Open Plans

[Scott Frodsham]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

IMHO a decision of such importance should be voted upon by everybody holding a dog with a WCRA passport, not based on a chit/chat! :- "

Just my opinion before I get flamed! :b

 

[Mark Roberts]

Ok we all seem to agree that anyone with a valid passport should get the chance to vote,

so lets put that to the WCRA and see if they will give it a go.

 

[BeeJay]

I can assure your Scott there was no chit chat. We weren't allowed to chit chat Marcus wouldn't let us.

 

[Scott Frodsham]

Why am I not a Super Moderator ?

 

[Mark Roberts]

Why am I not a Super Moderator

it's for the elite

 

[Vicky]

Why am I not a Super Moderator

it's for the elite

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

It was til they let you ruffyun's in! :- "

 

[Mark Roberts]

You know you don't mean it Vicky.

 

[Judy]

Yes June, I agree that everyone with a valid passport should have the right to vote (by post ect) but thats not an option at this time so we have to deal with what we have got.
So what does a club rep do if while at the reps meeting somthing is descussed and an important issue is pointed out that changes the whole perspective on the matter do they vote as told to or do they use common sense and vote the way they feel the membership would want them to?

there again they could abstaine and let a rule like seeding be brought in by not voting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The fact that things change during a discussion, (like your mind ), just shows how difficult it is to take a representative vote at a thing like a talk-in. Maybe thats why only 10 people voted on the seeding issue. Up to 36 people voted on another item on the agenda so I guess a lot of people didn't know what to think about seeding. The trouble is you are trying to represent your club and are voting on an idea that hasn't been fully formed so you can't be sure exactly what you are voting for. Maybe thats why there were so many abstentions.

Of course the decision rests with the WCRA.  But in the past they have been slagged as a body who don't listen and just make up their own rules despite what others think. This time they did listen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Came as a shock didn't it judging from the number of people who say they would have gone if they'd known . They still wouldn't have been able to vote though.

But yes, they (WCRA) are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Still, a better way needs to be find out what people think. A vote taken amongst 36 people where 26 people abstain and only 7 voted for and 3 against is hardly overwhelming evidence of anything. Could be most people want it, maybe not.

 

[Mark Roberts]

So if 26 out of 36 for what ever reason couldn't form an opinion then maybe the vote should of been put off till a later date and more facts and descussion had taken place.

Seeding works in Greyhound racing and could work in Whippet racing but would is it realy be worth the hassle & falling out it would cause?.

 

[Robin Sweet]

I remember when the WCRA started having these "talk-ins" about six years ago. I attended about four or five of these meetings. It was always stressed that any vote was just to guage opinion, and in fact the actual numbers were not recorded. It was just a show of hands. This was to give the WCRA a guideline of how people felt, and then the WCRA would discuss the issues at a separate meeting.

I have not attended a talk-in for a couple of years now but, obviously things have changed a great deal. It now seems that every vote is counted and recorded and the WCRA feel compelled to bring in anything that was voted for.

I was under the impression that each club could take a maximum of three "voting" members, and any number of non voting members(this may have changed). How are these voting members supposed to be able to vote on behalf of their club? Some clubs have a very large membership. Andover had 59 members last year. How can anyone expect the three voting members to contact every member, discuss the agenda and then go and vote accordingly? It just isn't going to happen.

I happen to think that issues such as seeding at championships isn't really a club discussion matter anyway. If seeding is only going to take place at championship meetings, then why are the clubs voting on it. Surely this is a matter for individuals to vote on. When you attend a championship meeting you are running your dogs for yourself, not for your club. Supposing that Andover had managed to contact all members and 30 were in favour and 29 were against, does this mean that all 3 club representatives should vote in favour? Surely it would be better to allow every individual to express their point of view through a questionaire attached to a championship programme.

 

[June Jonigk]

I agree 100% Rob. I hadn't realised the vote was so low, and that so many abstained. Looks like this had been brought in on the say so of 7 people!

Now I know the vote was so low, I'm surprised the WCRA have considered it. I can understand them feeling they must do something - but they have only said they will try it out. Does anyone think it might just die a death, and actually the WCRA don't expect any dogs to be classed as "Dangerous"?

One of my main gripes was that I was told it was to be tried out at the 1st Champs. Nothing should be tried out at a Champs - it is supposed to be a premier meeting, so anything to be tried out, should be tried out beforehand.

Possibly when the WCRA have their next meeting, they may well rethink this one. Are we to think that the committee agrees with it? On thinking seriously about this one, I think there's too many members with all their faculties to think this would work, but maybe they said they'd try it, to placate the 7 members who felt strongly enough to vote on it.

Are we to suppose then Rob, that the Andover reps, one of which proposed this daft idea in the first place, all voted in favour? That was kind of them on your behalf!!!!

I imagine a lot of people will let the WCRA know their feelings, and if they don't listen, I think it could get quite ugly. I say let's just wait for it to die a death - I'm sure it will - it could never work in a month of Sundays.

That's stuck in my mind now - we're all getting upset from the vote of 7 people!!!!

Just doesn't figure does it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nigel]

I hadn't realised the vote was so low, and that so many abstained.  Looks like this had been brought in on the say so of 7 people!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

As far as I understand it most of those 7 who voted thought they were voting for this to be tried as a trial at a club meeting!!!

 

[Judy]

I've just been told that for some reason, whilst everyone was allowed to vote for the other agenda items ( I was always told only club reps could vote), for the seeding vote it was only open to club reps which is why the voting numbers were lower. That would mean that the number of abstentions weren't as it appears from the figures.

Still, if there are 3 reps. per club, 10 still doesn't seem to be a very large number of voters.

 

[IanGerman]

It seems pretty obvious that there needs to be a referendum of all club members, once they have been given the chance to see what exactly the proposals are (a better explanation than the one issued so far)

On a subject that involves a major change in the way SOME races are held I'd say it was probably the best option. The problem is most clubs are closed until March or so and the first Champs will be soon after that - this issue needs resolving long before then I think.

I am currently preparing some communications to go out to all Harvel members and would be quite prepared to include a questionnaire of sorts and I'm sure other club secs would be able to do the same. That way anyone with strong opinions one way or the other can express that opinion so that the WCRA can see far better what the majority of racers want. I would expect any questionnaire to just put up the problems and solutions without trying to influence people - just letting members make up their own minds. But as I said - the WCRA need to answer a few unknowns first.

By the way Nigel ... name just one? Well my own Hatt Outta Belle then. As anyone who remembers her racing will atest she just HAD to get across to the left rail as soon as the traps opened - of course she didn't always make it in 6 strides as there was usually dogs in the way. She was injured at Harvel's Bend Open in 1993. Did it happen as a result of a coming together with her inside dog? I couldn't guarantee it did ... but no one can say it didn't either. But I take your point - and that was her ONLY injury in the 9 years she raced so either we got very lucky or it sometimes looks worse than it actually is.

Is that 30-30 new balls please?

 

[Strike Whippets]

Well this has been very interesting reading through all of these posts ...........I personally agree with the seeding and would take it further and seed the dogs that bump and impede other racers week in and week out because they are trying to get over to their favored side ..........And I personally would prefer to lose to a "seeded" dog than have my dog banged about all the way up the track as in a straight line (as they all should be running in a straight line if the seedings correct) the fastest dog win's (w00t) .....

My dog was badly injured by a dog going hard left a few strides out of the traps .........and I will say that I have even not raced my dog after finding out a few of my draws due to other dogs who are known to cross hard etc .......

 

[Nigel]

I think there needs a lot more thought and consultation put into this before anything is changed.

The rule at the moment would quite possibly allow a dog that runs dangerously (because it cannot run straight) to get a passport, where as previously it may well not have passed clearing trials. To introduce a rule that specifically allows dangerous running dogs to get a passport doesn't seem like a sensible way to reduce the chances of injury...

 

[Judy]

Yeah, but dogs that cross aren't often actually dangerous and should still get a passport. Not running straight is not in itself dangerous.

Please don't divorce me :unsure:

My dog was badly injured by a dog going hard left a few strides out of the traps .........

I don't think you can say that is fact Hannah as you couldn't found an injury on your dog on the day and continued to run him. When some time later you discovered by x-ray that Jacob had an old injury (broken rib), you really could only guess that he got it during the race you are thinking of although I know he did get badly hit. Maybe you are right but you can't say it is a fact as whenever he did it, you didn't realise at the time.

Please don't hate me :unsure: Just felt it needed pointing out.

Our Ziggy goes hard left straight out of the traps but has never injured himself or, as far as I know anyway, has he injured another dog.

 

[ChrisBishop]

I know I continued to run him but that's because I had along with 4 other experienced racing people had checked him over from top to toe and yes he did have a bruise on his left inner thigh but that was the only obviouse thing.........he also led on the floor with little Rosie lying on his ribs giving him a cuddle in the break......Our vet said he probably wouldn't have felt very much pain in the first few hours due to the excitment of racing etc.......cos dogs arn't like us really and just get on with it ..........I do regret not with drawing him that day as I have never knowingly run an injured dog ..............I never mentioned his rib Judy .........I just said he was badly injured .........Jacob did actually have to go to our physio 4 times after this incident, equaling in my eye's after having to have his right shoulder, middle and lower back, right hip and right wrist sorted out and also visited my vets twice and due to his discomfort had 2 weeks of rymadil as a bit of an injury ................I didn't think I'd have to publicly defend myself on running Jacob injured (once) and then have to say that yes he was definatly injured that day judging by what our physio had to do for him ..........

All I should of said was .......My dog got hit by a dog who crossed a sharp left, and I agree with seeding ........sorry for misleading people into thinking it was anything more ........Hannah

 

[Nigel]

Yeah, but dogs that cross aren't often actually dangerous and should still get a passport. Not running straight is not in itself dangerous.
Please don't divorce me  :unsure:  

I agree. Many dogs cross and are in little danger of causing injury and should still get a passport. So what's this new rule all about?

The wording is-

Both the Racing Manager and the Club Secretary have to agree that the dog concerned is at risk of causing injury to other dogs or itself within the first six strides after leaving the traps by either, moving to the left or the right without any concern for what may be in its path.

Ziggy goes left straight out of the traps but I don't think he is at risk of causing injury to other dogs or himself. If there genuinly is a dog running that is that bad then I question whether it should be running. It's all a question of interpretation. Making a rule that allows a dog 'at risk of causing injury' to run more safely some of the time (when it runs at champioship scratch straight meeting) doesn't seem to address the problem to me (if there is in fact a problem). :wacko:

More thought and consultation needs to take place before this is put into place so everyone understands the reasoning behind it.

 

[Judy]

I wasn't accusing you of running your dog injured Hannah. Almost the exact opposite in fact. You're the one that was saying he was injured. I said you couldn't find an injury on the day (otherwise I am quite sure you wouldn't have run him), so to say that the broken rib must have occured then, which you have said a lot, is just a guess as it was quite a long time afterwards that you found out about it. Jacob does do a lot of free running too, so his injuries could have occured at any time.

You didn't actually mention the rib though in you last post - sorry.