Greyhound Racing Rule 80

[mmmyb 277]

Head on Yankiwi.

That's what you need to put a dog out for marring.

Its been to the JCA so are u saying that they are wrong with the evidence from both parties?

Stipes showed their evidence and could not conclusively show maramarua jack marring another runner.

[Yankiwi 782]

Head on Yankiwi.

That's what you need to put a dog out for marring.

Its been to the JCA so are u saying that they are wrong with the evidence from both parties?

Stipes showed their evidence and could not conclusively show maramarua jack marring another runner.

I've made no reference of what my opinion might be on an unpublished JCA hearing/finding in which I wasn't present, or even aware was being held for that matter.

 

What I have done is post what I believe could be used as evidence in such a hearing.

 

Only a head on view for marring conviction? 

 

If that were true it would make every corner run in the sport a penalty free zone?

 

I find it very hard to believe that a conviction can only be determined if a marring is done in a straight section of track with a camera recording a head on view. Where is this in print in an official document?

[mmmyb 277]

Didn't make sense sorry. When on the straights head on footage is what you need.

Will be published in jca website soon enough I think.

It is not up to you to post what you class as evidence. That is up to the trainer and stipendiary steward.

For what is worth, some of the angles and positioning of cameras make it deceiving when analyzing a race.

But as I've said before you need to be 100% sure a dog has turned before putting it out as it can potentially cost a dog its career if it has had a ticket before.

Would a stipe jeopardize a jockeys career with inconclusive footage when trying to put them out?

[Yankiwi 782]

Didn't make sense sorry. When on the straights head on footage is what you need.

Will be published in jca website soon enough I think.

It is not up to you to post what you class as evidence. That is up to the trainer and stipendiary steward.

For what is worth, some of the angles and positioning of cameras make it deceiving when analyzing a race.

But as I've said before you need to be 100% sure a dog has turned before putting it out as it can potentially cost a dog its career if it has had a ticket before.

Would a stipe jeopardize a jockeys career with inconclusive footage when trying to put them out?

 

"Didn't make sense sorry. When on the straights head on footage is what you need."

 

On the Cambridge track, in both 375m & 457m races, there is no head on footage taken of the run down the homestretch. Three cameras are normally on site. Two of them are positioned in the "tower" and one at the end of the backstretch. Does this make this a penalty free zone? 

 

"It is not up to you to post what you class as evidence. That is up to the trainer and stipendiary steward."

 

It's not up to me to post anything, I've chosen to do so. The hearing is/was not being held in this forum. I'm entitled my opinion which is exactly what I have expressed.

 

"But as I've said before you need to be 100% sure a dog has turned before putting it out as it can potentially cost a dog its career if it has had a ticket before"

 

I am 100% sure, in my opinion, Maramarua Jack failed to pursue the lure for the entire duration of the race. I am 99% sure he turned his head on more than one occasion during the race and firmly believe if I were able to view the head on footage taken, which is unavailable to me, I could then up my percentage the the 100% threshold you've suggested is needed.

 

"Would a stipe jeopardize a jockeys career with inconclusive footage when trying to put them out?"

 

Different sport with a set of its own unique rules. Not that it matters in this debate, but a jockey has the mind of a human and probably understands consequences. The same can't be said for a dog.

 

Time to put you on the spot.

 

Is it of your opinion that Maramarua Jack pursued the lure for the entire race in question?

 

Not being an essay question, a simple yes or no will fulfil my query just fine.

[mmmyb 277]

Yes, what appeared to be the turning was indeed proven wrong after the head on was shown. Wait for jca report to come out. Will make for an interesting read

[Yankiwi 782]

Yes, what appeared to be the turning was indeed proven wrong after the head on was shown. Wait for jca report to come out. Will make for an interesting read

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion as well, although I very strongly disagree with it.

 

One last chance, just to be sure that you've understood my question precisely.

 

Is it of your opinion that Maramarua Jack pursued the lure for the entire race in question?

 

There is no mention of "turning" in my question however it is in your reply.

[mmmyb 277]

Yes I do believe he pursued the whole way. Not going to get into too much detail, but as said before, look at JCA report when avaliable

[Yankiwi 782]

 look at JCA report when avaliable

This report is out.

 

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/appeal-sp-clark-v-riu-decision-dated-16-september-2014

 

My quick interpretation is that it contains nothing that says Maramarua Jack innocent of rule 80. It says that the charge has not been proven.

 

That's a very big difference and has done nothing to change my personal opinion of his actions in the race.

 

Another past concern ~

 

There is another very interesting read about Rockwood Archie, which I had posted my opinion about earlier in the thread, in another official decision.

 

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/appeal-a-mccook-v-riu-written-decision-dated-17-september-2014

 

I suspect another Racecafe member, which didn't like the way I expressed my opinion on another of the dogs he trains, wont want to go there on this one with me either because he doesn't know who I am.

 

Regardless, it appears as though my concerns, the Stipendiary Stewards and the JCA's finding are all in very close alignment.

[Yankiwi 782]

Yes, what appeared to be the turning was indeed proven wrong after the head on was shown. Wait for jca report to come out. Will make for an interesting read

I've now read through the entire report for a second time and I am unable to find where anything at all has been "proven wrong".

 

I have found findings such as this. "The film evidence in this regard was inconclusive and as far as the Tribunal is concerned, the Stipendiary Stewards at Manukau are badly let down by the lack of a head-on film."

 

Proof & Inconclusive and different words with very different meanings.

 

I suggest you have another read of the report and while doing so, read what is actually there, not what you may want or think should be there.

[mmmyb 277]

I'm sorry the full transcript isn't available, but I know what went on in that hearing, and they were indeed proven wrong. My recollection compared to written on paper may not be spot on but hey, I'm not perfect .

 

I will accept your suggestion, and give you one myself.

 

With your vast knowledge in detail when quoting someone, and ability to refer to the rule book on a quick witted basis, I suggest becoming a Stipe, because at the moment I don't think we have too many that actually understand the sport, understand the rules, and read a race.

 

I do believe you are wrong on this occasion (And that's me not backing down ), but I'm sure we will have another feud with the next questionable incident  

 

I'm siging off this Maramarua Jack case, as I could carry on forever, as I know you can aswell Yankiwi.

[Yankiwi 782]

I'm sorry the full transcript isn't available, but I know what went on in that hearing, and they were indeed proven wrong. My recollection compared to written on paper may not be spot on but hey, I'm not perfect .

 

I will accept your suggestion, and give you one myself.

 

With your vast knowledge in detail when quoting someone, and ability to refer to the rule book on a quick witted basis, I suggest becoming a Stipe, because at the moment I don't think we have too many that actually understand the sport, understand the rules, and read a race.

 

I do believe you are wrong on this occasion (And that's me not backing down ), but I'm sure we will have another feud with the next questionable incident

 

I'm siging off this Maramarua Jack case, as I could carry on forever, as I know you can aswell Yankiwi.

Fair enough my mate.

 

I don't view this as a feud, but as a healthy debate in which ultimately we'll have to agree to having differing opinions. That does happen sometimes!

 

Maramarua Jack discussion closed.

 

About your suggestion, by taking on a role as being a stipe, it would put an end to the ability I now have for making my living currently. I feel greyhound ownership & punting is much less stressful than throwing myself in to an official role within the industry. Now on a day which I feel I might need a bit of an "attitude adjustment", I can turn the computer off, ignore a text/call from my trainer and go run around in my back section naked if that's what I chose to do. It'd be impossible to have those sorts of freedoms while filling your suggested role, when the next race is a mere 18 minutes away.

 

I'm never going to get rich owning & punting and I'd never get rich working as a stipe. In my life's dream, I don't need to be rich.

[mmmyb 277]

Never cease to amaze me Yankiwi. Haha.

[hedley 1,900]

..Jeepers Creepers  [thuh Process]

 

 

...a) The Process –

 

[49] The Tribunal is concerned about a series of errors in the process which lead to the decision to impose a 28 day stand down on “Maramarua Jack” because of failure to pursue the lure.

 

[50] The first error is that there was no transcript from the hearing on the 28th August 2014. We understand that is normal process to have a hearing recorded and a transcript available where necessary. Ms Kinsey, who was in charge of the meeting and apologised for the fact that a transcript was not available, was assisted by Mr van Kan. If Mr Clark was interviewed at the meeting as a preliminary to a charge against “Maramarua Jack”, then there should have been a transcript.

 

[51] There is some doubt as to what was said between Ms Kinsey and Mr Clark in relation to the race night hearing. Ms Kinsey said that she told Mr Clark that there were two choices – either to charge the dog or to leave it. Mr Clark said that she told him that she would leave it, which he understood to mean that she would not proceed any further. It is unfortunate that this conversation was held in the bar.We however, prefer Ms Kinsey’s recollection of this conversation.

 

[52] We are told that this was a re-convened hearing and, indeed the Stipendiary Steward’s report from both meetings on the 28th August 2014 and 31st August 2014 refer to this. Despite this being a re-convened hearing, Ms Kinsey has sought and obtained the authority of the General Manager of the RIU to proceed with the charge against “Maramarua Jack”. The Tribunal wonders at the need for this authority when the hearing is to be a re-convened hearing on raceday.

 

[53] We understand from Mr Austin that, although he said it was a re-convened hearing, that it was actually a separate hearing after Mr Godber’s authority had been given.

 

[54] Mr Austin on the 31st of August 2014, has interviewed Mr Clark and a transcript of that interview was provided to us. It has been presented to us as part of the evidence but we want to make it clear that it is a transcript of an interview and not a transcript of a hearing.

 

[55] Mr Austin subsequently completed an Information and gave it to his assistant, Mr van Kan to be served. It was not served and Mr Austin subsequently made the decision to stand down “Maramarua Jack” for 28 days, and it to be subject to the completion of a satisfactory trial.

 

[56] The Judicial Report from the 31st August 2014 states “The enquiry adjourned on the 28-8-2014 into Race 12 regarding the performance of “Maramarua Jack” was reconvened. “Maramarua Jack” (S Clark) was charged with a breach of r 80.1 (non-pursuit) first offence and stood down for 28 days until the completion of a satisfactory trial.

 

[57] This was a clear breach of natural justice in that the Information was not served on Mr Clark and the decision to impose penalty on “Maramarua Jack” was made in his absence. He did not have the opportunity to respond to the proposed charge against his dog prior to the penalty being imposed. It is not sufficient to say that the proposed charge was referred to in the interview with Mr Clark. It is noted that the information was emailed to him two days after the meeting. The Tribunal views this action with some concern and it is a clear reason to uphold the Appeal.

 

[58] The absence of a front-on film in the home-straight is also a major problem. As stated above, the Stewards are poorly served in this regard and Mr Clark, in this instance, is also poorly served. The evidence is inconclusive

 

 

(..lucky the JCA checks and balances the very unathletic..RIU)

[alltheway!!! 640]

What do you expect? This industy promotes non-chasers and than someone wants to complain when one turns its head

[Yankiwi 782]

Are there any guesses why I chose to post these pictures?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They're all from the same race and after a certain clarification had been issued by the RIU.

[Yankiwi 782]

Different track. Different dog. Same kennel. Same muzzle?

 

 

 

 

[mmmyb 277]

What are you trying to show?

[mmmyb 277]

Have you got a personal issue here? I feel you need to find something better to do, and if you do have a personal issue. You have my number. Call anytime

[Yankiwi 782]

Have you got a personal issue here? I feel you need to find something better to do, and if you do have a personal issue. You have my number. Call anytime

No, I have no personal issue here. If I had I would have named the dog, trainer, or both. That is not the case.

 

What I am highlighting is an issue which I feel has been addressed very recently in a "clarification", yet those words from the powers to be seem empty thus far.

 

I have three concerns from what I'm seeing in the photos that I've posted.

 

1) A clarification had been made as to the use of blinkers. These photos I believe show non-compliance to that decision, yet I've seen nothing to suggest anything has been done in these sorts of cases.

 

2) A smaller concern, but one worth questioning none the less. With what is meant to be an eye covering in nearly a horizontal position could possibly be creating lift, as an aircraft wing does. Who is to say that no lift is being created which would give the dog an unfair advantage in a race? Has this even been tested? At 60 to 70 kph a light aircraft is "very light on it's feet" travelling down the runway.

 

3) On at least one occasion, one of the dogs I personally own has been in a race against one of the dogs I've highlighted in the photos. Therefore I have a personal vested interest in his safety as well as a general concern for any other dogs that were, or will be in competition against ANY dog wearing a blinker in such a configuration. What sort of protection is there for another dogs right eye when racing on the inside of a dog wearing a device configured such as this. Is every other dog meant to wear a see through blinker over it's right eye solely for its own protection?

 

 

Edit: I you do feel I am out of line, highlighting public information of what I believe are some serious issues within our industry, in this public forum, then by all means just let me know.

 

I could stop in an instant and just as easily send my concerns, in an email to the RIU, welfare officer or those who could fully investigate and enforce change. Experience tell me it's much better for everyone involved that I don't use that path. We, as far as I know, are all grown ups here and sometimes a bit of constructive criticism can get rolling some very positive change. From my previous couple of posts, I feel some change is needed for the reasons I've posted above.

[aquaman 1,352]

I to have a problem with dogs racing with these micky mouse contraptions flapping in all directions. They are downright dangerous to the welfare of genuine dogs that have to race against these non chasing, head turning fighters. They have no business being in races. They serve no purpose other than to rip off punters, and ruin genuine dogs. Get rid of them i say, they are a menace, not only in the race, but also at the catch. Most of these cheats are only interested in one thing at the catch, and that is savaging dogs balls from behind when they get to the lure.

As for the Stipes, they approve these configurations. I question their ability to make an informed decision. Most off them have little experiance in Greyhounds.

[dustydreamnz 493]

Agree with Yankiwi and John.  Constructive criticism is good and until the stipes' standards improve, you're bound to hear more.  

[Yankiwi 782]

How about this thought for a proposed change.

 

We could stage races for only those dogs/bitches wearing blinker/blinkers. Then even if not needed for any purpose other than meeting the requirements of the race, owners and trainers could choose to apply them to their animal to compete. That way people who have made a large investment in a dog, be it time, money or both, would actually have a choice.

 

Heck, if we wanted to, we could even remove the requirement for muzzles in such proposed races, but I believe dog fighting is against the law in our country, so that would probably rule this second option out.

 

Then on the other hand we could have races for only dogs/bitches not wearing blinkers with the current rules in place.

 

I wonder what the comparative handle would be if we did split the races up into these two categories?

[it's a ballroom 174]

I wonder what you would do if you had a dog with ability but it didn't quite concentrate without the blinkers ? I suppose you would not run it ( even tho it had ability) ??

[Yankiwi 782]

I've had another yet another thought on this subject from an owners standpoint alone.

 

I happen to own a young maiden sprinter, kennel name "Misty".

 

Misty gets nominated for races and she is sometimes excepted for a field. Once the field is set (I have no choice on what other dogs get nominated or selected, other than they will be maidens as well), what are my options if she is excepted into a field with seven other dogs all to be wearing blinker/s?

 

Do I let her have the run, fully well knowing she has a very good chance of having the rest of her racing career effected from what she might learn from doing so? Do I risk her being marred by another dog known not to chase and having other priorities while on the track?

 

Do I withdraw her and except a 28 day stand down to try to preserve her racing career and health potentially because the rules would see this as having no acceptable reason?

 

I'd much rather see her racing against a well intended chaser like Bright Star, with no reasonable chance at all of winning. Bright Star's obviously not a maiden but there are plenty of other young ones out there who do chase and have the sole purpose of being the first one to the lure at the catching area. A race against seven "true type" dogs could possibly teach her some positive lessons which she could use to her advantage during her next race.

 

There are plenty of "bad luck" things which can happen during a race against dogs with a good intention. Why am I left in a position, because of the rules, where potentially I could have to run my dog in a race where bad luck would be the absolute least of my worries?

 

 

[it's a ballroom 174]

I've had another yet another thought on this subject from an owners standpoint alone.

I happen to own a young maiden sprinter, kennel name "Misty".

Misty gets nominated for races and she is sometimes excepted for a field. Once the field is set (I have no choice on what other dogs get nominated or selected, other than they will be maidens as well), what are my options if she is excepted into a field with seven other dogs all to be wearing blinker/s?

Do I let her have the run, fully well knowing she has a very good chance of having the rest of her racing career effected from what she might learn from doing so? Do I risk her being marred by another dog known not to chase and having other priorities while on the track?

Do I withdraw her and except a 28 day stand down to try to preserve her racing career and health potentially because the rules would see this as having no acceptable reason?

I'd much rather see her racing against a well intended chaser like Bright Star, with no reasonable chance at all of winning. Bright Star's obviously not a maiden but there are plenty of other young ones out there who do chase and have the sole purpose of being the first one to the lure at the catching area. A race against seven "true type" dogs could possibly teach her some positive lessons which she could use to her advantage during her next race.

There are plenty of "bad luck" things which can happen during a race against dogs with a good intention. Why am I left in a position, because of the rules, where potentially I could have to run my dog in a race where bad luck would be the absolute least of my worries?

So you would not race against dream collector either ?? You have championed this dog ( super super dog IMO too) in another thread yet it has had more than one ticket . In this thread you would have it banned !!!! The world isn't perfect mate , get over yourself . Tony