RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Yankiwi

Greyhound Racing Rule 80

Recommended Posts

Think we might have to change your name to YAWNkiwi. Its getting old mate, how about you get a new hobby!

Thanks for the suggestion Andy. I happen to be quite happy with the hobbies I have now.

 

I too could adjust your name for a laugh but feel it's pointless.

 

I'm not sure why you feel this is getting old. In my opinion it's been going on for quite some time with this bitch.

 

Do you have a differing opinion on her racing habits?

 

Would you like to comment on the reason for her wearing blinkers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha im not getting into this with a 'keyboard warrior' that cant even put their name to their posts.

She is what she is, everyone knows, smart people use it to there advantage. Shes earnt us and her owner $10k since shes been racing, cant complain at that, (plus a bit off the tote too) usually easy to make money on her races!! Just get over it mate, build a wee bridge!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha im not getting into this with a 'keyboard warrior' that cant even put their name to their posts.

She is what she is, everyone knows, smart people use it to there advantage. Shes earnt us and her owner $10k since shes been racing, cant complain at that, (plus a bit off the tote too) usually easy to make money on her races!! Just get over it mate, build a wee bridge!!

I can't actually believe what I'm reading here. It's not all about the punt mate. This is pretty damning of the system. Dodgy dodgy dodgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not saying it is, im just winding yankiwi up mate! Every owner/trainer has either had or will have a dog like her in their life. She has been put out in the past, she now wears blinkers. I dont believe she has done anything in her past few starts that is bad enough to be put out. And if she does in the future i will be the first to admit it.

Im not getting on here to defend them, just winding yas up!! Come on we are all here for the same reason, why get on here and bitch and moan about each other and talk about the negatives!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha im not getting into this with a 'keyboard warrior' that cant even put their name to their posts.

She is what she is, everyone knows, smart people use it to there advantage. Shes earnt us and her owner $10k since shes been racing, cant complain at that, (plus a bit off the tote too) usually easy to make money on her races!! Just get over it mate, build a wee bridge!!

 

It's fairly obvious to me that everyone doesn't know. If "everyone" did know she wouldn't have been backed in to second favourite @ $3.70 on the tote.

 

https://www.thedogs.co.nz/catch-the-action/11386/91944/result-detail.aspx

 

Needless to say, a lot of people lost a lot of money on her because they probably didn't know. This is where a feel it's the RIU's job to sort out the racers from the chasers. Isn't that part of their job?

 

Yes she has earned nearly $10k in stakes but I find the statement "cant complain at that" very narrow minded. There was over $10k in the win pool in race 12 today. I'd guess near $2500 of that was placed on her nose. Do you think it'd be fair for those people to complain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not getting into it with you mate, i dont even know who you are. She is what she is, she is not the only one around. I dont believe she deserved to be put out today, but im probably bias. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I am interested though if you owned her or even say jacks a jewel would you retire them?? As a trainer she is a cash machine on paws and we all have to make a living, whether we are trainers, owners or punters. So if you owned a dog that had the potential to earn $10-$20k would you retire them because people back them to win? Lifes not fair mate, whats good for me isnt necessarily good for you that is just how life works!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not getting into it with you mate, i dont even know who you are. She is what she is, she is not the only one around. I dont believe she deserved to be put out today, but im probably bias. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I am interested though if you owned her or even say jacks a jewel would you retire them?? As a trainer she is a cash machine on paws and we all have to make a living, whether we are trainers, owners or punters. So if you owned a dog that had the potential to earn $10-$20k would you retire them because people back them to win? Lifes not fair mate, whats good for me isnt necessarily good for you that is just how life works!!

Andy, please don't get me wrong here. My gripe isn't with you, your owner, or the bitch for that matter. She has been a good little earner for her connections from a stake standpoint. If I owned her by no means would I currently retire her unless I was forced to do so. At the end of the day, dogs will be dogs and I'm sure you've done everything you can to get her chasing properly.

 

My concern is with the lack of enforcement, in my opinion, of rule 80 around the Addington circuit in several instances. I watch nearly every race in the country as it's run. My opinion generally seems to be very well in line with the decision makers at the other venues. Yes there have been many "iffy" calls. Those go in favour of the dog in question and fair enough for that.

 

That being said, I do not consider this previously posted photo as "iffy". To me it's clear that dog #2 is not pursuing the lure. It's my opinion she is more worried where the #4 dog is than where the lure is.

 

gallery_13330_19_5731.jpg

 

 

 

You're right, she is what she is & I'll admit to being among "the smart ones" you've mentioned earlier. The bookies have paid me much more than what they've taken away from my punts on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking with my punting hat on, i'm getting fed up with non chasing dogs wearing blinkers. As an industry we are chocker with dogs that are genuine, so why the hell are we having to put up with cheats. Once again coming from a punters angle, and bearing in mind, [ punters are our life blood] these dogs that do not want to win, but rather race up to a leader thats trying its hardest to win, and then stays along side worrying it out of the race should not be in the fields. The only time they win is when the bob of the head goe's their way.

Sometimes i wonder as an industry how we get it so wrong. Its bad enough that we now have sprints coming out of our ears without having to make up these poor quality races with non chasing dogs wearing blinkers. Blinkers on dogs only serve's to keep their heads straight. In most cases it doe's little for their pursuing the lure. They worry genuine dogs out of deserved victorys, and burn punters whom i consider the most important facet of the entire industry. It just seems the culture here in NZ is all about the trainer and owner, and stuff the punter. Is it any surprise that the domestic income for dogs is the lowest its ever been, and falling.

I see Manawatu in their collective wisdom have dumbed down the Nancy Cobain Memorial to 645 mtrs. It was and always has been 755 mtrs. Once again putting trainers wishes ahead of punters and dumbing down. On Monday just gone this same Club had two feature races where the criteria for inclusion was, you had to be out of the money in the last 4 starts. What a total disregard for our life blood [Punters]. How the hell do you grow the industry out of poor performing dogs, or non chasing cheats wearing blinkers running over sprints.

Sometimes i wonder just how we have gone so far backwards, that we now promote losing as winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these dogs that do not want to win, but rather race up to a leader thats trying its hardest to win, and then stays along side worrying it out of the race should not be in the fields. The only time they win is when the bob of the head goe's their way ...

They worry genuine dogs out of deserved victorys

Exactly. This is the issue. Perfect example yesterday where Phat Pants cost Business Affair the victory. Simple as that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. This is the issue. Perfect example yesterday where Phat Pants cost Business Affair the victory. Simple as that

Yes, and i had $25 to win Business Affair. I wasn't going to name an example, but thats how i saw it as a punter, pissed off as i was robbed by a dog that shouldn't be their if the Stipes were doing their job. Its unfair on the honest dogs, and risks turning them into fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for chiming in Aquaman & Bblunt. I was feeling a bit left out in the cold (as sometimes happens when we say things as we see them).

 

As I've mentioned, my recent mission has been to question some of those who are being paid to make sure the rules of racing are being followed. They seem very quick to find the wrong colour shirt on a handler or something similar. These sorts of finding are useless, in my opinion, to the punters which is what I believe is the RIU most important audience to be looking after. Yes, those shirts are the "easy" ones to sort out and may slightly effect "how pretty we appear on television" and I can fully understand this being a second priority after the rules of the racing code have been carefully looked at and acted upon.

 

Rule 80 is there along side the clubs rules as to dress code yet it has seemed to me, as another poster has previously mentioned, that their decisions are being based around why a greyhound shouldn't be charged. A minor bump here or a dog shifting wider in the running throws rule 80 by the wayside?

 

If I took my car for a warrant & the person checking it didn't notice that my seatbelt wasn't working, passed my car and sent me on my way. On the drive home I rear ended another car and put my head through the windscreen, would it not be fair of me to go back to the shop and ask some questions if I survived the crash?

 

It's the RIU main purpose to ensure the racing rules are followed. Another part of their role is to generate a report for each race meeting. These reports are made public and therefore subject to public (punters) scrutiny. Since I don't have a log-in to "The Dogs" website (and rightfully so) I've chosen post my opinion of what I've seen and read in this public forum.

 

I know what the "I" in RIU stands for. Changing the "I" to any different meaning would be a very sad mistake for our industry in my opinion.

 

This post will be ending my contribution to this thread which I had started. It has created more stress for me in what I view is already a bad situation. I'll be keeping my list & adding to it where I see fit. Trying to make a dollar on the punt can be hard enough, especially when most of my spend is with the bookies. I'm going to be concentrating my efforts there and keep any future information I compile quietly and for my sole use.

 

Thanks to all past contributors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John mate, phat pants and business affair bumped twice on the bend, que tee pix had to hook wider, copped 1 bump and beat them both. If thats the excuse for business affair getting beat its a poor one! If your trying to say that phat pants 'knocked off' and thats the reason she checked business affair then wouldnt phat pants have won if that didnt happen?!?!? In my opinion business affair was by no means a cert beaten, she should have won from where she was. The 1 question i have for yas though if that wasnt a dog wearing blinkers who has a history, would your thoughts still be the same? Or would you think they just bumped on the bend?

But i too will be like yankiwi and bow out of this thread, it gets noone anywhere bleating on here about whos chasing and whos not chasing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon Andy, wake up. Do yourself a favour and take a look at Yankiwis posts with photos CLEARLY showing your dog not pursuing the lure... That is the rule isn't it buddy? IMO the photos explain everything and personally I think it's an absolute JOKE on punter's that fund the industry...

WAKE UP STIPES. Your lack of 'balls' when it comes to putting a dog out for 28 days is just a joke and is ruining what is a brilliant sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll understand YanKiwi...if you remain your position choosing not to post your findings anymore, but that'd be a pity i feel.

 

i often find myself in your position at this site..and then choose to remain more withdrawn from commenting., but that stance does nothing for the quality of the site...nor accountability etc.,

 

...just sayin' Champ ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon Andy, wake up. Do yourself a favour and take a look at Yankiwis posts with photos CLEARLY showing your dog not pursuing the lure... That is the rule isn't it buddy? IMO the photos explain everything and personally I think it's an absolute JOKE on punter's that fund the industry...

WAKE UP STIPES. Your lack of 'balls' when it comes to putting a dog out for 28 days is just a joke and is ruining what is a brilliant sport.

I do not deny what she is, as i said in a previous post, she is what she is!!

I did say that i dont believe anything she has done in her last couple of starts has been bad enough to put her out. That is my personal opinion and i am probably bias.

I just get annoyed when people constantly go on about it.

Also as i said in my previous post i will bow out of this thread as i find it a waste of time!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that the decision for the Maramarua Jack appeal from Mr S. Clark is in. He in fact won this case, against the RIU, due to poor judicial decisions from the stipendiary stewards and they had no proof that Maramarua Jack had turned his head.

 

Whether he did turn or not, you need to have sufficient evidence to put a dog out.

 

The stewards did not.

 

 

 

This goes to show, that when a dog appears to turn his head, you need all the right angles, as they may have in fact been impeded by another runner.

 

So for everyone saying a dog turned his head when your just watching the races, with no head on replays; or the right ones for that matter, you cant put a dog out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John mate, phat pants and business affair bumped twice on the bend, que tee pix had to hook wider, copped 1 bump and beat them both. If thats the excuse for business affair getting beat its a poor one! If your trying to say that phat pants 'knocked off' and thats the reason she checked business affair then wouldnt phat pants have won if that didnt happen?!?!? In my opinion business affair was by no means a cert beaten, she should have won from where she was. The 1 question i have for yas though if that wasnt a dog wearing blinkers who has a history, would your thoughts still be the same? Or would you think they just bumped on the bend?

But i too will be like yankiwi and bow out of this thread, it gets noone anywhere bleating on here about whos chasing and whos not chasing!!

Granted Andy, if Phat Pants wasn't wearing blinkers it would be hard to pick, and on a scale she's not the worst offender. I do not blame trainers for lining up these suspect dogs, but rather the system thats allowing it to happen. I feel these dogs shouldn't be racing full stop. There are thousands of dogs that chase hard, so why are we allowing iffy dogs in. These non chasers are ideal G.A.P. dogs but they do nothing for Punter confidence.

I see Phats is up against Business Affair again on Friday, and speaking with my punting hat i will not risk betting in that race, although Phats, like Jacks A Jewel will be safe for a place bet, in fact both good anchors for those that like P6 place.

Incidently, in years gone by, dogs wearing blinkers were an absolute rareity, today its becoming commonplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that the decision for the Maramarua Jack appeal from Mr S. Clark is in. He in fact won this case, against the RIU, due to poor judicial decisions from the stipendiary stewards and they had no proof that Maramarua Jack had turned his head.

 

Whether he did turn or not, you need to have sufficient evidence to put a dog out.

 

The stewards did not.

 

 

 

This goes to show, that when a dog appears to turn his head, you need all the right angles, as they may have in fact been impeded by another runner.

 

So for everyone saying a dog turned his head when your just watching the races, with no head on replays; or the right ones for that matter, you cant put a dog out.

I have evidence.

 

gallery_13330_19_43011.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What that shows us is number 5 pushing in between the 8 and 3.

You can't conclusively say a dog has turned from a screen shot + a side view.

You need a head on and see what has incurred previously to the apparent head turning incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about perspective.

Sometimes it looks like it but with the head on. You can really tell. Too many instances where there are no head on replays and a dog appears to turn it's head, but you can't be 100% sure so how can you give a dog a ticket when your only going based on one bit if evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Head turning is only half the story. These incidences are more black and white. I'm more concerned with failing to pursue. This is where the Stipes fall down when applying Rule 80. This is where hands on in knowing your subject is crucial. In my opinion this is gained after many yrs working with the dogs. Trainers will recognise the differance readily, where as Stipes that are from a background of Police work, or Harness driving, or other outside professions will struggle. This to my mind is half the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What that shows us is number 5 pushing in between the 8 and 3.

 

 

Incorrect.

 

http://www.racecafe.co.nz/forums/index.php?/gallery/image/81-maramarua-jack/

 

Care to try again?

 

...but you can't be 100% sure so how can you give a dog a ticket when your only going based on one bit if evidence?

 

More stills are available from within the video clip.

 

How many "bits" do you feel would be needed for 100% assurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.