoff Hall, Chairman 17 Feb 2021. 

[44] That LITTLE LEAF won the race is irrelevant. For 3½ strides the dog’s head was focused away from the lure.

[45] LITTLE LEAF has thus “failed to pursue” as provided in the Rules. The Review is unsuccessful. We add we do not believe the Review was completely devoid of merit and thus we do not accept Mr Wallis’s submission that it was frivolous.

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/nzgra-request-for-review-p-green-v-riu-written-decision-dated-17-february-2021-chair-prof-g-hall

 

 

The RIB's Geoff Hall, Chairman 13 Oct 2021.

[39] Considerations (factors) which may influence the exercise of the discretion under r 55.1(b) as to whether to stand a Greyhound down for failing to pursue include: how long a period of time was the head of the dog turned away from the lure (the head of BIG TIME PRADA was turned for 2 strides — there was no easing, so that aspect of the Rule was not engaged); was the dog looking to other dogs and wanting to engage with them (BIG TIME PRADA was not looking at the other dogs as they were some distance behind her); the weather conditions (in this case they were atrocious); was there a noticeable change in stride (there was not); what was the outcome of the race — and again we add we agree with the Stewards that this is only one factor to go into the mix, it is far from determinative (BIG TIME PRADA won the race in a very quick time); did the dog become unbalanced for reasons other than interference — eg due to the state of the track (there was no submission that the state of the track caused BIG TIME PRADA to become unbalanced and turn her head); was the dog’s focus on the lure diverted — by eg an act of nature or the actions of a third party, such as a stranger, a photographer, or the presence of another animal — eg a hare or rabbit (the heavy rain beating on the outside fence is alleged to have startled BIG TIME PRADA, who is a “hearing” Greyhound). No doubt there will be further factors (as in Race 2 at Dunedin on 3 December 2019, as discussed above, for example); this list does not purport to be exhaustive.

[43] The Review is successful and the 28 day stand down and satisfactory trial imposed upon BIG TIME PRADA under 55.1(b) by the Stewards on 13 September is lifted.

https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/grnz-request-for-review-reserved-decision-dated-13-october-2021-craig-rendle/

Edited October 17, 2021 by Yankiwi

[bamboozla]

As a matter of personal opinion I have no issue with the dog probably getting a warning in this instance but that doesn't negate the lengths the Board went to insert themselves into this process. Really it isn't much different to get pulled over by the cops, blowing over the limit and saying 'well my mate is a police officer and he reckons because I have never had an accident and can still drive safely then clearly it is absurd to suggest I have been affected by alcohol' 

[crosscoded]

It is unfortunate that the board wasnt able to maintain its independence, but it reinforces the premise that the board doesnt appear to know its role or boundaries within the industry. The rule needs to be altered as it pretty much removes the discretionary powers of the RIB  stipendiary stewards and adjudicators. I recall a case a number of years ago in the South island, where a dog in front, turned its head and went on to win (it may have been a heat for the galaxy??). It was put out by the stipes, successfully appealed (over-turned) by connections, then re-appealed by the riu and put out again. The upshot was the rule was wrong then, yet it has remained in place.

Personally I think the rule might be better written to incorporate whether the dog potentially costs itself or another runner the chance of a better placing, thus the outcome of the race is compromised due to failing to pursue with due commitment. 

[Yankiwi]

2 hours ago, bamboozla said:

Really it isn't much different to get pulled over by the cops, blowing over the limit and saying 'well my mate is a police officer and he reckons because I have never had an accident and can still drive safely then clearly it is absurd to suggest I have been affected by alcohol' 

You're close with your parody but a peg or two to low.

Really it isn't much different to get pulled over by the cops, blowing over the limit and saying 'well my mate is the MP that wrote the law & has given me a note saying they reckon because I have never had an accident and can still drive safely then clearly it is absurd to suggest I have been affected by alcohol'

What the GRNZ Board has done in this instance was to intimidate the judicial system into the outcome they desired.

I agree about the dog being charged in the first place. Their have been several far more flagrant instances that which were not even so much as mentioned in the Stewards report.

[bamboozla]

5 hours ago, crosscoded said:

It is unfortunate that the board wasnt able to maintain its independence, but it reinforces the premise that the board doesnt appear to know its role or boundaries within the industry. The rule needs to be altered as it pretty much removes the discretionary powers of the RIB  stipendiary stewards and adjudicators. I recall a case a number of years ago in the South island, where a dog in front, turned its head and went on to win (it may have been a heat for the galaxy??). It was put out by the stipes, successfully appealed (over-turned) by connections, then re-appealed by the riu and put out again. The upshot was the rule was wrong then, yet it has remained in place.

Personally I think the rule might be better written to incorporate whether the dog potentially costs itself or another runner the chance of a better placing, thus the outcome of the race is compromised due to failing to pursue with due commitment. 

Yes that was Eckles, appealed largely because there was nothing to lose and a Galaxy finalist. If it wasn't in the final I doubt the trainer and owner would have appealed but as is their right to do so. 

 

This whole idea or precedents being set by certain decisions in the past is pretty worthless. You could pick apart virtually any instance on any track if you trolled through every decision made by stewards or not made for that matter. If your mate drove at 120k from Ashburton to Chch and dont get pinged by you can hardly argue against a ticket being clocked at 115 just because they weren't pinged for doing 120.