Rules For Some

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rules For Some

  • Rank
    Maiden - R50

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Seems to be better thus far from my point of view. Actually getting relevant information as a punter
  2. thought the bloke yesterday did a far better job. Sounded clearer and did more research. 10/10 imo
  3. Better than some. Everything I punted on Sunday and last thursday came out and won today and had no money on them at all
  4. I think this article provides all you need to know about the muppets in charge of racing here:
  5. I think people are deluded if they think any new tracks will open up in the interim. I see most tracks closing with one down south, one in the CD, and one up North.
  6. My personal suggestion, get out while you can! You forget how distressful life is once you no longer need to rely on week to week winnings from your racing team
  7. There was an accident back in January that pushed the date out and this covid 19 business has pushed it out even further
  8. Yes. That is right. I agree it's a joke but whoever decided to make it a risk did so. The problem is from what I can see that the clubs are not getting any advice around h&s at all. I showed the old and new protocols today to my h&s officer and he laughed. Another interesting point gom is that the clubs should have a health and safety register for everyone who's working their to view. The fact they refused to outright answer your questions is a joke upon itself
  9. It doesn't matter if 99% of us think it is not a risk, someone (I dont know who) decided to identify this as a hazard under the act. Now that identified hazard does not change due to certain circumstances that have changed. Therefore, the mitigation that was implemented should not change. There should be more mitigation put in place to mitigate the new identified risk. All this action does is make them extremely liable if something did happen while people are running back as this is a known risk and their are now no measures in place to mitigate it. This situation would be no different to having a stairway identified as a risk, putting in handrails to mitigate the risk, than removing the handrails because covid-19 lasts longer on the material they are made out of. As far as I am concerned, the issue isn't whether or not we all think its a hazard, its how the club/s fail to fully grasp how this act works (shown by the new notice given)
  10. Exactly. The rule not to allow people to run back was enforced originally because it was deemed a hazard under the than new health and safety at work act. After it was deemed a hazard, it is the clubs/riu/grnz responsibility to mitigate that hazard. In this case, that new rule was brought into place. Now they have removed the mitigation of that hazard which is crazy. Furthermore, you cant leave the risk of an identified hazard to be on a person by person basis. If it's a risk for one person, it is for everyone. If someone broke a leg running back now, they could sue on these grounds. Furthermore, if there was an investigation opened into it which is common with acc claims at work these days, the results would be disastrous as the risk was identified, they mitigated it than decided to remove those mitigations
  11. These protocols were brought in due to the health and safety at work act. You will find when a risk is identified I.e. running back from 375 to catch your dogs, you than move to minimize the risk which was in this case, not allowing anyone to run back. This risk they identified does not disappear now because there is a greater risk. The new risk has to be dealt with without effecting other risks and if the club cannot prove they have made all possible steps to minimize the previous risk, they are leaving a huge legal gap in their system and breaching the act. I've never seen any workplace I've worked in disregard one risk because another has appeared. That's absurd
  12. The point he is making is they are going against health and safety protocols put in place. Whether you find the rule absurd or not is pointless, these protocols were supposedly put in place to minimize risk and to abide the health and safety laws. The people making these decisions clearly have no clue about them themselves.
  13. If I am wrong, where is the directive that goes against rita original statement? Please explain? I also note that both wendy kite and Alan trash broke their bubble at trials the other day to help Brendon Cole. This is against grnz rules and level 3 rules. What's worse is right staff let it happen. Racing will not last very long
  14. Wait until next season where all racing associations have left a loophole for them to alter stakes accordingly. It will only get worse
  15. It is true that they were doing boxed trials as I have since spoken to a witness. As such, this is shambolic from the club as the outline provided from RITA around being allowed to start trialling so soon is provided here: While good progress has been made, officials are still finalising Greyhound Racing NZ's (GRNZ) approval for participants to prepare for handslip trials from Tuesday, and confirmation of these protocols is expected to be confirmed early next week. No new directive has come from anyone in authority that boxed trials were allowed so this is a serious breach of the rules from where I am sitting and a potential setback to the commencement of greyhound racing in general. If these people cannot follow simple rules like this, how will they follow the stricter raceday rules?