re runs

[legs&lashes 188]

I am left in amazement that a dog that never competed in a race which had to be re run was allowed to gain a start in the race that was re run????

Surely if a race has to be re run the original 8 dogs that competed in the first edition must be the only ones allowed to compete in the 2nd edition.

It could be said that it was a "no race"or abandoned,however if that was the case then surely the field had to be re assembled and start from scratch..

The reserve that competed in the re run had actually raced in another race on the night of the original race.!

I am not a big reader of the rule book but know some of you on here are way more familiar with the rules than me so just looking for some clarification.

I had argued it with the club but a ruling from head office disagreed with me.

I had discussed it with Dave and although he hadnt given it any thought beforehand did agree that it was a very dodgy situation.

 

AC

[GOM 1,017]

I agree with you Craig, I am also not sure of the rules but if the rule does allow for this situation it is in need of urgent alteration. Common sense tells you the original starters must be in the rerun exactly the same as if the race had been rerun on the first day.

[GOM 1,017]

Craig, I am amazed that your post has resulted in very little comment. I think the ruling is strange and I was interested to see what the general populace thought about it. Do you think it is that no one really cares or everyone is afraid of the new Social Media Policy.

      To see if the latter may be true I followed the instructions in the current magazine and went to the dogs/rules and policies and althought the new Alcohol and Drug Testing is there I can not find the Social Media Policy. Can anyone enlighten me as to it's content as I may very well be in breach of it.

   The heading social Media policy makes me uneasy at the best of times. Censuring comment not in line with Party policy has been a nefarious tool of dictators throughout history.

   I liken it to the discussion at an AGM of the association I attended where the Drug and Alcohol policy was being discussed and the RIU advocated that the stipendary steward should decide who gets tested for whatever reasons they feel warrants it. I argued that this could lead to victimization of a lisenced person. The unfortunate Ross Neal answered for the RIU that he give an absolute guarantee that there was no chance of an overzealous Steward. I disagreed as I have had experience of just that. I'm willing to bet I am not the only one.

[GOM 1,017]

Quote

 

While on the subject I also note in the CEO update that he says 'the recent announcement we made about the lift in stakes for sprinting will be sustainable'!!!!! where and when was this announcement made.

[I know 150]

Just on that drug and alcohol testing, was it a one off in Christchurch ? And when is the hair testing coming in for the dogs ? 

[Eyespy 50]

3 hours ago, I know said:

Just on that drug and alcohol testing, was it a one off in Christchurch ? And when is the hair testing coming in for the dogs ? 

Hair testing, the excuse book came out for that one a while ago, cost... etc

maybe they could start with random kennel visits with blood and urine tests from randomly selected dogs

[bus stop 230]

Will never happen untill the top of the tree is pruned 

[Jape 344]

My Rule Book is certainly not now up-to-date what with all the recent Amendments etc.

However, I doubt that 76.7 (Rules of Racing February 2015) has changed much, if at all. (Certainly  its numbering will have changed).

It is curious how it mentions Heat or Semi-Final initially and then at the end refers to Semi-Final or Final.

The effect of this is that the abandonment of a Final is not specifically stated. Consequently,there is  no mention of the starters therein.

What is pertinent, perhaps, is that "if ... a re-run is not possible then the Chief Executive, or his/her appointed nominee, shall, in his/her sole discretion, determine the Greyhound or Greyhounds, as the case may be, which shall be eligible to compete in the Semi-Final or Final."

My assumption is that the Chief Executive has made the decision in this instance and allowed a reserve to contest the Final despite its not being a runner in the original Final race.

If so, this surely requires a new additional rule.

[GOM 1,017]

What seems not right to me is the reserve dog contseting a race on the same night as the heat. If it had won that race would it have been considered. Strange decision and a precedent.

[aquaman 1,352]

Don't no if this is any help, but a reserve dog is considered a starter under the rules when it comes to scratchings etc. Under the rules you are deemed to be under the same sanctions as a runner who is in the field, that is till scratching time. Least thats how I understand it.

[GOM 1,017]

That is correct John but this was after scratching time plus when the dog ran in another race it was no longer part of the original field.

[GOM 1,017]

15 hours ago, bus stop said:

Will never happen untill the top of the tree is pruned 

What do you mean by top of the tree is pruned BS?

[Lowdown 299]

I believe bus stop means that he has no faith in certain high ranking grnz/board members who have conflicts of interest/vested interests...? Or is that just me..?

[GOM 1,017]

I thought that BS was getting at something like that as well Lowdown and in absence of a reply will presume something along those lines.

 

    If it indeed the case this is the problem I have with it. For as long I can  remember people have been calling for heads to roll at the association. No matter who has been in charge the complaints have generally been that they have very little experience or knowledge of the industry or too much knowledge ( participating).

    Surely you can't have it both ways we are a small industry and if we are going to have people on the board that have knowledge and experience then we are going to have people with room to be labelled as having conflicts of interests, Gordon Kingston, Bob Van Meeuwyn, Lyla Fornishare, Craig Roberts, John McInerny, Thayne Green, John Mc Arthur etc etc. That is unavoidable. The alternative would be to have a board with no experience or little knowledge and the call for heads would be even louder.

     Think back over the last 20 years and tell me of a period when the management have been hailed as having done a good job. None that I can remember. Yet the industry has come ahead in leaps and bounds during that time. Jim Leach seemed to be the most recent whipping boy but under his gentle management he saw us through a very stormy peiod that ended with us ahead of the 8 ball on many fronts.

     Everyone should have been in heaven when the new arrangement came into being this time round because they were mostly new faces but no the head continues. Is everything 100% within the industry. The answer in my opinion is no, there are many changes I would make but he answer all along has not been to replace the management but assist in making changes that are needed.