tommy trumpet

[come on ref 155]

after reading the stipes report from palmy I am in shock REALLY.......

please watch the race on normal tv  and even the head on in the straight  which was on tv after the race.

it was pretty  obvious and cost the 7 dog the race.

very poor decision .

 

[mcmissile 409]

The interesting thing is the complete contradiction that the stipe makes in his report .

"The eventual winner TIMMY TRUMPET turned its head in the home straight and attempted to fight with the eventual 2nd placed runner AYRA STARK for some distance and in doing so severely unbalanced AYRA STARK"

He then goes on to state

"As it could not be conclusively established from the available viideo films that TIMMY TRUMPET had marred the other runner, the 21 day injury stand down was imposed and the dog is required to complete a satisfactory trial befor next racing".

Well it is either one or the other Whiterod, you can't have a foot in both camps, can't you make a decision like you are paid to do?

[system 33]

Was a pretty good munch what I saw and even more impressive that it has managed to not get a marring charge!

How much more evidence do you need? The head on was shown on tab tv. It was clear as a day poor little Ayra Stark was heading towards the rail!

[johnnybooy 52]

I saw the race on a  14 inch computer screen  with  it on the top corner of  the screen and I noticed this dog turn it's head in the straight and blatantly tried to mar the other runner 

 

and I cannot believe the garbage  I read in the stipes report . 

There should be a full inquiry into this and I will be sending an email to the Integrity Unit

[floydyboy 22]

It is a shame,  But Gavin Whiterod has been loosing things for a while!!   It is commonly accepted amongst a big percentage of greyhound personal and some club officials that his time has passed....Move on Gavin.. You have had your time of getting at people,  it is now time  for you to find out what it's like on the other side of the fence.. Go back to pulling tits on the farm or accept you have done your best,  or just  suffer   the consequences,  that will become you ...This advise comes free and is  void  of penalty and malice.

[JETSUN 100]

This is pure crap. This was a classic case of marring. What "evidence" do they need. This was the dogs second offence and should have been out for 3 months.I am afraid that we have reached the situation where the IRU are totally incompetent.  

[JETSUN 100]

From now on we will not have any dogs put out for marring unless they actually draw blood on the other dog. We now have so many cases were precedent has been set with evidence not being of a quality to stand up under appeal etc etc.

[Yankiwi 782]

From now on we will not have any dogs put out for marring unless they actually draw blood on the other dog. We now have so many cases were precedent has been set with evidence not being of a quality to stand up under appeal etc etc.

I agree with you Jetsun.

 

It's not the RIU job to decide if something will stand up to an appeal or not. They're the police, not the judge & jury.

 

Any future case/appeal for marring will need only a copy of this video & ask, if marring wasn't charged in this instance, why was mine?

[alltheway!!! 640]

On closer inspection, the 7 dog had white strapping on the front legs. So maybe timmy trumpet saw the strapping on the home bend and turned its head towards the strapping thinking its the bunny

[JETSUN 100]

I apologize to the Stipendiary Steward and the RIU for my previous statements re Race 12. The current rules of the NZGRA - definitions - "MARRING" means the action of a Greyhound in voluntarily turning the head so as TO MAKE HEAD OR MUZZLE CONTACT with another Greyhound. 

My disgust is that this dog was marring but the rules do not allow a charge here in NZ.

WHAT IS MARRING? Any action where one dog attempts to intimidate another into stopping to chase or compete for the lure. Any aggressive move or action against another dog is Marring. Our rules should acknowledge this and the Stipes should be competent to see and rule accordingly. If they are occasionally wrong then that's what appeals are for.

[Yankiwi 782]

I apologize to the Stipendiary Steward and the RIU for my previous statements re Race 12. The current rules of the NZGRA - definitions - "MARRING" means the action of a Greyhound in voluntarily turning the head so as TO MAKE HEAD OR MUZZLE CONTACT with another Greyhound. 

My disgust is that this dog was marring but the rules do not allow a charge here in NZ.

WHAT IS MARRING? Any action where one dog attempts to intimidate another into stopping to chase or compete for the lure. Any aggressive move or action against another dog is Marring. Our rules should acknowledge this and the Stipes should be competent to see and rule accordingly. If they are occasionally wrong then that's what appeals are for.

No need to apologize in my opinion Jetsun.

 

From the rule book:

 

“MAR” or “MARRING” means the action of a Greyhound in voluntarily turning the head so as to make head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound.

 

Regardless if the marring greyhound makes contact or not, the definition refers to the intention of the greyhound. If contact was required then the definition would read something like ~ voluntarily turning the head and making head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/so+as+to

 

"so as to" is a idiom with a synonym of "in order to".

 

51. in order to, as a means to; with the purpose of:

She worked summers in order to save money for college.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in%20order

[tonymac 8]

interesting theory however for the last 40 years its been read as turning the head and coming in contact with.be an interesting rule book if we are going to try and define what the greyhounds thinking.

[JETSUN 100]

I believe that most read the rule as a requirement of contact made to define marring. In retrospect, having re-read the stipes report, I believe that maybe we are being too harsh on Mr Whiterod as he may agree with the stupidity of our rules. A very subtly worded "attempted to fight etc." showing that his hands were tied and he had to apply the rules. 

[system 33]

At the end of the day its a great case for trainers of fighters to have! Touch the dog or not... If that didn't touch then you would have to question Ayra's chasing! I see the dog did have white tape on it....

[henery 35]

Just watched the replay after watching it on the t.v when this dog raced, just to re think and watch what it did in slow motion how on earth did this dog get away with it, it was like watching jaw's for a split second

[Ashoka 1,179]

Yankiwi...

 

Your interpretation of the wording of the Rule is absolutely correct, in my opinion.

 

However, why was this dog not charged with "failing to pursue" if a marring charge was deemed not applicable?

This dog, according to the stipendiary report, turned his head.

Dogs have been put out for far less than what is actually in the said report.

 

All the best.

Ashoka

[Yankiwi 782]

interesting theory however for the last 40 years its been read as turning the head and coming in contact with.

 

With all due respect, it's not a theory, it's reading the rule for what it actually says and not assuming the way it's been interpreted for the last 40 years (as you suggest) to be correct. I think it's fairly safe to say that the definition of "so as to" hasn't changed in the last 40 years.

 

So I ask the question (yes they're all the same question);

 

1. Did TT voluntarily turn his head "so as to" make head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound?
2. Did TT voluntarily turn his head "in order to" make head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound?
3. Did TT voluntarily turn his head "as a means to" make head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound?
4. Did TT voluntarily turn his head "with the purpose of" making head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[modest mouse 469]

Very interesting to see, as I didn't watch the race.

But, he had a sore toe. lol

[GOM 1,017]

Good post Yankiwi,  Hard to argue against that evidence, if he was unable to be put out I can not see many ever being charged under the present system.

 

    Two points though. Firstly the association is presently calling for clubs to put forward remits to rule changes at this years AGM so get in touch with your local club to put a remit foraward.

 

     Secondly this whole thing is a tragedy as TT is one of the most talented dogs I have seen. I feel for his owners who took a punt on him and his trainer for all the work she has done with him. It would be a shame if he was no longer persevered with but things are starting to mount up for him.

[hedley 1,900]

that's marring, No Doubt!

[Yankiwi 782]

Good post Yankiwi,  Hard to argue against that evidence, if he was unable to be put out I can not see many ever being charged under the present system.

 

    Two points though. Firstly the association is presently calling for clubs to put forward remits to rule changes at this years AGM so get in touch with your local club to put a remit foraward.

 

     Secondly this whole thing is a tragedy as TT is one of the most talented dogs I have seen. I feel for his owners who took a punt on him and his trainer for all the work she has done with him. It would be a shame if he was no longer persevered with but things are starting to mount up for him.

Thank you for the praise.

 

I guess my overall point is that something is definitely wrong here.

 

The first suggestions made were the steward was wrong. Not knowing how his boss explained the way the rule should be enforced, it'd be unfair to point a finger solely his way.

 

Is the RIU as a whole to blame? Not knowing if GRNZ had made their feelings clear as to the interpretation of the rule, you'd have to use a second finger.

 

Is GRNZ to blame? Not knowing where or when the rule originated, or who initially wrote/accepted the rule in the first place had in mind when it was put to ink, that'd be a busy third finger.

 

An earlier post of Jetsuns suggested what the meaning of marring is outside of our rule book. If his suggestions are correct (I haven't nor plan on investigating it myself), that would be right in line with my argument that "so as to" was chosen for use as an idiom, where any of the other 3 alternatives I've mentioned in my previous post, would have the same meaning.

 

The dogs can't police themselves. A steward can't know what a dog is thinking. But body language (of a human or a dog) can speak volumes as to where their mind is.

 

The body language of the victim in the incident, Ayra Stark, was priceless to those like myself who have been married for a few years.

 

 

I've had "the look" countless times from my wife.

 

Funnily enough, after AS gave TT "the look" he seemed to go back to task somewhat. Good going girl!

[come on ref 155]

the reason why it wasn't marring was AS head was out of syn of TT mouth. it wasn't for a lack of trying!!

so the charge should be failing to pursue surely

[punkrock 127]

The charge was failing to purse. But as the dog received a 21 day stand down due to injury, it escapes a ticket but still has to satisfactory trial before starting as per the rules. And for yankiwis benefit the 21 day stand down was given before the enquiry

[GOM 1,017]

Why does it escape a ticket?

[Yankiwi 782]

Why does it escape a ticket?

Since it was determined by the steward that TT could not be proven to have voluntarily turned his head in order to make head or muzzle contact with AS, he opted to charge TT with FTP.

 

After the race TT was vetted and the vet decided to issue a 21 day stand down because he had an injured toe.

 

79.2 Where a Greyhound fails to pursue the Lure as provided under Rule 79.1, the Greyhound shall be examined by the officiating Veterinarian or Authorised Person.

 

79.3 For the purposes of this Rule, “seriously injured” means an injury which the Veterinarian or Authorised Person concludes will result in a period of incapacitation of 21 days or more.

 

79.5 Where a Greyhound is found to be seriously injured upon an examination pursuant to Rule 79.2 or re-examination pursuant to Rule 79.4, a certificate shall be produced to the Stewards by the Veterinarian or Authorised Person detailing the injury. The Stewards shall not endorse the Greyhound’s Certificate of Registration and shall not impose a Suspension pursuant to Rule 79.1 but shall order the Greyhound to undergo a Satisfactory Trial before it is eligible to compete in any Race.

 

So the stars seemingly all aligned perfectly for TT. The stewards report confirms there wasn't enough evidence to prove that TT intent was to bite AS.

 

Beyond that, one possible reason he could have failed to pursue the lure, to the best of his ability, was because his toe had an injury, which in the vets opinion, will take 21 day to recover from.