What the heck? Ken Hinkley in gambling/Greyhound Racing syndicate with players/staff

Remove this Banner Ad

The only 2 dogs they’ve ever had together are Max Power & Purple pear.
The owners are - Hinkley, Butch, Ollie, Clurey, DBJ & Rocky.
Only Max Power is still a racing dog.

The GM of footy has no share in either dog and I don’t care what some newspaper article tells you.
Go online and check the ownership of the dogs. It’s the “futures syndicate” if you want to check.
He does not & never has owned a greyhound.

So Ken selects Ollie & DBJ based on the fact they have a dog he bought a share in with them that they bought and paid for…

Ok.

Hang on, you're the guy from earlier in the thread who erroneously claimed ken hadn't had a dog for 2 years, then disappeared when I pointed out you were wrong.

What is your relationship to ken Hinkley?
What interests do you have in the greyhound industry?
 
Hang on, you're the guy from earlier in the thread who erroneously claimed ken hadn't had a dog for 2 years, then disappeared when I pointed out you were wrong.

What is your relationship to ken Hinkley?
What interests do you have in the greyhound industry?

You’re so selective in your options here.
Maybe it’s not the 2 “dark” options you’ve offered and I might be very close to the players or I am family member.

So which GM of footy has dogs?
 
Last edited:
Hang on, you're the guy from earlier in the thread who erroneously claimed ken hadn't had a dog for 2 years, then disappeared when I pointed out you were wrong.

What is your relationship to ken Hinkley?
What interests do you have in the greyhound industry?

You might want to recheck page 1…… it was you that disappeared when facts on the syndicates came your way…
It’s you that suddenly skipped over the facts.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

New licences June 2022. Ken Hinkley (renewal), Christopher Davies (new)

View attachment 1827084

psycho

So still the question is what does does Chris Davies own?

I want to see the ownership pages that list C.Davies as an owner in any of Ollie’s racing dogs. Or any other of the selection committee that gift players games cos they are all in on this..

Do you even know what you just provided? It’s a license to own.
Thousands have one…
But I want to see where CD owns a dog with players and this skews his decision making.

The one dog in question was acquired via someone who puts a lot of money into the club.
Maybe you need to demand that the biggest owner of greyhounds in Aust also stops putting money into your club??
Start there. Start with Ray Borda. The managing director/founder of Macro.
Demand they refuse his money.

Amateur.
 
Last edited:
So you might need to change the title thread to Ken has one 16.6% interest in one dog with some current and former players- No staff.
Someone take this utter tripe to the bay…
IMG_0390.png
 
Ken loves his doggies, not sure why you're trying to pretend otherwise.

So do tens of thousands of people. Ken included.

Your assertion is that due to this he coerces impressionable young players into his hobby and at selection picks his syndicate mates first..

When in fact it’s the VC who along with Ray Borda organise the syndicates… and no member of the syndicate is under 28 years of age.

You spruik utter BS.
 
It’s interesting that the deaths of greyhounds and horses seem to trigger people.

Especially when you consider that deaths through racing pale into insignificance compared to the number of animals that die to feed us.


Is the death of an animal involved in racing really more morally wrong than the death of the animal that goes into our schnitzel?

I’d argue it’s less so. Racing animals often live full lives, and are well looked after. Compare that to the situation of animals bred for meat.

Opposition to horse and dog racing appeals to many because it’s a ‘moral’ position which, provided you have no connection to the industry, costs absolutely nothing.

Further, because the share of participants in the overall population is low, you can virtue signal without any real pushback from the mob.

I put it to you lot that for every racing animal that dies in Australia, there’d be hundreds of thousands of farm animals that die to feed us.

That said, you lot are very unlikely to publicly call for the abolition of the far more deadly and destructive meat industry because a) you like eating meat, and/or b) you fear having an unpopular view.

So, you pick a nice easy target like dog racing.
 
So your moral standard is just "is it against the law?"

It's a s**t industry built in animal abuse that exists purely for gambling.
Newsflash for you

The cow, sheep, pig, goat, chicken, fishing industrys are built in animal abuse

It exists purely for taxation generation and the govt wastes that on referendums and Qantas plane tickets.... Thats not the dogs or the dog owners fault. You are yelling at the poor guy while the rich man steals from your wallet basically
 
It’s interesting that the deaths of greyhounds and horses seem to trigger people.

Especially when you consider that deaths through racing pale into insignificance compared to the number of animals that die to feed us.


Is the death of an animal involved in racing really more morally wrong than the death of the animal that goes into our schnitzel?

I’d argue it’s less so. Racing animals often live full lives, and are well looked after. Compare that to the situation of animals bred for meat.

Opposition to horse and dog racing appeals to many because it’s a ‘moral’ position which, provided you have no connection to the industry, costs absolutely nothing.

Further, because the share of participants in the overall population is low, you can virtue signal without any real pushback from the mob.

I put it to you lot that for every racing animal that dies in Australia, there’d be hundreds of thousands of farm animals that die to feed us.

That said, you lot are very unlikely to publicly call for the abolition of the far more deadly and destructive meat industry because a) you like eating meat, and/or b) you fear having an unpopular view.

So, you pick a nice easy target like dog racing.
Nailed it in one. Very good write up
 
It’s interesting that the deaths of greyhounds and horses seem to trigger people.

Especially when you consider that deaths through racing pale into insignificance compared to the number of animals that die to feed us.


Is the death of an animal involved in racing really more morally wrong than the death of the animal that goes into our schnitzel?

I’d argue it’s less so. Racing animals often live full lives, and are well looked after. Compare that to the situation of animals bred for meat.

Opposition to horse and dog racing appeals to many because it’s a ‘moral’ position which, provided you have no connection to the industry, costs absolutely nothing.

Further, because the share of participants in the overall population is low, you can virtue signal without any real pushback from the mob.

I put it to you lot that for every racing animal that dies in Australia, there’d be hundreds of thousands of farm animals that die to feed us.

That said, you lot are very unlikely to publicly call for the abolition of the far more deadly and destructive meat industry because a) you like eating meat, and/or b) you fear having an unpopular view.

So, you pick a nice easy target like dog racing.

We eat animals to survive. As it becomes more feasible and socially accepted, plenty of people are moving to more (or fully) plant based diets.

Racing animals (including the abuse, widespread drug doping, horrid conditions, and often their deaths) are done solely for the entertainment of humans for something to do.

It's a lazy comparison that is only ever used to deflect from the fact that those involved in Greyhound racing are absolute grubs.
 
It’s interesting that the deaths of greyhounds and horses seem to trigger people.

Especially when you consider that deaths through racing pale into insignificance compared to the number of animals that die to feed us.


Is the death of an animal involved in racing really more morally wrong than the death of the animal that goes into our schnitzel?

I’d argue it’s less so. Racing animals often live full lives, and are well looked after. Compare that to the situation of animals bred for meat.

Opposition to horse and dog racing appeals to many because it’s a ‘moral’ position which, provided you have no connection to the industry, costs absolutely nothing.

Further, because the share of participants in the overall population is low, you can virtue signal without any real pushback from the mob.

I put it to you lot that for every racing animal that dies in Australia, there’d be hundreds of thousands of farm animals that die to feed us.

That said, you lot are very unlikely to publicly call for the abolition of the far more deadly and destructive meat industry because a) you like eating meat, and/or b) you fear having an unpopular view.

So, you pick a nice easy target like dog racing.
Personally the difference for me, is survival vs entertainment. We don't need entertainment to survive.

I'm very against the meat industry. It's rife with waste and shady s**t. Not a fan, but I do enjoy eating meat. I believe we have evolved to eat meat. I go back and forth between periods of going veggo before I cave to weakness and have some meat. I love the s**t. It does leave me feeling conflicted though.

The majority of time I have a discussion with people about greyhound racing my point of view is in the minority. I don't know what the stats on opinion say, but it'd be a stretch to say I'm "afraid of having an unpopular opinion"

It's an "easy" target because it's far more likely people can be persuaded against racing as opposed to against meat.

I don't doubt what you said applies to some people, but it's an unfair brush to paint everyone on the opposing side with.

It's not virtue signalling. It's a belief for some people.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

We eat animals to survive. As it becomes more feasible and socially accepted, plenty of people are moving to more (or fully) plant based diets.

Racing animals (including the abuse, widespread drug doping, horrid conditions, and often their deaths) are done solely for the entertainment of humans for something to do.

It's a lazy comparison that is only ever used to deflect from the fact that those involved in Greyhound racing are absolute grubs.
What a load of crap that is.

You dont need to eat a animal to survive. You eat it because it tastes nice

Cant read anything beyond that first line when you tell lies like that to start it off
 
What a load of crap that is.

You dont need to eat a animal to survive. You eat it because it tastes nice

Cant read anything beyond that first line when you tell lies like that to start it off

It's actually true. Here's a starting off point for you: Meat - Wikipedia
 
Personally the difference for me, is survival vs entertainment. We don't need entertainment to survive.

I'm very against the meat industry. It's rife with waste and shady s**t. Not a fan, but I do enjoy eating meat. I believe we have evolved to eat meat. I go back and forth between periods of going veggo before I cave to weakness and have some meat. I love the s**t. It does leave me feeling conflicted though.

The majority of time I have a discussion with people about greyhound racing my point of view is in the minority. I don't know what the stats on opinion say, but it'd be a stretch to say I'm "afraid of having an unpopular opinion"

It's an "easy" target because it's far more likely people can be persuaded against racing as opposed to against meat.

I don't doubt what you said applies to some people, but it's an unfair brush to paint everyone on the opposing side with.

It's not virtue signalling. It's a belief for some people.

It's not even worth addressing. It's just another version of, "why complain about X when there's kids starving in Africa?!"

It's a low IQ deflection used by low IQ individuals.
 
Pear supporters have spent 5+ years trying to sling mud at Donuts. The club gave him an extension.

When will they learn Lord Ken is made of Teflon? No amount of attacks from Bigfooty basement dwellers will harm him.

It's wholesome to see them and the north melb prioritypickers on here agreeing for once though.
 
As someone whose owned both a horse and a racing greyhound also, horse racing has 10 times more animal cruelty industry wide then greyhound racing. My greyhound was treated like a queen and now lives with my family down south. Loyal and smart as can be. In this same situation, my race horse died of a heart attack in its sleep but when he retires he wouldnt go to a farm thats for sure and run around for his days

I think humans affiliation with dogs compared to horses lends ourselves to believe the opposite though

Thank you. Someone with a proper assessment finally.

I used to cover the dogs when I was writing, I was designated to do it each week, and my ex-father in law was a trainer.

I have no doubt some of the rusted on older guys in their 70s were guilty of some pretty shithouse practice like live baiting etc but for the most part the people I dealt with, both in covering it and just through my father in law, loved their dogs, treated them beautifully and they got a f**ktonne more exercise than most dogs whos owners can’t be arsed taking them for a walk.
 
That’s literally any industry. Any industry at all.

I dunno - my boss has never doped me with meth to get a report in on time, then shot me in the head when I failed to do so.
 
The outgoing and previous CEO of the AFL are serious punters, own horses and are heavily connected with the sports betting and racing industry. Ken is safe.
 
I dunno - my boss has never doped me with meth to get a report in on time, then shot me in the head when I failed to do so.

Yeah - YOURS hasn’t. Someone else’s boss has drugged their employee and tried to rape them and then fired them when they didn’t ‘toe the line.’ That’s corrupt, cruel, and the work of a low life. And that boss probably worked in finance or law or Human Resources.
 
Yeah - YOURS hasn’t. Someone else’s boss has drugged their employee and tried to rape them and then fired them when they didn’t ‘toe the line.’ That’s corrupt, cruel, and the work of a low life. And that boss probably worked in finance or law or Human Resources.

If there were 62 examples of that happening in another industry in Victoria alone over the course of 6 months, I'd be calling for that industry to be banned as well.

Here's a description of a lucky greyhound who managed to survive, from the same article:
Last November, Tommy was found wandering the streets.

The five-year-old racing greyhound was underweight, with teeth ground back to stumps and multiple painful, oozing sores on his body. An open wound on his leg was so deep the tendon was visible.

Would my boss causing me grievous bodily harm get him a $500 fine and a 1 month ban, like we gift these cowards? I don't think so.
 
If there were 62 examples of that happening in another industry in Victoria alone over the course of 6 months, I'd be calling for that industry to be banned as well.

Here's a description of a lucky greyhound who managed to survive, from the same article:


Would my boss causing me grievous bodily harm get him a $500 fine and a 1 month ban, like we gift these cowards? I don't think so.

That’s not a lucky greyhound. That’s an example of one that’s been incredibly poorly treated and is an exception rather than a rule.

And your boss would get a different punishment because you are a human being, and not an animal.
 
That’s not a lucky greyhound. That’s an example of one that’s been incredibly poorly treated and is an exception rather than a rule.

And your boss would get a different punishment because you are a human being, and not an animal.

Are you legitimately trying to argue that an industry which only exists for gambling purposes and is full of scumbags is no worse than say, the hairdressing industry?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top