It is worth a try especially on the second point about exemptions.

The fact is they have never made public any procedures or guidelines relating to applying or grounds for exemptions. They have not even made public that there are exemptions. No-one knows why some greyhounds have been given exemptions and others haven't.

I'm at a complete loss to understand why my greyhound has been deemed 'inappropriate' to race in NSW, because she will be hurt by the water bowl, so I have to go interstate to race whereas other greyhounds who must also be, by GRNSW's definition, 'inappropriate' to race in NSW, are given exemptions so they can race here.

It would probably be useful if anyone else who has been denied an exemption also made a complaint to the ombudsman.

The problem is that for some of those who have exemptions I think they don't want to help me as they are afraid their exemptions will be taken away.

For some I think they know the current system advantages them with the limited exemptions to the favoured few so are not going to jeopardise that.

I cannot tell you how distressed I was when I found out that a GBOTA director had had an exemption for awhile and had never said anything to my family, even though they knew the issues we were facing.

The other problem is that as GRNSW won't publish exemptions it is not easy to find out who has them.

Mr Carroll,

I understand that you are now in charge of the granting of exemptions from the water bowl policy.

Can you make the procedures for application and the guidelines by which you will assess any applications public?

It is important that this is an open and transparent process and publishing procedures and guidelines will help achieve this.

I will also point out that in my inquiry, when you punished me for protecting my greyhound from the harm the water bowl caused, you decided that a level-playing is the preferred outcome. Is it not important to have some semblance of a level-playing field in relation to the granting of exemptions to avoid the appearance of favouritism and corruption?

Publishing these procedures and guidelines may also help me to understand why my greyhound is inappropriate to race in NSW because she will be hurt by the water bowl, yet other greyhounds who will also be hurt by the water bowl are given exemptions rather than be declared inappropriate to race.

Regards

Carly

I would say that it will be passed on to Grant Carroll.

It is absurd that your greyhound had to go through that another two times rather than be given an exemption the first time. How is that animal welfare?

It is also absurd as the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that if you know your greyhound welfare will be harmed by the water bowl your obligation is to not enter the dog to race or you can be charged under rule 106(2) for not preventing unnecessary pain and suffering.

So on the one hand you can be charged if you subject your greyhound to the water bowl after it has been harmed once by it, but on the other hand they want evidence of it being harmed a few times before they will give you an exemption.

GRNSW argued in court that even if a dog was hurt by the bowl it wasn't because of the policy but rather because the trainer chose to race the dog in NSW where the policy was in force.

So they argued and the Judge agreed that they do not have an obligation to ensure their policies and actions do not harm greyhounds. It is only the trainer that has that obligation and if you think/know your greyhound will be hurt by any policy relating to racing then you have an obligation to not enter the greyhound into a race.

The problem is that it seems before they give you an exemption they want your greyhound to be hurt a few times. This means trainers have to risk being charged under 106(2) in order to gain an exemption.

Sure if they gave you the exemption after the first incident but why does it have to cause harm a few times?

What is accurate data? We don't even know what they consider when granting exemptions as they won't publish it. We know from my case that having your feet in the bucket, a sore metacarpal and having a wet kennel is not grounds for an exemption so what is? (BTW in the court case GRNSW counsel laughed about how the pain in the metacarpal was only for a few days so it can't have been too bad)

Clearly there must be greyhounds to who the bucket has caused more harm because they are giving exemptions to some. If they know the policy is causing that much harm why is it still in place?

The other issue if that you might know how your dog will react because of issues the greyhound has had at home. Why should you have to place the greyhound at risk in the first place?

Wouldn't it be better to just acknowledge that the owner/trainer is best placed to know how their dog behaves and what is in the best welfare interests of the greyhound and make it voluntary?

The problem is that the arguments they used in court were made up by people who believe that greyhound racing itself is harmful. It is clear the Judge thought that too. I also think that their only focus was beating me and they gave no consideration to what the practical impact of their arguments would be. The fact that they are acting in direct opposition to the court decision on a few things suggests they hadn't bothered to consider the practical impacts.

I agree Mark and that is why I believe that stewards should be made up of people from other areas then just ex-police. People from education and training background (showing some bias I know) and people from animal industries are going to have more of a sense of duty of care towards the greyhounds than ex-police who just have an enforcement of the rules attitude.

This is a quote from Peter Moody's autobiography about the racing industry in Victoria. When I read it I though that is exactly what has happened here.

"Under Bailey, the old regime was pensioned off very quickly. The older stewards with a lot of experience were gone. In came a heap of younger stewards, while the integrity department was full of ex-police.

All this brought a massive change, which I felt was quite sad. The mindset of officials towards trainers used to be: Were here to police the industry, which is how it should be. Now, it had become: Youre all cheats, and were gonna catch you.

As with a lot of things, I was one of the few trainers to express concern about this. No doubt that gave more fuel to trainers who suspected I was cheating. If only they knew how much my horses were being tested! But theres also no doubt my comments ended up biting me on the arse.

Previously, the mindsets on both sides of the fence had been that were all humans, all here for the good of the game, and you could all knock off at days end and have a beer and a yarn. But when this new regime came in you could sense their mentality was us against them.

There was a frostiness that came in, which I felt was sad for the industry. You didnt want to be walking around on eggshells. It seemed trainers were being pinged for little things more and more. Everything became dotting your Is and crossing your Ts. There was no room for the human element. You couldnt make a mistake. The assumption now was trainers didnt make mistakes. They were cheating. "

They still won't make any of the procedures or guidelines public. I think there need to be exemptions because we don't want dogs getting hurt but the secretive nature of it has me very concerned that they are using it to give people favouritism and/or to punish others by not allowing exemptions no matter what the circumstances.