We all love the dog but that was a terrible performance regardless. Its SP was $1.45, $1.70 or $1.90, depending on where you look, so tens of thousands went down the drain without a whimper in a feature race.

Stewards made no mention of its pre-race pad difficulties but the vet did pass it fit to race. And it was swabbed. I would be surprised if that showed up anything out of the ordinary.

To coin a phrase, I thought it ran like a cat on a hot tin roof. Multi record holders do not run last the next time out for no good reason. I could understand it losing but not running a miserable last (and I did not have a bet) and barely chasing. If the hind pad was a problem this time, why were four hot pads not enough to stop it smashing the record last week? It makes no sense.

Thats nowhere good enough. After allowing for all the hassles, it warranted in depth investigation and a report to the public, perhaps including something about why it was allowed to start at all. (I note a horse was pulled out of the Melb Cup for less reason and against the wish of the connections).

On top of all that, we have yet to hear about the cause, if any, of all the burnt pad injuries.

It's always so easy to say what everyone should have done when you know that what they actually did didn't work.

For example, there is repeat evidence that a top LAW run in the heat is often followed by a poor run in the final, indicating that the petrol tank was not replenished. Conversely, a dog which spends most of its time in the ruck is more often able to duplicate its run in the final, indicating that it had paced itself well and still had energy available to finish on.

While the Tornado case - with the country's best trainer - is somewhat different, it also offers some evidence that there are many possible reasons for such a degradation in performance, some obvious, some maybe not so obvious.

In total, we are operating at the extreme end of the greyhound's capability and must therefore take a much tighter look at rules and decision-making. What might be just acceptable for a country 300 may not pass muster for a high level 700.

Plainly, the trainer, the vets and the stewards missed the boat in this case. The question is therefore whether they acted reasonably, or whether they used poor judgement. I can't answer that question but it should be remembered that stewards are not there to be nice to trainers - they are responsible to the public.

The big hassle now is that the police will be reviewing the police. In a different world - which I prefer - a racing supremo would be reviewing the actions of all involved groups. He would know he answers to the public, even if others don't.

Admittedly, a previous supremo did fail in those responsibilities (see McHugh) but he got sacked in the end.

It has always been known that if the synthetic grass in front of the boxes is not kept wet it will scorch & tear pads-is it kept wet?

I think we are entitled to be told the reason is being sought or has been discovered as in all reality, if it's a bad tear, it probably is a 3 week on the sidelines injury result with a further 2 weeks to get back to the same fitness.

Do you think such risks would have been taken with thoroughbred champions like Winx or Black Caviar?

Answer,

No, which was why I quoted the example of the horse being pulled out of the Melb Cup by the official vet and the stewards despite the trainer's protestations. There have been many others. One was Singleton's mare in a big race at Randwick, where Gai failed to advise of late treatment which included an injection in its neck.

Numerous withdrawals at the barrier also occur.

That is just plain wrong Bruce.
I dont believe you have ever trained a dog, but clearly you think trainers just look at a dog without checking it.
Wrong, wrong, arrogant and wrong.

Bruce Teague wrote:

it also offers some evidence that there are many possible reasons for such a degradation in performance, some obvious, some maybe not so obvious.

What are the obvious ones please?

Bruce Teague wrote:

In total, we are operating at the extreme end of the greyhound's capability and must therefore take a much tighter look at rules and decision-making. What might be just acceptable for a country 300 may not pass muster for a high level 700.

More rules?
So how would the dog Pirate's Curse fit into these new rules?
Won over 600m on Sunday, then ran 4th over 731m on Thursday, then broke the track record over 600m on the Sunday.
3 starts in 7 days racing over 1931m and breaking the record on the 3rd start.

Bruce Teague wrote:

Plainly, the trainer, the vets and the stewards missed the boat in this case. The question is therefore whether they acted reasonably, or whether they used poor judgement. I can't answer that question but it should be remembered that stewards are not there to be nice to trainers - they are responsible to the public.

Its not the stewards job to check the dog for pre-race injuries either. That's why there is a vet. And because the vet didn't find anything wrong, that tells me that the dog may have hurt its pad in the box, exiting the box, or stepping onto the artificial turf in front of the box.
A dog that picks up a pad injury will feel intense pain in that pad, particularly at the start of a race when the dog is putting so much force onto its pads, to generate early speed. 32kgs of weight bearing down onto 4 tiny pads, something feels not right, the dog will miss a step then try to compensate by putting more effort onto its other foot. This usually ends in dogs not running straight or even more injury to the good leg.
And stewards are not responsible to the public, they are responsible to the integrity of the gambling industry, as in, punters who enjoy the sport, not narks who hate it.

Bruce Teague wrote:

Admittedly, a previous supremo did fail in those responsibilities (see McHugh) but he got sacked in the end.

McHugh was the catalyst for Baird and Grant getting the flick, and the greyhound ban being overturned.
As soon as that report came out, flaw upon flaw upon flaw was found. I don't know why you keep referring to it.
It's as credible as the Easter Bunny.

Why would the trainer strap the pad if he thought the injury was 100% right?

You would have to ask the trainer Tony.
I have no idea about the dog or about the trainer, but I imagine that he consulted with his regular vet and followed the advice of his regular vet, which is what most top end trainers do.
Plenty of dogs running around with strapping on them.

I will ignore most of your last rant because you are simply trying to have a crack at me, imagining what I think and know and not addressing the subject.

What is important is that I mentioned that three people were involved in the dog actually racing = trainer, vet and stewards. All failed to set up a decent race - so I said there was reason to explain and investigate. I said I could not comment further but someone should.

First, the trainer is responsible for presenting the dog in good condition. It was not, so that bears checking.

The vet is responsible for checking that fitness - doubly so in this case because of the known history - and reporting any problem to the stewards. For whatever reason they missed out.

The stewards are responsible for ensuring the overall package is hunky dory in the interests of the public at large, not just punters. That responsibility extends through to their boss, the Minister and, again, the public. I assume Britton advised them directly of the ongoing problem (and hope) so that means they should have pulled out all the stops to double check Tornado's fitness. For whatever reason, that failed, too.

So there we have three failures in three groups. Not a good batting average. If their performances prove to be reasonable in the circumstances, then so be it. If not, they should be sanctioned.

As a non-expert, I suggest one course of inquiry should be to establish to what extent this or any pad damage can be satisfactorily repaired in 7 days. To an outsider, that appears unlikely.

I mentioned McHugh in the context of the failure of the system or the track vets to properly record deaths etc at Wenty, apparently under instructions from Hogan. That should have been sanctioned - and was.

Anyway, you mis-read the report. It was not the catalyst for getting rid of Baird - quite the opposite. Baird called the ban because of the report, not despite it. It was overturned for political reasons which were nothing to do with McHugh.

Since I have written extensively in public about McHugh and also written directly to the Commission, I am well aware of who did what.
One reason I "keep referring to it", as you claim, is that to this day those flaws have never been publicly admitted or corrected.

Essentially, it simply a repeat what has been said before. It is a review of words (which is better than nothing) but not a review of the overall week-long incident.

The escape clause used is that interference on the way to the first turn explains all. Nothing else matters.

We are now left with three shortcomings. First, the review is not independent in any shape or form. As I said before, the police are reviewing the police. Second, there is a veterinary/fitness question left open - that is, was the opinion of the trainer and the oncourse vet fair and reasonable - or something which warranted alternative expert comment? Third, should the stewards have asked for a more demanding check through the week and prior to the race?

The early bumps are pretty obvious. The damage to one pad was not. How did it occur? Was it related to the pad problems incurred in the heat? Was the earlier treatment adequate? We don't know.

Somebody asked what would have happened had it been Winx or Black Caviar? Good question. This is a hypothetical but based on 50 years of observation and in-house comments my guess would be twofold; Waller would have yanked the horse in a second, and, failing that, the stewards would have had their own vet around in another second.

The point that seems to be missing is that this involved Australia's finest staying greyhound competing in a top prize money race and with tens of thousands of public money riding on the outcome. Add to that group thousands more just watching for fun and seeing such a dismal performance. In that context, extra effort is not only justified but essential.

My summation is that (a) there is not a lot more that can be said about the final other than to pin down the "new" injury and (b) the events of the previous 7 days do no credit to any part of the industry or to its public image.