RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
WhoKnows

Camera lure at Manawatu

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :rolleyes:

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmao. Gavin Whiterod and Mike Austin you guys are an absolute disgrace!!  :wacko::unsure::ph34r: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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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).

large.medium.image007.jpg.jpg.0221297ff6

large.medium.image009.jpg.jpg.da339fd7d3

large.medium.image011.jpg.jpg.cc0e2b15f0

So to me, either contact was made with the dog or the rake & dog were of the same magnetic polarity. :rolleyes:

To bad Newton isn't still around so we could ask him for his professional opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

large.medium.image009.jpg.jpg.da339fd7d3

 

No.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 START
76.1 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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

large.image001.jpg.3255feba80e6abfcc49e4

Might I suggest a bit of white paint to improve the overall appearance of the track your club races on?

large.image002.jpg.327d29e5e5cd43f12065d

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.

large.image003.jpg.4235200054545df466bba

It even appears as though a patch of those weeds may have impeded the progress of one of your dogs in this race.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by WhoKnows
sent before i had finished

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

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.