WhoKnows 791 Report post Posted October 6, 2015 I see on the Kiwidogz site Yankiwi has posted footage of the camera they attach to the lure at Manawatu coming off during a race. Is there actually any valid reason for the camera being there in the first place, apart from getting a couple of fancy shots of the dogs going into the bunny, oh sorry 'lure'. This could of caused carnage if it had hit a dog, or even a dog running over it after coming loose, I hope they look at whether the welfare of the dogs is worth risking just for a couple of a couple of camera shots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted October 6, 2015 The camera never came off the bunny? It was a dogs muzzle, Yankiwi just made note of the stipe report saying they had no film of the incident, even with the addition of this new camera. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 6, 2015 I see on the Kiwidogz site Yankiwi has posted footage of the camera they attach to the lure at Manawatu coming off during a race. Is there actually any valid reason for the camera being there in the first place, apart from getting a couple of fancy shots of the dogs going into the bunny, oh sorry 'lure'. This could of caused carnage if it had hit a dog, or even a dog running over it after coming loose, I hope they look at whether the welfare of the dogs is worth risking just for a couple of a couple of camera shots. The camera stayed intact WhoKnows. As Reilly had pointed out, it was a two winged dog muzzle finding its own running line around the corner. I believe there is an excellent reason for having a camera attached there. It would surely remove most/all blind spots or poor angles that currently seem to create "doubt" in many Stewards Reports. GONSTA, come on ref and WhoKnows 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoKnows 791 Report post Posted October 6, 2015 I misread the post then, thank goodness. Lets hope it doesn't ever come adrift then, and yes if they actually use the footage it could be beneficial to giving the benefit of the doubt to numerous cheating dogs that seem to consistently get away with it when the meeting is run by a certain C.D stipe. Is the use of the camera purely for this or are there other reasons as well, could be quite an interesting tool Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 6, 2015 Lets hope it doesn't ever come adrift then, and yes if they actually use the footage it could be beneficial to giving the benefit of the doubt to numerous cheating dogs that seem to consistently get away with it when the meeting is run by a certain C.D stipe. Dogzone claims that a certain C.D. steward (Mr. Whiterod) will be interviewed on the show next week & Peter has asked for questions from the viewers to be emailed in to him. As I recall his email address is peter.earley@nzracingboard.co.nz If that's incorrect please feel free to correct me. I'll be having a think about some questions to submit, but I'm pretty sure they'd never even ask the first few that have come to mind. iteruka and mcmissile 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadzeya Ostapchuk 40 Report post Posted October 6, 2015 Try pearley@radioworks.co.nz or pearley@slingshot.co.nz Yankiwi 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoKnows 791 Report post Posted October 7, 2015 One thing I did notice today was in Race 10 at Wanganui some imbecile left a rake leaning against the front of the boxes which went flying in the air when the lids opened and appeared to hit the dog in box box 8, this after numerous track inspections to start the day, what a club......... GONSTA and gary1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 7, 2015 One thing I did notice today was in Race 10 at Wanganui some imbecile left a rake leaning against the front of the boxes which went flying in the air when the lids opened and appeared to hit the dog in box box 8, this after numerous track inspections to start the day, what a club......... Huh??? Flying rakes in Wanganui & flying two wing muzzles in Palmy... and only two days apart... Maybe for next week, both tracks will replace the fluff on the lure arm with a pitchfork for uniformity. I think it might be time for me to read the braille version of the unofficial CD rule book of racing, so I can better understand it. mcmissile 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 8, 2015 Contact to my eye. Race #10 Ashoka 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted October 8, 2015 Lmao. Gavin Whiterod and Mike Austin you guys are an absolute disgrace!! How on earth you can have 2 stipes at a meeting and they ended up coming up with that conclusion. Accountable to no one and some of the disgraceful no races that should be declared in NZ that aren't picked up is embarrassing and as a punter rather uninspiring to say the least. Ashoka 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 8, 2015 "Newton's First Law of Motion states that in order for the motion of an object to change, a force must act upon it, a concept generally called inertia." Notice how the height of the level line compares to the blackish object on the side of the starting box in these 3 consecutive frames (cropped from the 4th, 5th & 6th images above). So to me, either contact was made with the dog or the rake & dog were of the same magnetic polarity. To bad Newton isn't still around so we could ask him for his professional opinion. mcmissile 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdown 299 Report post Posted October 9, 2015 Several things here..I believe the incident report states inconclusive evidence? And I believe it is inconclusive. The rake lands on its point then jumps up, if it did make any contact with the dog it was very minimal judging by the dogs reaction, or lack there of. Calls for a No race are absurd, at best late scratch the 8? Also look who trains the dog, with all due respect R.Maisey would be easily stood over whereas other trainers may have kicked up a stink..but what does Rachel get if its scratched? No petrol voucher so she cant win regardless. Some of you guys are always so quick to call stipendiary stewards f***wits as if you'd always make the correct decision..? They will never please everyone with some of the decisions they have to make. What do you do if your the stipe GONSTA?? No Race?? Well they'd be on racecafe calling you a ****wit as well! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary1 361 Report post Posted October 9, 2015 even if there is a slight chance the rake had hit the dog the dog should have been late scratched its called looking ater the punter dont leave any room for them to complain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 9, 2015 The rake lands on its point then jumps up, if it did make any contact with the dog it was very minimal judging by the dogs reaction, or lack there of. Yes the rake does make contact with the ground with one of the THREE major points around its center of gravity. The handle end of the rake clearly does not make contact with anything, so what force does drive the handle end of the rake so rapidly back towards the starting boxes (reverse of direction) while at the same time the point nearest the dog suddenly increases elevation (reverse of direction) as well? It's obvious, the rake made clear contact with the dog. That contact with the rake tip pushed that tip upwards slightly & towards the winning post which caused the handle to thrust rapidly back toward the boxes. Notice that the handle was moving away from the boxes until the contact with the ground & dog was made. Conclusive evidence of contact with the dog with only the most basic understanding of physics. Fair start? No. gary1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 9, 2015 I do not believe there is any debate to be had about a Steward & who they should be looking after. Yes the decision that had to be made was going to affect both the punter & the trainer/owner, but that's their job to do. It's not the Stewards job to look after anyone involved. It's their job to ensure the rules of greyhound racing are adhered to and enforce the rules when they are not. If a decision was made to "look after" either end of the spectrum, then that in itself would be a huge injustice. Let's have a look at the rule book & assess the decision made impartially, the same job the Steward is required to do. "76. NO RACE - FALSE START76.1 Should there be an occurrence of any human intervention, mechanical or other defect which has the effect of preventing a Race from being completed or there are other circumstances arising which warrant such action being taken, the Stewards may declare the Race to be a False Start or a No Race." Was a rake being left resting on the boxes, which flung violently as they opened and struck the #8 as it left the boxes a "mechanical or other defect which has the effect of preventing a Race from being completed or there are other circumstances arising which warrant such action being taken"? "76.3 Where the Stewards declare, or are considering whether to declare, a Race to be a False Start or No Race, they shall cause a warning signal to be given and an announcement to be made over the public broadcast system." I wasn't at the track while this race was being held nor was I watching the live broadcast, therefore I have no idea if an announcement was made or not in this instance. If history can be used as the benchmark, I've never heard a warning signal or announcement made if a steward was "considering" to declare a race a false or no start at any greyhound meeting. With that, it's highly unlikely. If no signal or announcement was made & the thought of even considering the race a false start was considered, then the Steward would be in breach of GRNZ rules. Was a warning signal given & an announcement made? "76.9 If, in the opinion of the Stewards, a Greyhound which does not finish in the first three placings was prevented from taking an effective part in a Race owing to the mechanical failure of starting boxes, or is denied a fair start and such occurrence materially prejudiced the chances of that Greyhound (but not where the Greyhound is slow away by its own accord), the Stewards may declare such a dog to be a non-starter." Since the #8 dog shows a 7th place finish for the race, the Steward was of the opinion that it was indeed offered a "fair start". That's their decision to make. However it's not an opinion we must agree with. Was the #8 dog in the race undoubtedly offered the same fair start the other seven runners were? gary1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 11, 2015 Yet another angle. https://www.thedogs.co.nz/catch-the-action/11869/stewards-report.aspx "The film did not conclusively show that the rake had made contact with the dog jumping from box 8 and the dog was unaffected." If it was of the stewards opinion that "The film did not conclusively show that the rake had made contact with the dog jumping from box 8" how could it conclusively show that "the dog was unaffected"? For the dog to be "unaffected", as the steward claimed, it conclusively could not have been struck, right? Beyond that the rake could not have been heard, it could not have been seen, or it could not have been smelt right? Surely any of those would have an "affect". The final three points are all very big conclusions from video evidence so vague that it couldn't be determined if it was struck or not. How could anyone conclude the dog didn't see it? To me, it was an extremely poor decision which lacked integrity. gary1 and Ashoka 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ate 20 Report post Posted October 11, 2015 wankiwi. Did the dog run like it got hit by a rake? I didnt think the dog acted as a rake hit it!!! How would you act if rake hit you? Shit forgot . The shooting off of your mouth makes me think you have been hit with more than a rake or is it stuck up your assssssssssss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 11, 2015 wankiwi. Did the dog run like it got hit by a rake? I didnt think the dog acted as a rake hit it!!! How would you act if rake hit you? Shit forgot . The shooting off of your mouth makes me think you have been hit with more than a rake or is it stuck up your assssssssssss Just the sort of well informed, impartial, evidence based, professional response I'd expect coming from the two time (why was it twice in less than a year again?) PNGRC president. It might be prudent if you spent your time looking after the racing club that you're meant to be leading, instead of attempting to attack & bully me in this public forum. How did that work out for you last time you tried it? Might I suggest a bit of white paint to improve the overall appearance of the track your club races on? And if the Wanganui club is nice enough to let you use their rake for an hour or so, a bit of weeding around the edge would make your track look much more professional. It even appears as though a patch of those weeds may have impeded the progress of one of your dogs in this race. aquaman, iteruka, Black Dog and 3 others 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdown 299 Report post Posted October 12, 2015 You've got waaay too much spare time on your hands Yankiwi. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Sharp 224 Report post Posted October 12, 2015 How did this turn from a thread about a Camera on the Lure to being a thread about other things that have nothing to do with what the thread is about?. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka 1,179 Report post Posted October 12, 2015 Gary Sharp... Nothing compels you to participate. Your language is unacceptable, in my opinion, and you should take your own advice and shut yourself down. Regards. Ashoka WhoKnows, GONSTA, aquaman and 3 others 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog 72 Report post Posted October 12, 2015 I think regardless off what the thread is all about 'the sprucing up' of the 375m sign that is in tatters should be repaired by this coming Fridays special race meeting... It's in full view of the television and is a disgrace... Yankiwi, come on ref, gary1 and 2 others 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoKnows 791 Report post Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Being the President of the club and being a public trainer does have its advantages though, I see a C2-4 invitation race on Friday has C4 dogs on the ballot while a 'dodgy' C2 dog has a start, let's hope it doesn't cause too much trouble for the genuine chasers in the field. Why should the C4 dogs miss out on a start when the C2 dog could have gained a start in the C1-2 race? Edited October 12, 2015 by WhoKnows sent before i had finished gary1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA 1,148 Report post Posted October 16, 2015 Just watched my first race of the day, ( palmy r5 ) and I gotta say that was some pretty cool coverage when they showed the lure camera after they crossed the line. Great stuff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi 782 Report post Posted October 19, 2015 The camera is back on the lure arm once again & another UFO has been spotted during race #6. The stewards report might be interesting to read, but there didn't seem to be a delay in giving the "all clear". come on ref 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...