Turnover may be down a bit, or even hold its own, but that will be due mostly to mugs in pubs who have not the faintest idea of what they are doing.

Half the starters have never raced so investors will have to rely on performance trials for guidance or, more likely, nothing at all because that form will not be accessed anyway. Just the numbers will do. Perhaps, as I recall one highly experienced tipster state about a country maiden series, they will rely on the breeding. Seriously!

One good thing is that they look like having full fields, which is encouraging. Still, that has been true of Neds 280s, too, and most of those were pure 300m dogs which did not even have decent country records.

Added prize money for Maidens - $25,000 in this case is a fairly common practice in the industry, or at least in the greyhound code. Not so for the gallops or trots where untried youngsters must earn their spurs for peanuts on the country circuits. The same goes for competitors in any sport.

Maidens are all very good and necessary we cant do without them. But there is a time and place for everything.

Anyway, before I get shouted down by all the owners and trainers, please answer my basic question: how does this help greyhound racing?

I see the first heat winner paid $19 and the second heat winner paid $15.
I reckon the multitude of mugs in pubs will be shouting all their mates to a counter meal while your experienced mate will be whingeing about putting on a maiden series.

Now Bruce, I know you dont leave your bubble very often, but have you ever been to early morning trials at any track?
Have you see the 3 or 4 guys who sit in the same spot with a book and a pencil, writing down every trial result?
Then have you seen a maiden with no form, go from $6 in to $2.20 within 30 seconds?

One more question Bruce.
How does an all maiden meeting hinder greyhound racing?

Maybe the maiden series has got onto Wednesday because of the lack of numbers racing at this point in time? Its quite plausible given what the ban and new rules did to breeding.

Trent,

Not really. As a rule most maidens in Qld and Vic are short of a full field. Even the silly 6-doggers often end up with 5 or fewer runners. The difference here is that trainers saved up their dogs for better heat and final money - hence the full fields. Very logical.

Turnover was pretty standard, indicating that gamblers dominated proceedings - regardless of race quality. Only two favourites won (as could be expected) and times were variable - some good, some not.

We are then left with two more questions; would they have done just as well at Richmond or Gosford, and what about the normal performed dogs which might have raced on this night at Wenty - were they robbed?

None of which alters the fact that the industry continues to plough money into unpredictable and mostly unknown dogs. (Note the figure was $38,400 including place money, not the $25k I stated). Others doing this include Ipswich, Dapto and Warrnambool. On the other hand, the peak Melbourne events for youngsters used to allow unraced Maidens to enter but they have now stopped that.

And no-one has commented on the fact that no other racing code and no other sport adopts strategies like this. None.

The point is that if you invest substantial amounts of cash in a venture you should be sure you have a good chance of getting a positive return. I don't think the Neds 280s were worth it but at least that was done with a purpose in mind. This was not.

It was a terrible shame to see Toowoomba disappear - a great track but a funny town as the horses can't seem to get their act together now. Anyway, the "rich maiden series" didn't do much good in the end, did it?

I also have wonderful memories of Credibility. One of my biggest ever wins was earlier in the 1990s when it beat out Jessica Casey and South Road Sid in the Winfield Challenge at Beaumont Park (3/1 each of three). 10 bookies in the ring but, interestingly, you could hardly move in the place due to all the mums with baby strollers rushing around.

You have your thrills, I have mine but none will be based on breeding.

Absolutely, but the "Time Honoured" term is a creation by and for owners/trainers. The public could not care less. Nor could real punters.

It all depends on where you are standing when you speak.

I tried to illustrate this clash of minds earlier when I cast doubts about Jesaulenko (I could also do it for Poke the Bear - a terrific galloper - or Sweet It Is). Connections are rightly thrilled about what he had done - and why not for $427K? But for a punter he was never reliable enough at his usual price to be considered a good bet. He was a gamble, especially over the 500s. Therefore I rated him low because I could never make money on him.

We are both right.

As for these Maiden series, I am often told that so and so began its career in one and went on to be a great competitor. True enough, but the same dog would have succeeded anyway, no matter where he started.

hook, line and sinker, lol.

You are changing the subject. This is about Maiden series, not Australian Cups and like. Nor is it about fun weekends in the bush where you are happy to recover your travel expenses or maybe make a few bucks on a smokey. This is about investing big money at the second most important meeting of the week at the nation's leading track.

Does it make sense investing some $100k or so in a series where the dogs have little or no form, where many may not be seen again and where outcomes are less predictable than normal? And what are the alternative uses of that cash - perhaps where some better returns are available?

As for Poke The Bear, if you put an even dollar on the nose at each of its last 20 starts you would have lost 15% of your bank. Keep doing that and you go broke. Yet this is a dog that has a better than 50% win rate and half a mill in prize money!

(Why is that so? Because mugs in pubs are controlling prices and betting pools are getting smaller by the day).

I suppose one advantage of sitting in an ivory tower is that you get a better overall view of the business of greyhound racing.

And, still, none of you guys have answered some of the hard questions. Why does no other sport known to mankind do this? Are there no better ways of promoting greyhound racing than pushing Maidens or 280m races? If you run short, can you take your Honour Board into Cash Converters and get something back?

Bruce I thinks its money well spent.

If people can see a maiden can race to make a GRP final with bloody decent prize money it makes there mind start to think...... Its owners and trainers like us that need to promote this to new owners.

There is so many people out there that just dont realise how good the prize money is these days.

How many greyhounds can say they have had 2-3 starts and won a GRP race? If promoted right I think it could be great for the sport........

Your point is well made if you are talking about the interaction between a breeder/trainer and a prospective owner.

My view is that such an interaction presumes that there was already sufficient incentive for the new owner to indicate a general interest in the first place. That is much more doubtful.

Indeed, short of the current series of very expensive Neds280 ads, the industry does little or nothing to promote itself. A major exception is the GAP program, which does aim directly at the general public and therefore has spin-off value. (But note that GAP was and is more a reaction to government-inspired welfare policies than anything associated with racing, breeding or training).

Otherwise, the industry concentrates only on trade magazines (getting fewer), The Catching Pen or authorities' websites, all which are all pitched to insiders, not to the public. That bracket indirectly includes prize money which again is a insider issue and not of great public interest. Again, an exception has been Toole's million dollar series which did attract mainstream interest and, for example, has still generated fresh coverage in the SMH.

However, while owners old and new are fundamental to the introduction of new money to the industry, they do not address the other side of that argument - betting by the public, which is far greater in total. It is also more critical as that public can also support the overall political effort (as it did in Orange).

It is in that context that I queried the worth of spending $100k or so on Maidens - rather than on some other initiative which might return a better dividend.

In the same vein, but coming from a different angle, I also query the allocation of $250k to $500k to feature races. Not the principle, but the excessive amount. If you cut that in half, would the outcome be any different? I think not.

It is very easy to spend money, but much harder to earn it in the first place.