• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I wonder if Master Musician would have won a NZ Cup if John or Dexter had been driving him?
  2. I would have thought you should be able to rely on the pre-made feeds to be contamination free. You don't expect to find anything in the feed that could return a positive. Surely could be likened to someone purchasing a particular (human) food that is nut free to give to someone that has a nut allergy and then one day they have a reaction (after eating the product for a number of years) and it is found that there is some contamination, the person wouldn't be expected to test/check the product every time they eat it. I also find it interesting that in racing someone is guilty until proven innocent.
  3. While i get the fact that greyhounds (and horses) are to be produced drug free I would have thought that in a situation where there were mitigating circumstances such as this that there could be some discretion given around charging someone - there are a couple of rules that say 'shall be' either disqualified (as in the case of the animal) or guilty of an offence (as in the case of the person in charge of the animal). In a situation such as this should the word be 'may be'? (Rule 86 Prohibited Substances). I know this example happened a long time ago and in a different code but I seem to remember when a horse had won an Auckland Cup (I think) returned a positive and subsequently found to have been fed some contaminated feed - the horse kept the race. I would think that the rules have changed a lot since then but thing like this can and do happen. If something is out of the control of the trainer (or person in charge of the animal) then maybe some discretion?
  4. There used to be a page on nzgra website where you could look up all the past winners of group races. I just went ot have a look and it appears to have been taken down, does anyone know what the story is?
  5. I heard the animal welfare officer on the radio this morning and he said that there had been no convictions for this in at least the last 20 years
  6. Does this happen in NZ? Surely not. Just watched the Four Corners show and it is shocking.
  7. rollyb

    Hmmm Manukau

    This has happened before, not that long ago (maybe 6 years) with the same kennel. Two dogs from the same litter went through kennelling and one raced while the identity of the other was found "in time". I believe the kennel staff may have been fined.
  8. I think that Trackside appear to be planning for the future with their commentators because as has been said some of these guys won't be around for much longer. I haven't heard Andrew McCook call races but he is very good when he assists on the big greyhound meetings - good comments and knowledgeable. One out of left field is Matthew Gardner - I have heard him at Taranaki and he is very good - also very knowledgeable around greyhound stuff.
  9. The definition of a late scratching according to the TAB betting rules is 9am. ® “Late Scratching” in the case of: (i) New Zealand racing means a Scratching made after 9.00am on the day of the Race Meeting; and (ii) Overseas racing means a Scratching made after the official Scratching time of the Race Meeting as determined by the controlling body in the relevant jurisdiction.
  10. I have been lucky enough to visit the property and while there might be some minor renovations required overall it is a walk in and start set up. Very good complex. I'm sorry but if the clubs are playing the "I didn't know" card then they didn't read the information that was put out. While I don't agree with the stuff that has been going on with the staff situation at GRNZ the communication put out around the kennel was very good and professional and I think that is because of Mr Kerr having come from a professional background. Just my opinion
  11. GRNZ management and board should have just said no!
  12. So why entertain the whole petition thing if there is nothing behind it.
  13. 100% correct with the GAP comment Popa Gas - whether or not Mr Calverley was for or against the purchase doesn't mean anything as rule 21.2cc says that for any capital expenditure over $250,000 that the clubs have to vote and approve such expenditure (this rule came in because of the world famous in NZ 'Rocketship' debacle) - so essentially the LP rep or indeed the board didn't make the call on purchasing the property it was a club decision. I also heard that he was against reducing the petrol vouchers from $40. If the voting for the vouchers was done in committee then theoretically no one should know how anyone voted - but the LP rep probably knows as well as anyone that information tends to get out and conclusions are jumped to and he would know that by voting against it would mean a death knell for him so I tend to believe what I have heard and that is that he didn't vote for the change. My biggest concern here is that a great deal of money has probably been spent (assume legal opinions, etc) and probably going to be spent (re running the election - unless the board invoke rule 18.2 . Money that would surely be better spent on other things (such as stake money). I seem to remember a similar approach around the South Island rep a few years back
  14. My understanding was the same as yours Yankiwi in that Mr Calverley voted against the petrol vouchers being reduced - however the problem is that he is only one vote on the board and can easily be overturned despite his support of leaving the vouchers at $40.