Bruce - Charles Darwin himself would be astonished if you could ever prove that genetics and evolution of mammals of any kind take place in less than 100 years.

Sure you can argue about breeding for distance, breeding for squibs. But directional stuff - no - thatś how they are trained educated and prepped for what they are to do. No different to a hunting or working dog or a sled dog.

Their genetics haven't prevented the nebulous ball of clay you hold in your hands as a pup from being educated and trained.

Evolution of any species (other than bot flies, mosquitoes and viruses) simply doesn't happen in such a short time frame.

If you take a serious look at how a greyhound (and the cheetah) stride, you will see they are naturally inclined to run clockwise.

Whether those excertional forces running that way promote injuries or prevent it? I seriously never found any studies into it just yet.

Run harder clockwise stride into clockwise direction - does it help or hinder? I don't know.

I do know that running clockwise stride into anti-clockwise bends will always stress the back right leg and that is why we have such a high incidence of right hock fractures on circle tracks. That has been very well documented and heaps of references to it via google let alone everyone's experience here.

If there is any racing jurisdiction will the balls and money enough to at least trial this from a welfare perspective, I suspect based purely on physics and bio mechanics that muscle tears may increase while fractures decrease.

Would I take a soft tissue injury over a fracture? Yes I would.. every day of the week.

Love this video and have sent to many friends in the past. It's still a clockwise gallop ;)

Tony - if there are no studies and it has never been tried the other way, how do you know it's not broke?

Bio-mechanically and physical and inertia forces it was broke from the outset on paper. How do we know? That's where my question comes from.

Everything I have ever learned about physiology says support natural running mechanics and natural biological design. Greyhound racing is one of the few sports I find rather counter intuitive.

I think there's a ton of legacy and history of the origins of horse racing that has no valid application to how a greyhound runs. I firmly believe that's how we came to the conclusion to force them to run against their natural gait and gallop action. It was all based on let's just copy the horses with no consideration for the dog and the running action involved.

Here we are in 2020 and I cannot believe it has not been tested because whether my theory is right or wrong is kinda irrelevant.. better to try and fail than stay guessing/ignorant/content, however you would express that... Still never found any test of this concept.. 6 years after the initial posting and even back then I was wondering why greyhounds never ever or anywhere ran according to their gallop action/gait. I'll leave it at that because if I had the property space and resources I'd have already answered my own question.

The short answer is that you are not going to get evidence of clockwise racing due to practicalities and the monumental expense.

Meantime, we can address what is in front of us or what has occurred over recent decades.

First, there have been some efforts but not enough to improve tracks and therefore injury rates by paying more attention to turn banking (looking for 10%) and turn radius (keep it large and even all the way).

Second, injuries can have many sources, including genetic factors and education/racing aspects, so clockwise or anticlockwise is just one element of that discussion.

Third, likewise the actual meaning and effect of evolution is a piece of string. There will be short and long term factors involved. The long is important but not something we can do much about. The short is a different matter as much of it is man-made.

Fourth, while it will not be the entire answer, a decent study of greyhound handedness would tell us which road to go down and probably allow you to qualify your comments. We already have prima facie evidence that perhaps 80% of greys are righties (ie railers or nearly so) but, again, it is not a matter of 2 + 4 = 4. It is more complex than that.

Fifth, the hock problem is presumably due to a combination of genetics, early education, concentrated training and racing careers and turn banking as demonstrated by (a) the nature of stress during the turn followed by (b) pressure entering the back straight as the dog pours on the power then (c) the break almost always occuring after they come out of the turn (such data would be available somewhere but generally remains hidden to outsiders). Either way, it demands proper analysis.

Having said all that, it is still clear that the continuing push towards short races is having an effect a mini evolution, if you like irrespective of all the above factors. I have been writing about that trend for more than a decade, partly due to the economic aspect. That is immediately fixable but not until our controllers accept that there is a question to answer. Thats not too likely as at present they are not only ignoring the subject but actually encouraging the trend.

Many years ago on another forum I suggested getting a sample of the sand from the Serengeti to get the exact makeup of the ground cheetahs run on every day. I would assume some cheetahs do break their legs, but the decline in the cheetah population is from loss of habitat and not from injury. Cheetahs have been around forever.

Just like people greyhounds have a dominant foot and will always break on their dominant foot. They change leads throughout the race, left lead around turns and right lead on the straights.

In people if you are right-handed there is something like a 75% chance your dominant foot is your right. If you are left-handed there is something like 50 to 60 percent chance your dominant foot will be your left.

Dick,

The essence of the study I spoke of was that pups and youngsters are generally required to move in an anticlockwise direction and therefore they were prone to tiny but visible (but only on XRay) cracks in critical bones. I suppose free galloping would be an exception although the pressures may be different there.

As time moved on and pressure mounted these were then candidates for busted hocks and the like, more so on turns that were poorly designed or maintained.

On the other hand, the more experienced dog may well be suspect to damage due to the totality of all the pressure applied during racing

Still, that is just a couple of aspects of a broader subject. Congenital bone weakness are known in certain strains, for example. And education and training techniques vary from one guy to another.

I still can't find the specific reference to the study I
mentioned but it may well have come from Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ where considerable work has been done, including by a Nick Cave.

Otherwise people can Google an excellent article "Injuries in Racing Greyhounds 2018" by Andrew Knight of the Uni of Winchester (UK). It addresses English racing but the principles are all there.

I might add that academic studies address handedness in two ways - first how the animal reaches out to touch food and second what it does when in motion. Two different subjects really.

PS Some top jockeys claim that they can influence a horse to change gait in the middle of a race but in any case most have a preferred side to start with. On the other hand, humans may not be a great example as some are ambidextrous to an extent (natural or acquired) and also vary according to whether the job is one-handed or two-handed.

The way forward to reduce injuries is to not have races starting on a bend, have seeding i.e. rails, middle, wide, reduce the dogs in a race to 6 and introduce more straight tracks.

I think your question is a good one and is certainly interesting. I am sure at some point in the future someone will open a track and try it.

Generally agree (except for the last one - it will never happen).

However, working with what we have, it is quite practicable to query the various databases and determine what has been happening with injuries and wagering for various sizes of fields - ie 5, 6, 7, 8. Particularly in SA, you still have formal 6- and 8-dog racing so one can be compared with the other at the same track and distance.

GRNSW also specifically tested the outcome of six-dog races at Lismore just a few years ago. Results were never released but that's par for the course.

It has to be done by the authorities as only they have the injury info.

In the same vein, it should then be possible to compare English with Australian data and so identify the major influences. However, I suspect the outside lure might be distorting figures (more so than the seeding).

While they are at it, they should also rewrite the Stud Book and form databases so they can talk to each other. You would then get helpful records of which sire/dam did what. (It's available for the horses).

On straight tracks - despite their value and popularity in Vic, Qld and SA, their current absence in NSW is simply a management problem. All wind and no action.

PS: In a solo trial at Sandown, Knocka Norris busted his hock as he poured on the power after coming out of the first turn. Nearly always, that's where it happens. Career ended. If I recall correctly it also happened at the same point to Go Wild Teddy but that was in a full field at Wenty. And so on.

1. Get a metal bowl and put it on a sliding surface so that the dog (any breed just not greyhounds) has to put their leg on it to stop it moving and get their treat

2. Put coconut oil/peanut butter etc. Anything that will stick to the bowl when they are eating the treat.

3. Do it 5 times. You will know their preferred and dominant leg.

4. If you get a case (highly rare) where they go 3 times one leg and two the other, do it later in day. By two attempts youll know.

Greyhounds that lead out from boxes on left foreleg appear to be more prone to sometimes dipping at box rise. But that is anecdotal and only an observation/personal opinion.

Good chat anyway. I agree with Bruce that capital works and changes mean commercial tracks unlikely to test theory. Hoping maybe someone with property and a private track has tried it. Unlikely I know (i mean why would they) but was worty a question. And if so much money is getting sunk into welfare and track designs and studies maybe one day someone will commission it. If i win lotto, ill fund it ;)

Bob,

Aside from the UK there are numerous USA-based articles available (many referenced at the end of the Knight article I mentioned) but effectively they all concentrate on corner design and perhaps radius as it affects the dogs. Almost none address the overall interaction between the dog and the track at large.

However, a USA Professor did assist GRSA when they played around with Angle Park some years ago (new boxes in new position but still 515m). That did improve the running but the track will be changed again in 2021 (to 530m etc).

Not sure about "speed testing" but this is a simple matter of checking times and distance if you want to make comparisons. But the answers would be messy due to the differing surfaces they race on.

The converse is also present. For example, the drop-in boxes at Horsham actually increased the proportion of falls, no doubt because they positioned the boxes close to the rail. Likewise at Shepparton. Never a good idea. You got the same negative outcomes when cutting away the rail prior to the turn proper - that offended dogs who like to see a nice, wide, even radius all the way around the turn.

These aspects all ignored a basic rule - keep the dogs separated to the maximum extent.

Hi Bruce, taking stats from 6 dog graded race in the UK will show us nothing. The tracks are owned and raced by bookmakers. It is in their interest to have the race like a lottery, anyone can win. This can be done by grading, track design etc. You will also have exception to the rule with dogs running by themselves as you will with retired dogs running in a park.

The boards job is to make the tracks as safe as possible and put in place safety guidelines. I do believe Australia is leading the world and setting the bar at a high level in respect to safety and welfare.

Well, that's a big one.

I am aware that many UK studies cover only half the action due to the mixed controls over tracks. Essentially, that's the same here only more so. But you have to start somewhere. (Incidentally, the hock studies began in WA and SA but were then passed over to GRV to process further and report. That did apparently happen but we have never seen it (aside from some limited notes emanating from a vet's conference and passed on to the McHugh Commission).

However, while our local authorities tend to remain secretive about data they persist with the PR theme that "safety is paramount" while taking only a modest amount of action. Tight positioning of drop-in boxes at Horsham and Shepparton is one busted principle. On the other hand, several examples of better turn camber is good. But these are just snippets of what is happening.

Frustratingly, many potential track fixes could well require only a modest amount of funding - compared to millions spent on jobs that do no more than repeat earlier mistakes.

Possibly the only good example of a re-built or new track is what was done at Cannington, which generally seems to work well. But even there they deliberately installed a bend start for 600m races, after considering but rejecting different options. At Traralgon, they pleasingly offered two options for comment but both were radical changes and they failed to offer a third option - an improved version of a conventional circuit. At Gosford, they swapped a messy 400m start for an equally messy 388m start. At Goulbourn and Newcastle they built dicey starts (450m and 400m resp) but soon had to change them after they worked badly. GRV built a packet of middle distance starts around the provincials - all with biased bend starts. And so on and so forth. All in recent years.

Of course, no-one will say who actually did what in the decision-making area. Or why. And your "safety guidelines" or track design parameters simply do not exist as such. (Track surfaces and track layouts are two different things, albeit overlapping).

If that's the best the world can do then it is no wonder that every significant greyhound country is going backwards in popularity. Think about it.

You mentioned high standards applying in Australia. Well, here's a copy of part of an article I wrote in December 2014.

"Oscuras sad demise last Thursday at Sandown is just one in a long line of broken hocks incurred as dogs come out of the first turn. The enforced retirement of Knocka Norris in the same way at the same track comes to mind, too, and that was in a solo trial. Both represent major investment losses for connections in particular and the industry as a whole. This precise cause and effect has been present for donkeys years go back to Gun Law Osti at Wentworth Park in the early 1990s as another example.

Happily, the latter two survived the injury and went on to make major contributions to breeding.

Not that the problem is confined to Sandown by any means. It can occur anywhere and some time back prompted authorities in Perth and Adelaide to start surveying its incidence. Apparently, that effort has since been combined with studies being done out of the GRV office in Melbourne. Reports are expected in due course."

NB A mea culpa. I said Go Wild Teddy in a previous post when it should have been Gun Law Osti (as above).

Anyway, six years have gone by since then and we are none the wiser as to what GRV or anyone else has done. So much for "in due course".

Mostly males seem to get higher hock fractures of the right hock and there have been several studies to prove that, but that just proves that males are generally heavier, have higher mass/weight and more powerful muscle bulk which just proves the more power opposing a natural mechanism, the more likely things will go Bang.

On straight tracks mostly it is left back leg muscle (gracilis) that goes bang and it makes complete sense. Now maybe a clockwise track will make left back leg muscles go bang too much to tolerate. But it has never ever been tested so far as I am aware.

If anyone becomes aware of such a study or has attempted it please private message me.