Yes - stewards seem to be missing quite a lot, and even dogs hitting the rail as per trainer feedback, and on many occasions dogs hitting the rail are not even being vetted, which should be a normal and required practice.

Wednesday February 16, severe interference in the first 3 races including another rail hit and 2 falls. Poor outcomes for several dogs sadly.

Meeting abandoned after race 3 and a stewards inspection of the track, with the stewards explanation for abandonment being lightning in the area.

This track Is fast becoming a serious problem on race nights, even with the many small fields. GRV spruikers have gone very quiet on their world leading design.

Not really Sandro. There are 50 or so more tracks where layouts could and should be improved. In many cases authorities have fiddled with them only to fail to remedy the faults. UTS has been playing around with several tracks without achieving a single improvement (bar the brand new Grafton).

Actually - from observation and stats - Horsham and Shepparton are worse than the previous layouts and Traralgon is clearly not working well (interference, falls, being slammed into the rail and some randomness on the last turn and in the straight).

You are forgetting that UTS are amateurs in the racing game and are working solely from misconceived computer modelling.

Devonport is being planned by an outside contract designer about whom I cannot comment as I have not seen his work.

Virtually all rebuilds or new tracks over the last 20 years have been masterminded by engineering firms which have no experience in greyhound racing - or any racing. None have worked.

The gallops would not put up with this stuff for a minute. Mind you, their curators meet regularly to compare notes across the country and they also have the benefit of constant jockey feedback (many of whom walk the prior prior to the meeting to check for variability).

To whack it in and hope for the best is not a good policy, never has been and never will. Until the penny drops, the mess will continue.

We need a dedicated, independent design unit to review all tracks. That should be a function of GA but I doubt that they even understand the question - just as they adopted huge cobalt and arsenic changes without proper scientific review.

I thought the UTS study was a scientific review where they used the trackers on the dogs to determine their speed and ability to hold that speed on a camber

I don't think you can get much more scientifc than that

As an outside viewer from NSW, my only criticism of Traralgon is placing the boxes against the rail

I am totally against that as it seems to create too much interference

Right - boxes - that's what has been evidenced at Horsham, Shepparton and Traralgon.

But yes, UTS worked up all sorts of possibilities by creating race models and applying some theoretical principles and then coming up with an "ideal" layout. Lots of these are in their reports or attached as separate files which have then been used to impress peers across the world (which gains academic brownie points.

Any use of the GPS-generated speed postings (mainly in Melb) is prone to misinterpretation as there are several possible influences on how a dog behaves in a race. In particular, they would have to get inside a dog's brain to understand what motivates its actions or what stops it doing what it wants to do. In other words, each dog would have to be carefully profiled prior to being classified as this or that. Their trainers might be able to do that but not a computer - even with large sample numbers (which they do not have).

After all that, they would need to separate events which are dog-generated from those which are track-generated. Not an easy job, especially when the operator does not really understand greyhounds.

What is readily available, but apparently not used, is long term data on race outcomes - winning boxes or race falls, for example. A thousand or so samples of those will quickly tell you what works well and what does not. A few dozen speed checks around Meadows will not.

It's a bit like climate change - CO2 is there but its impact is minor in the overall scheme of things. So if you get rid of CO2 it will not change the temperature to any measurable extent (but it would mean we all die from the absence of food). Anyway, CO2 changes after the temperature change, it does not generate it.

So science is all very well (and I have been a long term supporter of outside investigations into tracks) but it still comes back to what info you have and what you do with it. UTS has failed now at five or more tracks while (allegedly) it did well at Grafton - can't say more than that because GRNSW has not told us who did what at Grafton or anywhere else in NSW for that matter.

An example. After some 30 years of recording and analysing Aust data from all tracks in great detail I can tell you what is good and what doesn't work. For ages I have been pointing out that Hobart 461m offers minimal interference and almost zero race falls - so get down there and measure up everything in forensic detail to learn what the secret is. As far as I know no-one has bothered to do that.

Obviously, the UTS computer can't either.

I should have commented on your mention of speed on the camber.

There are lashings of examples available to suggest that an individual dog's capability on the curve varies according to the makeup of that dog. Some can maintain a high(er) speed, some can't.

For example, relatively, Lansley Bale ran faster at Meadows (more circular) than at Sandown (more cigar shaped). The Assassins (all of them) ran faster at Sandown than at Meadows. Both cases due to their natural galloping actions. How do you put that in your computer?

Thats where your argument falls over

You can't control how any particular dog will behave on any given day and in the circumstances of a race

There are few tracks that cater to all greyhounds

Large tracks and straight tracks are biased against small bitches due to their size and length of stride but they usually excel on a tighter track.
That's up to the expertise of the trainer to determine where their dog is better suited.

Most dogs will handle a track better when they are fully familiar with it.

Giving a dog experience by trialling on a track prior to racing is usually a far safer practice and preventer of injuries than the shape of the track itself

But back to Traralgon, not sure what is going on with the surface, but those boxes placed on the rail aren't suitable for full field racing IMHO

i think when grv put out tenders they state they have the sole rights to it.
if devonport contractor wants to change design what happens there?

I have no idea what argument you are talking about. I thought we were in general agreement.

As to the second sentence, the entire process of greyhound racing is dependent on working out the profile of each dog. Obviously, trainers will use that knowledge in planning their racing patterns.

The punter will do likewise but probably in finer detail than the trainer, usually by referring to career records etc.

There is a significant bias though. Trainers (including trainers working as commentators) will always lean towards the better galloper while the (good) punter will lean towards the best placed dog. Big difference.

As I intimated earlier, taking Awesome/Whisky Assassin to Angle Park was a complete waste of time. They were the best gallopers but never looked like getting around that track.

The punter will do likewise but probably in finer detail than the trainer, usually by referring to career records etc.

There is a significant bias though. Trainers (including trainers working as commentators) will always lean towards the better galloper while the (good) punter will lean towards the best placed dog. Big difference.

So Bruce are you saying a punter will know Chris Wallers horses and outcomes better then he himself ? Due to purely stats and fractions printed on paper on past runs !

Laughable

Trainers have no say where our dogs are placed (stewards discretion) ruins this every week ! So why would one ALWAYS lean to their best galloper ?
Another myth Bruce

I think this is the reason where any outcome forward and backwards is the conclusion of why we are where we are today on providing the safest and best tracks for our racers

Wrong Poeple in the wrong positions And theories that lead to the old saying , putting the cart before the horse

Ive listened to you Bruce for 5 years crap on about how the professional engineering is needed and anything else is a failure , well pretty sure theyve had their fair go in the last 5 years with upgrades and new tracks aplenty and now richmond circle track the latest to have a go !

Ive already heard the changing of 535 mtr to a 520 mtr , so the run into the corner will now be a 4 sec down from a 5.50 ?
Does it take an engineer to figure the outcome of this adjustment or does a trainer need to spell it out that youve just ruined Richmonds 500s and its past heritage to now another smash up wenty track ! Leader goes thru unscathed and 60% of the field gets taken out after the first 100 mtrs

Wheres the welfare in this theory and engineering?

Honestly how many tracks do the so call professional engineers need to ruin before realising the blokes who use them everyday with all types of runners are the most experienced and valued knowledge COMBINED with engineering is the fastest way to getting the best result

Keep glorifying the pro punter Bruce , but dont forget the blokes who provided you your so called refined details already knew it before it was even printed
What happens after box rise in any negative or unpredictable event is through lack of effort in not producing the products in their safest environment possible eg grading ,seeding and box positions ........ all of which are out of the trainers hands and in the hands of the wrong people in wrong positions under wrong rules

Simple and plain as day

So Bruce are you saying a punter will know Chris Wallers horses and outcomes better then he himself ? Due to purely stats and fractions printed on paper on past runs !

Laughable

I CANT TALK SENSIBLY ABOUT HORSES ALTHOUGH I NOTE WALLER IS REGULARLY UNDER CRITICISM.

Trainers have no say where our dogs are placed (stewards discretion) ruins this every week ! So why would one ALWAYS lean to their best galloper ?
Another myth Bruce

I NOTE THAT TRAINERS CAN CHOOSE TRACKS, DISTANCES AND (EFFECTIVELY) THE CLASS OF RACE.

I think this is the reason where any outcome forward and backwards is the conclusion of why we are where we are today on providing the safest and best tracks for our racers

Wrong Poeple in the wrong positions And theories that lead to the old saying , putting the cart before the horse

Ive listened to you Bruce for 5 years crap on about how the professional engineering is needed and anything else is a failure , well pretty sure theyve had their fair go in the last 5 years with upgrades and new tracks aplenty and now richmond circle track the latest to have a go !

PARTLY TRUE - FEEL FREE TO INSPECT NUMEROUS ARTICLES I HAVE WRITTEN FOR AUSTRALIAN RACING GREYHOUND. WHAT I HAVE ALSO SAID IS (A) WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO DID OR APPROVED WHAT CHANGES AND (B) VERY FEW OF THE CHANGES HAVE DONE ANY GOOD. THE MAIN REASONS FOR THAT ARE (C) THAT THE ENGINEERS FAILED TO PROPERLY ANALYSE HISTORY AND THEREFORE LEARN WHAT WAS NOT WORKING AND (D) THEY JUMPED IN WHERE ANGELS FEARED TO TREAD - IE WITHOUT VERIFYING THEIR THEORIES (EG TRAALGON).

Ive already heard the changing of 535 mtr to a 520 mtr , so the run into the corner will now be a 4 sec down from a 5.50 ?
Does it take an engineer to figure the outcome of this adjustment or does a trainer need to spell it out that youve just ruined Richmonds 500s and its past heritage to now another smash up wenty track ! Leader goes thru unscathed and 60% of the field gets taken out after the first 100 mtrs

I HAVE ALREADY CRITICISED THE PROPOSED RICHMOND LAYOUT - WHERE THE MAIN ISSUES WOULD BE THE FAILURE TO MOVE THE 400M BOXES AROUND TO A KINDER LOCATION AND SIMULTANEOUSLY IMPROVE THE 535M FIRST TURN WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN TOO FLAT, THEREBY CAUSING MANY DOGS TO RUN OFF AND CAUSE EXTRA INTERFERENCE. THAT IS WHY WINS FROM 6-7-8 ARE MUCH LOWER THAN NORMAL. MY BELIEF IS THAT THE RICHMOND HEIRARCHY THINK THEIR TRACK IS BASICALLY ALL RIGHT. IT ISN'T BUT THEY REFUSE TO RECOGNISE THE FAULTS.

HAVING SAID THAT I AM NOT SURE WHO CAME UP WITH THE SO-CALLED SOLUTION.

Wheres the welfare in this theory and engineering?

Honestly how many tracks do the so call professional engineers need to ruin before realising the blokes who use them everyday with all types of runners are the most experienced and valued knowledge COMBINED with engineering is the fastest way to getting the best result

Keep glorifying the pro punter Bruce , but dont forget the blokes who provided you your so called refined details already knew it before it was even printed

NOT "BLOKES" - ALL MY INFO COMES FROM PUBLISHED RESULTS, AS ANALYSED, TESTED AND VERIFIED BY FURTHER OBSERVATION.

What happens after box rise in any negative or unpredictable event is through lack of effort in not producing the products to their safest environment possible

Simple and plain as day

I AGREE.

THE KEY TO THE WHOLE DEAL IS THAT AUTHORITIES (WHO MAKE END DECISIONS) SHOULD BE ABSORBING INFO FROM ALL SOURCES BUT ESPECIALLY FROM PEOPLE CAPABLE OF ASCERTAINING THE FACTS AND THEN INTERPRETING THEM TO THE BENEFIT OF THE INDUSTRY. GENERALLY SPEAKING, UTS HAS NOT DONE THAT, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT GOT A FEEL FOR HOW DOGS RACE. INSTEAD, THEY WANT DOGS TO DO WHAT UTS THINKS IS GOOD. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE DOGS CANT READ THE REPORTS.

YOU IMPLY THAT TRAINERS ARE VITAL TO THIS PROCESS. WELL, CERTAINLY THEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED, ALONG WITH OTHERS AND SHOULD COMMENT ON PROPOSALS. BUT TELL ME HOW MANY TRAINERS HAVE THE TIME TO GATHER ALL THE FACTS, STUDY THEM 24/7 AND THEN COME UP WITH GOOD SOLUTIONS.

I DID ALL THAT FOR DONKEYS YEARS AND I STILL CANT DESIGN A TRACK BECAUSE I LACK ALL THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S WRONG AND WHY BUT I CAN'T DO THE FULL DESIGN JOB AS I HAVE NEITHER THE TRAINING OR ALL THE DATA. NEITHER DO STATE AUTHORITIES.

AS FOR PRO PUNTERS - ARE THERE MANY LEFT? I WAS NEVER ONE ALTHOUGH I USED TO BE A SERIOUS PUNTER WHICH IS A DIFERENT THING.

I REPEAT MY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. ESTABLISH AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT UNIT TO OVERSIGHT ALL AUSTRALIAN TRACKS - NO EXCEPTIONS.

I find it hard to fathom you wouldnt already understand that the trainers involvement is the practical side which he does 24 / 7 ALREADY!!!

He doesnt need to go gather or study and obtain anything new that your proposing is simply impossible???

What we do in a week Bruce would , and all offence intended ! squash What you achieved in your donkeys years !

Ps I take back what I find hard to fathom what you dont understand

Pity none have worked out. Quite a lot have soaked up lots of capital to recover and rebuild tracks. They still have not got it right. Not one.

For example, Richmond spent squillions on a rebuild but still ended up with a flat first turn. More squillions were spent on Dapto which is still a disaster. WPK ditto. Dogs routinely run off on Bulli's flat turn. Gosford's 388m still produces numerous falls.

I often wonder with amazement what skilled trainers can do but not on track design. However, it is a bit disconcerting that every time I see 10 trainers offering opinions we get 11 different versions (one will change his mind half way through).