That is, a 14 day gap will not be sufficient to repair the damaged pad, and at least 21 days is more likely.

That implies that either the injury is now much more serious (than on April 13) or that the decisions made post-April 13 were too ambitious.

Either way, an element of doubt is present. Consequently, any decision post-April 13 should have been based not only on pure medical grounds but also on a management assessment of the overall situation - which is the steward's responsibility, having heard the vet's advice.

Today, too many questions remain. Exactly how can you evaluate a recovering pad at a pre-race inspection? Is it reasonable to expect complete healing of a pad (a piece of skin) within a 7 day period - not just to look good but to have regained sufficient strength? What is the likelihood of a recurrence when pounding it into an abrasive surface a couple of hundred times? Does Tornado have a congenital weakness in this area?

All that is outside my pay grade but I am still able to apply the pub test. It does not smell right. That is not to say who made a blue or why but the events do say - without any doubt - that they pulled the wrong reins.

Am I using the benefit of hindsight? Well, perhaps, but what other option is there?

The real issue is that, whether recognised or not, the situation was never a black and white one. 100% confidence could never be possible. Doubts were present. The people concerned took a punt and lost. The public paid for that.

So far, GWIC's statements amount to a cop-out. It simply repeats what we already know or have heard. Moreover, they offer no prospect that a repeat performance will be avoided. That's the real worry.

That's not right - he'd have to trial this Sunday to set a time to qualify for the Speed Star which he will be unable to do. If he had of already qualified, he may have taken his place in the field on 5 May

You are stretching the point. I note your mention of the need to trial but that is irrelevant if the dog would not be ready to race for 21 days or whatever.

The central question is not the Speed Star but the healing time for a busted pad. As an expert on many things, you might like to comment on that.

There is no "may have" about it - the kennel foreman has said he could not. Period. Full stop.

The question is what is a reasonable time for an injured pad to heal sufficiently to pass a pre-race test (the fine detail of the injury is not available)? A further unknown is whether the 13 April injury is the same or worse than the 20 April injury, or vice versa. So far, here are the competitors:

7 days trainer
7 days 5 stewards
7 days 2 vets
14 days 5 stewards (the same people)
14 days 2 vets (one new one, one the same)
14 days GWIC administration
14+ days the pub test
21+ days kennel foreman

A follow-on question might be whether there is a difference between a pad that looks OK and one that lacks the strength to stand up to hard racing. A related question might be whether it is possible for any pad (a piece of skin) to return to full strength in 7/14/21 days. Opinions are welcome.

Entries which offer good evidence of similar injuries in other dog breeds, cats, lions or tigers may qualify for bonus points. Entries which provide good evidence of recent pad damage at Wenty will get priority consideration.

Entries which mention the Speed Star will be disqualified immediately.

Bruce, you brought up the Speed Star when you mentioned what was published on the Sandown website.

You drew an assumption based on your misunderstanding of what was said and by the implications that had for the Speed Star. I pulled you up on it, as did Robert Morris. You ignored the point made by both of us.

Worse, you again misrepresented the kennel foreman with the quote above. He did no such thing - you made that assumption because you don't understand the fact that the dog can't compete in the Speed Star without setting a qualification time, which he can't do because he wasn't going to be ready 8 days after the Wentworth Park run.

21+ days is an assumption you made, no one else.

Michael

Get used to it & don't take it too seriously

Bruce regularly makes up his own assumptions as he goes along, to suit his current arguments

When he is wrong he then backtracks and then makes up new assumptions

He never apologises for his errors. He uses a cop out that he is not an expert in that field but talks as if he is one and then attempts to make the other person look foolish with either a red herring argument or some other BS assumption along with a lot of big words to try and confuse the issue and mask the shortcomings of his original incorrect argument. even to the point where he restructures his reply to steal the opinion of the person criticising him, and thus trying to make it look like his opinion all along

Time to move on from TT. Its done & dusted .

Each to their own.

What does irk me is when people misquote others, draw an unfair conclusion based on that misquote, then double down on their own assertion despite being called out for getting it plainly wrong.

It's not fair and it's not right and should be called out

you people keep engaging with him. just don't do it, lol.

Middle or long distance should get 27 days
Same as above recovery with 2 runs before racing on the 28th day

Any dog recorded with this injury should receive third place prize money for two weeks in its current standard grade payout for compensation due to loss of income through no fault of the trainer or owner

This would be welfare following the above

Cheers

Michael,

Absolute rubbish.

Kennel foreman Peter Riley:

All things going well, were hoping to have him right for the Sandown Cup heats but he wont race before then.

That seems to add up to 21+ days. No assumption by me is involved. It's straight quote (ex GRV, not the club) so your claim of misrepresentation is nonsense.

I ignored your mention of the Speed Star as it has nothing to do with this thread as such. By all means start another thread and go for your life. Meantime, you fail to answer the questions I posed. Robert - ditto.

Glen,
When you indulge is personal abuse you might at least provide concrete examples, not waffle.

However, I respond to your post only because of your last sentence - "Time to move on from TT. Its done & dusted".

No, it is not. Far from it. To date, I have heard nothing which gets close to establishing the full facts and therefore I have to keep asking questions. I am not convinced by anything said by stewards/vets/GWIC or any action taken by them. The only fair dinkum claim I can find is that of the kennel foreman (re 21+ days) long after the event.

Meantime, the image of the industry is mud. A short favourite in a top race ran a shocking race when carrying the remains of a well known injury yet we are expected to say "bad luck" and forget about it. I and others have doubted it would happen at the gallops - and said why.

I doubt this one, too, not on the basis of finely detailed knowledge but on a experienced racing person's assessment of what is in front of me.

There are only two end possibilities; first that several different groups made honest but flawed calls about the industry, or second, that their actions were incompetent and/or not in the best interests of the industry.

Key amongst those is the fact that the pre-race check on April 20 was plainly wrong - as evidenced by the dog's miserable failure just minutes later. It is simply not feasible to make any other assessment.

Which takes up back to where it all starts; Were they all honest mistakes or sloppy ones?

I make no bones about my interim conclusion - that the dog should never have started. If I am to alter that it would be only after hearing additional hard info and not just the tosh supplied by GWIC (where many folk are not expert dog people).

I agree with you on one thing. The dog should not have started ...but its an easy call to make after the fact. Hindsight. Youre no genius in making that call buddy.

GWIC have given a statement, trainer has given a statement. Dog has been given 14 day stand down but you still wanna go on with it, talking about Speed Star (which your assertion has been proven to be wrong, & Sandown Cup...what if they said they hope to be back at wenty next year for association cup??? Are you going to assume the dog needs 365 days off???).

I dont know your credentials outside of being a punter & obviously an avid follower of greyhounds. Are you a Registered NSW greyhound participant? If not, you probably have no business with GWIC unless your reporting some form of animal cruelty issue...& if so, then this isnt the place for your diatribe, they have a hotline number for you to call.

I doubt whether there would be more disappointed people with TTs run than the connections & trainer...not you. So move on Bruce, its getting boring. And if you dont want to move on, at least have the decency to acknowledge when you get things absurdly wrong as in the case of the Speed Star.

The context of the quote is important, so let me walk you through it.

Sandown website wrote:

While the 14 day incapacitation certificate will have lapsed in time for the Sunday 5 May event, the Robert Britton trained greyhound has yet to set a qualification time at Sandown Park and kennel foreman Peter Riley confirmed that while he is recovering well from his injury, he will not be ready in time to attempt to defend his title. Hes recovering well, but he wont be heading to the Speed Star, Riley confirmed. All things going well, were hoping to have him right for the Sandown Cup heats but he wont race before then.

Riley said he WON'T race before the Sandown Cup heats, not that he CAN'T race.

Tornado Tears won't line up in the Speed Star because he can't run a qualification time. As I said previously, had the dog already qualified he may well line up. But given he'll miss that series, he'll instead be set for the Sandown Cup.

I have repeatedly said I am not interested in the Speed Star, I did not comment on it, and as such it is not really relevant to the subject other than the indirect mention that Tornado cannot start in it. This is my thread and I nominated the topic as the Cup and Tornado.

Secondly, it is not your business to dictate who I can talk to or how.

Thirdly, if you stopped attacking me and read the posts carefully you would know that I am, or was, a punter, writer and detailed form analyst of (variously) of 30 to 50 years standing.

Whether you wrote it or you quoted Riley accurately is not my problem. All I can do is follow the English language as published.

Next time I see someone say "hoping to have him right for the Sandown Cup heats" I will again be forced to assume that the dog will not be fit until then. No other interpretation is possible. Your suggestion that he did not mean "can't" is simply not sustainable.

I did ask that people leave Speed Star comments for another day because it is "Off Topic" so far as this thread is concerned. You have ignored that request - again - as have others.

I will shortly be publishing my summary of the whole deal (ie I profoundly disagree with Glenn's contention that it is all over and done with and is getting boring). However, I have been waiting on the off chance that others would offer some learned comment on the injury issue. Sadly, few have bothered so far but they are generally agreeing with the proposition that Tornado should not have started.

This is my thread and I nominated the topic as the Cup and Tornado.

I am, or was, a punter, writer and detailed form analyst of (variously) of 30 to 50 years standing.

Love yah work ...