GONSTA

Hmmm Manukau

31 posts in this topic

Some serious questions need to be asked by those working at the track today as to how this could happen, I guess someone might get a $200 fine and the punter gets burnt once again. How embarrassing.

"Judicial report: An Inquiry has been opened and adjourned in to the circumstances of DON DRAPER & LUCKY MAN being not identified properly at kennelling and pre race checks . This was not picked up until pre race checks for race 8 where LUCKY MAN was presented to race instead of DON DRAPER . DON DRAPER started in race 5 in error and was disqualified from 5th placing, with the placing 's altered accordingly. DON DRAPER was a late scratching in race 8 by the Stewards. LUCKY MAN was to be a starter in race 5."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some serious questions need to be asked by those working at the track today as to how this could happen, I guess someone might get a $200 fine and the punter gets burnt once again. How embarrassing.

"Judicial report: An Inquiry has been opened and adjourned in to the circumstances of DON DRAPER & LUCKY MAN being not identified properly at kennelling and pre race checks . This was not picked up until pre race checks for race 8 where LUCKY MAN was presented to race instead of DON DRAPER . DON DRAPER started in race 5 in error and was disqualified from 5th placing, with the placing 's altered accordingly. DON DRAPER was a late scratching in race 8 by the Stewards. LUCKY MAN was to be a starter in race 5."

 

I only lost $50 on race 5 for the C2 greyhounds.

 

I wonder how much the dynamics of the race changed having a C3 graded dog illegally entered into the C2 event.

 

Disqualification of it may help to make the result a bit fairer in terms of purse payouts, formline and so on.

 

Is this simply a "chance" I take placing a bet?

 

Is there any form of recourse for the punters who had a losing wager on the race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite the bombshell, incredible to think this could happen, this is a kennel I follow alot but perhaps I was lucky (no pun intended) that I didn't bet in that race. One mistake from the connections but the flow on of mistakes from kennel staff etc is incredible. The dogs must be very similar in appearance and mannerisms for the trainer/handler not to notice! Especially from a kennel that I know take very good care (attention to detail) of their dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said this before, if you refund all the punters, than the tab will also have to recieve all the winnings back of punters two, which would anger them

Not really, they can't exactly track down any bet placed in a pub/agency and it would be unfair to single out those betting on their accounts. I'm sure if you backed Lucky Man ( Don Draper ) you have some serious rights to your money back. If anyone did I recommend contacting Michael Dore tomorrow. I only backed Praire Kachina to win and was pretty lucky as the aus dog was an absolute certainty licked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few weeks ago a Craig Roberts dog was a late scratching at Invercargill when the wrong dog was taken to,the track, not sure what the outcome of that was.

And now we see this debacle, do trainers and/or handlers not even know what their own dogs look like, would make you think twice about placing a dog with them.

But the kennel staff should be ashamed, do they just pretend to check the ears now, with microchip ping I can't understand how it could even happen?

An embarAssment all around really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistakes happen.

 

To ensure they're caught ear tattoos are proof of identification.

 

With technology advancements microchips now provide further proof.

 

Isn't a dogs identity checked prior to kenneling and then checked a second time during preparation for the race?

 

Is it a case of hearing the beep of the machine indicating it found a chip being good enough proof, like the checkouts in the grocery store (how many people look to see if the item scanned correctly)?

 

I guess in stewards defence, they have tried correcting a wrong in the best way they possibly could and not just let it be swept under the carpet. This suggests signs of integrity!

 

But then you have to ask, how many times has a similar thing happened when a trainer turned up to the races with only one dog?

 

Professionalism? Huh, what's that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange it happened in some ways but not surprising in other ways. From what I encounter on a weekly basis it appears to me that the race day staff (stipes, kennel stewards etc) have a very keen eye for the smaller trainers and let the "big boys" go about there business in whatever manner they may choose. Staff assume that because a trainer (none in particular, just a reference) has been around 100yrs that they will not make error's like this but the reality of it is in fact that the "big boys" have way more chance of getting their dogs mixed up than a trainer who only has half a dozen. The shoe police (stipes) need to start to treat EVERY trainer the same way, they can't expect to get one ounce of credibility when they are enforcing rules on the small trainers but letting it slide with the big boy's. The shoe police got my handler yesterday because her shoes were an ever so slightly off black colour that was near impossible to notice yet two dog's got through kenelling incorrectly and one even managed to run in the wrong race.......laughable really!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has happened before, not that long ago (maybe 6 years) with the same kennel.  Two dogs from the same litter went through kennelling and one raced while the identity of the other was found "in time".  I believe the kennel staff may have been fined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Punters backed a dog and it is not the dog that was presented to race then it is only logical  they should get there money back.

 

I would be writing a letter to the TAB informing them to return your money or you will go to the commerce commission

 

they cant show what dog you are betting on , give the form for that dog, then replace that dog, it is not the punters problem if the Kennel people have not checked and done there job

 

It is like betting on the All Blacks to win against Russia then they change the Team from All Blacks to Ethiopia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Punters backed a dog and it is not the dog that was presented to race then it is only logical  they should get there money back. I would be writing a letter to the TAB informing them to return your money or you will go to the commerce commission they cant show what dog you are betting on , give the form for that dog, then replace that dog, it is not the punters problem if the Kennel people have not checked and done there job It is like betting on the All Blacks to win against Russia then they change the Team from All Blacks to Ethiopia

Who's responsible for declaring the result of a race, the TAB or the Racing Board?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shady, Couldn't believe it but a trainer S. Goomans at Wanganui the other day walked a dog out to race with one shoe on and the other foot a black sock only!!. The crew at the TAB were in stitches.. Can you imagine the stink after standing on a dog turd or two. Did the stipes pick it up? What happened to  the shoe I wonder. If a medical problem perhaps some one else should handle her dogs..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shady, Couldn't believe it but a trainer S. Goomans at Wanganui the other day walked a dog out to race with one shoe on and the other foot a black sock only...

 I may have located the missing shoe.  B)

 

black-high-heels-shoes-ogmp7huc.jpg

 

The shoe police got my handler yesterday because her shoes were an ever so slightly off black colour that was near impossible to notice....

 

I'm not one of the shoe police, but if I were as others have suggested I should be, a pair of these would draw my full attention to them.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some serious questions need to be asked by those working at the track today as to how this could happen, I guess someone might get a $200 fine and the punter gets burnt once again. How embarrassing.

"Judicial report: An Inquiry has been opened and adjourned in to the circumstances of DON DRAPER & LUCKY MAN being not identified properly at kennelling and pre race checks . This was not picked up until pre race checks for race 8 where LUCKY MAN was presented to race instead of DON DRAPER . DON DRAPER started in race 5 in error and was disqualified from 5th placing, with the placing 's altered accordingly. DON DRAPER was a late scratching in race 8 by the Stewards. LUCKY MAN was to be a starter in race 5."

 

The finding is out for this case.

 

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-b-craik-decision-dated-5-may-2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. Astounding that the dog got through both number checks, presumably by 2 different people and on to the track...

Someone might need to remind them of what their jobs are. Microchip batteries flat by race 5? Sheesh the whole thing screams of incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a joke, so all the blame goes on the handler of the dog and the people who are PAID to check the dogs before they are kennelled and taken out on the track get away completely without blame, no wonder the industry is a joke, totally unprofessional by the kennel staff and The people who came to the ridiculous decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can save money by not needing identification stewards then. If it's the complete responsibility of the handler to present the right dog then we don't need them?

Sounds to me that the handler copped it all.

 

Why wasn't this caught during kenneling? This to me is the final point where the handler is responsible. If it was cleared by the kennel staff, that's where the responsibility changes, in my opinion.

 

Just another instance where the person being paid to do the job properly failed & nothing was done to them about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So kennel staff and stewards have absolutely no accountability then when they make a stuff-up like they did in this instance, I'd love a job like that.

Yes, the handler/ trainer should of presented the right dog, but the whole reason we have people checking the ears, markings etc....is to make sure if mistakes happen they are picked up isn't it, otherwise like Glen said, why do we need them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the case published is against a trainer, maybe further charges will be filed against the staff?

 

However, probably not, they didn't bother charging the Palmerston North racing secretary in another incident for well documented obvious blatant breaches of the rules.

 

Once again, in my opinion, the RIU has taken the easy way out. They can now pat themselves on the back for enforcing "some" of the integrity, while at the same time, turn a blind eye to breaches by the raceday staff.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yankiwi...

 

The enforcement of part of the Rules and not others is not "some" integrity...it is indicative of the complete lack of integrity.

The RIU is a fraudulent organisation, in my opinion, and the lack of accountability makes the higher authorities responsible for the performance of the RIU, complicit in the fraud.

 

All the best.

Ashoka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another instance of producing the wrong greyhound happened last September.

 

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-ac-roberts-penalty-decision-and-reasons-of-judicial-committee-dated-22-september-2014

 

In that case, the incorrect dog was brought to the track but found during kenneling and not raced.

 

In the end the trainer was fined $350 for his breach of the rules.

 

I don't see how this case should be treated any differently in terms of penalty to the trainer. Once the kennel staff accepted the incorrect dog then all liability from that point on should rest with them, should it not?

 

The only rule broken by the trainer was presenting the wrong dog. There is no rule I'm aware of which suggests it's against the rules for a trainer to race the incorrect dog. The kennel staff accepted it to be the correct dog so they're the ones that should cop at least as much of a fine, if not more, in my opinion.

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

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