Meth Positive

[Yes Yes No]

If the GRNZ are so concerned about the dogs on the property,then why did they not remove the dogs that Lisa had on the GAP list.

Ali

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

Is the SPCA going to do regular checks, including drug testing of the dogs, while the animals are in their care?

You are stretching things a bit here Yankiwi.  Why would you waste drugs on a retired Greyhound?

[Chief Stipe]

@Yankiwi can I suggest you look at the facts of the whole Meth positive case again perhaps you may view things differently if you do.

1. The dog Opawa Pip returned a positive to Meth after winning Race 8 at Addington on the 21st of April 2022;
2. Although the exact level of Meth detected has never been published (to my knowledge) it was described in the RIB descision as being "very very low";
3. It would appear that the positive was not the result of administration by the trainer (Lisa Waretini) or its handler (Alysha Waretini) but was probably the result of environmental contamination;
4. Meth was detected on swabs taken from forensic swabs of the vehicle in which the dog was transported.  The levels were so low as to not be determined to be positives for legal purposes;
5. Both Lisa and Alysha Waretini voluntarily agreed to have urine and hair samples taken for testing.  Those tests were negative for both confirming that neither had used Meth in the previous few months;
6. Lisa Waretini requested that the dogs "B" sample be tested at the RIB's expense.  This was refused;
7. Lisa Waretini rather than contest the positive pleaded guilty to the charge of presenting a dog to the races with a prohibited substance;
8. Lisa Waretini in 20 years of training has had no previous charges before the JCA or RIB i.e. her record was clean.

Waretini was disqualified for 15 months - Greyhound training being her sole source of income.   She had 20 Greyhounds in work for racing at the time of the disqualification.  She has a property that I understand is suitable for housing 60 dogs.  Her disqualification ends in June 2024 after which there should be no reason no to grant her a permit to train.

Personally I don't see any problem in utilising her facilities as part of the process to re-home retired Greyhounds if that is indeed true.  Particularly after reviewing all the details of the case.

@Yankiwi I could take you around a few bars in any town or city in New Zealand and it is likely afterwards that your clothing would return a positive to at least one banned substance caused by environmental contamination.  

[aquaman]

On 22/04/2023 at 1:50 PM, Chief Stipe said:

@Yankiwi can I suggest you look at the facts of the whole Meth positive case again perhaps you may view things differently if you do.

1. The dog Opawa Pip returned a positive to Meth after winning Race 8 at Addington on the 21st of April 2022;
2. Although the exact level of Meth detected has never been published (to my knowledge) it was described in the RIB descision as being "very very low";
3. It would appear that the positive was not the result of administration by the trainer (Lisa Waretini) or its handler (Alysha Waretini) but was probably the result of environmental contamination;
4. Meth was detected on swabs taken from forensic swabs of the vehicle in which the dog was transported.  The levels were so low as to not be determined to be positives for legal purposes;
5. Both Lisa and Alysha Waretini voluntarily agreed to have urine and hair samples taken for testing.  Those tests were negative for both confirming that neither had used Meth in the previous few months;
6. Lisa Waretini requested that the dogs "B" sample be tested at the RIB's expense.  This was refused;
7. Lisa Waretini rather than contest the positive pleaded guilty to the charge of presenting a dog to the races with a prohibited substance;
8. Lisa Waretini in 20 years of training has had no previous charges before the JCA or RIB i.e. her record was clean.

Waretini was disqualified for 15 months - Greyhound training being her sole source of income.   She had 20 Greyhounds in work for racing at the time of the disqualification.  She has a property that I understand is suitable for housing 60 dogs.  Her disqualification ends in June 2024 after which there should be no reason no to grant her a permit to train.

Personally I don't see any problem in utilising her facilities as part of the process to re-home retired Greyhounds if that is indeed true.  Particularly after reviewing all the details of the case.

@Yankiwi I could take you around a few bars in any town or city in New Zealand and it is likely afterwards that your clothing would return a positive to at least one banned substance caused by environmental contamination.  

Very good summation Chief, agree entirely. In fact they were both given outrageous penalties. Their property would be ideal for GAP purposes and Greyhound NZ should facilitate this to enable Lisa to have an income.

[aquaman]

Since the disqualification, the RIB is powerless to enter the property without permission & those living there are no longer bound by GRNZ rules.

Just as it is with a lot of GAP rehoming properties. They are not confined to license holders.

[Chief Stipe]

42 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Very good summation Chief, agree entirely. In fact they were both given outrageous penalties. Their property would be ideal for GAP purposes and Greyhound NZ should facilitate this to enable Lisa to have an income.

Particularly given what seems her exemplary record prior to this charge.

Will be interesting to hear @Yankiwi viewpoint.

[Yankiwi]

A disqualification should be a disqualification, shouldn't it?

Meth is a class A drug under the Misuse of drugs act.

Meth is a permanently banned substance under GRNZ rules.

Those in the same position before Waretini who were also disqualified, were not afforded the opportunity, including Prangley, Turnwald, Schofield, Toomer (Keith), Toomer (Ethan).

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

A disqualification should be a disqualification, shouldn't it?

Meth is a class A drug under the Misuse of drugs act.

Meth is a permanently banned substance under GRNZ rules.

Those in the same position before Waretini who were also disqualified, were not afforded the opportunity, including Prangley, Turnwald, Schofield, Toomer (Keith), Toomer (Ethan).

You entirely miss the point.  What evidence was there that Meth was deliberately administered by the trainer?  What is your view on environmental contamination?

[Yankiwi]

11 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

You entirely miss the point.  What evidence was there that Meth was deliberately administered by the trainer?  What is your view on environmental contamination?

As for environmental contamination, it got inside their vehicles somehow.

"(4) The witness said that the analysis of the swabs taken from both vehicles showed that traces of Methamphetamine were present in all three swabs which were obtained from the roof lining above both front seats and the steering wheel."

 

There was no evidence the Meth was deliberately administered.

There was undeniable evidence that the dog was presented to race with Meth in its system.

The exact same criteria as the previous 5 cases I have mentioned.

None of those previous 5 were afforded the opportunity to earn income from the greyhound industry by housing retiring/retired greyhounds during their disqualification periods. Why not?

There's a huge discrepancy in the way the Meth cases are being handled.

Turnwald had a clean record prior to her Meth charge. Freeman (her partner) didn't face charges even though he was the only registered handler of Zipping Sarah for the 24 hours prior to the positive swab while traveling between Foxton & Chch.

Turnwald/Freeman - No contamination INSIDE the vehicles. No utilization of their 60ish kennels for rehoming purposes with GRNZ funding.

Waretini/Waretini - Contamination INSIDE both vehicles used. Both parties were charged (so the RIB mush have believed this instance was more suspect than Turnwald/Freeman). GRNZ decides to fund the pair by paying them to house greyhounds in the rehoming process.

 

[Yes Yes No]

Are GRNZ funding them or the trainers that have dogs there paying Lisa for looking after them until they go to GAP

[Yankiwi]

Here's a sixth previous case I just remembered.

https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-decision-dated-29-september-2022-maree-gowan/

"18. The presence of Methamphetamine traces in the front cab of Ms Gowan’s vehicle reinforces the finding that someone, somehow associated with the training operation, had an involvement with Methamphetamine prior to 10 June 2022."

To my memory, Gowan had a previously clean record prior to this Meth case.

Gowan received an 18-month disqualification with no opportunity provided by GRNZ to generate income during her sentence. 

[Chief Stipe]

56 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

As for environmental contamination, it got inside their vehicles somehow.

"(4) The witness said that the analysis of the swabs taken from both vehicles showed that traces of Methamphetamine were present in all three swabs which were obtained from the roof lining above both front seats and the steering wheel."

It was measured at a "very very low level" that would have not been sufficient to substantiate any criminal charge in a court.  As I said in an earlier post if you visited a few bars at the low end and high end of society it is likely that a swab of your clothes would return a positive to any number of Class A or B or C drugs.

 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

There was undeniable evidence that the dog was presented to race with Meth in its system.

At a very low level.  I've said this many many times on each of the three code forums that the new Zero is much much lower than the old Zero and we will see more and more cases of environmental contamination.

The codes AND the RIB were going to address this issue and look at thresholds.  

The RIB refuse to publish the levels detected in these cases.  I assume because it would open then up to a barrage of criticism because the levels detected would have zero performance impact on the animal in question

 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

None of those previous 5 were afforded the opportunity to earn income from the greyhound industry by housing retiring/retired greyhounds during their disqualification periods. Why not?

Did they ask?  The 5 cases are NOT identical.  Some of those respondents had priors.  Waretini had ZERO.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

There's a huge discrepancy in the way the Meth cases are being handled.

That's one thing I agree with.  There are inconsistencies in the way the RIB operates not only within the racing codes but across them.

If Waretini could afford it she has grounds for appeal and the Sheryl Wiggs appeal from Harness Racing provides a precedent.

[Yankiwi]

The RIB has been very inconsistent.

Now GRNZ has shown they've become inconsistent.

This whole argument I've addressed is not condemning either of the Waretini's. I don't think they cheated. I do think they've broken GRNZ rules in the way they are written.

Are those rule right? I don't think so, but every trainer knows what they are up against when they sign the dotted line.

What I am contesting is GRNZ actions after the fact.

I don't think it's right for GRNZ to make the unprecedented decision to fund a disqualified trainer and/or handler during their suspension/disqualification period. They never done it before for any previous offenders of the same rule breach, or any other breach that resulted in a disqualification.

Why were the Waretini's treated differently than Gowan after the fact by GRNZ?

What makes Waretini's breach less severe than Gowans? Than Turnwalds?

GRNZ is the culprit here. They have been caught out for actions they initiated.

I hope Gowan/Turnwald/Prangley sue them for discrimination for all they're worth.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

Now GRNZ has shown they've become inconsistent.

How are they inconsistent?  Do you have any evidence that the individuals in the other cases you cite applied to house GAP dogs?

Does GRNZ run GAP?  GAP is a registered charity.  GRNZ doesn't run GAP.  They may donate money to it, they may sponsor it as does any number of companies and individuals. 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

I don't think it's right for GRNZ to make the unprecedented decision to fund a disqualified trainer and/or handler during their suspension/disqualification period. They never done it before for any previous offenders of the same rule breach, or any other breach that resulted in a disqualification

That's your opinion.  I disagree.  The dogs are retired and supposedly being well looked after.  Assuming of course that your accusation is correct in the first place.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

I hope Gowan/Turnwald/Prangley sue them for discrimination for all they're worth.

The only basis they would have for a case is if they had applied to be a GAP provider and were declined.  If they haven't then case closed.

[Chief Stipe]

BTW @Yankiwi have you applied to be a rehoming transition facility?  I understand that the current capacity is well short of demand and if you succeed in getting the Waretini's dumped (assuming your accusation is correct) then the problem won't have been addressed.

[Chief Stipe]

On 20/04/2023 at 7:02 PM, Yankiwi said:

GRNZ has very recently chose to add the Waretini property under the Great Mates umbrella.

Actually your beef isn't against GAP is it?  It is presumably against Great Mates which is more closely aligned to GRNZ.  Again do you have ANY evidence to support your allegation otherwise this discussion is moot.

That said I don't see a problem with it.  The dogs are retired.

[Yankiwi]

On 20/04/2023 at 7:02 PM, Yankiwi said:

Now here's the twist ~

GRNZ has very recently chose to add the Waretini property under the Great Mates umbrella.

The penny finally dropped Chief?

It's what I said in the first place.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

The penny finally dropped Chief?

It's what I said in the first place.

My points and opinions haven't changed.  Do you have an axe to grind?

Seems to me the Waretini property would be a great addition to the Great Mates and GAP programme.

[BitofaLegend]

None of those cases listed had any mention of a deliberate nobbling of any dog so how does that come into anything mentioned here?

The issues with how the rules of racing are written, source of contamination is irrelevant. Your already guilty regardless 

[BitofaLegend]

Its also worth mentioning that all of the above cases penalties were not influenced by prior cases aswell.