Sign in to follow this  
Yankiwi

Satisfactory Trials

45 posts in this topic

I've heard several times statements such as "We don't charge dogs for FTP offences in trials here like they do Australia" and so on.

Why not?

21.2 General Powers: The Board shall have the following general powers and duties:

 x. Disqualify either permanently or temporarily any Greyhound which, in the opinion of the Board, has been used for, or in connection with an Offence, or which has been entered or Nominated to run, or allowed to run in a Race or Satisfactory Trial under a fraudulent description, or failed to pursue the Lure during the Race or Satisfactory Trial provided that this power may not be exercised to change the placings. An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review, by a Judicial Committee, of any decision made under this Rule in accordance with Rule 91.20.

This rule clearly states it is within the board's power & it is their duty to disqualify a greyhound which fails to pursue the lure in a satisfactory trail.

If that responsibility has been delegated to the RIU to enforce, it then becomes their power & duty.

 

 

Recently a dog was entered into a Satisfactory trial without a registered owner listed.

 21.2 General Powers: The Board shall have the following general powers and duties:

 x. Disqualify either permanently or temporarily any Greyhound which, in the opinion of the Board, has been used for, or in connection with an Offence, or which has been entered or Nominated to run, or allowed to run in a Race or Satisfactory Trial under a fraudulent description, or failed to pursue the Lure during the Race or Satisfactory Trial provided that this power may not be exercised to change the placings. An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review, by a Judicial Committee, of any decision made under this Rule in accordance with Rule 91.20.

This rule clearly states it is within the board's power & it is their duty to disqualify a greyhound which was entered for or ran in a satisfactory trail under a fraudulent description.

If that responsibility has been delegated to the RIU to enforce, it then becomes their power & duty.

The satisfactory trial ended up being quashed because of the issue, but why was a disqualification overlooked?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Yani. The NZGRA conveniently overlook rules that do not suit them. The rule you refer to appears to be another example.

About 10 yrs ago i waged a war against the NZGRA on on this forum over their complicity in ignoring the Drug rules in regards to Steroids. Why, they even went as far as telling LP's that they must now take their dogs to the Vet to get their dose of Steroids, and not administer themselves. Perfectly exceptable to race them with Steroids in them because they were bitches. This was in direct conflict with their own rules. Steroids had been banned in their own rule book since the early 90's, but because it suited them, they just ignored it until through shaming them on here publicly they couldn't ingnor it any longer. The NZGRA are a bunch of tossers that lack integrity, whilst forcing it on all others. I have no respect for them whatsoever.  They are a monstrosity more intent on penalzing LP's over their insane dress code, rather than important issues such as Drugs, Safe tracks, Punter confidence, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Good points Yani. The NZGRA conveniently overlook rules that do not suit them. The rule you refer to appears to be another example.

About 10 yrs ago i waged a war against the NZGRA on on this forum over their complicity in ignoring the Drug rules in regards to Steroids. Why, they even went as far as telling LP's that they must now take their dogs to the Vet to get their dose of Steroids, and not administer themselves. Perfectly exceptable to race them with Steroids in them because they were bitches. This was in direct conflict with their own rules. Steroids had been banned in their own rule book since the early 90's, but because it suited them, they just ignored it until through shaming them on here publicly they couldn't ingnor it any longer. The NZGRA are a bunch of tossers that lack integrity, whilst forcing it on all others. I have no respect for them whatsoever.  They are a monstrosity more intent on penalzing LP's over their insane dress code, rather than important issues such as Drugs, Safe tracks, Punter confidence, etc.

Great post, and so so true... Any comments @DaveyBoy ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of re qualifying races for fighters, what a joke. A Stipe looking at a re qualy, yes a Stipe, you heard me, a blind cannot read a race Stipe. Hey you cannot say that. Yes i can, because if they were that smart, then why do they have to ask every second trainer, err whats the explanation for the improved performance. Dah arr maybe the downgrade, err maybe the inside draw, dahh err changed breakfast, #ucken tossers, how the hell are these people suppossed to tell when a fighter has gone straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My one and only post re this.

How can a dog not have an owner if it is already owned?

If the change of ownership hadn't occurred and no paperwork was completed then surely the dog would still be owned by its Australian owner?

P.S. Gonsta as previously mentioned (not even 24 hours ago) if you want to talk about something then pick up the phone and ring me. I can't be any clearer than that. I am not a big fan of people that hide behind aliases and keyboards.

Cheers, Davey Boy (aka David Scott if that wasn't immediately apparent)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the dog had an owner. It wasn't feral as it would have been required to have a collar, lead, muzzle, as well receiving a ride to the track for that matter.

The question is in the detail. A dog was entered & raced in a Satisfactory Trial with no owner being recorded with GRNZ.

 

99. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS
99.1 Every:
a. Owner, Owner/Trainer, Trainer or Handler of a Greyhound to be used for Racing; 

 

How could compliance be verified with an "unknown" owner?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it got a registered owner now?

I don't know the dog in question, but what what i do know is;

sometimes when paperwork is being processed, the website is the last place to know most of the information.

Especially change of ownership, and naming of greyhounds.

 

Its like saying, how can I qualify my dog without the papers of registration being presented, whilst they're in the post, yet on the website the naming is through...

 

I think in this case, its just a bit of slow updating and processing . (only because thats what it sounds like)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once dogs are officially registered the NZGRA publishes the details on their website.

In the past I have noticed that one or two trainers have dogs on there with no owner named.

Now the Register for dogs who are approved has been removed from the website in recent times.

Wonder why ?

Ray Adcock

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed that many dogs do not have an owner listed for them but remain to have a trainer listed. I nearly all of those case the dog has obviously been retried. I do not know if that will help in your query Ray, but I thought I'd offer it as some form of possible explanation.

I've got a lot of time for you & for want you have done in & for this industry.

On a lighter note & If it were possible, I'd be asking for your permission to make a handful of clones of you.

This industry is going to need more people like you in moving forward. Without them, the rule breaking, loophole finding, dodge between the letter of the law by the skin of their teeth type crowd will continue to serve their own personal short term interests, while the framework of the entire sport keeps crumbling around everyone involved in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a dog put out for marring 2 weeks ago. I appealed but did no win.  

What do you guys think of this statement by the steward

 

"Mr Renault also believed the committee may be interested in the actions of Adjudicator immediately after crossing the winning post"

feeling robbed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, freightman said:

I had a dog put out for marring 2 weeks ago. I appealed but did no win.  

What do you guys think of this statement by the steward

 

"Mr Renault also believed the committee may be interested in the actions of Adjudicator immediately after crossing the winning post"

feeling robbed

I would have showed them replays of Red Moova Hoova / Enazuma etc etc doing this REPEATEDLY without anything happening, it's a free for all after the line as far as I'm aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, freightman said:

"Mr Renault also believed the committee may be interested in the actions of Adjudicator immediately after crossing the winning post"

The decision also says that after the winning post had no relevance to the case doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in that case, when a case is taken to the JCA, after the line should not even be shown, as it irrelevant to the charge???

I know the answer to that, does the RIU?

 

Despicable, in my opinion that we are going to continue being battlers, when the rules are not upheld or even known by the governing force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it been the same two who had decided that Eckles was not guilty of FTP in a Galaxy heat because of shadows, tents, or maybe a photographer near the winning post in the initial hearing?

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/nzgra-request-for-review-j-dunn-v-riu-decision-dated-5-november-2015

The JCA are not very good at what they do, in my opinion. Their one & only job to do is to follow the letter of the law and at least in that case it was plain & simple. If Eckles sustained a serious injury then it could be excused from the charge, as per the rules. I suggest, the only other defence they should have even considered would be if the Steward unrightfully charged the offence.

If shadows, tents, photographers or for that matter, a clown with squeaky toys handing out balloons to children near the winning post were meant to be "reasonable excuses" for FTP, then they would be written into the rule book.

I've been critical about many decision the RIU has made, but to my eyes, the RIU has a superior ability to read a race if that ability is compared to the JCA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, freightman said:

I had a dog put out for marring 2 weeks ago. I appealed but did no win.  

What do you guys think of this statement by the steward

 

"Mr Renault also believed the committee may be interested in the actions of Adjudicator immediately after crossing the winning post"

feeling robbed

Feeling Robbed !!!!!!

Your lucky i'm not on the JCA .

I would have done you for wasting the JCA's time, as at no time was that dog chasing the lure the entire  way up the front straight. the after the line footage just puts the nail in its coffin.

Race 2 :  1:13 minutes into it.

https://www.thedogs.co.nz/catch-the-action/12015/result-detail.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dog was charged for marring, in no way, shape or form did the dog turn its head before the line, making clear and conclusive contact with the other dog.

 

AFTER THE FINISH POST DOES NOT COME INTO THIS EQUATION - as it has been said before, also being well documented in the rule book.

 

In my opinion, i also don't see the dog failing to pursue. Is running wide a racing offence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mmmyb said:

The dog was charged for marring, in no way, shape or form did the dog turn its head before the line, making clear and conclusive contact with the other dog.

 

AFTER THE FINISH POST DOES NOT COME INTO THIS EQUATION - as it has been said before, also being well documented in the rule book.

 

In my opinion, i also don't see the dog failing to pursue. Is running wide a racing offence?

would you like me to buy you some glasses 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mmmyb said:

The dog was charged for marring, in no way, shape or form did the dog turn its head before the line, making clear and conclusive contact with the other dog.

 

AFTER THE FINISH POST DOES NOT COME INTO THIS EQUATION - as it has been said before, also being well documented in the rule book.

 

In my opinion, i also don't see the dog failing to pursue. Is running wide a racing offence?

Totally agree, just watched the replay a couple of times and I didn't see any marring until after the finishing post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "look"

large.image001.jpg.bd1889d40ca438b10eb47

 

Followed by what is highly likely the "contact" (no head on video available for mortals in the replays).

 

large.image003.jpg.60d9999b337c5ac41507e

 

Notice the two trails of footprints behind them on the track & how they abruptly came together, then stayed together for at least 5 strides. Not evidence of a trailing dog simply wanting the outside of the track.

Fancy screen capture software was not utilized. Just carefully clicking the start & pause buttons on the webpage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GONSTA said:

Totally agree, just watched the replay a couple of times and I didn't see any marring until after the finishing post. 

have you got shoe polish on your glasses as well.

It ran out about 2 meters or so by the boxes to made contact with the outter dog , tail went up in the air . outside dog skipped a stride as a result of the contact .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mmmyb said:

The dog was charged for marring, in no way, shape or form did the dog turn its head before the line, making clear and conclusive contact with the other dog.

 

AFTER THE FINISH POST DOES NOT COME INTO THIS EQUATION - as it has been said before, also being well documented in the rule book.

 

In my opinion, i also don't see the dog failing to pursue. Is running wide a racing offence?

Watched it a few times , and no turning until after the line .

 

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