MiniJax

Schofield

47 posts in this topic

14 hours ago, Betting man said:

On the contrary GOM, my source is a member of the RIU, no reason for them to lie...

Now we are getting somewhere BMAN, I have been wondering where you have been comming from with some of your posts but you now have pointed us in the right direction.

I will state again that your inormant is wrong and lacks integrity, probably just trying to justify an unjustifyable situation they have created.

Remember this, Davd was charged with nothing, he is innocent of providing the contaminant and I challenge you and your Riu buddy to prove otherwise. He is also not a lisence holder yet was sentanced under our rules without being charged with something, which resulted with him being dumped out of his home onto the street without warning and at short notice. The last time I heard of such actions was when Hitler had his night of broken glass in Berlin.

Share this post


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

Now we are getting somewhere BMAN, I have been wondering where you have been comming from with some of your posts but you now have pointed us in the right direction.

I will state again that your inormant is wrong and lacks integrity, probably just trying to justify an unjustifyable situation they have created.

Remember this, Davd was charged with nothing, he is innocent of providing the contaminant and I challenge you and your Riu buddy to prove otherwise. He is also not a lisence holder yet was sentanced under our rules without being charged with something, which resulted with him being dumped out of his home onto the street without warning and at short notice. The last time I heard of such actions was when Hitler had his night of broken glass in Berlin.

gee whiz gom  i think he should have got another 2 years for being so stupid as to let his son a known drug cheat and unlicenced look after the dogs a disaster waiting to happen and if certain people you david was doing this then they should have reported it he might not have got the 2 years..  is there truth in the report dennis was even living on the property       if thats the case why are people whingeing he got kicked out he wasnt even living there

 

In the summary of facts from the JCA decision, it was revealed Denis Schofield lived 100 kilometres away from his training establishment in the Waikato region.

David Schofield, his partner and her son live at the training establishment, while Denis lives in Auckland.

David Schofield was said to manage the training establishmen

Share this post


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

Now we are getting somewhere BMAN, I have been wondering where you have been comming from with some of your posts but you now have pointed us in the right direction.

I will state again that your inormant is wrong and lacks integrity, probably just trying to justify an unjustifyable situation they have created.

Remember this, Davd was charged with nothing, he is innocent of providing the contaminant and I challenge you and your Riu buddy to prove otherwise. He is also not a lisence holder yet was sentanced under our rules without being charged with something, which resulted with him being dumped out of his home onto the street without warning and at short notice. The last time I heard of such actions was when Hitler had his night of broken glass in Berlin.

GOM, I agree to a point. The source of the contaminant was not established, but the parties involved could have cleared their names by providing the requested sample. A simple step that could have altered the decision handed down. I agree that it was known to all that the licensee was an absentee trainer, by choice I might add. Should that arrangement have been allowed? There is a precedent that suggests yes, although the trainer in that instant had to return to the country and property every month while out of country. Also, that trainer did set the training plan for the dogs in care. In this case, Dennis admitted that he did not train the dogs. An admission that counted heavily against him. Were the betting public aware of this fact? Most of the issues that arise seem in my opinion to stem from the powers of discretion. We do not have all the facts, there may have been other circumstances that led to what may look like harsh decisions. Only the players involved have that knowledge. Discretion is applied to many of the rules we all must abide by. I have said before, I do have a little sympathy, the decisions that Dennis made played a major role in the penalty handed down. I do not, however, agree with some on the age issue. A younger licensee should not be treated differently in identical circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Em, If David had of consented to the test (which he legally had the right to refuse) and it had proved to be clear it would have not helped his case one iota as the contaminated sample was months before.  I could think of a number of reasons why someone would refuse a test. For example if they had been smoking cannabis which is almost considered a misdemeanor now the person may think that would indicate they were at least a drug user where in fact any other drug would in law have been irrelevent. I think David's partner questioned this point as she was legally entitled to and it was used against both her and David and subsequently Dennis.

      The absent trainer thing is a ruse. The arrangement had existed for years with no one worrying about it. You qoute the person that had to return to NZ once a month, well Dennis and Pam were at the property twice at least most weeks. Dennis also trained the dogs in as much as he set out the program for each dog and because he was always present when they raced he was in the best position to alter or adjust that training. How many other trainers do this planning with workers actually carrying out the work. Also hands up anyone who has been aware of non present training arrangements in NZ either in ther past or right now. I can name several and I'll bet there are others I have never heard of.

       I will repeat that when the penalty was handed down to Dennis the ramificatrions that have resulted would never have been imagined and the people  that assigned the ppenalty would not have wished the hardship that has ensured.

        There are a whole of assumed powers that have been used that I am not sure were even legal. This is the part of this incident that worries me, what level of infringement now ensures you will be hunted down?

Dennis pleaded guilty straight away and expected a penalty butI'll bet he never envisaged it would be him having to get rid of all his dogs, have his family vilified and son expelled from the family home with a few hours notice

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Gom. Just looking at comments that have been made and not necessarily by you. I'm not making a case for either side. I re-read the published appeal decision last night. There were a number of admissions made by DS. In your last sentence, you say 'bet he never envisaged it would be him having to get rid of all his dogs." The disqualification rules are quite clear in that regard. You cannot own, race, train, or breed a registered grey for the duration of your disqualification. That rule has stood for some time now. As a license holder, you are prohibited from associating with a disqualified person. However, the dogs were permitted to be transferred to a family member which meant any income earned from those dogs post DQ went back to that relationship. The RIU has no powers to force anyone from a property, only the police can do that. There had to be some type of agreement between the current property owner and those who issue the new training license in order for the dogs to be trained from that property. The property owner had the right to tenant the property as he/she wished, he or she would have to agree to any proposal put forward, and I assume that is what happened. As no licensed trainer resided at the property prior to the DQ taking effect, a new trainer would have to be found. For the property to be re-licensed restrictions may have been imposed and agreed to. Remember, the dogs could have gone to other properties to be trained by one or more new trainers. All details should have been sorted during the extension period to ensure a smooth transition. That appears not to have happened. The trainer engaged has now departed. GOM to my knowledge, a person who has been warned off cannot live on a property that is registered for the purposes of training or breeding registered greyhounds. As always I base my opinion and it is just my opinion, on the rules that currently exist and the published JCA transcript.

I may or may not renew my license come July, currently in two minds. If I do, I will sign the declaration accepting the T's and C's. If I do, I will be locked into abiding by the rules as set out. Had we not signed away all of our rights, maybe we would have some power to correct any possible injustices that may exist. But that's a whole new thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 6:04 PM, Joe blogs said:

So Mike what do you think should be Denis penalty seen the kennel has already had a positive for P

Im not saying denis had the positive but the kennel has

 

Maybe you should recheck your facts. One positive was Methlymphetamine and another was amphetamine which is not p ;) Common mis-conception

Share this post


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

Maybe you should recheck your facts. One positive was Methlymphetamine and another was amphetamine which is not p ;) Common mis-conception

really does that matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, gary1 said:

really does that matter

It does when everyone in here is insinuating that someone is a 'well known'  P addict without any real evidence at all. I did some research into this person and found no prior charges for p. There have been several incidents where police have searched his vehicle and tested him for p and hes come back clean after police having been phoned and given anonymous tips from whom im assuming were other greyhound participants. Some of these incidents even ended up in newspapers.

It appears to me that some people in here are making bold statements without any real evidence what so ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey GOM. Your comments re: requested drug test raised some interesting questions and got me thinking. I did some research on cases that required a person to submit to a voluntary drug test to prove/disprove they were the likely source of contamination. I found a couple of cases where the legal had successfully argued that his client could not be tested for any substance other than that in question. So as a precedent already exists, the same could have been argued in this case. FYI: Neither case was greyhound related but have a bearing on any legal process. The court agreed and the tests took place. Both samples came back negative. 

Share this post


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

why was Nyomi only a trainer for the Schoifield dogs for one day ?

That is not difficult to work out Jimbob. There must have been a change to the training agreement and she chose to terminate the arrangement. Sad to hear above that she has been subjected to any type of negativity. Wish her all the best.

Share this post


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

Credit to Nyomi for doing the right thing in testing circumstances and anyone bagging her should hang their head in shame. 

Never seen on this site or heard anyone bagging naomi??????

Share this post


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

Never seen on this site or heard anyone bagging naomi??????

Nor have I apart from the initial obvious comment “she must have rocks in her head for getting involved “  I haven’t heard her mentioned at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Flabbergasted said:

This site isn't the only place in the world where people bag other people ;)  

So why come on  here where know one has bagged her and say that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't and was only replying to this earlier comment

On ‎22‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 4:41 AM, Danfraser4 said:

so sad. to the dickheads bad mouthing Nyomi. I bet you she becomes the "trainer" for all the celebs in NZ and puts Greyhound racing on the map in NZ. 

 

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