I'm not experienced in Aussie racing, but I picked upon this comment about the traps being 60m from the lure. As long as the hare driver took this into consideration I'm not sure it would be a problem. In the UK before coursing was deemed illegal, the slipper would give the hare a 100m start before slipping the dogs.

Ray,

Fair enough. Admittedly I did not go out and measure up the whole facility and I am not a surveyor anyway. By all means adjust the actual (new) distance to suit - 360, 370, 380 or whatever. Greyhounds have superlative sight and readily spot a moving object, almost regardless of how far away it is.

My suggestion was simply to illustrate that (a) almost anything would be better than a 280m race and (b) there is no physical or other reason why boxes could not be located off the track proper.

As for those bend starts - many are designed that way because of ancient practices of bunging everything on the track proper. It's just lazy thinking. Another illustration was the terrible 311m race at the old Olympic Park where runners had to make a right angle turn just after the jump.

But it's not just the old stuff. GRNSW repeated the OPK dose when approving the equally lousy 450m installation at Bathurst not too long ago. Much the same applies to other new ventures like the ultra-short trip at Lismore and elsewhere.

Boxes 1 -3 need to step to the right if they don;t jump in front otherwise risk getting jammed into the rail

They have miles of room for a chute to put in a 350m start, but now Yamanto is going ahead I doubt they will spend anymore money at Albion Park

I think you mean the 395m races. The 331m is pretty well straight away.

Allegedly, the bend start for 395m is enforced by the lack of agreement from the trots to extend the racing area outwards because of the need for space for trotting training circuits. The same applies to the 600m box location where the box 1 dog has to move right then left (a bit like Goulbourn and the former Canberra 440m).

Weak but a fact.

No I mean the 330m start

Obviously you have never raced a dog there

If your dogs cant jump why race at all?
Never understood bend v straight start argument.

If i have a super quick starter i love the bend start. If i have a moderate jumper prefer straight start. Otherwise probably prefer my slow starter on a bend start so they dont boot up right at the first turn and get smashed.

So for me excellent jumper (bend or straight), slow (bend) and moderate (straight).

Seen just as much carnage hard run into first turn as I have start on bend.

Place your dogs as you see fit. Nobody forces me to start them either or, only I do. Its called personal accountability... a very out of vogue concept, yet one I firmly believe in. There will never be a perfect uniform track design ever that suits all dogs.

Place your dogs appropriately and if it goes pear-shaped own it.

A comment like that really didn't make much sense to me

My point is I don't want to be forced to race a dog over an unsuitable distance when there are lack of races over that distance where my dog forced to race against more experienced or faster dogs because that distance range isn't being supported by the powers that be

In Victoria perhaps those issues don't exist but in NSW it's becoming the 300m home

Another very out of vogue concept is trialing a dog to get it fit or keep it 'ticking over' rather than race it over an unsuitable trip hoping for some p/money in the pocket which does nothing for the dogs confidence.

Sandro - life's a lottery. Nobody forces any trainer to place any dog anywhere or anytime. Like I said, it's a choice. Just own the personal accountability if it goes pear-shaped or manage it the best you can. The fundamentals of risk management apply to racing greyhounds same as everything else in life.. 4 T's -- Treat the risk (mitigate through trails, looks, learning etc), Transfer the risk (to someone else, another trainer etc), Tolerate the risk (accept it and just go for it) or Terminate the risk (don't bother doing it.. place the dog at a more suited start and track in this context).

The undocumented fifth T is try and be Teflon (disavow everything, never take personal responsibility, and blame it on the system and everyone else including the poor dog - rather than accepting that to you as the trainer chose to submit to run that dog over abparticular distance, class and grade).

(edit specifically for Sandro - you're right I can't and won't comment on specifics of NSW racing as I am not involved in that jurisdiction. I would like to see something better for short course squibs here in Victoria other than the CRN 311m and HVL 300m straight frankly. Not a massive fan of short races but sub 380m here there are no options for those that give it all early and have essentially nothing in the tank after 270m, and there's plenty of dogs like that they way they use their energy and switch from anaerobic to aerobic muscle and lung function after the first 10-11 secs in a race. Lastly I completely understand what you are eluding to in that you can't place your dogs at the distances and starts where you'd like them to be, but you can only in that case vote with your feet and hope lack of noms justifies your cause or adjust to their world order. It's unfortunately the way it always has been. It's about numbers not individuals)

PS There are very few dogs who can't get past 270m...sorry Jason, but that is complete BS

The main reason that dogs won't run past 270m is because they give up the chase when not in front...weak minds rather than weak bodies

I am picking up 2 break ins this weekend bred on sprinting lines one trialling ok over 340m, the other not chasing properly goes for 200m and then gives up...it needs to be more focussed....maybe we can get that one to chase for 270m to meet your criteria