Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yankiwi

If All Things Are Equal

Recommended Posts

For those who doubt my theory about it's not what my have been done, but who might have done it, think about this for a couple of minutes.

Denis Schofield produced a greyhound with Methamphetamine in its system. Methamphetamine is a narcotic, which is a class 1 drug in the greyhound code. During the RIU's investigation, they requested hair samples from all the people that lived on the property which the greyhounds were kenneled. Funnily enough, since Denis didn't live on the property, the RIU didn't request a hair sample from him as the dogs trainer. Those that did live on the property denied the RIU's request, which was well within their rights to do so.

Now before us, we have the Fahey kennel undergoing and investigation for Codeine, another narcotic, which is also a class 1 drug according to GRNZ rules.

If rule enforcement isn't about who might have done something & it truly is about what has actually been done, the surely as part of the current investigation, everyone who resides on the property which the Fahey dogs are kenneled will be requested to provide hair samples for testing by the RIU.

I look forward to reading the decision after the case has been heard & then finally published, to see if I'm proved wrong. I somehow doubt I will be.

 

ps - I didn't use Earl's recent case in comparison, as there seemed to be some question whether the synthetic opioid was a class 1 or 4 drug, however I do note, there was no request for hair samples mentioned in the JCA's findings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To myway of thinking hair testing should I’ve been carried out in both cases double standards  all the way ,,,,,not good enough RIU ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why is it important that they do hair tests in this case 

Would codeine even show in a hair test 

Edited by Mehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mehe said:

Why is it important that they do hair tests in this case 

I don't believe hair testing is important to either case. The trainer of record at the time is the entity that will be held ultimately responsible. Exactly the same as the Schofield case, where hair testing was requested from the property residents.

 

Why was the Schofield case a witch hunt trying to pin the blame on someone who wasn't even an LP?

Why didn't they request the same from Earl & family?

Why should this case be treated any differently than the Schofield case?

 

The RIU were the ones to set the precedent. Maybe it's time for Denis & Co to file criminal charges against the RIU & the involved investigators because of discrimination.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh but you were all so quick to judge Dennis when it came out he had a positive? Isn’t it a bit late to start defending him now? Why judge the Fahey case when you don’t even know the outcome yet? Surely yankiwi they don’t have to give you updates everyday on their progress? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joy said:

Oh but you were all so quick to judge Dennis when it came out he had a positive? Isn’t it a bit late to start defending him now? Why judge the Fahey case when you don’t even know the outcome yet? Surely yankiwi they don’t have to give you updates everyday on their progress? 

Joy, there is no one living who believes Dennis was directly responsible for his kennel positive. However, as the trainer he is indirectly ultimately responsible. Yankiwi is NOT defending Dennis just pointing out that the RIU set a precedent in his case and that precedent should be applied in all future cases involving the same drug category. That unfortunately appears not to be the case and so the actions surrounding this latest positive creates a perception of inequality, bias. Without doubt the fastest way to piss off participant.

Definition of Precedent: "An earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."
The RIU must act in a consistent manner when investigating charges brought. Inconsistency is the number one reason cited by participants when referring to a collective lack of faith. Unlike Yankiwi I personally believe the Duganzich case should have been treated the same, the drug was officially listed in Category 1. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cockyaleg said:

Joy, there is no one living who believes Dennis was directly responsible for his kennel positive. However, as the trainer he is indirectly ultimately responsible. Yankiwi is NOT defending Dennis just pointing out that the RIU set a precedent in his case and that precedent should be applied in all future cases involving the same drug category. That unfortunately appears not to be the case and so the actions surrounding this latest positive creates a perception of inequality, bias. Without doubt the fastest way to piss off participants.

Definition of Precedent: "An earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."
The RIU must act in a consistent manner when investigating charges brought. Inconsistency is the number one reason cited by participants when referring to a collective lack of faith. Unlike Yankiwi I personally believe the Duganzich case should have been treated the same, the drug was officially listed in Category 1. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s all good and well of course however you say that seems to not be the case here? How do you know? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 6:28 AM, Yankiwi said:

I don't believe hair testing is important to either case. The trainer of record at the time is the entity that will be held ultimately responsible. Exactly the same as the Schofield case, where hair testing was requested from the property residents.

 

Why was the Schofield case a witch hunt trying to pin the blame on someone who wasn't even an LP?

Why didn't they request the same from Earl & family?

Why should this case be treated any differently than the Schofield case?

 

The RIU were the ones to set the precedent. Maybe it's time for Denis & Co to file criminal charges against the RIU & the involved investigators because of discrimination.

 

 

Yankiwi, the Schofield case was not a witch hunt, the reason the property residents were asked to be tested was due to Dennis pointing the finger at them as drug addicts & therefore the cause of the contamination.  It possibly would have helped form part of Dennis’s defence if they had complied with the request.

Before you ask, David told me this himself and I have no reason to have doubted him on it.

Unless the same situation occurred in the proceeding cases I can’t see why they would also be asked to produce samples.2 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Bettingman said:

Yankiwi, the Schofield case was not a witch hunt, the reason the property residents were asked to be tested was due to Dennis pointing the finger at them as drug addicts & therefore the cause of the contamination.  It possibly would have helped form part of Dennis’s defence if they had complied with the request. 

Fair enough.

In Denis's case (and all other positive swab cases I'm aware of) the RIU investigate why a dog had been presented with something in the blood, urine or both that shouldn't be there.

IF the three residents did give the RIU hair to test, four different results could have come back.

  1.  All three showed historic meth use in their hair.
  2.  Two of the three showed historic use in their hair.
  3.  One of the three showed historic use in their hair.
  4.  None of the three showed historic use in their hair.

Regardless of what result might have been returned, it would not prove anything. Because someone used Meth say a month or two before the dog raced is not useful evidence as to why a greyhound raced with it in their system a month or two down the road. Furthermore, if subject "A" was the only one to have historic meth use in there hair, is doesn't mean that subject "B" (who had a clear hair test) wasn't ultimately responsible for the contamination.

ie: "not all drug dealers test positive for the drugs they sell" or "my wife doesn't drink, but she buys beer at the store & brings it home for me to drink"

So for mine, hair testing would have served no useful purpose in the Schofield case, nor would it of in Earls or the current case either. That said, the RIU set the precedent in the Schofield case to test those who live on the property & obviously work with the dogs, at least while the dogs are on the property, when a class 1 drug positive is being investigated.

 

Meth is a readily available drug many people use for personal reasons.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12258850

Codeine is a readily available drug many people use for personal reasons.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/114340517/overthecounter-codeine-sales-are-booming-and-a-proposed-ban-has-been-delayed

 

Edited by Yankiwi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 4:50 PM, Yankiwi said:

Fair enough.

In Denis's case (and all other positive swab cases I'm aware of) the RIU investigate why a dog had been presented with something in the blood, urine or both that shouldn't be there.

IF the three residents did give the RIU hair to test, four different results could have come back.

  1.  All three showed historic meth use in their hair.
  2.  Two of the three showed historic use in their hair.
  3.  One of the three showed historic use in their hair.
  4.  None of the three showed historic use in their hair.

Regardless of what result might have been returned, it would not prove anything. Because someone used Meth say a month or two before the dog raced is not useful evidence as to why a greyhound raced with it in their system a month or two down the road. Furthermore, if subject "A" was the only one to have historic meth use in there hair, is doesn't mean that subject "B" (who had a clear hair test) wasn't ultimately responsible for the contamination.

ie: "not all drug dealers test positive for the drugs they sell" or "my wife doesn't drink, but she buys beer at the store & brings it home for me to drink"

So for mine, hair testing would have served no useful purpose in the Schofield case, nor would it of in Earls or the current case either. That said, the RIU set the precedent in the Schofield case to test those who live on the property & obviously work with the dogs, at least while the dogs are on the property, when a class 1 drug positive is being investigated.

 

Meth is a readily available drug many people use for personal reasons.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12258850

Codeine is a readily available drug many people use for personal reasons.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/114340517/overthecounter-codeine-sales-are-booming-and-a-proposed-ban-has-been-delayed

 

I agree that a positive is a positive and the trainer ultimately takes responsibility regardless.... however I think the staff being blamed/tested is the same as if kibble is blamed it will be tested.... if canned fish is blamed it will be tested... if bread is blamed it will be tested..

The stewards are charged with the responsibility of trying to find the source and if the trainer points a finger at something then they will investigate it, it doesn’t make the trainer less responsible for the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another prime example of it who's done it, not what's been done.

Predictions verified...

Codeine is a class 1 prohibited substance, which drew a minimal fine.

The end result is laughable & a complete farce... 

Edited by Yankiwi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have been on tramadol for 10 years for a back injury. My dogs love me but never had a positive for morphine??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gambler said:

Well I have been on tramadol for 10 years for a back injury. My dogs love me but never had a positive for morphine??

This can only be explained in one possible way...

You do not sweat Gambler.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It surely wasn't "sweating" temperatures in Chch on 28 June 2019, especially for someone in the process of healing from a stab wound in the gut...

image.png.c2be785ec1339fd2720f9c531769609d.png

 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/nz/christchurch/252473/june-weather/252473

 

Nice "excuse" from a current GRNZ board members partnership.

Nice making the best of the situation by the RIU (prosecutors) who should be out for blood.

Nice decision making by the JCA (The naive judge & jury).

Farce....

Show some INTEGRITY R"I"U and appeal the decision...

 

Edited by Yankiwi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if Scofield dogs could of licked persperation off their late trainer. I doubt it. This is a new made up lie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the bit that got me laughing.

At the time of OPAWA HILARY’s positive swab we were unaware that Codeine was a drug that could be used for the treatment of greyhounds. As public trainers we are fully aware of the dangers of giving human medicine or drugs to greyhounds as they could materially harm the greyhound.

 

Codeine has been prescribed for greyhounds for  as long as I can remember, and any greyhound trainer knows this.

 To try and say they did not know this just shows they are not telling  the entire truth and trying to play dumb, which we know that are not.

And to try and blame a third party, who the RIU seems to not have interviewed just seems like a cop out.

But we are talking about a trainer who is also a board member, so a fair and just penalty was never going to be on the table from the get-go.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CrossCodes said:

 

At the time of OPAWA HILARY’s positive swab we were unaware that Codeine was a drug that could be used for the treatment of greyhounds. As public trainers we are fully aware of the dangers of giving human medicine or drugs to greyhounds as they could materially harm the greyhound.

 

This would prove to be a more honest statement.

At the time of OPAWA HILARY’s positive swab we were aware that Codeine was a drug that could be used for altering the race performance of a greyhound. As public trainers we are now fully aware that altering the performance of a greyhound with the use of Codeine holds little penalty.

 

A class one drug here people...

image.png.cafc6df6d2fecd6bd690ff57112c2894.png

https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Documents/Prohibited substances - starting points2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wasn't the handler named?

All three on the Schofield property were named....

 

"Who" not "What", as predicted...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Why wasn't the handler named?

All three on the Schofield property were named....

 

"Who" not "What", as predicted...

Why the fixation with the Schofield positive ? Different drug .  Codeine not in same park as meth , and if you think it is then you are out of touch with the real world . Look at report and comparisons , they have got similar to other people . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, fur que said:

Why the fixation with the Schofield positive ? Different drug .  Codeine not in same park as meth , and if you think it is then you are out of touch with the real world . Look at report and comparisons , they have got similar to other people . 

Codeine, Meth, Synthetic Opioids - All class 1 drugs according to GRNZ rules.

Want a comparison - Live baiting = Live or dead animal.

 

Under the current model, the RIU & the JCA are nothing more than enablers to the cheats. They both severely lack integrity.

 

[15] Greyhound Racing New Zealand has prescribed starting points for breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule according to the category of the particular prohibited substance. In the present case, the prohibited substance, Codeine, is in Category 1 (“Substances that have the ability to negatively impact the performance of a greyhound”). The starting point for a Category 1 prohibited substance is disqualification for 10 years. The Informant did not seek a disqualification.

 

Why not?

So what?

The prescribed recommended penalty has been previously set down by the GRNZ board, which funnily enough one of the respondents to the charge is a member of.

 

[23] The Committee does not believe that the Penalty Guide starting point of 10 years disqualification is an appropriate starting point in this case. Compelling mitigating factors are the Respondents’ frank admission of the breach, their conduct during the course of the investigation, their previous excellent record and the very low degree of negligence, if any. The Informant did not challenge the integrity of the Respondents as greyhound trainers.

 

The penalty guide makes no mention of a fine. If compelling mitigating factor were found, then a heavy reduction in the length of disqualification could have been awarded. Possibly a 80% reduction to 2 years?

Why didn't the RIU challenge? The respondents produced a dog with a class 1 substance on a race day. That's exactly the same thing that happened in the Schofield case.

 

Another RIU/JCA Farce....

Edited by Yankiwi
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, things are not all equal. It seems if you're a Cole or a sitting board member, the industry will bend over backwards to cater to your needs.

According to the Steward, the #1 dog did not make head or muzzle contact with the #2 dog.

4) SHEZA LOOKER (J & D Fahey, race 11) charged pursuant with Rule 55.1(b) and stood down for 3 months (2nd offence) and required to complete a satisfactory trial.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/13716/stewards-report.aspx

Watch Thursdays Stewards report for the magical serious injury to suddenly show up from the dodgy $1.20 failed red-hotter & the charges to be reversed....

image.thumb.png.3466e81b845e0e2ba0eec204812b62c2.png

 

Full video replay

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...