Written by Lyric Grant.

I have a dilapidate imagination,
My mental improprieties describe my intense self-incrimination.

The accused are my thoughts and mind.
The truly faulted is my behavior, unrefined.
I am undefined.
Because my self-interpretations are blind.

There is no way to explain nor describe who, what, or when I may or may not be.
For all anyone knows, I'm the branches of a sweet pudding pine tree.
And so you're aware of it,
I feel I must declare it,
That I simply cannot bare it,
When I hear the letter p, I must stare at it.
And get the urge just to say,
"Punctual porcupines peruse, penalize, and pester preposterously perfunctory parrots,"
However, saying it aloud, I wouldn't dare it.
But I kind of just did, contradicting, deserving of merits.

Now leap into my thinking box,
I swear, not another paradox.
In here, there are no working clocks.
No need for a watch.

No need for anything of any kind,
I am a prisoner of my own mind.

Occasionally going to conjugal visits with myself.
Me, her, and I really need help.
Twisted mental health,
Manically creating my own intellectual wealth.
Check out my nerdy ninja stealth
Sounds like "Laughter, yip-yap, squeak, and yelp,"

Now, I can waste much more time.
I seem plentiful in rhyme.

However, you asked for a self portrait, so that topic I will try to pursue.
But I don't really know what or who to introduce, do you?

As the classics say, Bruce..."You have o'er shot the mark."

Doggies to do...talk soon.

You have not stated the reason for your personal inquiry, which is a bit puzzling. One quick answer is available if you just Google my name. That will get you started. (Insert Australia because there are a lot of Yanks with the same name).

Anyway, the last question is really off the planet. Why would I work for any pollie and be forced to kowtow to his personal and party views? Worse, why would I work for anyone who dislikes greyhound racing? In any event, if you had read my stuff you would have got a immediate answer. Frankly, I don't even like the bloke.
Anyway he is no longer the Racing Minister (but may well be the power behind the throne).

The middle question - I quit a year ago.

Now your first sentence is fairly typical of posts on this site. You have twisted words to produce something which did not happen. In all my posts I have been responding to questions asked by others so it can hardly be called "diverting". If you don't want to know, don't ask.

Of course, when I do reply I usually get rubbished by others - usually incorrectly - as we now find that trainers have become experts on economic planning, the wagering sector, form and track analysis and so on. I marvel at how they do this when they claim to be occupied 24/7 with their dogs. On the other hand, I know a bit about those subjects because I have spent 50 years at it but I admit zero direct knowledge of training and breeding.

Who do you work for, Ron?

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply but I've had a couple, so why not.
Hopefully it will all sort itself out, you will get whacked in the hip pocket with slander and defamation charges and we'll all live happily ever after.

Bruce, have you had a recent sojourn down to Nimbin lately?
Did your mother ever tell you not to pick the funny mushrooms growing in the bull paddock?
No? Well she should have!
My mother did, she was a smart woman my mum.
She used to say to me..."My baby darling Micky G, you crazy little pain in the butt, don't you go picking those goldy looking mushies growing in the cow poo, coz they make you sick! Not only that, my little pumpkin scone, they make you imagine scary things that aren't really there!"
As I said, smart woman my mum.
Against her advice, I once ate some of those mushies at a party.
To this day I swear I saw a massive shark swimming in the above ground pool in their backyard.
Scared the living hell out of me, Bruce.
Never have I gone near a mushroom again...and so shouldn't you either!
They can get you into big trouble.

I don't need to look at all your posts because I'm concentrating on this one.
This is the money post, or in your case, maybe the lost money post.

...........................................................................................................................................................

Michael Geraghty wrote:

Michael Geraghty wrote:

Bruce Teague wrote:
For example, one Easter Egg winner (in the trainer's words) was sick and injured prior to the first heat. It scrambled through, albeit fading in the heat and semi before he got it right for the final. Those words came after the final, not when the problem occurred, thereby breaking the rules and misleading punters. Gallops stewards would have chucked him out on the spot. Greyhound stewards did nothing.
Yes, I was. Slater.
How is that breaking the rules, Bruce?
And who was the trainer and dog in question?
Should have no problems naming them as it seems you are quoting from a public statement.
Would you mind answering these two simple questions please, Bruce?
I already have. Please read all posts.
While I am here let me add another one. The trainer retired Miss Grub, stating the he "could not keep patching it up". That's OK but at its previous 3 or 4 starts it had run poorly while still attracting thousands of dollars at the TAB, at prices around the 4/1 or 5/1 mark. Those investors did not know about the patching up, nor did stewards comment at any time. (I did not invest because I watched it carefully and checked the numbers).
Heaven knows how many there are every week!

...............................................................................................................................................................

Not content with ONE slanderous and defaming statement, you decide to add ANOTHER!
Unfortunately for you, Bruce, both Slater and Miss Grub were only trained by ONE trainer, so intentionally leaving out the trainer's name does not cloud their identity, or your intention to discredit them.
Now I'm sure you are going to dismiss this and deny any chance of retribution....you might want to do some checking...just in case.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm willing to have a small wager that I'd be closer to the mark than you.

This is the rule you are hanging your hat on...
RULE 32.
The trainer and/or handler of a greyhound drawn for an Event shall ensure that the greyhound is fit and properly conditioned to race, and shall report to the Stewards as soon as practicable any condition or occurrence that may affect its running in the Event. (amended 01.01.13)

Quote - "For example, one Easter Egg winner (in the trainer's words) was sick and injured PRIOR to the first heat."

The dog ran a shocker 2 weeks prior to the first heat of the Egg.
You are talking about a successful GROUP trainer who has forgotten more than you will ever know about Greyhounds.
Being the professional he is, he would have left no stone unturned to get to the root of the problem quickly, including a top Vet.
Suffice to say he achieved that and was confident enough to enter the dog into the heat which he WON, Bruce!...beating Group dogs!!!
He would not have had the lead up prep he wanted, (which is what he was alluding to in your statement) but he overcame the setback and WON it!!!
HE BROKE NO RULES AND MISLED NO-ONE!!!
Which punters were misled, Bruce?...the ones who DIDN"T back him? He WON!
In fact, 99.99% of the world's population would say "Great effort!"
The other .01% would be made up of anti-racing people and YOU!
You have tried to discredit, slander, and defame this man on no proof and a twisted interpretation of lunacy.
He went on to win the semi and then won the final of one of the biggest races in the WORLD!
But Bruce says it's a great example of deception and breaking of the rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I was Darren, I would haul your sorry ass through the courts that fast you would have skid marks for the rest of your life, and I hope he does.
It was totally uncalled for and disgraceful.

Same for Miss Grub and her trainer
You surmise the last few starts were attributed to the "patching up"...and your proof is?
Maybe the last injury didn't become apparent before her last start, Bruce, who knows?
Certainly not YOU!
John is again a top professional trainer who is on top of his game, but YOU know better and put the last few starts down to RULE 32 and misleading punters!
I hope he ALSO drags your sorry ass through the courts as well because you have defamed and slandered him too!

You can't defame people on a guess, Bruce. You can't accuse without solid proof!
If I was either of these two guys I'd be fuming and livid.
I hope someone alerts them to your slurring of their name and reputation.

Tally ho.

Good onya, TJ.
To be slandered and defamed on the World Wide Web should make his blood boil.
Disgusting stuff.

Milton segment theme:

On top of old horror hill in a secret laboratory,
Professor Weirdo and Count Kook were in their monstrous glory.

Six drops of the essence of terror, Five drops of sinister sauce,
When the stirring's done may I lick the spoon?
Of course ha ha of course.

Now for the tincture of tenderness, But I must use only a touch,
For without a touch of tenderness, He might destroy me!
(Professor Weirdo, bumped) Whoops too much.

(Prof) "Better hold your breath it's starting to tick:
(Count Kook) Better hold my hand I'm feeling sick -
(Milton) Hello Dad!

(Prof) What have I done?
(M.) I'm Milton, Your brand new son!

I am afraid quoting the trainers' own statements does not back up your rude and emotional words. In both cases they incriminated themselves.

You are also rubbishing the Rules of Racing - although, on this subject, rarely followed by either greyhound stewards or trainers.

We are all aware of the regular challenges to trainers and muscle men of getting rid of niggles and the like so it's a question of whether the problem is likely to affect its performance. I can't judge the injuries but I can judge the performances. That's my job.

You guys have skipped over my previous comment that Slater faded in its heat, although it was far enough in front to still win - it had the class. Then it improved in the semi and again in the final - after which we heard the whole story from the trainer. The irony is that the trainer obviously did a good job to win the event but he just failed to tell us the story at the right time.

But the more important point is that you are basing your comments on the theory that trainers are as pure as the driven snow. The facts show emphatically that many are not. Week after week, the minority are still providing ammunition for the Greens, Grey2k and all the rest of them. What the good guys are doing is irrelevant. The pickle the industry is in today is totally the result of trainers, including top men, abusing the system. Not governments, not Baird, not the public, but trainers.

How on earth do you expect to get better treatment when, at the drop of a hat, your opponents can plonk a list of druggies on the table?

(I except anything to do with cobalt and arsenic from the above comments as I suspect the industry has been conned - and I have been writing in that vein for many years).

Yet again Bruce! Please read your last 3 lines? CONTRADICTION!!!
The vast MAJORITY of POSITIVES over the last 2 years BRUCE have been to???

Best APOLOGISE Bruce, swallow your shallow pride, and slink of into the sunset.

NO, Bruce.
Nowhere in your unquoted quote of Slater's trainer or Miss Grub's trainer does it state they entered their dog for a race under a cloud of injury, sickness, or any other condition that would affect its performance.
NOWHERE!
That's the point, dear Sir.
What YOU interpret from those statements and what YOU perceive through your data collections is totally irrelevant.
A judge in a court of law will not take into consideration any defence from you based on, "It's my job" or "I've been collecting data for 50 years" or "I once put my head to the surface of a race track and spotted a wee dent in the rail".
That won't cut it in the real world.
The judges look at FACTS, not guesses.
It is YOU that has incriminated these two professionals with your delusional agenda driven interpretation that is void of any hard evidence at all!
These are REAL people with REAL livelihoods and you have defamed them.
Not good at all.

Quote - "We are all aware of the regular challenges to trainers and muscle men of getting rid of niggles and the like..."

By your own previous admissions you have no idea about training a Greyhound!
Where did this overnight understanding of the challenges of a trainer come from?!?!?!?
You have NO IDEA about the type of injuries, sicknesses, treatments, durations of recoveries, preventative measures, etc, etc...stop pretending you do when it's convenient and you don't when it's not convenient!

Quote - "You guys have skipped over my previous comment that Slater faded in its heat, although it was far enough in front to still win - it had the class. Then it improved in the semi and again in the final - after which we heard the whole story from the trainer. The irony is that the trainer obviously did a good job to win the event but he just failed to tell us the story at the right time."

The trainer is the only person who truly knows why he faded, Bruce, not YOU or anyone else.
You are insinuating that he broke the rules by entering him so what proof do you have beside he faded a little?
There are a million different reasons why...they're not machines!
The FACT is, he WON and vindicated that the trainer's decision was the RIGHT ONE.
Your argument has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese, mainly due to your complete lack of knowledge of the Greyhound and the trials and tribulations of this particular one.
Again, you have slandered and defamed this man for no good reason other than to propagate your "Bruce Almighty" image.
It's just plain WRONG.

Quote - "But the more important point is that you are basing your comments on the theory that trainers are as pure as the driven snow. The facts show emphatically that many are not. Week after week, the minority are still providing ammunition for the Greens, Grey2k and all the rest of them. What the good guys are doing is irrelevant."

I'd suggest to you that in light of your current avalanche of negativity along with many previous ones, YOU are supplying the antis with a swag of ammunition, including your outlandish slanders of individuals.
Not to mention your blanket condemnation of your delusional images of contradictions to the golden RULE 32..."HEAVEN KNOWS HOW MANY THERE ARE EVERY WEEK!"
That should give the antis some good juicy propaganda to spread across the world, Bruce!
They can even quote that from a self professed Greyhound Industry Guru!
You are a great provider, Bruce...that's disgusting as well.

I'm done...you've wasted too much of my time.
Keep up the slander and defamation of the industry and it's individuals...
Some day you will get your just desserts.

Apologies again for going off topic...sometimes I just can't help myself.

Not that it matters but your knowledge of the law is abysmal. Including greyhound law.

In any case, you mean libel, not slander.

I fail to understand how you could misread the point that it was the trainers who said this, not me.

Slander..."the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."

Libel..."a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."

You're right Bruce, important to get the right charges laid, hey.

Read Rule 32, then read what you quoted them saying.
If you can't see it, then I can't help you.
I suggest you might have convenient blindness.

Keep going the way you are going.
No-one can say anything here to change the way you think or write.
The road will come to an end at some stage and you have no-one to blame except yourself.

Take the gamble that your understanding of Law and Greyhound Law is sound and continue on your journey.
I hope you have saved a couple of quid from your data sales to fund a defence.

Let me know if a case is raised against you because I'm still interested in having a bet with you on the outcome.
At the end of the day I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is...ARE YOU?
A lazy Rio, OK?

Cheerio.

P.S.
Quote - "I fail to understand how you could misread the point that it was the trainers who said this, not me."

I haven't misread anything!
I can read!
The point is, what they said DOES NOT contravene RULE 32.
Why are you pretending?

Bloody well CONCENTRATE, Bruce.