Sign in to follow this  
MiniJax

Amazing Chase

112 posts in this topic

Clarky, I genuinely hope the dog races, he looks the goods.

last years noms closed 19th of June and you are correct in that Ridin Shotgun Was a maiden he was c1 on the 22nd of June, if you've had it oked at head office then it must be right (insert tui billboard),- you cant do any more than check with them.  i cant find on the internet whether there was a maiden clause in the conditions last year- but you could be right.

All im saying is that it isnt a very professional look from NZGRA. If you were eligible to race in NZ on the 20th of june, that would suggest you could nominate and enter for a race - but you couldnt- because the dog is on a stand down. Rules need to be applied consistently to All participants.

Anyway Goodluck Clarky and connections, no more from me on the issue either. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Given that the information was correct in that the dog needs to requalify then for mine it is ineligible as it wasn't eligible when the nominations closed.    

Haha...the dog was eligible to race in nz...otherwise it would not have racing papers and been graded here...was it qualified to race here ..no...but that was not the condition of the race....the dog was not under suspension its 28days were up on the 24th of may....it was subject to a satisfactory trial.........remember the dog still has not been nominated for a trial or a race in the amazing chase...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be a connection of the dog to make two ridiculous statements like this. The dog was not eligible to race in NZ when the cutt off point was reached. He could not be nommed for any race. The amazing chase is no different. Just ask the Faheys who were told they had to re-qualify there dog last year.

So first, lets discuss the conditions of the race listed below:

  •  The Amazing Chase shall be open to all greyhounds C1 and above who are eligible to race in New Zealand at Noon on Wednesday 20 June 2018

The dog had not re-qualified by the 20th June 2018, therefore the dog was still dis-qualified for his offence which would mean he is NOT eligible to race in NZ. Here is the definition of what it is meant to be disqualified under the NZGRA constitution:

  • Disqualify means in relation to a Person or a Greyhound means the loss of all rights, licences or registrations under these Rules and Disqualification shall have a corresponding meaning

The dog was disqualified, therefore he had no right to be nominated for that race. The dog was also ordered to complete a Satisfactory trial in Australia. Our own rules regarding satisfactory trials state as such:

  • 38.10 Where a Greyhound is ordered pursuant to these Rules to undergo a Satisfactory Trial the Greyhound shall not be permitted to compete in or be nominated for any Race until there has been compliance with the following provisions: (a) The Trainer of the Greyhound shall make application to a Club that the Satisfactory Trial be conducted. (b) The Club upon receipt of such application shall make the necessary arrangements and shall advise the Trainer accordingly. (c) The Satisfactory Trial shall be conducted with a field of Greyhounds as determined by the Stewards over a similar distance or distance approved by the Stewards. For clearance at all venues the Satisfactory Trial may be performed at any venue. (d) The Satisfactory Trial shall be completed in the presence of and to the satisfaction of a Steward or Authorized Person.

Reading these rules, its clear that a disqualified dog needing a satisfactory trial has lost all of its rights, licenses and registrations until he has re-qualified and should not have been nommed due to these rules. The conditions for the race also state that the dog has to be eligible to race in NZ by the 20th June which is not the case according to these rules as the dog was DQ, therefore he had NO RIGHTS until he had completed a satisfactory trial. 

The trainer should also be fined for this as he nommed a dog that at the time, was ineligible to enter any racing events per the rule book. What a shambles for an event such as this. You would never see these mistakes being made in Australia for a racing series with 60k worth of stakes involved

 

Share this post


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

Must be a connection of the dog to make two ridiculous statements like this. The dog was not eligible to race in NZ when the cutt off point was reached. He could not be nommed for any race. The amazing chase is no different. Just ask the Faheys who were told they had to re-qualify there dog last year.

So first, lets discuss the conditions of the race listed below:

  •  The Amazing Chase shall be open to all greyhounds C1 and above who are eligible to race in New Zealand at Noon on Wednesday 20 June 2018

The dog had not re-qualified by the 20th June 2018, therefore the dog was still dis-qualified for his offence which would mean he is NOT eligible to race in NZ. Here is the definition of what it is meant to be disqualified under the NZGRA constitution:

  • Disqualify means in relation to a Person or a Greyhound means the loss of all rights, licences or registrations under these Rules and Disqualification shall have a corresponding meaning

The dog was disqualified, therefore he had no right to be nominated for that race. The dog was also ordered to complete a Satisfactory trial in Australia. Our own rules regarding satisfactory trials state as such:

  • 38.10 Where a Greyhound is ordered pursuant to these Rules to undergo a Satisfactory Trial the Greyhound shall not be permitted to compete in or be nominated for any Race until there has been compliance with the following provisions: (a) The Trainer of the Greyhound shall make application to a Club that the Satisfactory Trial be conducted. (b) The Club upon receipt of such application shall make the necessary arrangements and shall advise the Trainer accordingly. (c) The Satisfactory Trial shall be conducted with a field of Greyhounds as determined by the Stewards over a similar distance or distance approved by the Stewards. For clearance at all venues the Satisfactory Trial may be performed at any venue. (d) The Satisfactory Trial shall be completed in the presence of and to the satisfaction of a Steward or Authorized Person.

Reading these rules, its clear that a disqualified dog needing a satisfactory trial has lost all of its rights, licenses and registrations until he has re-qualified and should not have been nommed due to these rules. The conditions for the race also state that the dog has to be eligible to race in NZ by the 20th June which is not the case according to these rules as the dog was DQ, therefore he had NO RIGHTS until he had completed a satisfactory trial. 

The trainer should also be fined for this as he nommed a dog that at the time, was ineligible to enter any racing events per the rule book. What a shambles for an event such as this. You would never see these mistakes being made in Australia for a racing series with 60k worth of stakes involved

 

Thanks gavin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing to do with the dogs stand down it is to do with the eligibility clause......and the interpretation.....and no when the dog was nommed it was not disqualified.....28days if you can find enough fingers is the 24th ot may...so how can it still be disqualified on the 20th of june...

Share this post


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

Must be a connection of the dog to make two ridiculous statements like this. The dog was not eligible to race in NZ when the cutt off point was reached. He could not be nommed for any race. The amazing chase is no different. Just ask the Faheys who were told they had to re-qualify there dog last year.

So first, lets discuss the conditions of the race listed below:

  •  The Amazing Chase shall be open to all greyhounds C1 and above who are eligible to race in New Zealand at Noon on Wednesday 20 June 2018

The dog had not re-qualified by the 20th June 2018, therefore the dog was still dis-qualified for his offence which would mean he is NOT eligible to race in NZ. Here is the definition of what it is meant to be disqualified under the NZGRA constitution:

  • Disqualify means in relation to a Person or a Greyhound means the loss of all rights, licences or registrations under these Rules and Disqualification shall have a corresponding meaning

The dog was disqualified, therefore he had no right to be nominated for that race. The dog was also ordered to complete a Satisfactory trial in Australia. Our own rules regarding satisfactory trials state as such:

  • 38.10 Where a Greyhound is ordered pursuant to these Rules to undergo a Satisfactory Trial the Greyhound shall not be permitted to compete in or be nominated for any Race until there has been compliance with the following provisions: (a) The Trainer of the Greyhound shall make application to a Club that the Satisfactory Trial be conducted. (b) The Club upon receipt of such application shall make the necessary arrangements and shall advise the Trainer accordingly. (c) The Satisfactory Trial shall be conducted with a field of Greyhounds as determined by the Stewards over a similar distance or distance approved by the Stewards. For clearance at all venues the Satisfactory Trial may be performed at any venue. (d) The Satisfactory Trial shall be completed in the presence of and to the satisfaction of a Steward or Authorized Person.

Reading these rules, its clear that a disqualified dog needing a satisfactory trial has lost all of its rights, licenses and registrations until he has re-qualified and should not have been nommed due to these rules. The conditions for the race also state that the dog has to be eligible to race in NZ by the 20th June which is not the case according to these rules as the dog was DQ, therefore he had NO RIGHTS until he had completed a satisfactory trial. 

The trainer should also be fined for this as he nommed a dog that at the time, was ineligible to enter any racing events per the rule book. What a shambles for an event such as this. You would never see these mistakes being made in Australia for a racing series with 60k worth of stakes involved

 

well said apparently it rulesfor some and not for others why even nominate the dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BackPoonDrinkGoon said:

Took Pinny Mack in $60 worth of long term multis yesterday after Earley was talking about it’s trial, anyone know if they will refund bets?

yep clarkie will refund

Share this post


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

This is nothing to do with the dogs stand down it is to do with the eligibility clause......and the interpretation.....and no when the dog was nommed it was not disqualified.....28days if you can find enough fingers is the 24th ot may...so how can it still be disqualified on the 20th of june...

The 28 days is the mandatory stand down period. A dog is disqualified until he passes a satisfactory trial. If the dog passed a satisfactory trial BEFORE the 20th June, than he would have been eligible to be nommed for the great chase. However, he had not re qualified before the 20th june. Therefore, he was ineligible as the dogs disqualification had not been removed.

After discussing this with the stipes today, this seems to be how they interpret it aswell. You could not nom the dog for a 457 or 527 metre race at Manukau or Cambridge so how could you nom it for another race with a clear deadline date? Seems absurd. Surely connections understood this? They are always having a go at others over similar scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SoFunny said:

The 28 days is the mandatory stand down period. A dog is disqualified until he passes a satisfactory trial. If the dog passed a satisfactory trial BEFORE the 20th June, than he would have been eligible to be nommed for the great chase. However, he had not re qualified before the 20th june. Therefore, he was ineligible as the dogs disqualification had not been removed.

After discussing this with the stipes today, this seems to be how they interpret it aswell. You could not nom the dog for a 457 or 527 metre race at Manukau or Cambridge so how could you nom it for another race with a clear deadline date? Seems absurd. Surely connections understood this? They are always having a go at others over similar scenarios.

Look let me explain again.....I rang grnz and asked what was the eligibility clause...was told it was there to protect the domiciled nz dogs....asked the question on pinny mack....was told he was eligible as riding shotgun was the year before...but he had to requalify before he started.....so what has been done wrong.....why don't you put your name to your personal attacks....and they as you say is me ...nothing to do with the connections of the dog so keep them out off it.......amazing how gutless some of you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/07/2018 at 1:26 PM, lad27 said:

Bloody well hope so refund wise.

I only get the occasional bet in now, $10 back would be good.

Hay marrick...I just sold my property on the northshore for 1.6m...so I will tell you what I will give you 100dollars for your ticket...but if he starts we go half....cheers clarky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if that is the case, than it is an admin error and a big one at that. Last year, there was no rule against maidens being in the great chase, that was a new rule introduced for this years event. By the sounds of it, they have no clue what they are doing in Wellington. All they have done is wasted the connections and punters time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2018 at 1:33 PM, Hound Fan said:

Remember the wording...eligible to race in nz......not eligible to race in the race

Seems to me you are the only one that does not understand the wording.

The important part is “eligible to race at 20th June”

If they are going to allow this dog to run then GRNZ needs to reopen Noms for all the other dogs that could have nominated to your interpretation of the rule.

p.s You keep mentioning Riding shotgun - although I can’t work out why - he was correctly qualified at the time of nomination closing!! 

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