What were the problems and how are they getting fixed today .

I heard some rumors about the new design .

I was told there will be a 200 plus meter straight run to the first turn and i am also hearing the new first turn is going to be very tight .

Could someone from down that way let us know how the track is traveling and after millions spent building and designing a new track you would of thought a lot more thought was put into who the GRV employed to build such a terrible track ....Someone needs there ass kicked hard ....

GRV and ACCOUNTABILITY never used in the same sentence. What would expect from a politically motivated, Government run organization.

Suck all the newby's in, favour the big kennels and ignore the GOTBA.

Two different subjects.

The closure was due to engineering/drainage problems, as I understand it. That's a contractual/professional matter, just as it would be when building a new house.

The track design issues are - as always - a function of the club and the authority deciding what to do. We know they are not too sharp because they had already decided to shut down a couple of trips - those being some but not all of the bend starts.

These days, the wild card is how much, or if, UTS got involved but that has been usually after the event, not in the original layout design.

In any event, while UTS people have some brilliant skills they are not dog folk but are furiously analysing what has happened and what might happen in various scenarios. They have also called for more experimentation with different concepts - eg lure types and so on.

What we really need nationally is an expert unit of which the UTS contribution is part. Ideally, such a unit would also absorb mistakes from the past and ensure they are not repeated.

The current situation where club/authority decides things around a boardroom table is a nonsense - they are all amateurs.

The next stage (for a new track) is to then give an engineering mob a brief and hope a good outcome emerges. Rarely is that so - usually the engineers don't understand dog racing either. (Newcastle/Gardens would be a classic bad example).

Having said that, there is a third issue - the nature of the surfacing and related substrata and its maintenance. That does not require much specific dog knowledge but it does need expertise and must follow broad guidelines set by the track designer.

Progress will ensue only when each and all states recognise they lack expertise and when they agree to set up the expert group, and when they accept the umpire's decisions.

Meantime, Rafferty's Rules apply. Every time.

I could offer pages of hard evidence - and have done so to authorities and clubs - but nobody takes any notice so I have given up.

PS: For whatever reasons, my observations are that the running on NZ tracks is superior to that in Oz - ie more interference free. I can't add more to that as I do not collect NZ data to analyse. It's just an impression.

PS2: The only Oz trip to which I would give a pass mark is Hobart 461m - but I suspect that was an accident, not by design. The simultaneous building of the new Launceston track was a horror.

We need to call out who was specifically responsible for track design and starts on bends when they had a clean sheet to work off? All tracks needs the right thinking involved to achieve the optimal result and the GBOTA should have weight and a vote as to preferences of design, surface and distances.

This has become an embarrassment and all parties involved need to be removed as all positions have actually become untenable

Embarrassment, not on your life, what do they lay on the line, nothing, they are public servants. They simply get duck shoved into other positions within the organization, there are 3 people in at GRV who should not be employed there. They have screwed up and simply been moved somewhere else in the organization, and I use that term very loosely.

Looked unsafe as I said watching but i prefer to make a judgement after being there in person myself, should have gone with what I saw and stayed away from the joint. As I said to one of the owners half way through the night " I'll be happy just to get out of here safely " my fault I've already had a city winning bitch I bred break down there and now retired.
P.s
how many noms did you get for your cup?

This was March 2016 and instead of listening to what everyone was saying about the track and the lack of trainers willing to bring there good dogs to race there it was met with the manager abusing anyone who had an opinion on his track
Putting your head in the sand isnt going to work and you can only hope they listen to the right people and build a high quality safe track that all people are happy to race on.

Rob,

The various GBOTAs are a collection of owners and trainers. So are club committees. Whatever their list of skills they do not include track designs.

State authorities are a collection of bureaucrats who also do not have design skills (although SA has tried harder than others).

We have occasionally seen people with engineering skills plus greyhound exposure do track designs - Albion Park is an example but not a good one.

In all cases, the missing element is that their opinions are worthless because they have not done their homework. Almost certainly, they have not analysed the problems and to some extent lacked the availability or access to data to perform that analysis.

Guessing, there are probably no more than half a dozen people in this country who have both the data and the analytical means to assess greyhound and track performance. I am one, or I used to be (I have quit).

But that goes just so far. I know what doesn't work but there is no way I am qualified to design a track because too many other skills are required. That's why the UTS case has much to offer the industry and why I have called for a small independent national unit to develop those skills and guide the industry.

So far, that sort of thinking does not get very far because authorities like their own little empires and clubs regard their tracks as their little baby and resent being advised what to do about them. Some trainers think they know lots about tracks because they set foot on them every day. They don't. At best, they know what their dogs can handle, especially "if they nick out in front", as one famous club manager once told me.

Anyway, in the long run, we are stuck with a system where rarely is anyone held responsible. Certainly, Racing Ministers in three states chucked out boards and CEOs after the live baiting saga. But even that was for PR reasons, not so much for incompetence. And there is no guarantee that the next lot will be any better.

Who will have the gumption to switch from bureaucracy to decent commercial standards?

Bruce
Quote
The various GBOTAs are a collection of owners and trainers. So are club committees. Whatever their list of skills they do not include track designs.

I beg to differ
The GOTBA have a wealth of experienced people who know and understand Greyhounds .
They know how to prepare a track in fact many have designed their own tracks
We have so many intelligent people who own breed and train dogs all over Australia ...

Most who train know what kind of tracks we need ..
I suggest we look at the Bike velodrome banking and i also think we need a fold back lure that finishes behind the rail just like the Yanks do things .
I like a softer track to race on but the problem is we get uneven compaction so why not roter and roll the top 2inches after every race .

Make Sandown style track with banking and you have a winner IMO Bruce

This is just one person's ideas MINE so have a guess how many OTB have great fantastic ideas
The Victorian GOTBA has got some great people there working and talking about this now ..The GRV need to listen to it's MEMBERS ...

You say they "know how" but then you offer three fresh examples of what should be done (but isn't). Can't have it both ways.

There some 70 or so examples of less than perfect tracks in Oz. Who designed them?

I would love to see GOTBA and others doing stuff they are good at - especially putting pressure on GRV and others to reform the industry (which they have done to some extent in Vic and Qld).

Intelligence is of no use unless you have the knowledge to make use of it.

Could be the biggest mistake the GRV have ever made .

The North and North West of Victoria need a two turn track IMO ..

There is a huge number of GRV members who reside from Longwood in the North east to Bridgewater in the North West they dont have the luxury of two turn racing or straight track racing ....This must change

Rumor has it, Doona Dan has commissioned his multi-skilled private contractors at the two quarantine hotels, to take over the rebuilding of the Traralgon track.

Secondly...You build what the Members need ...why not build a 650 meter straight track ..Simple easy cost effective

New IT technologies will enable us to watch a close digital camera action up a straight .
There is no reason why the GRV or the GOTBA cannot purchase land today for our future ..

Sandown and the Meadows should be sold as we need Metro tracks based in and around the wider Greyhound populations ..

The Geelong Training region will also be swallowed up by residential housing ...

North. East and South of Victoria is our biggest Greyhound populations.

Feeder tracks must be built to cater for 500 plus racing in those country area's ...It is a nightmare for those living outside of the Metro tracks this must change for the betterment of all ...

We must think ahead ...
We must go forward not backwards ..

Ballarat .Bendigo.Shepperton .Warragul .Cranbourne ..These area's need support with state of the art tracks and facilities Equal to Sandown and the Meadows .
Melton .Kilmore ..Seymour ..Pakenham ..Devon Meadows could all have Straight tracks built over 650 meters for our future ...