Fernlea25

He even went into the office on a Sunday? What a champion. So what did Michael Dore say would have been the outcome had an appeal been lodged prior to the payment of dividends? You'd have to be quick... they pay out pretty fast on the puppies.

I saw Mike last week and believe he was on holiday... so not sure he was working Sunday - but I could be wrong. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but why are you so strongly of the belief that the club gave the TAB the wrong information? Have the club come out and said that they passed on the wrong information?

Usually agree with you Reilly but can't here. Rules are rules, just because the TAB stuffs it up and advertises the wrong boxes doesn't mean that the rules get ignored - i.e. the dogs need to start from the boxes as specified by the rules, not the TAB. The TAB may have told you that they acted on incorrect information from the track... but sounds like they're just avoiding responsibility in my opinion. I do, however, agree that this is not good enough from a punter's perspective. Box draws would be one of the most important considerations when deciding which runners to select, and so this being wrong is fundamental. Should it be a no-race? Not sure... how far would you take this... regularly runners from Aussie are listed in formguides with incorrect form or box stats... would you declare these no-racers too because incorrect information was published? How about fastest winning times... these are often wrong too... The answer is that checks and balances should be in place to ensure this doesn't happen. I really have no faith in the TAB after a number of years ago a dog race from Australia was broadcast (Sunday evening from memory) and the field had been redrawn since the runner information was sent through to the TAB. I backed number 5, and number 5 ended up winning, but the dog I thought I was backing actually came out of Box 7... 6 of the 8 dogs in the field as advertised by the TAB started from different boxes, and the other 2 were different dogs altogether! I don't blame the TAB for this having happened, BUT: I fully expected all bets to be refunded... not the case. Paid as passed the post. I emailed Michael Dore at the TAB to ask if losing bets were refunded and he replied telling me to "Go away because he was busy dealing with people who had genuine complaints". Pretty much sums up the arrogance.

Surely the whole point of RaceCafe is so that people can share their view, opinions, and ask questions to garner the opinions of others... Sometimes it can get a bit personal on here but I can't see any problem with the thread Dusty has started. Any number of issues are discussed on this forum, and dogs not chasing is merely one of them. Why can't he have his opinion on this without getting jumped on? You may not agree with him, and that's all you need to say. It's a shame that as greyhound people we seem to have a problem with being able to maintain respect for one another when we disagree... life would be pretty boring if everyone shared the same views on everything! Let's just work together to take this wonderful sport forward.

I have a feeling it was at Dapto and they disqualified it... apparently racing without a rug gave it an unfair advantage

Having played against the guy, he's actually a bit of a knob who, whilst a talented cricketer, is not as good as he liked to think he was. He's a handy all-rounder but neither a good enough batsman or bowler to really make it. The story is really told by the fact he regularly batted 7 or 8 for Wellington and was 5th or 6th in line to get a bowl... He did, however, go to the right school which virtually guaranteed him selection in the Wellington first class team sooner or later.

It's been well documented verbally by Dave... think he mentions it every race!

You can add Hat Trick Chaos and Sheza What What to the list of non-chasers currently going around. Zippit Sweetie is another that has some question marks on it... but will watch it's next couple of runs before straight out declaring it a non-chaser.

I agree. I'm not sure if the rules allow this (in fact I'm pretty sure they wouldn't), but it would make sense from a wagering perspective, that she be a runner for the purposes of the place pool, but be withdrawn as a runner from the win pool (i.e. win bets get refunded). If she had run 10 lengths last, win bettors would have no doubt got a refund... likewise if she had run midfield. Instead, because she ran a huge race to finish in the top 3 the win punters do their dough. So for the horse performing well, they get nothing... had the horse performed poorly, they would have got their money back. For place punters, they backed a horse who was inconvenienced severely at the start, yet still ran in the top 3, so why should they only get their money back for their bet? Presumably if she is declared a non-runner, the owners / trainer get zero. So you can see why they wouldn't want her declared a non-runner. The whole situation is completely unfair and really needs to be looked at.

I love dog racing as much as anyone but can't help but think that while this may provide a lifeline in the short-term for slow dogs, it will just encourage increased breeding which will in turn lead to even more futureless greyhounds in the long-term.

Very interesting outcome, and I must say I'm surprised. Sets a very complicated precedent, particularly about this concept of "prior knowledge". Is it now illegal to have a bet on a race and leave out a couple of runners you know to not have much ability / be dubious chasers? Virtually no one would bet if you were unable to rely on "prior knowledge".

Ask Bandit was a good one - which they had changed after a while... There's a horse going around called MyBack and I think one called My Face

The other one which happens too often is where they're doing a Video Watch and the wrong race gets played. On Friday night there was approx 7 minutes of lead in to the big race at Wanganui. In that time, all heats could have been shown which would have taken up maybe 4 minutes max, and then they could have had 3 minutes of lead in comments. Instead, we got 5 minutes of the studio presenter (who with all due respect is not an expert on greyhounds) reading comments off a script with the back-drop of the Wanganui grandstand / seating area. I thought showing the heats would be a given but it didn't happen.

I know what you mean - Stolen Money has apparently run 17.90-something for 520m at Addington... that's pretty good going. How it continues to be published without anyone just fixing it is a bit disappointing. I like the Aussie Dogs comments... some bizarre comments come up there. E.g. 50-start maiden - "Looks too good for this field. Top Class". Classic.

The Stipes have a hard enough time noticing the multitude of non-chasers going around, let alone making an accurate assessment of the racing traits a greyhound has... so personally I think that would cause a lot of problems. There's been a lot of speculation / discussion on here about how random the box draws actually are. All I'd say is that there are only 8 numbers you can draw, so statistically 1 in every 8 dogs that goes around should draw the same box as the previous time it raced.... 1 in 64 should get the same box 3 times in a row... and 1 in 512 should get the same box 4 times in a row. On a 12 race card, 96 dogs in theory should be in the box draw, so on the maths, roughly 1 in every 5 race meetings should see a runner with the same box draw for 4 runs in a row. Given the amount of dog racing we have in NZ, and the number of runners going around, it's not really surprising that we start to see some unusual things which, on the face of it, may appear to be a sign on things not being "random", but in actual fact are statistically probable to occur. We don't notice the thousands of times each year that dogs don't draw the same box multiple times in a row... it is only the unusual things that stick in our minds. Personally I don't think there's any problem with the system of drawing boxes - just anomalies which are, statistically, always going to happen.

I didn't see the race being talked about here but I continue to be amazed by inconsistencies in outcomes from enquiries. The wording in the Stipes report is very interesting - does the push out rule not apply if a horse is racing erratically? Surely that can't be the case... otherwise any time a protest was lodged about a push-out the driver would just say the horse was racing ungenerously.

Does anyone think it's a little mean / unfair to give a commentator the job for calling the race meetings in a certain area, but then replace them with someone else for premier meetings? Seems a bit odd to me... Are they saying "you're good enough to call the ordinary races, but not good enough for the high quality races" ??

May as well just bring in a "Road Code"... could call it "Track Code". All dogs must pass the test before being allowed to race. Give way to dogs coming from your right... indicate for at least 3 seconds before changing lanes... On a more serious note, I can't see this ever working. Random box draws are the only fair way of doing it. There are plenty of dogs who aren't wide runners but still jump better when drawn wide. Would they be allowed to have wide draws every time because they perform better? Or would it only be the erratic dogs who got special treatment?

Porky, I think you should be entitled to your $20 back. With a fixed odds bet, you are entitled to know the odds you are accepting, and if these change between placing the bet and the bet being accepted, then you should have the right to decide not to place the bet. If the odds go down, the Tab really should allow the bet to accept. Clearly a different situation to the tote when you know at the time of placing the bet that the odds are subject to change. I've had the situation where I have placed a fixed odds bet on a self-service machine at the advertised odds of, say, $3. The bet accepts and no warning comes up. Then, I happen to glance at the ticket and it says $2.50. Surely this shouldn't happen without it flagging to the customer that the odds have changed!? I guess the Tab would say that to avoid these problems they recommend you bet early so you have the opportunity to cancel the bet before the race starts if you are unhappy with the odds. My answer would be: 1. The fixed odds are often best right before the race starts. My bet of choice is greyhounds and the bookies odds are always skinny until late in the piece. 2. If a dog / horse gets late scratched it can completely change the way a race will be run, speed maps etc, but if you've places your bet early in the day on other runners in the race you're unable to cancel your bet despite the fact that your reading of the race may have completely changed as the result of a runner being scratched. Therefore it would be my preference to bet late.

Interesting that the dog and an inconvenienced runner were declared late non-runners. I'm sure a similar thing happened at Cambridge dogs a few years back (maybe 5 years or so?) - and I'm 99.9% sure that it was considered tough bikkies for the connections / backers of the dogs who chose to chase the real rabbit instead of the fake one. I also remember a horse race at Sandown where it was declared a no race after a huge flock of birds who had settled in the home straight flew up into the faces of the horses and their jockeys are they came toward the finish line.

I don't understand how the Stipe can declare the track as safe for racing to continue, yet allow a trainer to scratch penalty free. I didn't see any racing on Monday so can't comment regarding the condition of the track but surely the Stipe's decision to allow the trainer to scratch without penalty means he wasn't entirely comfortable about the state of the track. If that was the case, why was racing allowed to continue? If the Stipe was 100% sure the track was safe, he should have imposed a penalty, shouldn't he? If a higher profile trainer had been involved (no disrespect to the actual trainer involved), I'm sure someone would be crying foul that special treatment was dished out. I commend the trainer for scratching if he believes the track to be unsafe - presumably he would have done this regardless of whether or not a penalty was to be imposed.

He's had a couple of beauties lately where he's been calling a dog the winner with 5 strides to go, only for it to get nailed on the line. Rather than admit he's cocked it up and say that it may have got beat, he just continues to talk as though it definitely held on. It happened today with Opawa Wally, and it happened a couple of weeks ago when Wellywood got nailed on the line by Hooray For Hazel. Even during the replay where it looked like the other dog had got up, he carried on talking about there "definitely being a margin" for Wellywood. No mention of waiting for the judge's call. Sure enough, judges call comes through and he's got it wrong.

Yep, pattern tends to be they punt 4 roughies just before the start. I'm assuming there is an online bookmaker in Aussie who pays best closing tote price - hence they lose a bit on the NZ tote to win a lot with the Australian bookmaker. Whilst it's legal I'm not sure it's great form and I must admit I do enjoy seeing these punters getting stung once in a while. Manipulating the tote like that makes a bit of a mockery of the $2 each way punter. The flipside of course is those people backing favourites on the tote in these races probably do quite well... the problem is you never know when they're going to do it. They got burned a couple of months back when Radiator Springs won at Addington and paid about $4 when it really should have been about $24. A small return on the NZ tote and a large loss with the Aussie bookies no doubt.

I had my suspicions that Allegro Roxs didn't chase at it's first start but was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt... but then thought it was clear at it's 2nd start that it wasn't chasing. How this got missed is beyond me. Seem to remember in days gone by that dogs regularly got put out for not chasing but these days it seems they virtually never do. It's a real shame because punters will no doubt do their dough on these dogs next time. Good placed form lines in maiden races, probably comments in the form guide about meeting bother or being unlucky last start, Lisa Ahern training... anyone who didn't watch the previous starts could be forgiven for investing their hard earned... The stipes really need to do better on this issue. Totally echo your comments about not having a go at the kennel - this is by no means personal - just calling it as I see it. A non-chaser is far more obvious when it has some ability than one who doesn't!!!!

I see Allegro Roxs didn't get a stand-down last week either. Apparently it struck interference on the bend, costing it a winning chance... Yeah, the dogs behind it ran straight up it's backside when it stopped chasing in front of them!! So can I take from this that the reason Danny Sheen stopped chasing was because he was injured?? Interesting then that he was lengthening out again in the straight to take ground off the ones who passed him on the corner. What a Joke.