aquaman 1,352 Report post Posted March 14, 2016 Hey Steve, what was the outcome when you withdrew your dogs, wasn't there a hearing over the 28 day standdown. I thought you appealed that decision?. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Fan 577 Report post Posted March 14, 2016 1 hour ago, aquaman said: Hey Steve, what was the outcome when you withdrew your dogs, wasn't there a hearing over the 28 day standdown. I thought you appealed that decision?. Hearing was last friday...result has not come out,but can continue to race the dogs under a stay .... Disappointing thing is not one of the people that i spoke to was there from the RIU just Mr Neal who had all his information second hand ......not one stipe turned up.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest mouse 469 Report post Posted March 14, 2016 Don't even know who the stipes are for the meeting. They tend to stay in their ivory tower. come on ref 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman 1,352 Report post Posted March 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Hound Fan said: Hearing was last friday...result has not come out,but can continue to race the dogs under a stay .... Disappointing thing is not one of the people that i spoke to was there from the RIU just Mr Neal who had all his information second hand ......not one stipe turned up.... Sounds like par for the course, to bad if you wanted to cross examine any of the Stipes that officiated at the meeting concerned. Thanks for the reply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Fan 577 Report post Posted March 15, 2016 9 hours ago, aquaman said: Sounds like par for the course, to bad if you wanted to cross examine any of the Stipes that officiated at the meeting concerned. Thanks for the reply. John , you are right the only objection from mr neal was my statement from miss kinsley and the stipe on the day mr mulcahey....but hello they wern't there for them to tell the truth in a hearing....go figure Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
I know 150 Report post Posted March 15, 2016 Why didn't you call them as witnesses?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Fan 577 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 On 3/14/2016 at 8:53 AM, aquaman said: Hey Steve, what was the outcome when you withdrew your dogs, wasn't there a hearing over the 28 day standdown. I thought you appealed that decision?. John just to let you know.......all charges against my dogs have been quashed by the jca .... feral 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman 1,352 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 OK Steve, thanks for that. This is a milestone decision that is going to have future ramifications. I feel its time for a Club to put their hands up, and change this scratching rule. Its a travesty of justice that trainers are put in the position of looking out for the welfare of their dogs when pulling them out when a track is clearly unsafe. They cannot rely on the Stipes to make this decision as they do not have the experience to make the judgement. At present the rule demands a 28 day standdown plus fine if a trainer pulls their dog out without a valid reason, valid reason being the contentious wording. No body that i know off goe's to the races with the intention of pulling their dogs out, why would you. But because of the farcical nature of most of our tracks, ie rain on the day and becoming slop, poorly groomed with uneven surface, to hard, inconsistant and so forth, trainers and owners should be able to pull their charges out on the grounds of not being happy about how the track has been presented. I do not expect this should be penalty free, but rather a more realistic standdown of 10 days and no fine. This would still be stiff enough to stop frivolous withdrawls. Hopefully a forward thinking Club could tackle this issue at the next conference As it stands its a contradiction between welfare and the NZGRA attempting to bludgeon trainers and owners into maintaining full fields at all costs. What do others think. josh77 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Fan 577 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 Agree 100percent... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sairy 37 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, Hound Fan said: Agree 100percent... so why are you racing at cambridge? There have been several serious hock injuries there aswell the last week Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman 1,352 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Sairy said: so why are you racing at cambridge? There have been several serious hock injuries there aswell the last week Just because there are hock injuries doe's not equate to the track. Other factors to be considered are traffic problems, or dogs already carrying injuries and race finds them out. This last example i would suggest is the most common, especially if they are over raced. Then on occasions it can be the track. And sometimes its just plain bad luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
I know 150 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 Il reply here Steve thanks for that. And well done . Although I would be cautious if this will be followed next time this happens and as someone pointed out it will happen unless at the next AGM the rule is changed , and I agree the rule should be changed. If you did not go to the media I think they would have thrown the book at you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoKnows 791 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 I'm not having a go here, as I agree with Steve electing to scratch his dogs. But does this set a dangerous precedent where someone can just scratch by saying they think the track is not up to scratch and not get any stand down, which is effectively what has happened in this instance? Sairy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sairy 37 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 47 minutes ago, aquaman said: Just because there are hock injuries doe's not equate to the track. Other factors to be considered are traffic problems, or dogs already carrying injuries and race finds them out. This last example i would suggest is the most common, especially if they are over raced. Then on occasions it can be the track. And sometimes its just plain bad luck. If you rewatch the replays. Several dogs slipped in the same area of the track which lead to several dogs falling (including that incident you mentioned involving springvale harry) and there have been a few hock injuries there the last week, what's the difference between that and what happened at Auckland? That's all I am saying. As a big fan if the sport, that's all I want to know. Now that a precedent has been set, what's to stop someone scratching there dog because he or she draws wide and is a mad railer and vice versa? Is that not just as dangerous? Or scratching because you have drawn inside a mad railer or wide runner gary1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary1 361 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 16 minutes ago, Sairy said: If you rewatch the replays. Several dogs slipped in the same area of the track which lead to several dogs falling (including that incident you mentioned involving springvale harry) and there have been a few hock injuries there the last week, what's the difference between that and what happened at Auckland? That's all I am saying. As a big fan if the sport, that's all I want to know. Now that a precedent has been set, what's to stop someone scratching there dog because he or she draws wide and is a mad railer and vice versa? Is that not just as dangerous? Or scratching because you have drawn inside a mad railer or wide runner to blame a track for most hock injuries is a cop out i once read a narticle from one of nsw leading trainers that she never had a hock injury as she believed it was in the rearing of the pups due partially to lack of calcium i believe if we breed to speedy sqibs this will continually happen i also believe if we make tracks faster it will happen go back 30 years ago how many hock injuries was there steve how many 30 years ago did you have even 10 years ago Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Fan 577 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 Common guys i scratched 11 dogs not one....look i did not win this because of my stance on the track,i believe it was because the riu did not give me natural justice and it made up its mind before hand that i was getting 28 days....it is a win for lps that we do have rights under the rules even though grnz do not want us too,that's why they have buggered our rules to give us no rights.....someone please tell me what did i have to gain scratching 11 dogs...3 box 1s ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman 1,352 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 Sairy, you and i disagree on Springvale Harry. I also disagree with the Stipes version. For my money i'm of the opinion Harry was the author of his own undoing. I think Harry balks going into the bend setting up a chain reaction resulting in the carnage. Having all that metal wear round his eyes causes his peripheral vision to be obscured, and because of his non chasing tendencies it combines to makea lack of confidence, hense the balking. If you bothered to read my earlier post this thread, i suggest a 10 day standown would deal to frivolous scratchings rather than bludgeoning trainers with 28 days plus fine over something thats a welfare issue. gary1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sairy 37 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 44 minutes ago, Hound Fan said: Common guys i scratched 11 dogs not one....look i did not win this because of my stance on the track,i believe it was because the riu did not give me natural justice and it made up its mind before hand that i was getting 28 days....it is a win for lps that we do have rights under the rules even though grnz do not want us too,that's why they have buggered our rules to give us no rights.....someone please tell me what did i have to gain scratching 11 dogs...3 box 1s ? I understand that you gained nothing, but rules are rules no matter the circumstances 37 minutes ago, aquaman said: Sairy, you and i disagree on Springvale Harry. I also disagree with the Stipes version. For my money i'm of the opinion Harry was the author of his own undoing. I think Harry balks going into the bend setting up a chain reaction resulting in the carnage. Having all that metal wear round his eyes causes his peripheral vision to be obscured, and because of his non chasing tendencies it combines to makea lack of confidence, hense the balking. If you bothered to read my earlier post this thread, i suggest a 10 day standown would deal to frivolous scratchings rather than bludgeoning trainers with 28 days plus fine over something thats a welfare issue. The dog in front of springvale Harry obviously tripped over itself, he just so happened to be the dog behind it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Fan 577 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 17 minutes ago, Sairy said: I understand that you gained nothing, but rules are rules no matter the circumstances The dog in front of springvale Harry obviously tripped over itself, he just so happened to be the dog behind it Gezz again sairy you are right and i won my case under the rules.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sairy 37 Report post Posted March 21, 2016 47 minutes ago, Hound Fan said: Gezz again sairy you are right and i won my case under the rules.. Id say its less you won your case and more incompetance of the JCA. Whats the point of having rules if no-one actually has to follow them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby3051 10,889 Report post Posted March 22, 2016 Guys take this to another thread... this is not what the thread was about. Gary Sharp 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceCafe News