Slim Shady 479 Report post Posted April 12, 2015 Hey slim,can you name 3 fighters that we have been palmed of with that have caused the risk verse investment factor you are talking about.....hey just name two . Hypotential to name one and thats without much thought. alltheway!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkrock 127 Report post Posted April 12, 2015 How many tickets did hypotential get in nz slim? 0. Keep trying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Shady 479 Report post Posted April 12, 2015 How many tickets did hypotential get in nz slim? 0. Keep trying If we had stipes that would stick up for themselves then it would of definitely got one in its first start at cambridge when it nearly took a dogs ear clean off!! That was a crack up that day, gota give it to you but steve you sure know how to deal to them stipes. alltheway!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alltheway!!! 640 Report post Posted April 12, 2015 Your arguing with the kings of non chasers slim Slim Shady 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jibberer 139 Report post Posted April 12, 2015 Hi Slim - I was at the track that day and it was myself who went and saw Mike Austin - there was no head on available and you could not tell if the dogs muzzle made contact so the dog was let off Would be the same result for any dog in the same situation We never sold Hypotential and ask Glenn to train it for us with the noisy lure in the CD (away from the silent lures in the North) - he raced with great success in the CD until injury forced his retirement Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman 1,352 Report post Posted April 13, 2015 Hi Slim - I was at the track that day and it was myself who went and saw Mike Austin - there was no head on available and you could not tell if the dogs muzzle made contact so the dog was let off Would be the same result for any dog in the same situation We never sold Hypotential and ask Glenn to train it for us with the noisy lure in the CD (away from the silent lures in the North) - he raced with great success in the CD until injury forced his retirement Question, where is the dog now?. Is he enjoying a nice retirement. alltheway!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Fan 577 Report post Posted April 14, 2015 Yes he is he is back in Australia with his owner Lee Rowe. Yankiwi, Slim Shady, mmmyb and 2 others 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkrock 127 Report post Posted April 14, 2015 Thanks for the concern aquaman but yes hypotential is enjoying a retirement back in Australia. In fact contrary to popular rumour spread by a certain member of our board all the retired dogs i had when i gave up training found a place to live out a retirement. None were put down. Hypotential stayed with me for 9 months until his injuries were fully healed and it could be organised for him to be sent home Slim Shady, jasonmccook1, it's a ballroom and 5 others 8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary1 361 Report post Posted April 14, 2015 yep did that still no reply still no reply sent several emails no answer yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted April 14, 2015 Can someone with knowledge of how FTP stand-downs work with imports have a look at this one. "Rebel Away" had a FTP charge at Wentworth on 5/12/14. It then failed a clearance trial at Wentworth on 22/12/14. It attempted a second clearance trial at Richmond, which failed, on 21/01/15 and incurred a three month suspension because of it. "Rebel Away was trialling to clear a failed to pursue endorsement incurred from Wentworth Park 5/12/14. The greyhound had previously failed a clearance trial at Wentworth Park on 22/12/14 when it eased in running, and it again performed similarly today when easing in the run to the first turn and tailing out throughout the trial. Stewards issued Rebel Away with a second Failed To Pursue endorsement, As a consequence the greyhound is suspended at all tracks for a 3 month period." http://www.thedogs.com.au/uploads/pdfs/227258.pdf After that point it transferred to NZ and ran a qualifying trial an Wanganui on 11/03/15. It then was entered in two tote races, one on 20/03/15 finishing in third place & the second on 08/04/15 finishing forth. https://www.thedogs.co.nz/greyhounds/profiles.aspx?AnimalID=27929 My question, why is a dog that received a second FTP charge on 21/01/15 and stood down for 3 months allowed to race prior to 21/04/15? Well there you have it. We have reached 15/4/15 and tomorrow see's the rightful possibility of Rebel Away returning to the track and competing, as its been 3 months since he received his second FTP endorsement. However, in the mean time he's been quite busy. He's had to travel from Australia to New Zealand. He's had to settle in to his new accommodations in Foxton. He's had to run a qualifying trial at Wanganui. He's then had to run in three tote races, winning one & placing third in another. By doing so he's been able to chalk up $1530 in purse money, illegally I might add, therefore taking the opportunity away from two other legally entered/nominated dogs to earn the same amount of stake payouts. Hopefully those two dogs that were unable to receive stake money in his two placed races were able to be fed & cared for properly with the $30 petrol vouchers they would have received for their law abiding efforts, if they managed to make the field. If they got bumped out by the selection criteria, then they might want to consider pushing their own luck, as it seems to work for others. modest mouse and system 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest mouse 469 Report post Posted April 14, 2015 We need you as our PR man, Yankiwi. Also not afraid to tell it like it is. iteruka 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted April 14, 2015 Putting your personal issues aside with the kennel Yankiwi, don't you think you would do the same thing if you were in that situation? The trainer is doing the right thing by the dogs owner and trying to win races, as all owners want to do. If the dog shouldn't be running then that's obviously a fault of NZGRA and their amateur systems for letting that happen. I think HoundFan must be on the money with his answer, but it does set a precedence for the future. mmmyb 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted April 14, 2015 ReillyM... If the reason for Rebel Away being able to start is as put by Hound Fan, then post 65 by Craig Symes in this thread becomes relevant. We can't have it both ways if there is to be any, and I mean any, integrity in our industry. At the moment, it is clear that there is no integrity inherent in the management of our greyhound industry, and that is the real reason for the Rebel Away situation. Cheers. Ashoka alltheway!!! and Jabba2 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary1 361 Report post Posted April 14, 2015 ReillyM... If the reason for Rebel Away being able to start is as put by Hound Fan, then post 65 by Craig Symes in this thread becomes relevant. We can't have it both ways if there is to be any, and I mean any, integrity in our industry. At the moment, it is clear that there is no integrity inherent in the management of our greyhound industry, and that is the real reason for the Rebel Away situation. Cheers. Ashoka heres your answer from nzgra Hi Gary The policy for Imported dogs states that we require “a steward’s report pertaining to the last raceday start overseas, thus removing the possibility that there isn’t any relevant racing endorsement (eg standown).†We had that copy stating the dog needed a satisfactory trial, which he did and was cleared. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted April 15, 2015 Putting your personal issues aside with the kennel Yankiwi, don't you think you would do the same thing if you were in that situation? The trainer is doing the right thing by the dogs owner and trying to win races, as all owners want to do. If the dog shouldn't be running then that's obviously a fault of NZGRA and their amateur systems for letting that happen. I think HoundFan must be on the money with his answer, but it does set a precedence for the future. Reilly, I do not have a personal issue with the kennel. I have not stated in any manner that I believe anything dodgy has come into play from the kennel. If it was brought in by another trainer, I'd have the same issue. Obviously GRNZ has allowed the dog to start and it's my belief that it shouldn't have been allowed to. I guess we now know that a dog with a ticket doesn't necessarily mean it has a ticket. I were the owner & the dog was allowed a start, then by all mean I'd say let him have at it. Houndfan could very well be correct & the second ticket which it received is not recognized. If that is the case then defiantly a precedence has been set. The only way they'll now change it would be by an addition to the rule book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted April 15, 2015 heres your answer from nzgra Hi Gary The policy for Imported dogs states that we require “a steward’s report pertaining to the last raceday start overseas, thus removing the possibility that there isn’t any relevant racing endorsement (eg standown).†We had that copy stating the dog needed a satisfactory trial, which he did and was cleared. It appears to me that 21/01/15 was indeed a raceday. The stewards report from the day claims there were 5 trials & 10 tote races the way I read it. http://www.thedogs.com.au/uploads/pdfs/227258.pdf "Rebel Away was trialling to clear a failed to pursue endorsement incurred from Wentworth Park 5/12/14. The greyhound had previously failed a clearance trial at Wentworth Park on 22/12/14 when it eased in running, and it again performed similarly today when easing in the run to the first turn and tailing out throughout the trial. Stewards issued Rebel Away with a second Failed To Pursue endorsement, As a consequence the greyhound is suspended at all tracks for a 3 month period." "ENDORSMENTS:- Clearance Trial. Rebel Away. Failed to pursue. 2nd offence" Obviously this wasn't the steward's report submitted to fulfil the imported dog policy. It is clearly noted in two places that "Rebel Away" received it's second endorsement. Nowhere does it say it needs a satisfactory trial, which GRNZ claims the copy supplied to them requires. aquaman 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceCafe News