Flabbergasted

Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Flabbergasted

  • Rank
    Maiden - R50

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Who do you think gives them the directive when to tell this to the starter ?
  2. Clubs have little control over when races start as it's the RIU stewards who give the ok to the starter when to box.
  3. So sorry to hear of Mike's passing. Sincerest condolences to you and Linda and a real loss to this great industry. RIP Mike.
  4. They're even cancelling major Group races in Australia during these tough times e.g: Golden Easter Egg
  5. Luck plays a much greater role in winning at Auckland
  6. It comes as no surprise, and as i have stated previously, but under the current management structure in the North it was always going to happen. Maybe the Waikato Board needs to act quickly in order to eradicate itself of any resaemblance of what is the present Auckland club in order to have controlover their destiny instead of it just being a takeover and more of the same.
  7. As GOM alludes one of the biggest problems in the North is the current management of which each club has one very common denominator and that is much to the detriment of both clubs but more particularly Waikato. It's more Northern counterpart assumes it is the higher and mightier of the two and seems to make most decisions on behalf of both clubs even when it may not be beneficial to both simply because it may be easier for the shared management to deal with. Particpants concerns are usually taken too lightly or even treated with contempt. Maybe it's time Waikato shed itself of the shared management before big brother takes over completely which is highly likely Plan B for Auckland.
  8. I think you'll find the reason there was only 12 races is because the racing board has only granted Waikato 1 meeting licence for Xmas Eve over the past two years whereas previously there had been two licences granted allowing for 20 races.
  9. Easy to say Rules For Some but the rumour is that he has accepted a role with another code and given that he was commuting between Auckland and Wellington each week it wouldn't be hard to see why.
  10. Sad sad news - Farewell Max - a thorough gentleman and champion in every sense of the word. RIP old mate. It was a pleasure to have known you.
  11. GOM - I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. As wek know there is always two sides to a story and I am not siding on either. It's been poorly handled from the very start by all parties and the time it has taken to lay charges suggests that there may be something questionable or that the case wasn't as strong as they'd like. Joe Blogs - In answer to your question - Reg Kay in Queensland.
  12. It's a sad state of affairs and I can see bothe sides of the argument. It's tough and depends on the law and the GRNZ rules and GRNZ and RIU must act within them. If they were to stop the Cole dogs racing and they are cleared then Coles may well have a legal case against the PTB's. Under the current rules they obviously don't have the power to act until after one is found guilty in the court. At present B. Cole has only been charged. As a consequence of this episode GRNZ and RIU may need to revisit and change the rules in the event something like this occurs again. Then they'll have the power to suspend one's licenece pending the outcome of the court case. Laws in Australia vary from state to state and when those trainers over there were caught allegedly live baiting a few years ago, some were suspended immediately whilst others weren't, others took legal action and were re-instated. Only last week one high profile trainer who was suspended and banned for life was cleared in court and is now free to train again. He has not just lost four years of possible earnings but suffered considerable personal cost and a tarnished image. Is that fair ?
  13. The more I think about it the more I can see this as only being a retrograde step. As Emotive rightly points out when the number of imports drops (I suspect it has already started - given the shortage of dogs in Australia at present) then NZ dogs will be required to be bred to fill the numbers. There will be no tarriff to reduce the GAP costs to rehome those dogs and GRNZ will have to rely solely on industry money to offset the cost. The cost of getting imports is already prohibitive enough (around $3000 per dog for airfare, customs charges and import/registration fee before it even lands here) so no-one is importing really poor quality any longer. To breed a litter of pups will cost no less than $3,000 per pup to get it to the track with absolutely no guarantee that it will make the track let alone the grade. That's even more prohibitive for the average participant. Enter the bigger NZ owner/breeders who will take up the slack get even bigger empires and dump even more poor quality dogs onto the smaller trainers.
  14. Possibly correct as there was some discussion about this at the last AGM. I'm of the understanding that this is to cover the cost of the dog going into the NZ GAP program at the end of it's career. However if it returns to Australia then the fee will be refunded. Not sure what happens to the $2k if the dog is to remain here solely as a breeding proposition after retirement and doesn't go to GAP. Maybe it'll be used to offset the costs of all the imports that have gone to GAP in the past. .