greyhoundlover

Well well well D.Schofield

95 posts in this topic

Collectively you all make valid points. Yes, guilt lies with whoever holds the license. Yes his son should not have been on property given his past behaviour. Yes, there is culpability.  Yes Denis can be a right basket at times. But we are talking about a father's love for his son. Like many other fathers, misplaced hope, belief, trust, whatever you like to call it, has been returned in the form of betrayal. I am not a fan of the man, but as a parent, I can feel some sympathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, eljay said:

Ms Archer & Mr Hodgson who lived on the property were both licenced handlers therefore I suspect the dogs were theoretically in the care of licenced person(s).

I think that is a valid point, Lloyd.

There's a form trainers can sign, called a Charge Authority. Not sure how far its powers extend, but I had one once when I was taking dogs to the races on behalf of a trainer for a few weeks ( I am a licensed Owner/ Handler).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all missing the point.

 

Eljay, being a handler does not allow you to train, correct? Emotive understand what you saying, but when those within the industry are making mistakes, that is where those policing the industry need to get off their lazy useless butts and do the job they are masssivley overpaid for. This is bigger than the subject Mr D . The biggest  loser will be greyhound racing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, firepipe said:

You all missing the point.

 

Eljay, being a handler does not allow you to train, correct? Emotive understand what you saying, but when those within the industry are making mistakes, that is where those policing the industry need to get off their lazy useless butts and do the job they are masssivley overpaid for. This is bigger than the subject Mr D . The biggest  loser will be greyhound racing.

 

 

Exactly. Those overseeing all of us, laying down all of the rules and regulations that we are supposed to adhere to are, half of the time, the main reason why events like this occur. They turn a blind eye to so many things and yet open their eyes wider to other issues.. Depending on who you are, in the end, decides whether you're seen or not. Another issue for another post lol... With the recent banning on greyhound racing in some states next door, I can't agree more. If we don't get people who are really serious about the game, who do not share the same passion as the small trainer who gets up early every morning of every day to clean, feed, train and care for their pup who has never run better than 5th in its entire career, week in and week out, then again, I agree. The outcome remains... Lazy, useless butts who are massively overpaid will continue to dictate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so if the training arrangements in place at Rangiriri was widely known who is to blame for allowing it to have continued ? Is it the RIU or GRNZ ?   

The way i see it GRNZ sets policy and rules but have no power other than issue licenses and then relies on the RIU to conduct kennel checks and enforce the rules. Am I wrong ?

Is GRNZ able to order the RIU to carry out investigations etc. or can they only ask the RIU to do so and then hope they follow it up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Betting man said:

Will be interesting to see if another “Trainer name” is risked under the same arrangement or whether honest procedures are followed and  the dogs are dispersed to another trainer/trainers

Looks very much the latest dogs are in Pam's name...presume she will be the trainer from now on....bit lost how mark purdon could not be on his property when he lost his license...yet here we have a unlicensed  trainer admitting  he's training and living on the property....maybe Pete early could ask Mike gober for his comments on his radio show....so we all know were we stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tim vince said:

poor buggers who ever responsible should fall on their sword  man up

Bit disappointed with Dennis arrogance  tonight on 6 news...I now take back my original symphaty  for the man.....geez its every one else fault....and no it's not the first case as stated ...David had one in ch ch with a dog before.....sorry greyhoundlover...you are right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Betting man said:

That’s a romantic notion Emotive  but having just seen the tv1 news Dennis looks to be throwing his son under the bus!!  Blaming him to gain sympathy for himself doesn’t seem to noble to me! 

 

If you got pinged for a meth positive as a 78yrs trainer and there was past history then wouldn't you if in the same shoes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lad27 said:

If you got pinged for a meth positive as a 78yrs trainer and there was past history then wouldn't you if in the same shoes?

Dennis retired and david took over the training of the dogs

David got his positive  to p and dennis came out of retirement 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, lad27 said:

If you got pinged for a meth positive as a 78yrs trainer and there was past history then wouldn't you if in the same shoes?

I’d like to think that if I falsely put my name down as trainer so that my son who had had an meth positive and his license revoked could continue to train dogs, knowing full well the risk that entailed ....I would take it as a fail and cope it like a man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, J May said:

Not a good look on TV tonight, take some ownership for actions, regardless of whom is at fault. The buck stops with the ‘trainer’

Totally agree . His name was on the license so he takes the rap for it.  Man up !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a good look. News article today stated dogs will transfer to wifes name. So the show goes on. Not the 1st time the idea of 'trainer disqualified' has been made to look like a joke, how bad is it when there's already 2 leading trainers ( CD) that train under wife's names due to prior transgressions! 

Share this post


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

That’s a romantic notion Emotive  but having just seen the tv1 news Dennis looks to be throwing his son under the bus!!  Blaming him to gain sympathy for himself doesn’t seem to noble to me! 

 

Wasn't impressed with what Denis had to say on the telly. He already pleaded guilty. I was referring to giving a son a job despite the possible jeopardy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but wouldn’t the same problem occur again with Pam being the licensed trainer but actually is only driving the dogs? Well that’s if she does get a license. She won’t be able to get it in time before the disqualification starts though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there was a rule change that prohibits a disqualified person from having any contact with a licence holder. That includes partners in a marriage. I also believe that under the rules it is not possible to transfer dogs into a family members name. First introduced in Australia and later adopted here after a couple of dubious instances. Godber stated today that due to an appeal the disqualification will not commence until the appeal is concluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you sticking up for him for he  didnt get long enough

And dont say your not 

There has been alot in Australia  been  put out for longer it was a second offence

You seem very worried aboit this why

 

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