wally Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 just seen jca report does it ever stop what is wrong with david i feel sorry for reagans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Girl Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Interesting reading. Naomi if you read this, you're all good integrity intact..? As for the Scho's and Ingrid they are sad train wreaks to be completely honest, I hope they get the help they need. http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-j-hodgson-written-reserved-decision-dated-5-september-2018 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickof it Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 Heard they have opened up as a boarding kennels now FFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 On 7/09/2018 at 7:41 PM, wally said: just seen jca report does it ever stop what is wrong with david i feel sorry for reagans How is it Davids fault that I was wrongly charged? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitofaLegend Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Jacob said: How is it Davids fault that I was wrongly charged? Seems to have gone quiet all of a sudden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, BitofaLegend said: Seems to have gone quiet all of a sudden Its all just speculations being made without knowing the full details of the story. Edited September 10, 2018 by Jacob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 I find it odd that the RIU investigators don't have bigger problems to be undertaking, then trying to prosecute someone (now more than one) that are not even LP's any longer. I suppose they've given up on the dress code that was such a hot topic a couple of years ago & need something to do... I believe the RIU went way overboard when they came to the conclusion that the source of meth had to be David. What gave them the right to come to that assumption? Meth is everywhere in NZ, whether we like it or not. Remember those TV shows that proved there was a higher concentration on Meth on bank notes than the cut-off point of the contamination levels in homes? The TV reporter didn't implicate David for that! At the end of the day, Denis won a C1 sprint with a dog that had methamphetamine in it's system. How it got there is only speculation, but I find it hard to believe that anyone deliberately drugged the dog to win the $700ish purse. Denis since has basically paid the ultimate price for the crime, hasn't he? However, not settled with that result, the RIU ever since have taken every pot shot then could to continue the saga... If it was integrity the RIU was after, why didn't they hand the swab information over to the police, like they seemed to have over the last year and a half in the recent Harness saga? Why have the two saga's been treated so differently? Smoke & mirrors in the RIU's attempt to show the three codes & the NZRB that their actually doing their job. Sometimes I wish people would actually take the time to look at the big picture, which is one step further than being settled with what the powers fed them. 3 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted September 10, 2018 Author Share Posted September 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Jacob said: Its all just speculations being made without knowing the full details of the story. hi jacob wouldnt have been prudent to tell the riu the full story then you wouldnt have to defend yourself 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted September 10, 2018 Author Share Posted September 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: I find it odd that the RIU investigators don't have bigger problems to be undertaking, then trying to prosecute someone (now more than one) that are not even LP's any longer. I suppose they've given up on the dress code that was such a hot topic a couple of years ago & need something to do... I believe the RIU went way overboard when they came to the conclusion that the source of meth had to be David. What gave them the right to come to that assumption? Meth is everywhere in NZ, whether we like it or not. Remember those TV shows that proved there was a higher concentration on Meth on bank notes than the cut-off point of the contamination levels in homes? The TV reporter didn't implicate David for that! At the end of the day, Denis won a C1 sprint with a dog that had methamphetamine in it's system. How it got there is only speculation, but I find it hard to believe that anyone deliberately drugged the dog to win the $700ish purse. Denis since has basically paid the ultimate price for the crime, hasn't he? However, not settled with that result, the RIU ever since have taken every pot shot then could to continue the saga... If it was integrity the RIU was after, why didn't they hand the swab information over to the police, like they seemed to have over the last year and a half in the recent Harness saga? Why have the two saga's been treated so differently? Smoke & mirrors in the RIU's attempt to show the three codes & the NZRB that their actually doing their job. Sometimes I wish people would actually take the time to look at the big picture, which is one step further than being settled with what the powers fed them. so are you trying to say this latest saga shouldnt have happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, wally said: hi jacob wouldnt have been prudent to tell the riu the full story then you wouldnt have to defend yourself Look, I never disclosed all the information to Mr Cruikshank's when I made that statement. However, we had not had a very in depth conversation, it was very brief. I feel he should have asked me why I gave that statement. Instead, I did not hear from him until 2 and a bit months later after the incident and was given my charges through my email. Do you not think it was unfair that he did not once ask me why I gave that statement after the incident and prior to receiving the charges? He is an investigator after all, so it is his job He came around the day before (Supposedly to give me my charges), however I was not home. He than decided during that same day (the incident is mentioned in the case, however it had nothing to do with my license) that he wanted to check the microchip number of every dog left on the property and was adamant that he could do it even though the property is de-registered and no licensed people reside on site (which is trespassing). Edited September 10, 2018 by Jacob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted September 10, 2018 Author Share Posted September 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jacob said: Look, I never disclosed all the information to Mr Cruikshank's when I made that statement. However, we had not had a very in depth conversation, it was very brief. I feel he should have asked me why I gave that statement. Instead, I did not hear from him until 2 and a bit months later after the incident and was given my charges through email. Do you not think it was unfair that he did not once ask me why I gave that statement after the incident and prior to receiving the charges? He is an investigator after all, so it is his job He came around the day before (Supposedly to give me my charges), however I was not home. He than decided during that same day (the incident is mentioned in the case, however it had nothing to do with us losing our licenses it says) that he wanted to check the microchip number of every dog left on the property and was adamant that he could do it even though the property is de-registered and no licensed people reside on site (which is trespassing). jacob if there are registered greyhounds there he can inspect and when was the property de registered 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 (edited) From the constitution: What the rule book says their racecourse investigators can do: Edited September 10, 2018 by Jacob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 (edited) The property is no longer registered, no licensed people reside here. Edited September 10, 2018 by Jacob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, wally said: so are you trying to say this latest saga shouldnt have happened What I'm saying (or asking) is why has the RIU passed an investigation over to the police which includes drugs (MDMA) for those in the Harness code, yet the didn't pass over an investigation into Methamphetamine? Which drug is worse? Which drug is higher on the police's wanted list? Why the inconsistency? Drugs are against the rules of both codes. The RIU are the same police for both codes. Edited September 10, 2018 by Yankiwi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Anyway, that's all i have to say about my dismissed charges. It is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, Jacob said: From the constitution: What the rule book says their racecourse investigators can do: Since the property was deregistered & no LP's resided there, might as well use the GRNZ rule book (constitution as well) to wipe ones backside with. It's meaningless under those terms. If Denis would like to, he continue a greyhound breeding programme & sell the pups on TradeMe. He could market them to the homes that want a young greyhound that's never seen a racetrack. That could take a bit of a bite out of GAP's rehoming numbers if he sold the pups for the same price GAP charges to rehome a dog. Competition drives a market... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitofaLegend Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 The rules seem pretty clear. The riu investigators have no power over unlicensed people and properties. If the had any concerns over training arrangements or anything of that kind, im sure they could go and check the properties where the dogs are. They clearly cannot enter properties freely when no one is licensed on it as per their own rules and it would be doubtful that they could even if they put it into their rules. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted September 10, 2018 Author Share Posted September 10, 2018 12 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Since the property was deregistered & no LP's resided there, might as well use the GRNZ rule book (constitution as well) to wipe ones backside with. It's meaningless under those terms. If Denis would like to, he continue a greyhound breeding programme & sell the pups on TradeMe. He could market them to the homes that want a young greyhound that's never seen a racetrack. That could take a bit of a bite out of GAP's rehoming numbers if he sold the pups for the same price GAP charges to rehome a dog. Competition drives a market... competition might drive the market but cant really see people lining up for rehomed greyhounds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted September 10, 2018 Author Share Posted September 10, 2018 12 hours ago, Jacob said: From the constitution: What the rule book says their racecourse investigators can do: so when did mr cruickshank trespass what date Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, wally said: so when did mr cruickshank trespass what date 2nd of august, when he entered the property to give me my 'warning' and refused to leave because he was apparently allowed to enter the kennel block even though the rules say they only have the rights to enter a property where licensed people reside. He would not leave after being asked to leave several times. If he had entered the kennel block. I would consider that trespassing. And just so we are clear, let me highlight the powers of an RIU Investigator once more: Edited September 10, 2018 by Jacob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted September 10, 2018 Author Share Posted September 10, 2018 35 minutes ago, Jacob said: 2nd of august, when he entered the property to give me my 'warning' and refused to leave because he was apparently allowed to enter the kennel block even though the rules say they only have the rights to enter a property where licensed people reside. He would not leave after being asked to leave several times. If he had entered the kennel block. I would consider that trespassing. And just so we are clear, let me highlight the powers of an RIU Investigator once more: 2 things jacob was you licensed and was the property deregistered then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 21 minutes ago, wally said: 2 things jacob was you licensed and was the property deregistered then licenses renew 1st of August, no ones license was renewed and the property was de-registered as a result of this as no one lived on site that was licensed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted September 10, 2018 Author Share Posted September 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jacob said: licenses renew 1st of August, no ones license was renewed and the property was de-registered as a result of this as no one lived on site that was licensed fine line when he spoke to you that day was you licensed or was there any registered dogs why didnt you ring the police and have him trespassed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 because he left. Why would we bother. His superiors were contacted and have promised that it would not happen again. Also, I was not there that day so how did he speak with me? You need to read the original post. Anywho, this will be my last post on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brando Posted September 13, 2018 Share Posted September 13, 2018 On 10/09/2018 at 7:14 PM, Yankiwi said: What I'm saying (or asking) is why has the RIU passed an investigation over to the police which includes drugs (MDMA) for those in the Harness code, yet the didn't pass over an investigation into Methamphetamine? Which drug is worse? Which drug is higher on the police's wanted list? Why the inconsistency? Drugs are against the rules of both codes. The RIU are the same police for both codes. Yankiwi, re the Harness scandal: the RIU didn't pass onto the Police, an investigation which included drugs. It was an investigation into Match Fixing. As a result of phone tapping and monitoring text messages, the MDMA/Drug evidence was subsequenty discovered. I do agree with you that pursuing charges against an Unlicensed person is a total waste of industry funds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.