RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
GOM

When is not safe safe?

Recommended Posts

The NZGRA seem to just be bumbling along to the restart , breaking their own rules and making absurd statements that defy logic.

I see the requirement for having a catcher at Cambridge at the 375m mark has been removed for the near future. I am not sure if it is forever or just till we get back to level1 but they cannot do this.

I have had trouble with this requirement for years, I questioned it for a long time and asked the logic behind it. I was told by Mr. Death that it was a health and safety problem. I asked what the risk was he said it was because someone may have a heart attack running back. I pointed out that someone could have a heart attack walking back. He then  said that you are running towards the lure moving towards you. I pointed out that you do the same at the finish of a 457. He then said it was written in the clubs health and safety policy so I asked to see both Auckland's and Waikato's policy and he said he couldn't produce them. This in itself is a breach of the H&S act .

For  something to be declared a hazard it must show there is a risk, that risk is then assessed to see what needs to be done to first either remove the hazard or take steps to reduce the risk if that is not possible. Once it has been identified as a hazard you must follow the risk assessment. So if you recognize the hazard and make it part of you H&S policy. and you then not obey your rules and someone happens to hurt themselves carrying out the task (in this case catching your own dog) then you are immediately guilty and the courts always make tougher judgments when the guilty party was aware of the risk requirements. 

Taking this into consideration it is not only illogical but nonsensical for Waikato to take this action. They either admit there is actually no risk carrying out this task or obey their own rules. That is there was no hazard all along or the hazard has been removed. The covid   - 19 removed the hazard for 6 weeks but now they want to start again they must race within their own rules to not do so put them at greater liability should something go wrong.

       Changing this also creates it's own risk. When we had the choice to run back or get a catcher it gave an owner or handler the choice of catching the dog themselves or not if for example if they were incapable of running back. In this instance now there will be owners who are capable of starting a dog but not capable of running back who may just try that and end up in trouble.

     The RIU will lose their main source of income and miss Waikato will have to spend all day a the bar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOM

So when GRNZ allow a handler to catch over 375m it is “bumbling” (your word).  

Was it also “bumbling” when YOU suggested it?

BTW I can’t see anything in the proposed protocols that forbids a catcher at 375m so it would appear that both options will be available on Thursday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Pickel said:

GOM

So when GRNZ allow a handler to catch over 375m it is “bumbling” (your word).  

Was it also “bumbling” when YOU suggested it?

BTW I can’t see anything in the proposed protocols that forbids a catcher at 375m so it would appear that both options will be available on Thursday.

The point he is making is they are going against health and safety protocols put in place. Whether you find the rule absurd or not is pointless, these protocols were supposedly put in place to minimize risk and to abide the health and safety laws. The people making these decisions clearly have no clue about them themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules for Some

It is not a rule - rules can be inflicted upon you - this is a safety protocol that everybody is part of and gets to have their say.  I made no comment on the protocol, I certainly did not say it was "absurd". 

And the new safety protocols will be replacing some old safety protocols - surely this is not a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Pickel said:

Rules for Some

It is not a rule - rules can be inflicted upon you - this is a safety protocol that everybody is part of and gets to have their say.  I made no comment on the protocol, I certainly did not say it was "absurd". 

And the new safety protocols will be replacing some old safety protocols - surely this is not a difficult concept for you to grasp?

These protocols were brought in due to the health and safety at work act. You will find when a risk is identified I.e. running back from 375 to catch your dogs, you than move to minimize the risk which was in this case, not allowing anyone to run back. This risk they identified does not disappear now because there is a greater risk. The new risk has to be dealt with without effecting other risks and if the club cannot prove they have made all possible steps to minimize the previous risk, they are leaving a huge legal gap in their system and breaching the act. I've never seen any workplace I've worked in disregard one risk because another has appeared. That's absurd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules For Some

I'm not sure that you understand what is being discussed here.  At the greyhounds, handlers put the dogs into starting boxes, and at the end of a race, catchers catch the dogs.  For many race distances the handlers and catchers are the same people.  For the Cambridge 375m boxes (375m is the distance of the race) separate catchers were a requirement because some people felt that they couldn't safely make it to the catching point.  Now, those who believe that they can safely make it to the catching point can do so.  Those who do not believe that they can safely make it , will continue to engage a catcher.  

If you watch a couple of dog races, it should come to you pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pickel you are starting to sound like a chutney.

I did not suggest the catching at 375m, it was standard practice ever since the track opened. I think Tom Rodewald during his reign as pres. may have tried to change it for whatever reason but gave up when nearly all participants just kept self catching. When it was changed because a few of the catcher's who liked their faces on TV felt they were not getting enough exposure is when I started to ask questions.

You obviously do not understand how the health and safety act works , nor do the association because once it becomes a hazard then the association have a duty of care to ensure that all clubs under it's jurisdiction are made aware of the new found so called hazard  and put measures in place to  minimise the risk. In this case several other clubs expect the catcher's to run back and catch ( eg Palm Nth). This is a nonsense.

The NZGRA information on restart for Cambridge 375 states , handlers will box their dogs and proceed to the catching area, so that would include all the old cripples you mention .

You say it is not a rule that is inflicted upon you. In this case it was and as I said the only people to benefit from it were a few fairies and the RIU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  The rule not to allow people to run back was enforced originally because it was deemed a hazard under the than new health and safety at work act. After it was deemed a hazard, it is the clubs/riu/grnz responsibility to mitigate that hazard. In this case, that new rule was brought into place. Now they have removed the mitigation of that hazard which is crazy. Furthermore, you cant leave the risk of an identified hazard to be on a person by person basis. If it's a risk for one person, it is for everyone. If someone broke a leg running back now, they could sue on these grounds. Furthermore, if there was an investigation opened into it which is common with acc claims at work these days, the results would be disastrous as the risk was identified, they mitigated it than decided to remove those mitigations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOM

Apologies, where I used "suggested", I should have typed "You have had trouble with this requirement for years, You questioned it for a long time".

So in your eyes there the old protocol of a compulsory catcher was unnecessary.  And I cannot imagine that anyone will disagree with you.

The early publication of the new protocols appear to fit in beautifully with the H&S act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pickel said:

GOM

Apologies, where I used "suggested", I should have typed "You have had trouble with this requirement for years, You questioned it for a long time".

So in your eyes there the old protocol of a compulsory catcher was unnecessary.  And I cannot imagine that anyone will disagree with you.

The early publication of the new protocols appear to fit in beautifully with the H&S act.

It doesn't matter if 99% of us think it is not a risk, someone (I dont know who) decided to identify this as a hazard under the act. Now that identified hazard does not change due to certain circumstances that have changed. Therefore, the mitigation that was implemented should not change. There should be more mitigation put in place to mitigate the new identified risk.

All this action does is make them extremely liable if something did happen while people are running back as this is a known risk and their are now no measures in place to mitigate it. 

This situation would be no different to having a stairway identified as a risk, putting in handrails to mitigate the risk, than removing the handrails because covid-19 lasts longer on the material they are made out of. 

As far as I am concerned, the issue isn't whether or not we all think its a hazard, its how the club/s fail to fully grasp how this act works (shown by the new notice given)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a curly one to me,  If it was truly ever a risk surely it would also be a risk for trials.  You can run back for a pre race trial , 30 mins later for race 1 it’s not safe??   If you can’t find a catcher you can run back, but if you forget to organise a catcher you will be fined??  - it either is safe or it isn’t.  
Most of the trainers/ handlers are obviously happy enough doing so and those that aren’t can get a catcher!  Sounds like the new protocols have got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know one handler that definitely isn't and has been trying to get someone to see sense for years, I know others who just shake their head in disbelief. I have never wanted it to b compulsory just an option.

I forgot about raceday trials, what a joke that makes of the whole situation. I pointed it out to Robocop one day and he said they should all be fined!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Betting man said:

Sounds like a curly one to me,  If it was truly ever a risk surely it would also be a risk for trials.  You can run back for a pre race trial , 30 mins later for race 1 it’s not safe??   If you can’t find a catcher you can run back, but if you forget to organise a catcher you will be fined??  - it either is safe or it isn’t.  
Most of the trainers/ handlers are obviously happy enough doing so and those that aren’t can get a catcher!  Sounds like the new protocols have got it right.

Yes. That is right. I agree it's a joke but whoever decided to make it a risk did so. The problem is from what I can see that the clubs are not getting any advice around h&s at all. I showed the old and new protocols today to my h&s officer and he laughed. 

Another interesting point gom is that the clubs should have a health and safety register for everyone who's working their to view. The fact they refused to outright answer your questions is a joke upon itself 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yep after that I made sure I was a club representative at a an AGM . The person who instituted the  H&S policies was a speaker and when he finished I asked to speak and told him that I thought the H&S system throughout the organization was at a very juvenile stage that left us vulnerable. He replied that he had audited the clubs and found they were all valid and correct. My next question was going to be 'did you view the Waikato and Tokoroa H&S policies?" but the chairman ( may have been Maro) shut the discussion down through running short of time.

RFS ask your H&S what they think about an organization asking the person responsible for originating their H&S policies to audit his own work

Kids stuff

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.