11.8 No person who is Disqualified, Warned Off, Suspended, declared to be a Defaulter or otherwise directed by the Board as falling within this Rule as a result of unacceptable
conduct by that person (the defaulting person), shall be permitted to transfer any ownership of any greyhound they own, or any training responsibilities for any greyhound they train, to (whether by initial transfer or any subsequent transfer):
(a) any other person who resided with the defaulting person at or about the time of the offence the subject of the Disqualification, Warning Off, Suspension, declaration of Default or direction of the Board;
(b) any relative, spouse or domestic partner of the defaulting person regardless of
whether they reside with the defaulting person; or
(c) any relative, spouse or domestic partner of any person falling within LR 11.8(a).
Approval of the Stewards must be obtained for the initial transfer, and all subsequent transfers, of the ownership and training responsibilities for each greyhound of a
defaulting person, on each occasion. Any transfer that may have occurred in breach of this Rule, whether before or after the introduction of this Rule, may be voided by the Board or Stewards

I can't see how the current situation passes the pub test.

I suggest that you send the CEO an email and ask the question. It's free and he is obligated to give some sought of answer.

[email protected]

Since a Victorian trainer won an appeal in VCAT a precedence has been set. Any husband and wife combo/defacto have an advantage over single trainers and the spouse continues to train and the kennel is not disrupted.

Owners should be jumping up and down about this as it effects them when, changing trainers/environment effects the dogs as they are creatures of habit.

This has happened on 5 or 6 occasions in recent times and a very high profile trainers kennel goes on without missing a beat! SO WHERE IS THE PENALTY.

AS SOMEONE HAS ALREADY SAID "IT IS A JOKE"

OBVIOUSLY SOME PEOPLE ARE TREATED MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

What stands out is WHAT IS THE PENALTY. A recent example is a high profile trainer gets 3 months, SO TELL US WHAT THE REAL PENALTY IS, they cannot participate in the training of the dogs (so no chating about what dog is going where)cannot attend a race track or any place used for the training of greyhounds,(but not the family home), maybe you will have to pay someone to help out (so what)
Kennel and owners not disrupted, business as usual.

SO THE PENALTY IS.........THERE IS NO PENALTY!

hahaha, and that's about where this topic shld end as clearly no one has read the brief(if it's who I'm thinking this convo is about).............I thought he shlda been fined if at all that, suspension was extremely harsh.

Here's that word again DISCRIMINATION weather its the Horse Code or the people in the Greyhound industry that word should be fought tooth & nail.

generally I wld agree with what you have stated Bradley, however in this case(if indeed it was the same case we are talking about), the dog hadn't raced for almost 3 months when they visited...........surely recognise the circs in that he was upset that a very fast dog in his care was possibly never going to race again & they shld've just given him a call and let him know whats happening, he wld then let them know whats happening, may have saved everything that eventuated.............just common sense.

surely you can understand this type of situation is a little different to the norm.

penalty v/harsh imo

they clearly had to impose some penalty for him refusing the swab, but believe they ended up understanding the circs and why he reacted, which is why the dogs are in his wifes name is my guess.

penalty harsh, fine more appropriate imo.

pardon my ignorance from a training perspective, if we look at your scenario......something to hide......

if the dog is seriously injured is he not allowed to treat the dog under the guidance of a vet to try to get it back to the track ? why wld that be considered " something to hide" Bradley ?

I wld have thought transparency wld be a far better approach. The cobalt saga with the horses is a classic example where you have racing integrity and participants hating each others guts. No good comes from that.

On one hand integrity have been hammered in the past by trainers exploiting rules and always being one step ahead. Now that integrity appears to have caught up with testing regimes, they appear intent of nailing participants to the wall by ruining their reputations, businesses and lives, with a guilty until proven innocent(at great cost) attitude. They don't seem to care what damage is done and have no regard for human rights - racing is suffering as a result, because they now have egg on their face with the Kav/Obrien acquittal and are looking to cover up. Respect for the integrity department is diminishing by the day publicly.

Just feel it's something to learn from, leaving the past in the past, not trying to settle a score(or petty jealousy's), and moving on. It appears they are trying to gain transparency and respect here with this case by showing a little 'give', moving the dogs into the partners name. I think its a step fwd treating case by case, and a far more professional way to behave.