Or, in layman's terms....

"We let people make submissions to give the appearance of caring what stakeholders think and then we went ahead and endorsed the document without making any changes because we were never going to actually consider your worthless opinions. Peasants."

just another roundabout way to get rid of the older hobby participant,

GRV updates Penalty Guidelines for Greyhound Welfare offences

May 7, 2018/

Greyhound Racing Victoria has updated its Penalty Guidelines for greyhound welfare offences.

GRV released the Penalty Guidelines Greyhound Welfare 2018 in draft form for public comment last December.

Eight submissions were received. Comments varied from largely in favour of the new penalty ranges, to those that considered they were too high. GRVs Board, which considered the feedback and provided further opportunity for key stakeholders to discuss their concerns with GRV, has now endorsed the document.

The guidelines, which update an earlier document released in 2014, outline a range of penalties for greyhound welfare offences committed within the greyhound racing industry. They have been developed to assist GRV personnel when they are making decisions about taking enforcement action.

Welfare offences will continue to be treated on an individual basis and aggravating and mitigating factors, such as prior offences, remorse, cooperation and action taken, will be considered.

The guidelines cover five categories of offences that range from the least serious Category 1 offences to the most serious Category 5 offences. Penalties range from a $1500 fine to life disqualification and a $7000 fine for every greyhound affected.

The guidelines are available here.

The level of offences is perplexing, and the basis not justified.

An example : For failing to produce a current vaccination certificate - a minimum penalty of a 6 month disqualification and a $3,000 fine per greyhound.

Failing to provide adequate shelter from heat or cold - a minimum penalty of $1,500 per greyhound.

So a administrative misdemeanor rates well above a real welfare issue?

The reason for the low number of responses (8) may have been taken to be complacency by participants on the issue, or perhaps a view that no matter what input is provided it will be ignored.

But as a GOTBA member, I was very happy with their response, so there was little point in taking the time to separately put in a lesser quality response.

Regardless, it is disappointing that such a well-thought out sensible response was ignored.

Logic is the last thing in use in this business. For example, a while back I queried the rule which enables an erring trainer to be fined for presenting a dog overweight but who simultaneously has the dog banned for 10 days.

The fine is reasonable because the trainer is presumably sloppy and he has stopped another dog from getting a run. But why double up on the penalty? He is fined twice as he cant run the dog in an upcoming race, thereby reducing the pool of available dogs. The penalty is dumb from an equity and an administrative angle.

I put that to three administrations, including GA. Nothing back.

More to the point, who will initiate a review? The annual stewards conference (which has no power)? GA itself (also no power? Will a state give it due consideration or put it on a GA agenda? No idea.

The result is inaction. Or, if you are lucky, very slow action.

On GOTBA, they may well be cranking up good stuff but who would know? A few members perhaps but nobody else. I never see statements or media releases about success or failure - only a brief mention that GOTBA has been earnestly talking to GRV. NSW GBOTA is no better - waffle only. Qld is much more informative but still abbreviated in its reports.

In any event, the system is such that appeals to state authorities can easily be ignored or rejected without reason.

Appeals are available on convictions but not on general matters. NSW tried a clayton's version of an ombudsman but that bombed out as it had to work through the authority rather than independently.

A fair dinkum ombudsman might work though.

It acted in 2012 in respect of GRV conduct issues.

Anecdotally, it hasn't worked for participants in recent times. This seems mainly because of the applicants' approaches. I was made aware of one case that prima facie did warrant investigation.

The conduct was reported direct to the Ombudsman due to the applicant's perception that they would be persecuted if the issue was reported to GRV, due to the lack of an independent complaints process. (Complaints tended to filter back to the source, creating, at best, a strained relationship between the participant and the subject of the complaint).

But because the conduct had not been escalated through an internal complaints process, the application was rejected by the Ombudsman.

(GRV is currently implementing an independent complaints process, so there is improvement on the way on that score).

An issue is political intervention. It seems that the Attorney General (incidentally also the Racing Minister) sought to prevent Ombudsman follow up of his party's use of government funded employees for electioneering purposes. The media lambasted the Attorney General on both the initial issue and the intervention with the Ombudsmen.

Based on the Attorney General/Racing Minister situation, if politicians want to risk media scrutiny, there seems no aversion to interfere with the Ombudsman for political ends, even if the Ombudsman is doing the job properly.

Participants will have no right of reply to any offence. Whether guilty or not you will be charged and rubbed out

The good news is we should need less stewards/staff and funds saved should go back to participants

OK but let's not concentrate on "offences", as such. That's why I offered the example of an illogical penalty. The breach is not in dispute but the purpose and structure of the rule is. It's dumb and counter productive.

You have to accept the umpire's decision but you can also argue that the rule needs updating. Footie does it every week. Even cricket does it occasionally.

Remember that the first rule of a bureaucracy is to add rules wherever possible. That boosts their influence but it may not improve the industry. Someone or some process has to keep them honest.

Bruce,

You forget to mention the mug punters who unfortunately have invested their hard earned cash in quaddies and doubles, before the late scratchings due to weight variations.

They get stuck with the substitute, like or lump it.

I agree with the rule the way it is. There is no excuse for a trainer turning up at a racetrack with an over or under weight greyhound.

You do the crime, you do the time--and pay the fine.

So, Bruce, you say the penalty should be changed, and you have suggested that to the PTB, who have chosen to to ignore you.

Well, what is your solution ? Yes, you Bruce. You are in the hot seat now.

And please, no gobbleygook answers, let's hear it in plain english, without telling us that it's up to somebody else to offer a solution .

I think everybody agrees there should be a penalty. My point is that the 10 days takes the dog out of circulation for no particular purpose. So if $100 is not sufficient, just double it, or whatever.

As a matter of interest, this arose when a dog raced and won at Canberra but was apparently violating a decision allegedly made (but contested) at an earlier Richmond meeting. Therefore the assumption was that its papers were incorrectly marked - hence it was allowed to start at Canberra.

It was later DQd but by that time the placegetters had lost their chance to win - or those backing them had. Every bet on the race was ruined.

To rub salt into the wounds, the Sun Herald manufactured it into a two and a half page article denigrating the industry - as it is wont to do. It claimed cheating and sloppy administration.

Tut Tut Bruce, I thought it would it may have have dawned on you by now, that if the greyhound is under/over weight, it needs time, (as in a number of days), to get back to its correct racing weight.

Hence the reason for the time penalty.

We don't want to see a greyhound drastically overfed, or underfed, to meet the weight required to enable it to front up and race, two days after it was a late scratching.

All very true but I dare not get into that area lest I be seen to be telling trainers how to train.

Anyway, there are a number of possible factors - only fractionally above the limit/was overfed previously/drank too much/had a tough trip to the track/sick on way to track/may warrant a re-weigh/scales were crook/etc - who knows?

Whatever the actual cause, the 10 days takes away from the trainer the ability to take remedial action in, say, 5 or 7 days. In turn, it might also affect a nomination already made for another race in 7 days, for which there may be no reserve.

It total, the rule is arbitrary and possibly unrelated to the cause or the breach. Such a rule is always a bad rule.

Boy, it's hard to win here. I am supporting trainers and I still get thumped???

Bruce, I do appreciate your contributions to this forum, however on this occasion, you are barking up the wrong tree. Your arguments carry no weight.

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that a sliding "degree of weight discrepancy/number of days outed" scale be introduced.

Your comments ...
"Anyway, there are a number of possible factors ---was overfed previously/drank too much/had a tough trip to the track/sick on way to track/ who knows?"...are ludicrous

Any greyhound that fits that criteria should not turn up at a race meeting.

Bruce, trust me, let this issue go through to the keeper, and move on.

Sorry I can't help myself, your list of excuses for an overweight greyhound should have included....."the dog ate my homework"
It worked for me back in my school days.

"Any greyhound that fits that criteria should not turn up at a race meeting".

But they do mate. They do. Fact.

Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.