Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted March 9, 2015 above all produced by companies solely for the Consumption of a racing greyhound. So wouldn't you expect them to be clear of any prohibited substances as they would have knowledge of such .? I agree with you mmmyb. Hasn't a trainer done the correct thing feeding their dogs kibble made to feed to racing greyhounds? They've been using it for the last couple of years without any problems. How were they to know that the same kibble purchased just before Christmas sometime all of a sudden wasn't suitable? They didn't change their supplier. The labeling of the product didn't change. Those same trainers could have gone to the Warehouse and bought kibble for half the price of what the proper feed had cost them. But no, they bought the more expensive product manufactured for the exact purpose for which it was used & now they're going the be penalized it. dustydreamnz 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollyb 22 Report post Posted March 9, 2015 I would have thought you should be able to rely on the pre-made feeds to be contamination free. You don't expect to find anything in the feed that could return a positive. Surely could be likened to someone purchasing a particular (human) food that is nut free to give to someone that has a nut allergy and then one day they have a reaction (after eating the product for a number of years) and it is found that there is some contamination, the person wouldn't be expected to test/check the product every time they eat it. I also find it interesting that in racing someone is guilty until proven innocent. alltheway!!!, dustydreamnz, modest mouse and 5 others 8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest mouse 469 Report post Posted March 9, 2015 Makes one very weary as to what products are deemed to be safe. alltheway!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Shady 479 Report post Posted March 9, 2015 This whole saga should not of even made print if the RIU did what they should of done when they first took jurisdiction and set a threshold for each "drug" that could possibly be detected in testing therefore allowing them to make the decision (before going public!) as to whether it was possibly administered on purpose or whether it was contamination.....end of story! I can't see the point in making a big deal out of a detection that's level wasn't enough to make an ounce of difference to a dog's performance whether it be for the better or worse. It's high time the NZGRA sack the RIU from overseeing our race meetings and employ qualified, competent staff to do the job. The only thing a horse and a dog have in common is they both have 4 legs and I think that's about all the RIU know about dogs. JETSUN, Yankiwi, aquaman and 1 other 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Shady 479 Report post Posted March 9, 2015 Oh and further to this, well done Peter Early for giving the RIU boss a right royal pasting over this matter last night on dog zone, Peter had him against the fence bigtime! Yankiwi 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnybooy 52 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 <p>Why the thoroughbred trainers seem to have found a way to get their horses clean to the races??? maybe there should be some controls on what you guys can and can't feed, only reputable feed suppliers can supply.. otherwise it is a joke, anyone can get a positive and blame the feed..and the precedent is already there.</p> Agree, and once the NZGRA start testing kibble for trainers who say it is contaminated then they are opening a huge can of worms, because they will set a precedent, and every trainer can blame a supplement or anything and the nzgra will need to test themselves Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 Oh and further to this, well done Peter Early for giving the RIU boss a right royal pasting over this matter last night on dog zone, Peter had him against the fence bigtime! I can't say that my confidence level in the RIU has raised one bit after last night interview. Some people know how to see through smoke & mirrors! Against the fence? There are a couple of greyhounds that could have done an equally good job of putting someone against the fence & as history tells us, the RIU doesn't seem to have a problem with that action if only dogs are running on the track. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 <p>Why the thoroughbred trainers seem to have found a way to get their horses clean to the races??? maybe there should be some controls on what you guys can and can't feed, only reputable feed suppliers can supply.. otherwise it is a joke, anyone can get a positive and blame the feed..and the precedent is already there.</p> Lol because thoroughbred racing is 100% clean and none of them use performance enhancing drugs, right? Lmao. Feed contamination is nothing new in thoroughbred racing scooby, it happened last year in Hong Kong where a LARGE number of horses tested positive, and I'm sure you know Hong Kong racing is without a doubt the cleanest racing in the world. I feel sorry for Arch Lawrence in this case, it seems rather embarrassing that the RIU released his hearing before they had even tested the kibble? Talk about 'investigating' skills. I also think we are so far behind in NZ when it comes to drug testing it's not funny, these positives are from soooo long ago and with results taking so long to come thru and with the RIU's new rules where they don't announce a positive result until after the JCA hearing, that means there was a large amount of dogs running ( that wern't swabbed ) that would have tested positive as well. That's not fair for punters is it? Another thing I find laughable is the stipes doing only 6-7 swabs a meeting, with a couple of random ones and a few winners, we all know they don't swab based on performances / form turnarounds or times so I have little faith in them catching out the true cheats. Just like in ALL sports there is always a way around the drug testing and micro dosing is probably the most recognised practise from the doctors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmyb 277 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 Just to clarify. This is my account. Dad only posted once using this account as he doesn't have a racecafe username and wanted to say one thing. Regards Corey Steele Gary Sharp 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 Just to clarify. This is my account. Dad only posted once using this account as he doesn't have a racecafe username and wanted to say one thing. Regards Corey Steele Let him know his post is the most 'liked' post ever on racecafe! Not a bad effort. Yankiwi, dustydreamnz and JETSUN 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 scooby3051... It wasn't that long ago that the Queen's horse returned a positive test in circumstances that bear a good deal of similarity to the current situation in greyhound racing here. Fair's fair, mate. All the best. Ashoka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Shady 479 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 Lol because thoroughbred racing is 100% clean and none of them use performance enhancing drugs, right? Lmao.Feed contamination is nothing new in thoroughbred racing scooby, it happened last year in Hong Kong where a LARGE number of horses tested positive, and I'm sure you know Hong Kong racing is without a doubt the cleanest racing in the world.I feel sorry for Arch Lawrence in this case, it seems rather embarrassing that the RIU released his hearing before they had even tested the kibble? Talk about 'investigating' skills.I also think we are so far behind in NZ when it comes to drug testing it's not funny, these positives are from soooo long ago and with results taking so long to come thru and with the RIU's new rules where they don't announce a positive result until after the JCA hearing, that means there was a large amount of dogs running ( that wern't swabbed ) that would have tested positive as well. That's not fair for punters is it?Another thing I find laughable is the stipes doing only 6-7 swabs a meeting, with a couple of random ones and a few winners, we all know they don't swab based on performances / form turnarounds or times so I have little faith in them catching out the true cheats. Just like in ALL sports there is always a way around the drug testing and micro dosing is probably the most recognised practise from the doctors. Your last paragraph is the one I want to comment on, I believe that any red hot favourite that gets beaten should be tested, acceptions could be made where the dog met trouble and had an excuse but certainly not when the same trainers outsider wins the race. Problem with this is the stipes probably have no idea what constitutes an impeded run so that makes it hard. Its common knowledge the riu have to decide what dogs to swab based on there directive from the tab to justify a dogs finishing position in a race based upon form and how much liability the tab has running on that dog, so long or short of it is that if the tab aren't liable to payout a large dividend then its unlikely you will get swabbed unless it's what they say is a random and even then I think its because some punter has had a relatively decent go at it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 ...so long or short of it is that if the tab aren't liable to payout a large dividend then its unlikely you will get swabbed unless it's what they say is a random and even then I think its because some punter has had a relatively decent go at it. Slim, my TAB account is credited for a winning punt minutes after the race has completed, not weeks later after swab results might have returned. Swab results have no bearing on a punter after a race has been run. Those results generally only affect the trainer and owner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Shady 479 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 Slim, my TAB account is credited for a winning punt minutes after the race has completed, not weeks later after swab results might have returned. Swab results have no bearing on a punter after a race has been run. Those results generally only affect the trainer and owner. Oh well why bother even having swabs then aye? I doubt you'd be saying that when you found out weeks later your 50buck first four with a red hot fav anchored didnt come in because a dog full of goodies paying 20bucks somehow pipped it on the post to win but later tested positive to a performance enhancer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Symes 124 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 No offence but who on earth would use drugs on their dog to run bad !!! just give it a feed before kenneling and bloat its stomach , No drugs and no positive swab. A number of years ago if your dog was swabbed and earned prize money, the money was with hold until the swab was cleared . alltheway!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydreamnz 493 Report post Posted March 10, 2015 No offence but who on earth would use drugs on their dog to run bad !!! just give it a feed before kenneling and bloat its stomach , No drugs and no positive swab. A number of years ago if your dog was swabbed and earned prize money, the money was with hold until the swab was cleared. So they could punt on other dogs I'm picking? Similar to match fixing. alltheway!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmyb 277 Report post Posted March 11, 2015 It wasn't the riu that asked for he kibble to be tested. Dad requested it as it was the only common factor between the 3 kennels. aquaman, Jabba2, JETSUN and 3 others 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter R S 413 Report post Posted March 11, 2015 That would be because the RIU never expected a Premium product specifically made for greyhound racers would have a problem! No doubt they tested items from the kennels which were other than commercial products, and found nothing. How then do they expect the trainer to present a drug (trace) free dog at the races when there are so many variables? Surely the answer is in recognition of the amount of the impurity/contamination - none of these positives to morphine would have made any difference to the performance on the day. The over-zealous testing rules seem to leave no room for authorities to appropriately deal with this issue - RIU need to man up and admit that thresholds need to be introduced or innocent people will be caught and punished unjustly. Then all the issues around charging, fines, loss of stakes,compulsory scratching, etc can be resolved sensibly. aquaman, kuriracer, JETSUN and 2 others 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted March 24, 2015 The investigation into the kibble has been completed. http://www.riu.org.nz/announcements/mediarelease-greyhoundmorphineinvestigation It appears the RIU has been very sensible in their decision. It sounds like they want the purse money returned while at the same time suggest no other liability against the trainers. I feel it's the best possible outcome to an unfortunate situation in which no one (other than possibly the kibble manufacture) had done anything wrong. Commonsense prevails. iteruka, Ashoka, mmmyb and 1 other 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoKnows 791 Report post Posted March 24, 2015 Yes and all those rival trainers who were baying for blood and coming up with all sort of conspiracy theories have been made to look pretty pathetic now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted March 24, 2015 I would like to have answers to the following questions: who pushed to have the kibble tested? who got the kibble tested? why did the RIU press ahead with the charge against Arch Lawrence before all relevant evidence had been fully and properly examined? Thank you. All the best. Ashoka Jabba2 and aquaman 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 The Rotovegas procaine decision is out. http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-sj-payne It seems a rather harsh punishment to me, if you compare it to what direction they're suggesting the kibble contamination hearing will be going. If you unknowingly feed your dog contaminated kibble, return stake & no fine. If you unknowingly feed your dog contaminated beef, return stake & hefty fine. If feel sorry for all you guys in the Rotovegas team. Maybe you'd like to consider appealing until after knowing how the upcoming kibble hearings turn out? kuriracer and timber dog 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuriracer 6 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 Thanks for posting that yankiwi saves me from doing It.Very interested in getting everybody's views on this. Scott payne Rotovegas racing. Jabba2 and feral 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timber dog 2 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 Does seem odd that a category 1 prohibited substance charge gets a lesser penalty than a category 5 prohibited substance (before it was known about the contamination of kibble) kuriracer 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest mouse 469 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 They should be treated the same way. I find it unbelievable that Scott was find. He put his trust in Alan Cleaver, a greyhound trainer himself, to supply him with the quality meat he required. Very harsh indeed. Jabba2, timber dog, jasonmccook1 and 2 others 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceCafe News