Robert,

It should but will not and cannot.

GA is RQ is GA is RQ.

The states give GA no power or authority and under no circumstances can GA address "commercial" subjects. Any agreement reached at GA has to go back to the individual states for authorisation. That's the GA charter.

The same applies to national stewards meetings.

The gallops are much the same.

It would not help that RQ is dominated by gallops and trots.

The same applies to many laws - eg animal welfare - which is why there is little consistency around the country. However, there are many industry practices which could be harmonised but are not - grading would be the most prominent of those.

The nearest we have got to it is OzChase and that is a disaster from the consumer angle. I know quite a few guys who have deserted their state or the greyhound code for exactly that reason (me included).

Hi Patrick,
I can't believe what I am reading.
It is so ludicrous - 'so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing...
Meaning of ludicrous, then one has to ask - Who is being amused by this?

Can I ask how long each track is to be closed for and depending on that answer has anyone asked why those responsible have taken those paths.
It is selfish and unfair what is being done.
I can't read it any other way, if trainers are left to travel ridiculous distances with their dogs for trialling and racing - when it didn't have to be the case, and when there was a choice for those responsible for the final decision to be able to attend to one matter at a time, and for the choice of severely inconveniencing participants, well I am gob smacked.
And really if that is the case, well I don't know if they have started work yet, but I really do think that someone needs to start going a bit higher and getting some answers.
I am primarily astounded because usually maintenance works takes quite some time and is usually blown out time wise.
It will be interesting to know what the timeline is.

I hope that I have not read the situation properly but all I would want to know is how long for is the closures, and from there on, I would want to know who made the final decision and why?

How about someone getting some official answers as this sounds like to me that there is absolutely no care whatsoever.

Why couldnt Rocky wait until other track was ready to start works, I dont know. Would have been the answer instead of a heap of dogs waiting it out in the kennels for weeks on end.

RE "Coming from Vic. and from what I have seen, whenever a track is redeveloped it has always been one at a time, and the communication/timeline/updates have always been at the fore for the Vic. participants".

Telling you when something is happening is one thing, telling you what and why quite another.

Horsham - why the (costlier) 400m boxes? There was never a mention that the old 410m start was a big problem (aside from the fact that 400m starts on one-turn tracks are always difficult).

Shep/Ball/Wnbl/Bend - why create worse bend starts for mid-distance trips, especially when two of those had better starts and slightly longer trips before?

Sale - why replace a 511m bend start with a 520m bend start? What about some attention to the contour of the home turn?

Traralgon - this is the big one - why build a brand new track with three bend starts, to say nothing about catering for 315m squibs' races?

NSW is about to re-open Wenty and Gosford with no detail about what has been done.

Queensland has been stuffed around for two decades with inferior track layouts, overseen by a constantly changing collection of administrations and governments.

In contrast, Murray Bridge has been the subject of surveys, submissions, publicity, pictures and fine detail and it is not even open yet. GWA also published widely on the new Cannington and on a re-built Mandurah. It can be done. It's all in the mind.

Ideally, there are two fields where the industry badly needs expert national groups to control and operate two areas: track design and form/results/statistics. State authorities are not competent in either, nor are they measured for their performance or efficiency. (This is already done for breeding/stud book).

Hi Bruce,
In comparison to what I was reading about Qld, I could easily say that the situation was better in Vic.
I have only read through your response as a quick scan but in saying that, I don't think that I could argue too much with you - because if I think about it more deeply there are issues unfortunately.
I also do remember when I was living in the Gippsland area - negative feedback about the Traralgon track, I hear a bit too in the Wimmera area about the Horsham track.
I was just astounded that the participants in Central Queensland were left so high and dry, when commenting on this thread.
With your contribution, I would not be able to compile/convey the information that you have, that's for sure.

Your Traralgon comment would have been about the old track, which was a bit tight but, in my view, not as bad as some made out. But the key issue is that with all the extra intelligence and experience available about track design they still deliberately created bend starts at the new track. It also has a fairly high rate of race falls.

The use of a drop-in box at Horsham suggests someone had a brainwave and said let's try this - not as a result of serious research and analysis. I don't think it's any better or worse than the old 410m start. Indeed, Bulli has now given them away. Also at Horsham, GRV media releases claimed that UTS had designed the new track. They did not. They just visited and offered a couple of comments, mostly about gradients.

Now we have Wenty (and soon Gosford) where significant but unknown work has been going on. GRNSW made a couple of generalised comments about Wenty but nothing specific, and even that was prompted only by visiting trainers noticing work going on. Gosford info is zero, zilch, nil.

Just for interest, last night's meeting at Wenty suggested that first turn running was much improved, but it is early days. If that continues, we may still not know why.

Overall, my point is that the industry is, for the most part, blessed with good dogs and skilled breeders/trainers but they are being asked to work with tracks which are slapped together by amateurs, most of whom tell you fibs or nothing. Many clubs and state authorities resent getting advice, even when it turns out to be right. Yet they have, by definition, no people with track design skills (odd exceptions for surface maintenance). It has been nothing more than a wet finger job and discussions are often dominated by what the local club thinks is a good idea.

It's like asking a Formula 1 driver to work with an Austin A40. He may get around the track but the car will be buggered.

For over 20 years, Queensland has flatly refused to build/re-build/improve its tracks, never mind whether the code was dominated by the gallops, its own people or the ever-changing government. The nonsense up the coast is just the latest example. NSW is no better, as illustrated by spending millions on Dapto, getting the Minister to cut the ribbon, and ending up with the same old problems. Richmond is the same. And Wenty is now benefitting (we hope) from the first changes in 17 years. Eureka! It might even bring Paul Wheeler back.