greyhoundlover

Well well well D.Schofield

95 posts in this topic

D. Schofield You are so quick to have a go at everybody but oh how the tides have changed. Why wouldn’t your three staff take hair samples ???? Your kennels second positive to methanphetamine; you should have got life.  As they say don’t throw stones where there are glass houses.

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-d-schofield-reserved-decision-dated-29-april-2018-chair-prof-g-hall

Share this post


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

D. Schofield You are so quick to have a go at everybody but oh how the tides have changed. Why wouldn’t your three staff take hair samples ???? Your kennels second positive to methanphetamine; you should have got life.  As they say don’t throw stones where there are glass houses.

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-d-schofield-reserved-decision-dated-29-april-2018-chair-prof-g-hall

Sorry guys...we all know Dennis is innocent...taken the fall for his son...and if the riu had done there job they would not be blaming a 70yr old man.....but after 2 meth positives his son Carrys on running the kennels....shame on the riu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, greyhoundlover said:

D. Schofield You are so quick to have a go at everybody but oh how the tides have changed. Why wouldn’t your three staff take hair samples ???? Your kennels second positive to methanphetamine; you should have got life.  As they say don’t throw stones where there are glass houses.

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-d-schofield-reserved-decision-dated-29-april-2018-chair-prof-g-hall

This is actually very sad and very detrimental to greyhound racing and to a kennel with such a Stella career. He’s always been a Strong character of heart, sharp tounged, but I don’t believe Denis is the guilty one here, so easy to get at dogs to rid opponents in these high tech stakes, Sad

Share this post


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

Sorry guys...we all know Dennis is innocent...taken the fall for his son...and if the riu had done there job they would not be blaming a 70yr old man.....but after 2 meth positives his son Carrys on running the kennels....shame on the riu

So, if a shepherd leaves a wolf in charge of his flock, he's in no way to blame when a sheep goes missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One huge flaw the Greyhound Assn never addressed which came to light after this inquiry is that David Schofield was the trainer of these dogs . Denis Schofield  was the registered trainer but only picked them up to go to the races.

The Assn knew about this and this is misleading to punters

So if this is allowed, we should get Winston Peters to train B Coles dogs. what is the difference?

 

Just driving them to the races should not make this right

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jimbob said:

 

One huge flaw the Greyhound Assn never addressed which came to light after this inquiry is that David Schofield was the trainer of these dogs . Denis Schofield  was the registered trainer but only picked them up to go to the races.

The Assn knew about this and this is misleading to punters

So if this is allowed, we should get Winston Peters to train B Coles dogs. what is the difference?

 

Just driving them to the races should not make this right

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remit three - Submitted by Head of Welfare 
 
Greyhounds must remain in the care and control of a Licenced Person at all times unless the Association gives written permission to do otherwise. Greyhounds must not be kept at the premises of, or trained by those who are not Licenced Persons, unless the Association gives written permission to do so.
This is a new Rule in response to the Hansen Report which raised concerns about greyhounds being trained or broken in on unregistered properties, and unregistered/unlicensed persons. 
I wonder how the proposed new rule will apply to this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion and not knowing the full facts...if that was admitted in the hearing then maybe the riu should have continued to go after the perpetrators and been a bit more leaneant on Dennis...harsh penalty on a innocent 70yr old man...sure he is responsible but really 2yrs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree Jimbob, An absolute disgrace,  Mr Schofield clearly admits to not training the dogs leaving them in the care of his son who has had a positive AND his license revoked!  

A second inquiry should be opened into this as it is completely fraudulent and flys in the face of Mr Schofield’s apparent claim of honesty and integrity - clearly he has neither!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, greyhoundlover said:

D. Schofield You are so quick to have a go at everybody but oh how the tides have changed. Why wouldn’t your three staff take hair samples ???? Your kennels second positive to methanphetamine; you should have got life.  As they say don’t throw stones where there are glass houses.

http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-d-schofield-reserved-decision-dated-29-april-2018-chair-prof-g-hall

Take some of your own advice greyhoundlover we are still awaiting your story to come out remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Joe blogs said:

David was a unlicensed person should not have been on the property 

Im hoping nzgra dont let the 3 that lived on the property  on the track as well 

 

This is fact incorrect. Even if you are unlicensed you are still aloud on the property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eagle Eye said:

This is actually very sad and very detrimental to greyhound racing and to a kennel with such a Stella career. He’s always been a Strong character of heart, sharp tounged, but I don’t believe Denis is the guilty one here, so easy to get at dogs to rid opponents in these high tech stakes, Sad

Couldn’t agree more and the way people carry on in here speaks volumes one would think you almost need your own security guard to come along with you these days 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe blogs said:

David was a unlicensed person should not have been on the property 

Im hoping nzgra dont let the 3 that lived on the property  on the track as well 

 

You didn’t say that this is what you said ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denis is not being made a scapegoat as he is the licensed trainer of the dogs on that property regardless of how he runs the business on the property he is therefore ultimately responsible so has to cop the penalty. He allowed his unlicensed son to train the dogs knowing full well of the risks involved, given his previous charges and convictions hence the reason why he is unlicensed.  

If in fact it was common knowledge as per the admissions of those involved questions now have to be answered as to why it was allowed to go on and as a result the unlicensed person/s should not be allowed to remain on the property going forward if greyhounds continue to be trained there. Interesting to see who takes on the training of the kennel.

Last week in Australia leading breeder Paul Wheeler was found guilty of sending dogs to China without applying for a canine passport and prior approval to do so. He was given a twelve month stint, six months of it suspended, and told that he can't live on the property for three months despite only being an owner/breeder. Apart from breaking-in no actual training of greyhounds occurs on his property.

Unfortunately there won't be too many people upset by this as Denis has done himself no favours with participants on racedays often goading others and bitching about just about anything especially when he gets beaten even refusing to properly take part in post race presentations. It sometimes makes for a very unpleasant day out and takes the gloss off a win and the satisfaction and enjoyment associated with it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The three of them choosing not to provide a hair sample says enough for me. Although it was their right to decline and after seeking advice I may add, if you had nothing to hide and if you wanted the best possible outcome for your father and/or boss given the situation, then you wouldn't need to seek advice and piss arse around. You would have provided what was necessary to clear your names from any wrong doings. Instead, you three chose not to provide anything and you also lied about David's presence on the property at the time. Again, if you had nothing to hide, why lie? Why decline? Why hide?

Essentially, what has happened is the ruins of "a stellar career" but also the shit that will be associated with the name "Schofield". Not a good way to end terms...

 

 

Share this post


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

Dennis obviously had no involvement but someone had to pay.

I would say he is drowning in involvement, he fraudulently took out a trainers license then drove off leaving the dogs to be trained by someone else entirely.  He is Solely responsible for what happens to those dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero Credibility NZGRA

 

As sad as this is for many reasons, the dickheads policing this industry should be arrested along with the P Freaks involved. This has been common knowledge to even those not close to this industry. Big future for greyhounds, yeah right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).     Not that I condone the use of drugs in any form, whether by persons or animals, but this fact may have some bearing on the situation.     I don't really think Dennis and Pam's family life should be aired in a public forum such as this and as the JCA has ruled on the matter we should be thankful that the matter has been dealt with and comcluded.

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