Sign in to follow this  
Craig Symes

What is wrong with this ?

14 posts in this topic

So what is wrong with the below facts.

 

Dog is stood down for its second offence, receiving 3 months ( 91 days )

From 03-12-2015.

So on my workings it is out until 03-03-2016

Yes / No  !!!!!!!!

 

Said dog is sent to NZ and on 12-02-2016 races in and completed a satisfactory trial and is now cleared to race. 

To me this works out to be only 70 days so 21 days or 3 weeks short of serving its time.....

How the freck does this work ????  

Is there something i'm missing here  ????

And now when it races and fights again  (marring ) will it be like all the others and be slapped with another 1st offence and get 28 days again or will it get 12 months like it should ????

Having been done twice before mean the 10 clear run count doesn't come into play and injury stand downs don't count either ?????

 

Will be watching this fighter when it goes to the races .....

 

 

 

STIPENDIARY STEWARDS REPORT

 

WANGANUI GREYHOUND RACING CLUB

Hatrick Raceway ON FRIDAY 12 Feb 2016


Judicial report: CRIKEY,   TOP PROSECUTOR,    FREDDY BEDROCK    ( A Turnwald )                  ALLEGRO DASHER ( J W Bell ) all completed a satisfactory trial and are now cleared to race.

 

 

 

TOP PROSECUTOR

Interstate Racing Offences

 
Start Date
Track of Offence
Offence Type
Duration
Status
03/12/2015 Albion Park Marring 2nd offence 91 days Awaiting Trial
22/10/2015 Albion Park Marring 1st offence 28 days

Expired

 

http://www.racingqueensland.com.au/Greyhound/Racing-Calendar/Race-Meeting/Brisbane/20151203/Stewards-Report

BRISBANE GREYHOUND RACING CLUB INC.
STEWARDS REPORT
THURSDAY 3rd DECEMBER 2015

Race 4 – 5th Grade 520m

Even start.  RHYTHMIC CRUISER was tightened for racing room shortly after the start checked and lost ground.  Approaching the turn out of the back straight FLASH HOUDINI was tightened for racing room, checked and lost ground.  In the front straight TOP PROSECUTOR turned its head and made muzzle contact with ABBY’S MAGIC.TOP PROSECUTOR was vetted and no apparent injuries were found.  Stewards advised trainer Mr. N Vohland that the greyhound would be charged under Rule 69 Marring, 2nd offence, 3 months plus a satisfactory stewards’ trial 520m all tracks.

 

http://www.racingqueensland.com.au/Greyhound/Racing-Calendar/Race-Meeting/Brisbane/20151022/Stewards-Report

 

BRISBANE GREYHOUND RACING CLUB INC.
STEWARDS REPORT
THURSDAY 22nd OCTOBER 2015

 

 

Race 6 - Molly Campbell Heat 2 520m

Even start.  Approaching the turn out of the front straight RHYTHMIC EARNER was checked and lost ground.  Rounding the turn out of the back straight SPRITELY CHARM and FEISTY FIE was checked for racing room and lost ground.  ALPHA THESEUS raced wide in the back straight. Approaching the turn out of the back straight IMA COWBOY was tightened for racing room and lost ground. 

 In the run to the finish TOP PROSECUTOR turned its head made muzzle contact and marred the running of TASER SHOCK on 2 occasions.

 

Stewards advised trainer Mr. N Catchpole that the greyhound TOP PROSECUTOR would be charged under Rule 69 Marring, 1st offence, 28 days plus a satisfactory stewards’ trial 520m all tracks.

 

FREDDY BEDROCKInterstate Racing Offences

Interstate Racing Offences

Start Date
Track of Offence
Offence Type
Duration
Status
17/12/2015 Dapto Marring 1st offence 28 days Awaiting Trial
15/09/2015 Gosford Unsatisfactory performance 73 days Awaiting Trial

 

CRIKEY

Interstate Racing Offences

 
Start Date
Track of Offence
Offence Type
Duration
Status
23/12/2015 Richmond Marring 1st offence 28 days Awaiting Trial

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The storyline had already started a couple of weeks ago Craig.

See my first post (#3) to the following thread.

http://www.racecafe.co.nz/forums/index.php?/topic/47945-wanganui-today/#comment-411158

By the way, the first satisfactory trial referred to in that post has since been quashed as a greyhound is not entitled to race without a registered owner per GRNZ rules, leading up to the trial you're now making reference to.

 

This is exactly the sort of thing that can happen when "participants" are in control of Greyhound racing. The rules are all there for everyone & they're not a secret. The policing force seem to enforce them in some instances & not in others.

The system is broken & boarders on being in disrepute, but it somehow seems to keep plodding along (mostly because of brooms & carpets & blindfolds IMHO). Unfortunately for the new CEO, he has a huge task in front of him in cleaning up the mess. He comes to us with good credentials & hopefully he's able to get things on the improve before he too loses faith & throws the towel in.

I'd suggest to him his first & foremost chore would be to instill integrity into the sport. If you read something in a Stewards report, you shouldn't have to doubt it. As of now you're required to head off and do a bit of research on your own to either approve or disprove what you've read. That's exactly what you & I have done, over a two week time span, for just one dog and we both were easily able to disprove the official decision rendered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hound Fan said:

Guys under our rules you can have a satisfactory trial at any stage during your stand down,but can not race until your time is up.

I agree Hound Fan.

However, what measures are in place to stop an dog from being nominated after a satisfactory trial has been completed but prior to a stand down period being completely served?

The judicial report portion of the Stewards report says "all completed a satisfactory trial and are now cleared to race", yet at least one of them shouldn't be "cleared" to race, as it still has time to serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have added once the appropriate suspensions have been completed to the end of the sentence but I'm not the RIU Charles.

As you have told me before you have all the numbers you need so give them a call.

Cheers, Davey Boy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand who you are DaveyBoy and I did not suggest you, the association or the board had made any error in the matter whatsoever.

However, you could try looking at it from the outside. Obviously something was/is out of line.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles to be honest I have far better things to worry about when I know that there are processes in place to ensure that this dog wont start before it is meant to start.

I have explained this to you and Craig as simply as I can. If you still consider this to be a problem I suggest you contact the RIU and talk to them as you may be able to implement a process improvement as you look to have more time available than I do.

Cheers, Davey Boy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DaveyBoy said:

Charles to be honest I have far better things to worry about when I know that there are processes in place to ensure that this dog wont start before it is meant to start.

I didn't ask you to do anything.

I placed a question on an internet forum and you choose to reply to it.

By all means, feel free to go worry about the "far better things" that are on you mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

I didn't ask you to do anything.

I placed a question on an internet forum and you choose to reply to it.

By all means, feel free to go worry about the "far better things" that are on you mind.

We could start a whole different thread on what these "far better things" are... I'll start with a couple tho

 

1) Animal Welfare ( well nothing's changed recently and we still have major issues )

2) Local Turnover ( ditto above )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more than a question Charles as there were several inference's in your original post.

I have offered you the answer and also how you could implement the process improvement.

The rest is up to you Charles.

Gonsta I can assure you 1 is paramount and foremost in our minds but Rome was not built overnight and re 2 I do the odd thing in regards to that.

That's all from me on this thread as I think I have more than answered your question Charles and Gonsta if you want to call me to discuss feel free to contact me at anytime.

I have extended this offer to Charles but he has told me he has all the numbers he needs.

Cheers, Davey Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2016 at 10:44 PM, Craig Symes said:

 

Having been done twice before mean the 10 clear run count doesn't come into play and injury stand downs don't count either ???

 

 

 

 

Common belief, as I understand it, is that under GRNZ rules a dog is allowed to clear its" record" on only one occasion after ten clear runs.

Upon closely reading the rule once again I believe you may be correct.

79.7 Where the Certificate of Registration of a Greyhound contains an endorsement under Rule 79.6 for Marring or failing to pursue the Lure and that Greyhound competes in ten (10) Races, without again having its Certificate of Registration endorsed for another offence under Rule 79.1, the Board may, upon application by the Owner or Trainer of the Greyhound, cancel the endorsement. Only one (1) application may be made pursuant to this Rule in respect of a Greyhound.

Therefore, if a Greyhound is charged with a "first offence" & serves out its 28 day stand down. It then returns to the track and incurs a "second offence" doesn't it then create a second endorsement to its COR?

If a Greyhounds COR contains "two" endorsements, rule 79.7 allows only for "an" (singular meaning one) endorsement to be cancelled. If the rule was meant to clear more than one endorsement it could be argued that the wording would have been "any endorsements" instead of "an endorsement".

Another key point to the rule the way I read it is "the Board may", so cancellation is not automatic by any means. The board (not the RIU Steward on the day of application) is meant to decide if the cancellation is to be executed or not. If the board has delegated that decision making process to the RIU, then the board should be sure that the Steward on the day of the application being filed has any & all relevant information for an informed decision to be made, not simply counting 10 races which no further penalties have been incurred, which I suspect is the common practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this